At the end of his trip to China from June 25 to
July 3, 1998, U.S. President Bill Clinton praised the Chairman of
China's Communist Party, Jiang Zemin, as a visionary and the right
leader at the right time for China. Unfortunately, within six
months of this statement, the same leader President Clinton had
praised began the most systematic crackdown on organized dissent in
China since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. In his January
19, 1999, State of the Union Address, President Clinton noted, "In
China last year, I said to the leaders and the people what I'd like
to say again tonight: Stability can no longer be bought at the
expense of liberty." Regrettably, China's leadership has not been
listening. What President Clinton plans to do to change this
disregard for liberty remains unclear.
During a Christmas Eve address, Jiang
Zemin warned that "any factors that could jeopardize our stability
must be annihilated in the early stages." Putting these words into
action, the government of the People's Republic of China sentenced
the key organizers of the Chinese Democracy Party to prison terms
ranging from 11 years to 13 years. These party leaders had merely
called on members to organize and formally establish a political
party, a move that strictly followed China's rigid framework of
laws and regulations. Their imprisonment calls into question not
only the legitimacy of China's current government, but also the
credibility of the Clinton Administration's policy that seeks to
establish a "constructive strategic partnership" with such a
government.
MISTAKING
APPEARANCES FOR REALITY
During his trip to China, President
Clinton specifically called on China's leadership to release all
remaining political prisoners and expand the experiments in
democracy already taking place in villages throughout China.
China's government committed to signing the United Nations (U.N.)
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights at that time. The capstone
of the summit was a nationwide live broadcast of the joint press
conference as the two Presidents emerged from their discussions, a
move that was meant to show China in a new light to the world, to
shrug off the burden of the Tiananmen Square massacre, and to
demonstrate confidence in the government in Beijing.
At
the time, it seemed to many in the Clinton Administration and the
U.S. media that the government in Beijing really had changed.
Beijing acknowledged by agreeing to sign the U.N. covenant that
some human rights standards are universal--and not dependent on
culture and level of development. China's state-controlled media
even broadcast live statements by President Clinton challenging
China's leaders to make their political system more competitive and
free.
Unfortunately, what seemed a success last
June appears now an equally dramatic disappointment. China has not
released political prisoners, but arrested more. Even after
signing, on October 5, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, China's government is carrying out the systematic
destruction of organized dissent. And instead of emerging from the
shadows of Tiananmen Square, the Beijing government is creating a
new generation of martyrs in China's long march toward
democracy.
TIME FOR
ACTION
This
dramatic change in Beijing in word and deed calls into question the
effectiveness of President Clinton's engagement policy and his
desire to establish a "constructive strategic partnership" with
China. The alternative to the President's policy is not isolation
and containment, but an engagement founded on more than mere words.
If high rhetoric on democracy is to have any credibility, it must
be matched with action to reward and protect progress toward
democracy, and action to protest and punish attacks on
democracy.
To
promote and defend democracy in China, the Clinton Administration
should:
-
Condemn China's violation of human
rights covenants at the U.N. China's recent action to dismantle
the Chinese Democracy Party and imprison its leaders violates
rights protected under China's own 1982 constitution and the
just-signed International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Although China's government has relaxed many controls, after 20
years of reform it has made no progress toward tolerating organized
dissent. The United States cannot credibly advocate democracy and
the protection of human rights if it turns a blind eye toward these
developments. The most appropriate forum for registering strong
objection to the crackdown on democracy is at the next meeting of
the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva, Switzerland, in March
and April 1999.
-
Strengthen democracy-promoting
activities. Organizations like the National Endowment for
Democracy, the Voice of America, and Radio Free Asia work hard to
promote political freedom in China. They should receive greater
recognition and financial support. In addition, many
non-governmental organizations are working to improve living
conditions and human rights in China. President Clinton and Members
of Congress should make every effort to speak to these groups,
participate in their events, publicize as widely as possible their
good work, and encourage other concerned Americans to participate
in their efforts.
-
Promote Taiwan's democracy in China and
abroad. To advocate democracy on the Chinese mainland credibly,
the United States must properly recognize and reward the people of
Taiwan for their success in establishing a vibrant democracy; they
deserve better than a well-armed cold shoulder from Beijing and
exile from the international community. Taiwan should be held up as
an example of what free people can achieve in a Chinese society.
The United States should make clear that democracy allows for the
free and open debate of controversial views--even independence. It
should not view such a debate as just cause for military
intimidation by China.
Because President Clinton publicly heaped
such premature and overly generous praise on the Chinese leader who
now is calling for the annihilation of dissent, it should be
President Clinton who represents the United States in issuing a
strong response. He should publicly explain to the American people
and Congress how his Administration will respond to such an affront
to his personal diplomacy and policy.
Stephen J. Yates was Senior
Policy Analyst in The Asian Studies Center at The Heritage
Foundation.