In addition to its campaign of diplomatic appeasement regarding the Lee and Chen visits, the administration performed poorly in May 1999 in responding to attacks on the US embassy in Beijing following NATO's inadvertent bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. It was certainly appropriate for Washington to apologize -- once -- for the bombing and to offer generous compensation to the victims and their families. It was troubling, though, to see US officials apologizing to China again and again, and again.
Even worse, the administration responded to the violent, week-long attacks on the US embassy and the US ambassa-dor's residence -- clearly conducted with the connivance of the Beijing regime -- with nothing more than anemic diplomatic protests. The proper response would have been to recall Ambassador James Sasser (who was scheduled to retire in any case) and, more important, announce that the appointment of his successor would be delayed until Beijing apologized and gave explicit assurances that it would provide appropriate protection for embassy property in the future. Other contacts between the two governments should have been curtailed as well to show Washington's displeasure.
Such actions would have made it clear to Beijing that the US was not about to be bullied and intimidated. Unfortunately, the administration's actions conveyed precisely the opposite message. Few people would dispute that it is important for the US to maintain a cordial relationship with China. But there is a big difference between that goal and having US officials abase themselves when China's rulers make outrageous demands or engage in outrageous conduct. The Clinton administration seems incapable of grasping that distinction.
Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.
RSS