Toward a Firm China Policy

For the past decade or so, a debate has raged in Washington as to whether it is in our nation’s best interests to treat China as a strategic partner or as a competitor. Under President Clinton’s stewardship, China was embraced as a partner. The administration favored and helped usher through Congress Most Favored Nation trading status for China, took great pains to deal even handedly with regard to Taiwan, apologized profusely after accidentally bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and put off a decision on a limited missile defense in part out of deference to the strong objections raised by the Chinese and others.

Sadly, if there is anything to be learned from the recent incident involving a U.S. Navy EP-3 surveillance plane, it is that dealing with China as a strategic partner is a mistake and that any partnership has been quite one-sided indeed.

Over the last decade or so, the Clinton Administration has been extremely conciliatory and engaging towards China. Yet China has not reciprocated that friendship. China has continued to sell missile technology to rogue states such as Iran, and has not supported international efforts to prevent Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction. The Chinese have stepped up their persecution of Chinese Christians and intellectuals, not to mention their brutal repression of Falun Gong members. In 1998, after the mistaken bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, a mistake for which the U.S. apologized many times, the Chinese encouraged street protests in Beijing which threatened the lives of the U.S. ambassador and his family. The situation became so dire that embassy personnel began destroying classified documents for fear that the compound would be overrun. It took personal pleas from high ranking U.S. officials for the Chinese to actually step in and protect the embassy compound. Last but not least, China continues to threaten Taiwan by expanding its surface-to-surface missile capabilities.

It is not difficult to understand why, against that backdrop, the Chinese have acted in such an intransigent manner in the latest dispute. The accident occurred in international airspace between a slow, bulky Navy plane and a Chinese F-8 fighter jet. The insinuation by the Chinese that the Navy plane caused the accident is almost laughable. Such an explanation is like blaming a snail for running into an ant. It was the Chinese who decided to fly dangerously close to the U.S. plane in international waters. Moreover, earlier this week word came that the U.S. plane was on autopilot at the time of the crash, making the Chinese explanation that the U.S. plane swerved into the Chinese fighter jet highly implausible.

When the U.S. crew members landed safely in Guam early Thursday morning, the crisis appeared to finally be coming to a close. Congressional leaders from both parties heaped praise on President Bush’s first major foreign policy test, citing his patience as the main reason that the situation was finally resolved. Yet we must ask at what price the crisis was resolved. For one thing, our final letter used the phrase “very sorry” in reference to landing in Chinese territory without permission. Despite the fact that we did nothing wrong, we were still forced to apologize to the Communists in Beijing. Moreover, it is not just our nation’s honor which has been damaged; it is our credibility. How can our allies in Asia trust us to be firm with the Chinese on other matters when we so easily gave in to them in this instance?

With the Navy surveillance plane still remaining on Hainan Island, the situation is clearly not completely resolved. On April 18, American and Chinese officials are scheduled to meet to discuss the potential return of the plane and how to prevent situations like this in the future. The Chinese will inevitably demand that we stop our surveillance flights, but we must not bow to such a demand. Recently, China has continued their buildup of missiles aimed at Taiwan. Moreover, China’s military budget received a large increase in funding this year. Surveillance flights in international waters are completely legal under international law and in the case of these specific flights are absolutely essential to our ability to monitor China’s military and to make sure that they do not threaten Taiwan. A cessation of these flights would send a signal to our allies that we are not committed to ensuring peace and stability in Southeast Asia. It would also send a signal to China that the new administration is not as tough as it once claimed.

In the next few weeks the President will have to make a decision on whether or not to sell advanced weapons systems to Taiwan, most notably Aegis Cruisers, which will improve Taiwan’s ability to confront the enhanced Chinese missile threat. In the interests of ensuring peace and defending a democratic nation against a totalitarian bully, Bush should go ahead with the sale. Especially in light of this newest controversy, it appears that China’s hard-line military leaders are increasingly influential in areas of foreign policy. Selling Taiwan weapons for the express purpose of defense against Chinese aggression is an important step to ward off confrontation in the future. By agreeing to the sale, Bush will demonstrate to the leaders in Beijing that America is not a country that will be pushed around when our interests are at stake—and also that we are not a country that will stand idly by when democracy and freedom are threatened by despotism and brutality.

William R. Levine is a first-year living in Matthews Hall.