VIEW FROM THE HILL October 30, 1997 NEWSHOUR TRANSCRIPT

---

President Jiang's week-long visit has generated a mixed response from U.S. citizens. Four members of Congress debate whether the trip has been an international relations success, or a propaganda show designed to assuage concerns about political and religious rights in China.

---

A RealAudio version of this segment is available. NEWSHOUR LINKS: October 29, 1997: A discussion on the meeting of Presidents Jiang and Clinton. October 28, 1997: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright previews the China summit. October 27, 1997: The upcoming summit with China has focused attention on its president, Jiang Zemin. October 8, 1997: China is constructing the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River, but what will be the social and environmental costs? July 29, 1997: The Senate considers allegations that the Chinese government tried to influence the '96 elections through illegal campaign contributions. June 24, 1997: The House votes to maintain China's Most Favored Nation trading status, ignoring calls to impose sanctions for human rights violations. May 19, 1997: President Clinton says he wants to renew China's Most Favored Nation trading status for another year. April 16, 1997: Does China's leadership have a grand strategy to dominate Asia in the coming years and view the U.S. as a long term enemy? March 27, 1997: Sandy Berger discusses VP Al Gore's trip to China, and possible attempts by China to influence the 1996 elections. Browse the NewsHour's Asia Index OUTSIDE LINKS: Visit the embassy Web site of The People's Republic of China

MARGARET WARNER: Joining us now are four members of Congress who've met with President Jiang during his three-days in Washington: Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of California; Republican Congressman Doug Bereuter of Nebraska; Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California; and Republican Congressman Christopher Cox, also from California. Congresswoman Pelosi, you were in the breakfast meeting this morning. President Jiang, I gather, got a pretty thorough grilling. How responsive did you find him to your concerns in that setting?

Congress reacts to Jiang Zemin.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) California: Well, I start my remarks by saying that I anticipated that we would have a brilliant future with China economically, politically, diplomatically, culturally, in every way with the Chinese people. But that would only be possible if China respected the rights of its people according to its own constitution, as well as universal principles of human rights. Many of us had issues about proliferation, Tibet, forced abortion, religious persecution, the list goes on, and my reaction to President Jiang's answers were that he was evasive. He said that, for example, that he characterized the occupation of Tibet as freeing the Tibetan people from serfdom. He minimized that, and it really was a blessing to Tibet, that China had invaded. He said the harvesting of organs for profit was just a rumor; it didn't happen; there was no forced abortion; there's no religious persecution. Chen Chi Chen, the foreign minister, was deferred to on the issue of proliferation. He said that China has never engaged in the proliferation of nuclear technology. All of these things are not true. Unfortunately, with the cordial meeting that it was, there was no very much candor to go with it.

MARGARET WARNER: Congressman Bereuter, did you find him as evasive?

REP. DOUG BEREUTER, (R) Nebraska: I think that no one went away satisfied with the responses that we heard. I think, however, it was very important for President Jiang to hear the comments, concerns, expressions of questions that were offered very straightforward fashion. The meeting was cordial. It was, of course, proper decorum, but it was very direct. And that, coupled with the kind of remarks and the noise that President Jiang referred to as he heard demonstrations around the city, I think were very important parts of the message that Americans, including members of Congress, wanted to send to President Jiang on his visit.

MARGARET WARNER: Congressman Cox, you've been critical of China in certain respects. How did you find he handled that directness from all of you? I mean, was he as unflappable as he seemed to be just now in that interview with Jim, or did you feel you could ever get him to respond in some way? I don't know. I won't put words in your mouth.

Confronting President Jiang with the issue of political prisoners.

REP. CHRISTOPHER COX, (R) California: Well, it's interesting that you described his presentation on this interview that we all just watched as unflappable because frankly I thought that what you saw is what we saw this morning and that it was very different from the President Jiang that I met with in Beijing earlier this year. At that time I found him completely impassive. I raised with him directly the question of Wei Jingsheng, of Wang Dan, and so on, gave him a list--

MARGARET WARNER: People who are being held--

REP. CHRISTOPHER COX: Yes, political prisoners--Wei Jingsheng being the most notable of them, the father of Chinese democracy. And he was simply impassive. He said not a word. What we saw this morning and what you saw during this interview was at least a loquacious President Jiang, much more media friendly in that sense, but I agree with the remarks of my colleagues. I thought he told several whoppers this morning. I mean, to expect us to believe, as he represented, that not only is there no connection between the executions and the organ sales but there are no organ sales at all--when this is fully documented--is really an affront; likewise that China has never sold weapons of mass destruction technology when just this year the Clinton administration listed the People's Republic of China as the No. 1 proliferator in the world of weapons of mass destruction technology.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Sen. Feinstein, you reportedly went, I think, to Beijing. You're an old friend of his or old acquaintance, and gave him some advice on how to handle this trip. How do you think he handled it, and do you agree with your colleagues, that he told some real whoppers this morning?

A fine balance between antagonizing China and reaching out.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, (D) California: I think it depends on what you call a whopper. And I think there are very strong views on this side of the ocean among some people. I think there's a very different perspective in China. The question that I've always had is how do you encourage a relationship that can be positive and in the long-term can achieve some of the things that were talked about this morning without driving China's back against the wall, isolating them, and turning it into an adversary? And that's a very fine balance.

I've been very proud of the President of the United States. I think the summit--and you're concentrating on every negative part and not on any of the positive parts of what was accomplished. I view the accomplishments as substantial. There will be ongoing communication. Up to this point there was no ability of the President of the United States and the President of China to even talk with each other on an emergency or an acute basis. There now will be. We have now instituted dialogue on the top level. It's going to continue. I think there's going to be an opportunity for an increasing repartee back and forth, instead of confrontation.

The Nuclear Proliferation Agreement, the Energy Agreement, the Rule of Law Agreement, the agreements with respect to bringing their military more in contact with our military, the narcotics, DEA presence in China, all of these things are a major beginning. We knew--everyone knew that there was going to be a tough edge on human rights. And you've heard in the interview that was just given on Communism part of that tough edge. I don't agree with much of what he said about Communism. I mean, after all, Communism is a total state ownership of land and business. And the Chinese government is going in exactly the opposite way. So exactly the opposite thing is happening from what he was saying on television, in my view, but I think the important thing is that he heard the concerns of my colleagues. They represent a lot of American people. He heard their views. He will consider those views, and I think in the meantime the communication will be ongoing, and I think this is only healthy.

"Human rights are fundamental to our relationship."

MARGARET WARNER: Congresswoman Pelosi, do you agree with that point that if you set aside human rights or a couple of negative issues, that having the summit was a very worthwhile exercise and there were real achievements?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well, I think that human rights are fundamental to our relationship. That's why I said this brilliant future depended on China's respecting its own people. But I tink that it is important that the leaders of our two countries meet. I believe that we should attempt to be engaged in effective engagement; we don't have that now. I oppose the state visit, the celebratory nature. I didn't think we should roll out the red carpet to the leader of the regime that rolled out the tanks in Tiananmen--or get a 21-gun salute to that same person. What I do think--

MARGARET WARNER: And why--explain--excuse me, but why exactly?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well, I think the reasons are self-evident; that it is important for our leaders to meet--a working visit would have been a more appropriate auspice. It might have defused some of the demonstrations of protest to the nature of the visit that President Clinton was providing for President Jiang. But I want to get to a more fundamental point, and that is one of the achievements that's being proclaimed from this summit, the proliferation agreement, is very, very, very--should be a great reason for concern. The agreement is based on promises, once again, and not on performance on the part of the Chinese government that they will not proliferate weapons of mass destruction, in this case nuclear. The Chinese promised in May of 1996 that they would not assist any unsafe-guarded states with nuclear technology. And the report of the CIA from 1996, the spring of 1996 to the end of the year, had them as "the" most significant proliferator and provider of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear technology, to Iran and to Pakistan. The Office of Naval Intelligence this year--1997--has said--has also spoken to that point using China as the--providing most dangerous technology to the Persian Gulf region.

MARGARET WARNER: All right.

Addressing the issue of nuclear proliferation.

REP. NANCY PELOSI: So for the President to try to say that China has--is worthy--and I say that because we have a law which very clearly points out what a country must do in order to be certified to be in accord on the nuclear cooperation accord, China hasn't done that. What China has done is repeatedly broken promises, one after another, that they will not proliferate weapons of mass destruction.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Let me let Congressman Bereuter in on this point. What about this nuclear agreement, which the President certainly said he regarded as one of the centerpieces of this summit?

REP. DOUG BEREUTER: Well, first of all, I'd like to say that I think the fact the summit was held was a very appropriate step. I'm pleased that that took place. There were accomplishments. One should never over-sell what was expected. The administration did not. I, in fact, like a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, would like to see this summit, this exchange of our top leadership's views and dialogue take place on a regularized basis. I think that would be more productive. Now, I have had briefings today, and I feel confident on the basis of those briefings that, in fact, there's written agreement on what the Chinese will not provide to Iran. And that's exactly one of our important objectives. It's no--there's no question in the past they have provided nuclear materials to Pakistan. That's my judgment. I think it's well based. But with respect to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the things that, in fact, China has involved itself in Iran, did not violate the NPT. But now we have a very specific indication there ending the two elements that do not violate the NPT as soon as possible, with a very specific time frame, and they will end any kind of nuclear cooperation with China, with Iran.

Now, if, in fact, there's a violation the President should and could be expected to immediately stop our supply of the domestic nuclear components for power to the PRC.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Congressman Cox, your view on this, because you've written extensively about it, the nuclear agreement.

REP. CHRISTOPHER COX: Well, of course, this raises in importance the misrepresentations that President Jiang made this morning, the fact that he could tell us that China has never ever sold any nuclear technology to anyone in the teeth of our knowing to a certainty that China has sold ring magnets for the enrichment of uranium, as well as arrange to sell missiles to Iran, suggests that we ought to be very, very wary, indeed of accepting paper promises at the summit in return for an immediate benefit. And that is civilian nuclear technology that we will now make available to the People's Republic of China.

MARGARET WARNER: All right.

REP. CHRISTOPHER COX: My concern is--

MARGARET WARNER: Congressman, I'm sorry. We are out of time, and I'm terribly sorry. Thank you all very much.

REGIONS TOPICS RECENT PROGRAMS ABOUT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS:

Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.