The Clinton Standard
By Michael Kelly
Wednesday, May 27, 1998; Page A17
Admiring mention has been made in this space before of the Clinton
Standard on what constitutes a quid pro quo -- "I don't believe you can
find any evidence of the fact that I had changed government policy solely
because of a contribution" -- but now that The Most Ethical Administration
in History stands accused of the almost cartoonishly bad act of selling out
national security to the People's Republic of China, it is worth taking a
closer look at the Clinton Standard, at work here in all its shining, lovely
synchronicity.
When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, he denounced vigorously the
Bush administration's policy of granting waivers from post-Tiananmen
Square sanctions to permit the launching of U.S. commercial satellites on
Chinese rockets. In his first year in office, the president issued sanctions
that forbade such launches.
This attitude seriously threatened Loral Corp., now Loral Space &
Communications, which stood to lose the China market to European
competitors. Also threatened was the state-run China Aerospace Corp. In
May 1993, Loral Chairman Bernard Schwartz made his first "soft money"
contribution to the Democratic National Committee. By 1998, Schwartz
had become the DNC's No. 1 soft-money donor, giving more than
$600,000 during the 1995-1996 cycle alone.
Another big player was a bankruptee named Johnny Chung, who gave the
party $366,000 between 1994 and 1996. In 1997 the DNC returned
Chung's contributions as suspect. On May 15, 1998, it was reported that
Chung had told the Justice Department that $300,000 of his 1996 dirty
money (some of which reportedly went to the Democrats) came from Liu
Chaoying, the "princeling" daughter of senior People's Liberation Army
commander Gen. Liu Huaqing, and herself an executive with the China
Aerospace Corp.
During the period of Schwartz and Liu Chaoying's munificence, Clinton
reversed himself and re-liberalized U.S. policy toward Chinese satellite
launches. There were three related significant events:
(1) In 1995 Schwartz wrote Clinton urging him to shift licensing authority
over Chinese satellite launches from the security-minded State Department
to the Commerce Department, which promotes American business
interests, not national safety. In October, Secretary of State Warren
Christopher, backed by the Defense Department, the CIA and the
National Security Agency, ordered State to retain control over the
launches. Commerce asked the president to overrule Christopher. In
March 1996, Clinton did so, but he delayed implementation -- and,
importantly, publication -- of his order until Nov. 5, 1996, the day he was
reelected.
(2) On Feb. 6, 1996, Clinton signed waivers for four new American
satellite launches in China, despite evidence that China was still exporting
nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan and Iran. One of the launches
crashed, destroying a $200 million Loral satellite. A Loral-chaired
commission reviewed the causes of the crash, and shared the results of its
review with China, without getting the permission required before an
American company may transfer missile guidance and control technology
to China. A subsequent Pentagon study reportedly concluded that "national
security has been harmed," because Loral's advice could help the Chinese
military correct serious problems with its nuclear ICBMs, 13 of which the
CIA says are targeted at the United States. The Justice Department
opened a grand jury investigation of Loral.
(3) In February 1998, President Clinton approved a new waiver for Loral
allowing the company to transfer more technological assistance to China.
He did this although his Justice Department had warned the White House
that granting Loral a new waiver to do essentially what it had done in 1996
would amount to ex post facto presidential dispensation of Loral's past
actions, and would thereby greatly undercut Justice's case.
Consider this chain of events in light of the Clinton Standard. It is a fact that
Bernard Schwartz and Johnny Chung gave Bill Clinton's reelection
operation a lot of money. It is a fact that Schwartz, and also Chung's
masters, got the presidential decisions they wanted. It is a fact that, in these
decisions, the president overruled his State and Defense departments on a
matter of national security and his Justice Department on a matter of law
enforcement.
But can you "find any evidence of the fact that [the president] had changed
government policy solely because of a contribution"? No, not "solely." You
may say: It is impossible to prove that. A president can always say that, in
his mind, he has several reasons for any decision he makes, and who other
than The Shadow can say different? You may say: Under the Clinton
Standard, no presidential ruling favorable to any million-dollar donor could
be a quid pro quo, as long as the president maintained that the donor's
interests had not been the "sole" determinant. You may say: Under the
Clinton Standard, a quid pro quo cannot exist.
Yes, now you get it.
Michael Kelly is a senior writer for National Journal.
washingtonpost.com |
