Clinton visit fuels debate over U.S.-Sino relations

He faces a tough audience at home because of several troublesome issues

By Craig Staats/AllPolitics

President Clinton faces an array of critics on his China policy

WASHINGTON (June 15) -- In his spirited defense of U.S. policy toward China and his upcoming state visit, President Bill Clinton may have quieted some critics temporarily.

Going to China, Clinton said last week, is "the right thing to do for our country." He described U.S. policy as "both principled and pragmatic: expanding our areas of cooperation with China while dealing forthrightly with our differences."

But Clinton's visit, unlike recent presidential trips to Africa and Chile, occurs against the backdrop of a lively domestic debate that touches on free trade, high technology exports, human rights, Tibet, forced abortions and other troublesome issues between the two nations.

This trip will be no respite for Clinton, no escape from Ken Starr's hellhounds, but more like nine days in the hot seat, where everything he says and does will be viewed in the context of the campaign finance mess, export waivers, China's role in nuclear proliferation and Tiananmen Square. Summits are, after all, more often a matter of perception than what leaders say at the end in the joint communique.

At home, Clinton faces a tough audience, from Tibet activist/actor Richard Gere to Rep. Chris Cox, who will lead a House inquiry into whether high-tech exports helped China improve its ballistic missile capabilities.

Rep. Chris Cox (R- California) chairs the committee looking into whether U.S. national security was breeched when satellite and nuclear missile technology was provided to China.

Who may win and lose in this state visit?

The immediate winner, most likely, will be Chinese President Jiang Zemin.

Jiang wants to reshape a relationship with the U.S. that he sees as too dominated by American reaction to the Chinese military's bloody crackdown on dissidents in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

To the extent the visit looks like the serious two-way dialogue on the issues China wants to discuss, Jiang benefits, just as he benefited from the red-carpet treatment he received during an October 1997 visit to the White House.

Another winner could be Clinton, if he is able to make the case that the U.S. has to stay engaged with China to have any influence on what happens there.

If Clinton uses the visit to press China on human rights and political and religious freedom, he may fend off some criticism from China-bashers and Clinton-bashers. The administration has repeatedly said the U.S.-China relationship "will not reach its full potential as long as the Chinese people are denied fundamental human rights."

But it could backfire if, amid discussion of trade and environmental issues, Clinton's exhortations on human rights look like he is simply going through the motions one more time.

What about losers?

Conservative Gary Bauer says Clinton's China policy "is ignoring America's most deeply held values."

To the extent that issues like trade, copyright infringement and the environment dominate the talks, the losers will be those who want Clinton to deliver a forceful human rights lecture to the Chinese, even at the risk of embarrassing his hosts.

The other losers could be House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the lawmakers who urged Clinton to postpone his trip until he comes clean about overseas money flowing to the Democrats in 1996 and the technology export question.

That suggestion was more politics than a serious proposal, but it didn't go anywhere. Clinton never wavered in his public comments about going to China, and polling suggests that Americans agree.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll earlier this month found 54 percent of people surveyed saw nothing wrong with Clinton visiting China, while 34 percent disagreed with the trip.

In one sense, Clinton set up a straw man and knocked it down in his China speech at the National Geographic last week. He painted the choice as engagement versus isolation and declared, "Seeking to isolate China is clearly unworkable."

Some of Clinton's critics, though, say the question is not if the U.S. engages with China, but how.

Gary Bauer, president of the Family Research Council and one of the president's conservative critics, said in an "Inside Politics" interview last week U.S. policy is a one-dimensional desire for trade.

"This policy is being driven by a bunch of large corporations that want that marketplace, and we've got political leadership that is ignoring the national security interests of the United States and is ignoring America's most deeply held values," Bauer said.

Senate Majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) says the Chinese have the upper hand in summit preparations

"If I thought the president was going to go there and really make an issue of human rights, was going to raise the issue of the tech transfer, that was going to call China on the carpet because of their transfer of nuclear technology to Pakistan, that would be a trip worth having. But I'm afraid this is going be another kowtow summit where American interests are sacrificed."

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott also has warned it looks like the Chinese have the upper hand in summit preparations. "I'm really worried that the president is being finessed or maneuvered by the Chinese," Lott said this week "So far, it looks like the Chinese are really winning the battle in how this summit is being planned."

Lott said Clinton has agreed, for instance, not to meet with Chinese dissidents and their families during the trip.

No one, though, can completely predict the tone or tenor of Clinton's visit or what directions the discussions may take.

The State Department's annual reports on human-rights violations around the world document only marginal improvements in China in recent years. That puts a continuing onus on Clinton to document the tangible benefits of the U.S. policy of "constructive engagement" if he expects public support.