To: Mohan Marette who wrote (1026 ) 5/29/1998 11:35:00 AM From: Rational Respond to of 12475
Mohan: I see your point: Not a chance too much at stake in China for the U.S and besides they don't want to see Wall Mart and K-Mart go out of business,well that would be despicable won't it?? Don't underestimate, though, my prediction about the US changing its China policy. This is from WSJ (5/29/98) Now, the nuclear race between India and Pakistan has pushed security concerns back onto center stage. "It would be crazy to think that this isn't going to chill, at least for the time being, an attitude that we ought to be finding ways to do more" to promote trade with China and some other emerging markets, Commerce Secretary William Daley says. To be sure, giant U.S. companies are adept at defending their own interests world-wide. Moreover, the U.S. remains heavily engaged in helping prop up ailing Asian economies, an action that will preserve and even broaden opportunities for U.S. exports and investments there. The effects of this seismic shift already are apparent: Senior administration officials are revising the agenda for June's U.S.-Chinese summit in Beijing. An earlier idea, a plan to announce a general waiver that would allow China to launch U.S. satellites without a case-by-case review, is already dead. Even a relatively modest proposal to end U.S. sanctions that bar certain U.S. government agencies from aiding export sales to Beijing is now "problematic," a U.S. official says. Anxious companies, including Boeing Co., Goldman, Sachs & Co. and International Business Machines Corp., have been bombarding the White House with questions about the sanctions on India. Representatives of more than a dozen companies came to the White House Thursday seeking answers. The blue-chip Business Roundtable convened Thursday in Washington to discuss the troublesome domestic climate and Mr. Clinton's China trip. In another sign of squeamishness about exports that might compromise national security, administration efforts to broker a compromise that would ease export controls on encryption products designed to guard the confidentiality of computer data are now frozen. Law-enforcement and national-security agencies have opposed the exports. And this year's effort to renew China's trading status, an annual exercise considered a cakewalk just weeks ago, now has White House officials nervous. Indeed, they hope to persuade Congress to postpone the vote until late this summer. "This is all a reminder that economic activity doesn't take place in a vacuum," says Richard Haass, foreign-policy director at the Brookings Institution and a former Bush-administration official. "All international relations rest ultimately on a foundation of peace and stability. Without that, you can't have commerce, you can't have prosperity, you can't have normalcy." That's particularly true because events such as those in recent weeks have inevitable political fallout. "There's going to be a swing back" toward national-security concerns, says Sen. John McCain, a potential Republican presidential candidate in the year 2000. He says, in fact, that he's "a little concerned about an overreaction." In political terms, recent events have melded two separate areas of concern. The first was unease over the Chinese connection in the Clinton-campaign fund-raising controversies. The second is opposition at both ends of the political spectrum to elevating commerce above human rights and even national security.