Sun, Aug 20, 2000 page8

• Appeasing China, abasing the US

  • By Ted Galen Carpenter
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Clinton administration officials once again have their tongues firmly planted on Beijing's boot. The latest occasion for unnecessarily appeasing the Chinese government was a stopover in Los Angeles by Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), en route to several Caribbean and Central American countries that maintain diplomatic relations with the ROC.

  Since Beijing insists that the ROC ceased to exist following the communist revolution in 1949, and that Taiwan is nothing more than a rebellious province, Chinese leaders lodged a shrill diplomatic protest concerning Chen's presence in Los Angeles.

  Instead of dismissing Beijing's protest, the Clinton administration went out of its way to be accommodating. While declining to bar Chen from landing at Los Angeles International Airport, administration officials hastened to assure the Chinese government that Chen was making only a "brief" transit stop and that he would hold no meetings or conduct any public activities while on US soil. In reality, Chen planned to stay overnight in Los Angeles, and a California businessman hoped to give a reception in his honor. Several journalists -- and even some members of Congress -- also asked to meet with Chen.

  The State Department did everything possible to prevent such interaction. Indeed, its conduct was so intrusive that Representative Dana Rohrabacher (Republican-California) accused the Department of attempting to "quarantine" Chen and deny him the right of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

  The administration's conduct was disgraceful but not surprising. It was reminiscent of the policy adopted more than five years ago when then President Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) requested a visa to attend a reunion at his alma mater, Cornell University. The administration's initial response to objections by Beijing was to offer assurances that the visa request would be denied. Only after Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution demanding that Lee be allowed to come to the US did the administration beat a hasty retreat.

  The proper response to Beijing's attempts to block the visits of Lee and Chen would have been a firm rebuff. Indeed, the episodes created an opportunity to throw a favorite objection of PRC officials back in their faces. The Beijing government habitually responds to US protests about its egregious human rights record by denouncing "interference in China's internal affairs." Yet Chinese leaders don't hesitate to try to dictate America's visa policy or decide whether a traveler in transit can set foot on US soil.

  US officials should have told their Chinese counterparts that such matters are none of Beijing's business. The Chinese regime would have a legitimate objection if -- and only if -- executive branch policymakers held official meetings with a Taiwanese leader. Otherwise, any resident of Taiwan should be able to visit the US, speak at public gatherings, give interviews to journalists and even meet with members of Congress without interference. If Beijing doesn't like such manifestations of a free society, too bad.

  The administration's excessively deferential behavior toward China not only betrays important American values, it is potentially dangerous. Chinese leaders are impressed with quiet displays of strength and pride; they have justifiable contempt for fawning behavior. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration has all too often engaged in the latter.

  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.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Alcaraz struggles to 4th round in Paris

  • 2

    PSG crush Inter to win trophy

  • 3

    Control Yuan member quits over misuse of vehicle

  • 4

    Taipei ranks 60 in ‘Global Cities Index,’ up five spots

  • 5

    Greek basketball finals suspended following scuffles