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: 16 Dec 92 16:53:02 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <8032@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>I am not a foreign policy expert by any means, but I don't know how you
>can encourage (e.g.) China to effect democratic reforms by refusing to
>trade with them or speak to them diplomatically. (Mind you, I do have
>some problems with our current relationship with China, but I don't see
>better alternatives.)

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
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
in Congress and by the public.  Sullivan feels that this approach has made
them think they can do anything they want, without risking Most-Favored-
Nation status.  The approach described above is a way to increase the
pressure for democratic reforms and compliance with arms-control agreements
without harming the free enterprise that is so beneficial to the Chinese
society.  If they want their state-owned enterprises to benefit through
relations with our economy (their state-owned enterprises are all operating
at substantial losses, currently), then they will have to enact political
reforms.

I personally think that tariffs on the state-owned industries should maybe
be accompanied by threats of tariffs even on the private enterprise to be
levied sometime in the future.  The government has decided that it needs
free enterprise, that in order to keep power they need to keep the economy
growing and the standard of living rising.  They've even publicly endorsed
free enterprise and some private ownership, though couched in their own
Marxist-Maoist language.  If we take steps to demonstrate our moral indignation
in a credible way, a way which indicates that real action could be forthcoming,
they will be scared, and might just start to cooperate, in a slow, cautious
way.  I'm not a foreign policy expert either, so take the preceding paragraph
more seriously than this one.  (I hope this paragraph is taken a little
seriously, though.)  I was glad to see Clinton taking positions on China which
are identical to those taken by China policy experts like Sullivan.

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