home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
050294
/
0502unk.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-05-26
|
4KB
|
93 lines
<text id=94TT0521>
<title>
May 02, 1994: The Political Interest
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1994
May 02, 1994 Last Testament of Richard Nixon
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
THE POLITICAL INTEREST: Page 57
KEEP CHINA TRADE
</hdr>
<body>
<p>BY MICHAEL KRAMER
</p>
<p> Bill Clinton, addicted to compromise, is again close to foolishly
splitting the difference on a crucial foreign policy issue.
The question this time is whether the U.S. should continue or
retard the growing two-way trade between America and China.
By June 3, the President must decide to extend or revoke Beijing's
most-favored-nation trading status.
</p>
<p>The tug between ideals and interests has produced a mush of
mixed signals since Clinton took office. After saying before
he was elected that he would deny MFN to China, Clinton continued
the policy last May, but only conditionally. He threatened a
cutoff this spring if Beijing's human-rights record failed to
demonstrate "overall significant progress." It hasn't. Now,
says House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Lee Hamilton,
Clinton "can't renew MFN unless he lies."
</p>
<p>Clinton faces four choices. He can revoke MFN, affirm America's
moral principles and cripple Chinese-American commerce, which
last year totaled almost $40 billion. Gone in the process would
probably be any chance of enlisting Beijing's help in rolling
back North Korea's nuclear-weapons program. Gone too would be
approximately 200,000 high-paying U.S. export jobs, which is
why Treasury, Commerce and White House economic officials favor
retaining MFN.
</p>
<p>A second course would distinguish between goods produced by
private and state-run enterprises. Privately made Chinese products
would enjoy MFN; the rest wouldn't. "Sounds good, but it's hard
to see it working," says Michel Oksenberg, who was Jimmy Carter's
top China hand. "The Chinese have an infinite genius for changing
labels. And what would happen to the investments of those U.S.
firms involved in joint ventures only partially owned by the
state, or to products made privately with components supplied
by government concerns?"
</p>
<p>A third option would extend MFN with less rigorous trip wires.
"Perhaps human rights could be a general condition rather than
one that's filled with specific conditions," said Secretary
of State Warren Christopher on March 13. Any compromise, he
added, could "move the relationship to a new and more significant
level." And a more hypocritical one as well.
</p>
<p>Clinton's best bet would be to decouple the trade and human-rights
issues entirely. Taiwan and South Korea prove that political
liberalization follows prosperity. As a vibrant economy creates
a robust middle class, ordinary citizens increasingly seek to
influence government actions, pressure that even authoritarians
must eventually accommodate. Revoking MFN would restrain China's
economic growth, thus causing democracy's prospects to suffer.
</p>
<p>Decoupling the issues, in fact, could increase Clinton's ability
to criticize Beijing's internal policies (especially after Deng
Xiaoping dies, when spasms of chaos and repression may occur
as a struggle for power ensues). Free from fear that bashing
Beijing would reignite the MFN debate, the President could openly
embrace China's dissidents and encourage U.S. firms to voluntarily
tie their China business to improved human-rights practices,
as many American companies did when apartheid flourished in
South Africa. If conditions so worsened that punitive actions
were called for, the U.S. could champion cutbacks in international
lending; China is currently the leading recipient of World Bank
loans.
</p>
<p>Above all, decoupling would obviate the need to lie. A forthright
admission that a policy isn't working can project leadership
and gain credibility for those who call it squarely. The choice
is not whether the U.S. should isolate China. That is impossible.
The goal is to avoid perpetuating an ineffectual linkage that
could isolate America from China.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>