• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

[Page: S1991]

• [Begin insert]

I am not as certain as he is that the case should be brought to the United Nations because I'm not sure what the other countries would do. But at the very least, that possibility should be explored.

A firmness is needed in this present situation. The Rosenthal column, among other things, cites a sentence from the recent State Department human rights report: `The experience of China in the past few years demonstrates that while economic growth, trade and social mobility create an improved standard of living they cannot by themselves bring about greater respect for human rights in the absence of a willingness by political authorities to abide by the fundamental international norms.'

There are times when the international situation demands clear-cut policies. This is one of them.

The column follows:

From the New York Times, Mar. 12, 1996

Indicting China's Terrorism--Bring the Case to the United Nations

By firing missiles into the waters off Taiwan, Communist China is committing open, deliberate international terrorism of enormous danger.

Americans count on Beijing's survival instincts to stop the terrorism short of the disaster of war with the U.S. That may happen--this time.

But every day that Washington fails to bring the missile blackmail and blockade of Taiwan before the U.N. increases the chances it will happen again, or something worse, until the disaster does take place.

The Communists' rage and fear at the example of Taiwan's democracy off their shores will not let them rest unless the Taiwanese give it up.

That is not likely. If any pro-democracy majority is elected in the March 20 voting, before long there will be another round of terrorism.

That may include some Chinese military landings on Taiwan. U.S. vessels will have to move in to live up to American word and legislation that the Taiwan-China relationship will not be changed by force.

So far, the U.S. has had to act alone. The Japanese do not have the political courage to make any strong public protest against the terrorism. I have not heard our European allies warn the Chinese that if it comes to it, they will immediately line up with the U.S.

U.S. failure to bring the Chinese before the U.N. will destroy a basic purpose of the U.N. The U.N. was not created simply to end wars but to stop them before they begin. Article 34 of its charter authorizes the Security Council to take up any matter that might lead to `international friction or dispute.'

Any member of the U.N: or the Secretary General--can bring a threat to the peace before the Council. China's veto power cannot be used to prevent putting a threat to peace on the Council agenda.

Separately, the U.S. and any country that considers itself a friend both of peace and America can condemn Chinese terrorism. Together they can present a resolution speaking for the U.N.

China will veto that. But if Beijing is so out of control as to threaten more terrorism in the face of a U.N. condemnation prevented only by a veto, we should know it as soon as possible.

Meantime, President Clinton should consider one sentence that tells how his Administration got to this point.

`The experience of China in the past few years demonstrates that while economic growth, trade and social mobility create an improved standard of living they cannot by themselves bring about greater respect for human rights in the absence of a willingness by political authorities to abide by the fundamental international norms.'

The sentence in itself is not remarkable. It sums up the message of human rights victims around the world: strengthening our oppressors empowers them to torture us further. But it comes from the latest report on human rights of the State Department. It took courage by those officials who wrote or agreed to it.

Since 1993, the Administration has based its China policy on a contrary vision of morality and history. It insisted that economic growth in China would create a willingness by the dictatorship to live up to those `fundamental international norms.' Beijing would give Chinese more human rights. It would stick to agreements against selling nuclear weapon technology. It would allow the people of territories it claims as its own, such as Tibet and Taiwan, to live in peace and dignity.

China's economy certainly has grown, stimulated nicely by $40 billion more that it sells to America than it buys from America.

So: Torture and political repression have increased. And so have oppression of religion, and forced abortion. The choke-leash around Tibet tightens. The chief economic beneficiary of the trade that led to economic growth has been the Communist army, which owns vast parts of the economy, including the forced-labor camps.

The new, richer China has sold nuclear technology to Pakistan and has become the missile salesman to the world's dictatorships.

President Clinton promised to struggle for human rights in China. He did not.

Now his China policy lies adrift in the Strait of Taiwan. He owes us a new one. Its moral principle and historic reality were written for him by the meaning of that sentence in the State Department report: enrichment of dictators enchains their victims.

• [End insert]

[Page: S1992]

END