Online NewsHour: Chinese Defense Minister Visit -- December 17, 1996

TENATIVE ENGAGEMENT

DECEMBER 17, 1996

TRANSCRIPT

For the last 10 days, the Defense Minister from the Peoples Republic of China has been touring the United States. These meetings are a further attempt by the U.S. to engage in more normal relations with Beijing. Critics allege this visit is further proof that the Clinton administration has ignored China's human rights abuses. Following a report by Charles Krause, two experts debate the policy.

A RealAudio version of this NewsHour segment is available.
November 26, 1996:
Out-going Secretary of State Warren Christopher discusses the U.S./China relationship and other elements of America's foreign policy.
November 25, 1996:
President Clinton is extending his hand to China's leadership, despite its notorious human rights record. A panel discusses the merits of the president's decision.
November 21, 1996:
Margaret Warner examines the APEC summit at Manila and the explosive economies of Asia.
Browse the Online NewsHour's coverage of Asia.
CHARLES KRAUSE: The defense minister's 10-day tour of the United States was a major step in the administration's effort to improve tense relations between the U.S. and China. Minister Chi Hao Tian began his trip in Washington, where he met privately with President Clinton at the White House. The general was then accorded full military honors at the Pentagon, followed by a meeting with Defense Sec. William Perry. Before the meeting, Perry indicated that the U.S. would no longer confront China, but, rather, pursue what the Clinton administration calls a policy of constructive engagement.
WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense: When we find areas of disagreement--and we will--we will seek to resolve those areas of disagreement. But some of those disagreements we will not resolve. We will agree to disagree.
CHARLES KRAUSE: The defense minister's trip to the U.S. had been postponed twice since late 1994; first, in 1995, when China was angered by Taiwanese President Lee Tung-Hui's private visit to the United States, and the second time last March, when China staged military exercises, including missile launches, in the Straits of Taiwan to protest Taiwan's first fully democratic election. The U.S. responded by sending two aircraft carriers into the straits which separate Taiwan from the mainland.
Sino-U.S. relations have been strained since 1989, when the Chinese government suppressed pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. At the time, General Chi was the Chinese army's chief of staff, and in that capacity ordered the military crackdown. In a speech at the National Defense University on Human Rights Day last week, Chi continued to deny that any civilians had been killed in Beijing seven years ago, calling the pro-democracy demonstrators “hooligans.”
GEN. CHI HAO TIAN, Minister of Defense, China: (speaking through interpreter) I can tell you in a responsible and serious manner that at that time not a single person lost his life in Tiananmen Square.
CHARLES KRAUSE: Gen. Chi's statements notwithstanding, western human rights group estimate that hundreds, if not thousands, of student demonstrators and bystanders were killed by the People's Liberation Army during the suppression of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations. Yet, despite that record and the new controversy that erupted at the defense minister's latest remarks, his tour of U.S. military bases has continued without interruption, ending tomorrow at U.S. Pacific Headquarters in Hawaii. But the Pentagon has kept the defense minister under wraps and away from TV cameras since his war college speech last week.
CHARLES KRAUSE: With us now to discuss Gen. Chi's trip is Congressman Christopher Smith, chairman of the House International Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, and Ronald Montaperto, senior fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University in Washington. He helped Pentagon officials prepare for the Chinese visit. Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us.
Congressman, you've been extremely critical of this trip. Why?
REP. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, (R) New Jersey: Well, first of all, this is a consequence, I believe, of President Clinton's engagement policy whereby human rights have not only been de-emphasized, they have been--we have had--we have capitulated on truly linking human rights in a meaningful way. Gen. Chi was in operational control. Amnesty International estimates that at least a thousand people were killed on or next to or in very close proximity to Tiananmen Square. Western journalists saw it, and now, in standard fare for a man of his caliber, he's stating that it never happened, that there was some pushing and shoving. That may sell in China, where there's no free media, and the organs of the media are propaganda organs for the Communist Party, but here, it certainly, I think, falls on deaf ears. The Clinton administration should have been absolutely up front and said, you know, this man is the butcher of Beijing. And that may sound impolite, but for the thousands of people who have died and then the ongoing crackdown that continued after that, where students and activists for human rights were hunted down, interrogated, tortured, and many of them still languish in prison, that's a very mild rebuke. I think his visit has been an embarrassment to his handlers and to his leaders and colleagues in Beijing, because he, like no one else, has put the Tiananmen Square massacre right back on the front table, and all of the human rights abuses will be, and the policy vis-a-vis China will be looked at as a result of this visit. It'll get new scrutiny and more scrutiny in the coming months.
CHARLES KRAUSE: Professor, capitulated, an embarrassment, is this a mistake for the United States?
RONALD MONTAPERTO, National Defense University: I don't believe it's a mistake for the U.S. at all. First of all, we did not invite the operational commander of the troops at Tiananmen. We invited the defense minister of the People's Republic of China. We did that because we have vital national interests with which the Chinese and the United States are deeply, deeply involved. And in order to get some movement on those kinds of issues, Charles, it's necessary, if I may use the word, to engage. That's why he was here. I disagree with the Congressman. I do not think that we suffered in any sense in the esteem of the world. On the contrary, I think that the regions, certainly the Japanese, the Koreans, and the Europeans, would applaud the decision to have this visit, not because they want to see the defense minister be here, but because they'd like to see us do a better job of managing our relationship with the People's Republic of China, which is implications for the stability throughout all of Asia. And I think from that point of view, this trip was necessary, and we did not suffer one bit. I think we gained.
CHARLES KRAUSE: Should the President have met with the defense minister? Was that necessary? Was that the right thing to do?
RONALD MONTAPERTO: This trip was canceled twice, once by the Chinese desires and once by our desires. The Soviet's, of course, was Taiwan. In order to break the logjam in U.S.-China relations, it was essential that the Chinese defense minister make this visit. He had to come. That's really not the question you asked. Was it essential that that President meet him? That's anyone's call. I personally am rather glad that the President did meet him, because it sends the proper signal, which is that we are interested in constructing a useful relationship with the People's Republic of China, doesn't mean that we're going to leap willy-nilly into a relationship with the Chinese. It doesn't mean that we're going to lose track of our interests with the Chinese. It does mean that we can proceed in a measured way. This was a good first step in that direction.
REP. CHRISTOPHER SMITH: I would say that we had opportunities, and when President Clinton de-linked most favored nation status with human rights, he sent the signal to dictators that we are not serious. We need to build the relationship with China based on honesty, not dishonesty. That was a mostly dishonest remark. It reflects everything that this particular general and the rest of the dictatorship have been engaging in. How do you trust a dictatorship that so mistreats its people, is cracking down on religion, forced abortion, use of the gulags to make goods for export. When they say they're going to rein in on arms proliferation, and we know that they have sent ring magnets to Pakistan. We know there's problems with Iran. How do you really trust them on any of that when that kind of representation of a reality that you and everyone else carried live as it was happening at Tiananmen Square? Now, it begs the question. You know, we need to say, okay, the carrot isn't working. Making nice, and engaging in diplomacy based on fiction only leads to they saying, hey, these people will swallow hook, line, and sinker whatever we sell them. We need to use, I think, some sticks, and that's with a trade linkage to human rights. Again, denial is what they're engaging in. They're trying to say like the Holocaust people who said that there was no Holocaust. We all know that's untrue, and that's why Eisenhower said look at the camps, so no one ever can deny this. This man is directly responsible for the killing and maiming of innocent people, thousands, at least a thousand, many more.
CHARLES KRAUSE: Professor.
RONALD MONTAPERTO: As difficult as it may be to bear the events--to remember the events of Tiananmen Square, I think we need to keep focused on other issues. We need to be very careful about our perspective. I mean, we need, if we're going to deal with China, we need to take a larger, broader strategic perspective. To be sure, China's record on human rights is not all that it should be. We all agree with that. Nor do I believe even for one moment that the Chinese went home with a feeling that “Hey, human rights is no longer an issue in U.S.-China relations.” It is. U.S.-China relations will always be influenced by their record on human rights, and simply will not change. Everybody knows that. This administration has made--many administrations have made that abundantly clear. Now, what about the other issues? What about the continued peace and stability of the Asia Pacific region? What about some kind of resolution on the situation on the Korean Peninsula? What about behavior in the Middle East? What about a whole range of other things that I could mention, but I think I've suggested them at least? Now, we cannot address those issues if we retreat behind this sense of moral outrage. Sometimes, I believe, it becomes necessary to make the next step and to go on to other things. In doing that, or to do that, to focus on the issues, does not in any way say that we condone or accept the kinds of things that Gen. Chi Hao Tian and his army were guilty of in June, in 1989.
CHARLES KRAUSE: In 1989. What you're describing, in effect, is the constructive engagement policy, which the administration has now enunciated. Let me just, based on what you just said, you talked about carrots. Didn't the Clinton administration try sticks to begin with, and isn't it now trying a different approach?
REP. CHRISTOPHER SMITH: There was no resolve. I led three human rights trips to China, one of them was midway between after an executive order which I applauded the President for at the time, where I said there had to be significant progress in human rights, or this trading benefit would no longer exist. Things deteriorated during that year. We heard many spokes people in the White House giving different messages, sending messages to the Chinese leadership, that there would be the linkage of human rights. Even our own ambassador to China at the time wrote to that effect. They said--and when I was over there in January, right in-between this executive order, I was being told by Chinese leaders we're getting most favored nation status, and human rights won't have anything to do with it.
CHARLES KRAUSE: I understand that, but how do you respond to the professor's point that we really need to keep these things in perspective?
REP. CHRISTOPHER SMITH: Well, again, if you allow a country to--if you buy into the idea that they will be trustworthy in other areas, like arms proliferation, which they have not been trustworthy in, and if you say they're not exporting prison-made goods, if they're going to be a force for good, and they lie and deceive, fool me once, shame on me, fool me--shame on you--fool me the second time, shame on me. We should say we want, you know, trust but verify, and this particular dictatorship has shown over and over again that they are not trustworthy. So what do you do? Do you deal with them? You deal with them diplomatically, but you say, wait a minute folks, we need to see some real improvements, or our markets--and there is a balance of trade of $35 billion between the PRC and the United States, all in their favor--so they're not going to find markets in Canada or anywhere else for that kind of dumping of goods. And let me say just one final point, Charles. Aggressive appeasement, in my view, characterizes this administration when it comes to China. They give on every turn with the Chinese dictatorship, and they know it in Beijing.
CHARLES KRAUSE: Professor.
RONALD MONTAPERTO: I think that's completely wrong. I see no evidence . I don't speak for this administration, of course. But there are plenty, plenty of sticks involved in all of this. What we are talking about is the beginning of a process. Now, take the relationship between our military and the Chinese military. There is no thought, for example, that there would be a transfer of weapons. There is no thought that there would be a transfer of sensitive technologies. There is no thought that there would be any kind of--that we would undertake anything that would turn them into a more efficient or a better fighting force. Our approach with the Chinese People's Liberation Army, the PLA, involves the discussion of strategic issues, a discussion of broad concepts of strategy and doctrine, things of that sort. That's a stick.
CHARLES KRAUSE: Is this a turning point in relations between China and the United States?
RONALD MONTAPERTO: It's too soon to tell. It's really too soon to tell. It is the hope of this administration, as I see it, that, in fact, we will now be moving into a different area, and that the series of peaks and troughs that we've seen in relations over the years will begin to smooth out and even out. It's too soon to tell.
REP. CHRISTOPHER SMITH: I would argue the dictatorship is getting stronger. People like Wei Xing Sheng and other leading pro-democracy activists have recently been re-arrested. Crackdowns are on the rise, not the decline. Religious freedom is on the rise, or persecution. This country is--
CHARLES KRAUSE: Gentlemen.
REP. CHRISTOPHER SMITH: Okay. Thank you.
CHARLES KRAUSE: I'm sorry. Our time is up. But thank you very much.

Program
Support
From: