A New China Policy Is Born
By Michael Kelly
Wednesday, July 1, 1998; Page A23
On June 27, at the close of the climactic day of President Clinton's trip to
China, the president's national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, said: "I
think this has been quite an extraordinary day in the evolution of
U.S.-China relations." He was right, unfortunately.
Throughout the end years of the Cold War, the United States adhered to a
China policy rooted in the idea that a limited friendship between two
adversaries was not a bad thing when it served to trouble a third, more
dangerous, enemy. This rationale disappeared with the Soviet Union. Since
then, American policy has attempted to deal with China as it was -- a
Communist totalitarian state guided by an ideology inimical to American
interests and repugnant to American values -- but to also encourage
China's evolution toward a more democratic society. The principal element
of this policy was to link the blessings of trade and international recognition
that Beijing coveted to Beijing's behavior in the areas of human rights, free
trade and nuclear weapons proliferation.
This is the course that the White House says triumphed in Beijing. Actually,
it died there, finally, and a new China policy was born. The extraordinary
evolution that Berger noted was not China's but ours. As critics have
warned would happen, we did not change China; China changed us.
Our new policy is to regard China and the United States as "partners, not
adversaries," in the words of President Jiang Zemin. In this policy, what
Clinton called "partnership and honest friendship" with China is of such
immense importance "for the future sake of the world" that the United
States must accept China as it is. The desired end of the old,
linkage-based policy was to force improvements in the behavior of the
Chinese government. Under the new policy, the United States will no
longer presume to force change, only to speak its mind. "We do not," the
president assured his hosts, "seek to impose our vision on others."
No, we don't. We agree, as friends do, to disagree. Agreeing to disagree
is an end in itself. We will, from time to time, forthrightly express our
disagreement with some of Beijing's practices, and Beijing will forthrightly
express its disagreement with our disagreement, and we will all get on with
our business, which is mainly business.
The clearest illustration of this policy at work occurred when Clinton
addressed the delicate subject of Tiananmen Square. "For all our
agreements, we still disagree about the meaning of what happened then,"
said Clinton with exquisite tact. Yes, we do disagree. We say that "what
happened then," nine years ago, was that the tanks of the People's
Liberation Army murdered unarmed students whose only crime was to
gather in a cry for democracy. The People's Republic of China says, as
Jiang informed Clinton, that "had the Chinese government not taken the
resolute measures, then we could not have enjoyed the stability that we are
enjoying today."
And that is that. 'Nuff said. Let's move on. How do we move on? Clinton
offered two steps by which the United States and China might "deal with
such disagreements" as that which arose over the late unpleasantness at
Tiananmen, "and still succeed in the important work of deepening our
friendship and our sense of mutual respect."
First, he said, Americans must "acknowledge the painful moments in our
own history when fundamental human rights were denied," and "we must
say that we know still we have to continue to work to advance the dignity
and freedom and equality of our own people." Second, he said, "we must
understand and respect the enormous challenges China has faced in trying
to move forward against great odds, with a clear memory of the setbacks
suffered in periods of instability."
So. The lesson of Tiananmen Square is not that China's dictators must
change. It is that Americans must change. We must be more sensitive. We
must acknowledge our sins. We must be patient. We must not judge lest
we be judged. And what must the People's Republic of China do? About
this, the president said not a word.
What happened in Beijing was that the men who rule China learned that
they may do as they wish. Linkage is dead. The United States will no
longer seek to force change in China. China's government may deal with
democracy's advocates as it sees fit. It may continue to require its female
citizens to undergo forced abortions. It may continue its armed occupation
of Tibet and press forward with its goal of enfolding Taiwan.
We will express our disagreements, and then move on, in partnership and
honest friendship. We have our vision and the men whom Bill Clinton once
called "aging rulers with undisguised contempt for democracy" have their
vision, and we do not seek to impose.
washingtonpost.com
|
