From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton and Values
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:54:40 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Dec17.225128.26286@infonode.ingr.com> rg@rg.b24a.ingr.com writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.165302.5506@m5.harvard.edu, (Dave Borden) writes:
 
>|> The view held by at least some China experts (Roger Sullivan among them;
>|> you can check out his article in the Spring 1992 issue of "Foreign Policy",
>|> is that we should place tariffs on exports from their government-owned
>|> industries, while allowing complete free trade with respect to their
>|> private sector, thus encouraging the free market while putting pressure on
>|> the government.  Sullivan also thinks we should discontinue all prestigious
>|> high-level contacts; but of course we should continue to do our business
>|> as needed - just not in any high-profile way.  These policies are aimed at
>
>    I must admit, this is the first I've heard of this idea.

Clinton endorsed them in his campaign!

>|> making things uncomfortable for the autocrats in Beijing, without breaking
>|> off relations.  They've repeatedly broken important arms-control agreements
>|> which they've made with us; this demonstrates the insufficiency of the
>|> current approach.  Bush has done all he could to reassure Beijing that
>|> everything is really all right, despite the moral indignation expressed
>
>    Please note that I don't concur with these sentiments.  I feel as though
>    Bush did what he could, considering the particulars of the situation.

I don't know about that - I can understand his reluctance to take any trade-
related measures, but sending Scowcroft over there, despite the ban on high-
level contacts, was in really bad form.  Having Nixon go over there, despite
any harsh words he might have had, could only build their prestige; Nixon is
extremely well-respected in China.  Bush's appearance with Li Peng (the
presumed architect of the massacre) at the UN was in extremely bad form.

>    I have a few questions.  What would you do when the Chinese government
>    immediately cancels (makes illegal) all import of American made
>    products in retaliation?  For example, the billions worth of new
>    Boeing aircraft.  Do you think that the EC will stand firmly behind
>    the US and not allow Airbus to fill those cancelled orders?  Will
>    un-employed workers in the US then become the main priority?  Would
>    a quick reversal of these new tariffs then make the US look silly?

They won't do that, because then they'll lose MFN status even for their private
industries (the only profitable industries in China).  They need us to keep
their economy growing.  The Chinese Communist Party has decided that in order
to maintain it's grip on power, they must raise the standard of living, and to
do that, they need our trade.  (There's a good set of articles on China in a
recent issue of the Economist that among other things talks about their
commitment to the private sector and trade.)  They can't risk losing the US
as a market, so they can't take any rash measures like that.  My opinion is
that this commitment to trade and the free market gives us more leverage than
ever before.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc