[Page: S3321]
- [End insert]
Clarity in this case will lead to a diminished likelihood of military action and a diminished likelihood of a spurt to the arms race in Asia.
The Charles Krauthammer column which appeared in the Washington Post recently, and which I ask to be printed in the Record after my remarks, is unfortunately accurate. It eloquently outlines what has been taking place. He also mentions the matter of `quiet diplomacy.' Whenever I talk to people in the State Department they assure me that `quiet diplomacy' is being used.
My experience over the years is that `quiet diplomacy' frequently means no diplomacy or it means `anemic diplomacy.'
The column follows.
From the Washington Post
China's Four Slaps--and the United States' Craven Response
The semi-communist rulers of China like to assign numbers of things. They particularly like the number 4. There was the Gang of Four. There were the Four Modernizations (agriculture, industry, technology and national defense). and now, I dare say, we have the Four Slaps: four dramatic demonstrations of Chinese contempt for expressed American interests and for the Clinton administration's ability to do anything to defend them.
(1) Proliferation. The Clinton administration makes clear to China that it strongly objects to the export of nuclear and other mass destruction military technology. What does China do? Last month, reports the CIA, China secretly sent 5,000 ring magnets to Pakistan for nuclear bomb-making and sent ready-made poison gas factories to Iran.
(2) Human rights. Clinton comes into office chiding Bush for `coddling dictators.' In March 1994, Secretary of State Warren Christropher goes to China wagging his finger about human rights. The Chinese respond by placing more than a dozen dissidents under house arrest while Christopher is there, then declare that human rights in China are none of his business. Christopher slinks away.
(3) Trade. The administration signs agreements with China under which it pledges to halt its massive pirating of American software and other intellectual property. China doesn't just break the agreements, it flouts them. Two years later the piracy thrives.
(4) And now Taiwan. For a quarter-century, the United States has insisted that the unification of Taiwan with China must occur only peacefully. Yet for the last two weeks, China has been conducting the most threatening military demonstration against Taiwan in 40 years: firing M-9 surface-to-surface missiles within miles of the island, holding huge live-fire war games with practice invasions, closing shipping in the Taiwan Strait.
Slap four is the logical outcome of the first three, each of which was met with a supine American response, some sputtering expression of concern backed by nothing. On nuclear
proliferation, for example, Clinton suspended granting new loan guarantees for U.S. businesses in China--itself a risible sanction--for all of one month!
`Our policy is one of engagement, not containment,' says Winston Lord, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs. This is neither. This is encouragement.
Two issues are at stake here. The first is the fate of Taiwan and its democracy. Taiwan is important not just because it is our eighth-largest trading partner. With its presidential elections tomorrow, Taiwan becomes the first Chinese state in history to become a full-fledged democracy. It thus constitutes the definitive rebuff to the claim of Asian dictators from Beijing to Singapore that democracy is alien to Confucian societies. Hence Beijing's furious bullying response.
The second issue has nothing to do with Taiwan. It is freedom of the seas. As the world's major naval power, we are, like 19th century Britain, its guarantor--and not from altruism, Living on an island continent, America is a maritime trading nation with allies and interests and commerce across the seas. If the United States has any vital interests at all--forget for the moment Taiwan or even democracy--it is freedom of navigation.
Chinese Premier Li Peng warns Washington not to make a show of force--i.e., send our Navy--through the Taiwan Strait. Secretary of Defense William Perry responds with a boast that while the Chinese `are a great military power, the premier--the strongest--military power in the Western Pacific is the United States.'
Fine words. But Perry has been keeping his Navy away from the strait. This is to talk loudly and carry a twig. If we have, in Perry's words, `the best damned Navy in the world,' why are its movements being dictated by Li Peng? The Taiwan Strait is not a Chinese lake. It is indisputably international water and a vital shipping lane. Send the fleet through it.
And tell China that its continued flouting of the rules of civil international conduct--everything from commercial piracy to nuclear proliferation, culminating with its intimidation of Taiwan--means the cancellation of most-favored-nation trading status with the United States.
Yes, revoking MFN would hurt the United States somewhat. But U.S.-China trade amounts to a mere two-thirds of one percent of U.S. GDP. It amounts to fully 9 percent of Chinese GDP. Revocation would be a major blow to China.
Yet astonishingly, with live Chinese fire lighting up the Taiwan Strait, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin said Tuesday that the Clinton administration supports continued MFN for China. He did aver that Congress, angered by recent events, would probably not go along.
This is timorousness compounded. Revoking MFN is the least we should do in response to China's provocations. Pointing to Congress is a classic Clinton cop-out. The issue is not Congress's zeal. It is Beijing's thuggery.
Quiet diplomacy is one thing. But this is craven diplomacy. What does it take to get this administration to act? The actual invasion of Taiwan? You wait for war, you invite war.
- [End insert]
[Page: S3322]
END
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
