Why
is there no China debate in
this U.S. presidential election?
By JONATHAN
POWER
October 26, 2000
LONDON - Richard Nixon, contending to be president in
1968, wrote a sensational article in the magazine Foreign
Affairs in which he anticipiated a more conciliatory U.S.
policy towards China. Soon after Nixon's election, the
U.S. moved to recognise communist China, which it had
refused to do for twenty two years , and ejected Taiwan
from the Chinese seat at the UN.
During his election campaign Jimmy Carter promised he
wouldn't "ass-kiss" the Chinese, but like Nixon he ended
up turning his back on China's human rights dissidents,
intent on concluding the formal normalization of
relations with China.
When Bill Clinton campaigned for the presidency
against George Bush Senior he charged that Bush was soft
on China- Bush had been quick after the Tiananmen Square
masacre to send to Beijing his National Security Advisor
to reassure the Chinese leadership of Washington's solid,
enduring relationship. Clinton promised if elected that
the age of conciliation would be over. But once in power
it did not take long for Clinton to fall in line with the
Nixon legacy- even though the main geopolitical reason
for it- to balance the Soviet Union- was no longer
relevant. The policy now was to engage China, go for the
long run and tell the American public, in the words of
Samuel Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor,
"through engagement you can get a lot of serious things
done and maybe even advance the process of change in
China."
Thus the American voice on human rights was muted once
more- and the Europeans followed suit. It took many years
before the Clinton Administration put its China ship on
to a more sensible course. In pursuit of its quest to win
Congressional support, in its effort to open up trade
with China, it finally caved into human rights critics
who demanded a more activist and publically critical role
from Washington. In the spring of this year the U.S.
finally decided to criticise China in the UN Commission
on Human Rights, a major departure.
And now, this election? Barely a word on China. Don't
rock the boat appears to be the joint Al Gore-George Bush
position. Yet an article in the current issue of Foreign
Affairs by Paul Heer warns that the U.S. is in danger of
edging into a Cold War with China. Is it really the time
to be quite so laid back? Surely this is the occasion for
a grand debate on where next to go with China. Failure to
establish the right policies could lead China to engage
in a major buildup of its nuclear forces which is bound
to lead to a worsening of its precarious relationship
with Taiwan and Japan and which could push it into a
quite unnecessary nose to nose confrontation with the
U.S. itself.
At present China possesses a quite modest nuclear
force. It has only about 20 missiles which could reach
the continental U.S.. Its submarine capability is
minimalist- one submarine with twelve medium range
missiles. For all the furor last year around China's
espionage success in stealing state-of-the-art American
missile and nuclear secrets, the fact is that while China
has long had the technical prowess to equip its ballistic
missiles to deliver multiple warheads it has chosen not
to. Beijing's policy has been essentially a defensive
one, designed to preempt nuclear blackmail and to help
make China into a recognized world power.
The old policy is now up for serious question in
Beijing. Modernization is well under way, not least for
the reason that the leadership believes if it has more
nuclear muscle the less likely it is it will be coerced
over its attitude to Taiwan.Yet it is still unclear- and
probably undecided- how far and fast Bejing wants to go.
Washington very much holds the key to these decisions.
Much hangs on what the next U.S. president decides to do
about the controversial missile defence plan, a decision
now put on hold until after the election. For its part
China is convinced that such a move would totally negate
China's current second-strike capability and make China
militarily totally subservient to American might.
What the debate in Washington has overlooked as it has
dwelt on the future horrors posed by "rogue states" is
that the only country that actually fits that picture in
terms of nuclear ability is China itself. Any limited
defences that the U.S. builds, supposedly insufficient to
ward off a Russian attack but sufficient enough to defend
against a rogue's missiles, could stop a Chinese attack
mid sky. Since China- like Europe- believes these so
called "nuclear rogues" don't really exist, it concludes
that the reason for American missile defence is simply to
out-manoeuvre China. It will retaliate by building larger
forces that could overwhelm new U.S.. defences. As we
know from the old Cold War days the U.S. will always
react to such a move by overcompensating, and the whole
cycle of the nuclear arms race will be ratcheted up,
merely complicating an issue the first steps were meant
to resolve.
Washington, if it were wearing its correct lenses,
aught to perceive it is better off with the status quo,
with Chinese forces remaining small and and composed of
only single-headed missiles. Washington's eyesight would
be better focussed on China's nuclear relationship with
India, for any move by China to build up its nuclear
arsenal is going to provoke India to do the same.
Likewise, there is the added danger than in a more
bellicose relationship with the U.S., China will move to
build more short and medium range missiles, maybe some of
them nuclear-tipped, capable of hitting Taiwan and
Japan.
It all comes back to the pressing need for the U.S. to
restore impetus to the badly flagging effort to reduce
the world's nuclear armouries. This is the Clinton
Administration's worst legacy, yet neither candidate has
given it much more than passing mention. Which is why it
is not unfair to say that when it comes to foreign
affairs this is probably the most irresponsible
presidential election campaign in memory.
I can be reached by phone +44
385 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Copyright © 2000 By
JONATHAN POWER
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
 
|