Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: President’s decisions in China based on sense, not politics

Monday, June 29, 1998 | 10:58 a.m.

IS IT TIME to criticize the critics?

My good sense tells me that stepping into the middle of the war of words between the White House and its congressional critics over the president's trip to China is a no-win situation. Like most issues that have defined the political relationship between Democrats and Republicans ever since Bill Clinton was elected, the all-important relationship between the United States and China has been mired in a game of one-upsmanship rather than a real debate on long-term foreign-policy goals.

No matter. For regardless of how much noise his detractors made in the weeks prior to his leaving for China, the idea of cancelling this opportunity to meet with China's President Jiang Zemin was never a realistic option for Clinton. His entire foreign policy has been one based on engagement rather than isolation. He has pushed for incentives for good behavior rather than punishment and banishment for bad acts, assuming those actions do not jeopardize national security or world stability.

In short, President Clinton's desire to help move China toward becoming a more democratic nation, with concepts such as human rights and economic freedom at the forefront, demanded that he make the effort to meet with Jiang. His Republican critics, those who cheered for similar ground-breaking efforts by President Nixon (to China) and President Reagan (to the Soviet Union), have been focused too much on the 1998 mid-term elections and some short-term rhetorical gains to make any real contributions to this vital public debate.

Some of the criticism, however, of the way China works is valid no matter what the source of the complaint. Significantly, China's abysmal record on human rights is indefensible by any leader who is serious about making inroads toward better, more stable and more rewarding relationships between our two countries.

Human rights aside, though, many other levels of cooperation can and should be addressed, and these levels, if we take a long enough view, can spur progress in areas in which the Chinese so clearly lag behind the rest of the modern world. Whether it is in our joint concern for nuclear escalation on the Indian subcontinent, or the symbolic gesture of pointing their nuclear missiles at someplace other than U.S. targets, or the ability of our two countries to continue trading with one another on terms more fair to both sides, there are matters than can get resolved while issues such as human rights move at their own pace, dependent on the good will developed between our two leaders over time.

It was clear that, when Air Force One left the United States on this historic mission, human rights was an agenda item of significant import, although not the only one. Nor should it have been. But, by the time the president landed in China, that issue had been moved to the top of the list. However, it wasn't the political back-biting and sniping by GOP critics that gave President Clinton the opportunity to step up foursquare behind the cause of basic human freedoms. If anything, that kind of distraction is seen in this country and China as just so much sour grapes.

The real irony of the trip so far is that the one place from which such an opportunity should not have arisen is the one place from whence the chance did come. It was China, after all, that detained four dissidents shortly before President Clinton arrived. It was China that made a big deal trying to silence Radio Free Asia, and it was China that decided to air the combined news conference of Jiang and Clinton live throughout that massive country.

Such a combination of events gave our president the immediate and certain opportunity to act on human rights, perhaps in a way different from that which he might have done, and he did not shrink from the challenge. He made it very clear to his host and the Chinese people that allowing basic human freedoms was the correct and, basically, only way toward greatness as a nation. Even though their leader did not publicly agree, the Chinese president did not argue the point strenuously.

This one example points out the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who determined that the conduct of the foreign policy of this nation must rest with the president and the executive branch. The need to be nimble when circumstances present themselves argues forcefully that clear, concise and determined executive action, rather than legislative legerdemain and obfuscation, is the only way to pursue the foreign-policy goals of the United States.

Had President Jiang given the speaker of the House the same opening to drive home America's strong belief in the human spirit and the need to keep it free, Newt Gingrich and his capital gang would still be debating the political impact of responding. The president, on the other hand, has the mandate of the American people by way of his election and speaks for us all. And that he did.

There is plenty of time and often good reason to be critical of this or any other president. As citizens, though, we should insist upon a measure of good sense and good taste when those who yearn to criticize for the sake of political advantage do so in a way that interferes with the way our president conducts the foreign policy of the United States.

To their discredit, Gingrich and his colleagues took the low road in the quest for votes this November. To his credit, Clinton seized upon the opportunity handed him by Jiang and, in doing so, took the high road toward a better relationship with China -- the most sane path toward a more hopeful 21st century.