The China Mailbag Is Smokin’
Are those China-U.S. waters ever roiling now! On the East Coast, Bill Clinton’s opponents are all energized because the president may finally be up against an issue out of which he cannot squirm. On the West Coast, readers, even those who value good China relations, are unnerved by prospects that nuclear weapons secrets may have been purloined from a U.S. lab. Some are angry with me because they think I deny the gravity of the situation. Not true. Here are some torrid exchanges with concerned critics and supporters alike:
Reader M.V.: As a regular reader of your column, I’m often flabbergasted but rarely surprised. But I have to take issue with you on “engagement.” After all, we are talking about nuclear weapons, not widgets. More unsettling than Chinese penetration of national security is the apologists, like you, with “business as usual” platitudes. As a good first step, let’s get Washington out of the “engagement” business.
Tom Plate: Let’s not, unless we have to. Abandonment of engagement would polarize Asia, maybe risk war. China, with about a fifth of the world’s population, has U.N. Security Council veto power and potentially explosive relations with others in Asia. Pacifist Japan, which has worked hard to normalize relations with China, would become utterly unmoored if key ally Washington repudiated normalization. So would U.S. ally South Korea, which has to confront an unstable North Korea amid a deep financial crisis, and prays for a China that’s at least maturely neutral, if not unequivocably supportive. Taiwan surely wants Beijing in a “can’t-we-all-get-along” mood. Small countries like Singapore scarcely gain being forced to choose between China and the U.S. We need to work with China not because Beijing benefits from it but because U.S. interests are far better served by staying the course than by abandoning it. That doesn’t mean America, just to remain engaged, should look the other way when China errs. But we only neutralize our power, not enhance it, by withdrawing.
Reader W.B.: Staying ahead of the technological curve is central to U.S. national security. It doesn’t excuse China that other countries, even allies, spy on us.
T.P.: True, but let us not abandon our lovable, messy, free-society ways or obstruct international trade; instead let’s protect our national and military security with our own good measures, regardless of the designs of friend or foe. If we are going to sell technology to others, and if we are going to have a relatively open society, realistically, security leaks will sometimes occur.
Reader P.B.: It’s amazing that all the Republicans are interested in is pointing fingers, rather than actually fixing the problem.
T.P: Some Republicans may be having second thoughts. Last week House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert declaimed: “The more we’re involved with China, the better off we are--for us and for China and for the Pacific area. It’s also important that we stress our views on human rights. But if we aren’t engaged, we can’t do that.” Added Wyoming GOP Sen. Craig Thomas, the Senate’s Asia subcommittee chair: “I’ve never supported the idea that every time China does something we don’t like, we ought to submit the thing to the Senate and go after them.” Let’s hope for more Republican thoughtfulness like theirs.
Reader C.E.: Looks like our “leaders” have found a new bad guy for us in the general public to be afraid of. Now, instead of the godless commie Russkies, it is the godless commie Chinese. It’s the “yellow peril” all over again.
T.P.: I hope you’re wrong. All Asians worry about the special animus with which they are sometimes viewed from America.
Reader D.M.: I agree with you that engagement remains good policy for the U.S. But don’t encourage readers to think that the stakes now with China in this spying business are no cause for concern.
T.P.: If I gave you that impression, I am truly sorry. And you’re right, there’s plenty of cause for concern. But while China creates many problems for us, in the end there is no reason why the relationship cannot proceed more cooperatively than confrontationally. But it does take two to bilaterally tango: If America shouldn’t overreact to China’s sins, China can’t ignore the human rights and trade-gap concerns of U.S. public opinion.
Reader R.M.: Isn’t it possible that China’s own physicists were able to figure out how to make a smaller bomb? The Russians were able to do it.
T.P.: They may actually have stolen stuff. Highly regarded Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar says: “This could be one of the most serious security breaches in American history.” That has to be respected. Or maybe it will prove not to be. For is it wholly inconceivable that a culture and a civilization that did invent breakthroughs like paper, printing, gunpowder and the compass also might have developed the capacity to advance its own nuclear technology? Don’t be silly.
Times contributing editor Tom Plate teaches at UCLA. E-mail: [email protected].
