Speech before the Los Angeles World Affairs Council on March 19, 1999:
The Honorable Dan Quayle
It was a mistake not to address foreign policy in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections. By 1996, foreign policy was discussed so little that Jim Lehrer in the second debate begged someone to ask a foreign policy question. A young man raised his hand. And you know what he asked? He asked what the candidates were going to do about defense jobs in California.
Now that is an important issue—but it wasn’t really what Lehrer was getting at.
We should not make the same mistake in the next election. We have important issues like tax and education reform, and health care. A debate on values must take place. But it is essential that we insist that a candidate for the office that leads the free world provide his or her vision of how America discharges its responsibilities.
In the past week, we have all seen the major stories: North Korea and its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction; Russia’s economic collapse and the questionable security of its nuclear weapons; and Kosovo and the fear of spreading conflict in the Balkans.
A coherent foreign policy requires time, patience and, most of all, a vision of where you want to go. It cannot be created on the fly with focus groups and polls.
Today, I would like to address America’s greatest opportunity, or challenge, or threat—it all depends on how we deal with it—and that is our relationship with China.
Like you, I have read all about the current allegations of espionage, the unanswered questions about Chinese campaign contributions in the last election, and the disturbing breakdowns that have sent critical technologies into China’s hands.
On the latest scandal, all I will say is this: how dare Al Gore blame Presidents Reagan and Bush for negligence that clearly happened on his and President Clinton’s watch? It is a pattern we have [seen] far too often, and it is high time this administration starts accepting responsibility for its own actions.
Today, however, I would like to step back and address the larger issue of our relationship with the People’s Republic of China.
First, let me be very clear about my vision of our relationship with China. My goal is a free and prosperous China. I want China to succeed. I want someday to welcome them into the family of democratic nations. I want to see China’s growth rate and per capita income reach much higher levels.
I have a keen interest in China. I have visited China three times since leaving office. I have met with many Chinese leaders, including Jiang Zemin, Zhu Rongji, and the Mayor of Shanghai.
On a personal note, my eldest son lives in China and is fluent in Mandarin Chinese.
In short, I don’t perceive China as our enemy. But neither is it a "strategic partner," as the Clinton Administration puts it. Such a partnership implies common values and similar goals. Neither is present today, though we should work toward that end.
Instead, we need to recognize the emergence of a "new China." China is much different than it was ten or even five years ago. The new China is increasingly assertive and aggressive in the wake of some profound changes around the world.
For the last couple of years, I have taught a seminar to graduate business school students in Phoenix. As apart of that class, the reading assignments include The Coming Conflict with China, by Bernstein and Munro. I don’t agree with all of their conclusions, but I think they make some fair points. The Soviet Union, which was for much of the last 25 years the chief concern of the People’s Republic of China, disappeared. Bernstein and Munro argue that Chinese leaders concluded that the Soviet Union dissolved because political freedom outstripped economic development—and they vowed not to let it happen there.
China watched as Iraq, supposedly a major regional power with a formidable military machine, was defeated in one of the most lopsided wars of all time. If acquiring American technology superiority wasn’t a priority before the Gulf War, it sure was afterwards.
Some experts argue that the People’s Republic of China occupies a position not unlike Imperial Germany on the eve of the 20th century. The Chinese clearly intend to vie for regional supremacy. They now deploy a blue water navy to project influence far beyond their borders.
And, increasingly, high-level Chinese officials apply to us the rhetoric once reserved for the Soviet Union—words like "hegemonist," which carry a clear-cut message: America is now a threat. And the message is directed principally at our treaty alliances with countries like Japan and South Korea, as well as the strategic and economic partnerships with many others in the Pacific. But it is important to understand that as much as we need to focus on the conduct and actions of the People’s Republic of China, it is long past time for us [to focus] on our own conduct.
When President Clinton visited China in 1998, he allowed his Chinese hosts to demand that he participate in a state ceremony in Tiananmen Square. I visited 47 countries as vice president, and I know the host country will make requests, but that the President has ultimate control. Going to Tiananmen Square was a mistake and sent a terrible message.
President Clinton, on Chinese soil, criticized and snubbed key American allies such as Japan. President Clinton, on Chinese soil, not only humiliated Taiwan, he went further and slyly changed American policy toward Taiwan.
These were profoundly harmful acts. And we need to call this what it is—a policy of appeasement. American resolve and American will are treasures built up over decades. We cannot continue wasting them for photo-ops. As we assess what our policy should be, the first thing to do is to speak some truths.
Most of us, certainly President George Bush and I, believed that a policy that encouraged trade, with a minimum of sanctions and sanctimony, would more likely move China toward policies of greater freedom for its people, and a more productive relationship between our two countries. We were firm when we had to be, particularly in the wake of the horrendous massacre at Tiananmen Square. I think it was a worthy objective, but upon reflection, it is clear to me that the Chinese took advantage of that opportunity.
The next truth is that the situation is far worse today. In six years of one administration, we have witnessed the following: an increase in religious persecution, particularly of the house church movement; interference in our national elections; an increase in China’s role in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; threats against Taiwan and aggressive moves against the Philippines in the South China Sea; not-so-veiled threats against even our own people; espionage involving our most critical secrets; and repeated controversies surrounding China’s acquisition of high technology designed to deliver weapons of mass destruction.
That’s quite a list, isn’t it?
So, the question now is, how are we going to improve the situation? The most frequently suggested course is to penalized China by removing Most Favored Nations status—what is now officially known as normal trade status—and delaying China’s entry into the World Trade Organization.
The Clinton-Gore Administration went much further than the Bush Administration and completely severed the link between human rights and Most Favored Nation status. In 1998, the United States announced that it would no longer sponsor a resolution condemning human rights violations in China and Tibet, as it had every year since Tiananmen Square.
According to the Department of Commerce, "China has used prohibitively high tariffs…as high as 100% on some motor vehicles—in combination with import restrictions and foreign exchange controls to protect its domestic industry and restrict imports." China exports more than five times as much as it imports from the U.S. It is not a surprise to see a trade deficit approaching $60 billion with the PRC.
At minimum, we should insist that trade with China be conducted on a level playing field. Until China commits itself to a level playing field, it is absurd to give up the huge leverage of the annual MFN decision, as the Clinton Administration has done for practical purposes. But more important is the moral issue. President Clinton has consistently supported granting China Most Favored Nation status, no matter how many documented cases there are of China assisting the spread of weapons of mass destruction. But when Chinese companies were producing pirated American films, CDs and music recordings, we swung into action. Then we threatened to impose tariff increases of 100% if such copyright violations continued. And you know what? The Chinese government took at least some steps to correct the problem, although the results were weak. I’ll give credit to our government on this, but doesn’t it strike you as a little odd what we are willing to go to these lengths for? And not for human rights?
It is time we stop thinking of the Chinese simply as one billion customers and start thinking of them as one billion human beings. I know that in a few short weeks, Premier Zhu Rongji will visit the United States and try to engineer China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Let me be very clear: it is clearly in our interest, and the world’s, to have China participate in a body that can mediate trade disputes. So the question is "when," not "if." But it is premature to rush this decision in order to have a photo-op. We need to step back and ensure that China’s entry into the WTO is a step toward respect for free trade and not a recipe for disaster. The Chinese have to make significant changes. Until that happens, too many unanswered questions remain to resolve the WTO question for China now.
The truth is that we have our priorities wrong. Taiwan clearly meets the criteria for admission into the WTO. We should support Taiwan’s immediate entry into the WTO without letting the People’s Republic of China set any preconditions. After all, Taiwan is our 7th largest trading partner, with a free market it the world’s 20th largest economy.
The failure of the Clinton-Gore policies is rooted in a failure of will and leadership. Let me give you one example. It is difficult to say what the single worst moment was in the last six years of our China policy. But among the worst has to be when President Clinton stood on Chinese soil and tilted our policy against democratic Taiwan. In a chilling statement, President Clinton pronounced the three "no’s": "We don’t support independence for Taiwan, or two Chinas, or one Taiwan and one China. And we don’t believe that Taiwan should be a member in any organization for which statehood is a requirement." The administration claims this represented no change in policy. In fact, President Clinton is the first American president ever to pronounce the three no’s. This was a great victory for China because it formalized Taiwan’s diplomatic isolation.
Here’s the long-term danger. In my view, President Carter made a critical error in the late ‘70’s by breaking diplomatic relations with Taiwan. But we in Congress tried to undo some of the damage by passing the Taiwan Relations Act to ensure that we helped Taiwan meet its defense needs.
Since passage of the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979, every administration has ensured that the PRC understands the importance of resolving issues relating to Taiwan peacefully. There has never been any question about our views, though mostly they are communicated privately. I have myself communicated exactly these points to Chinese leaders. Yes, the message is not getting through anymore. In 1995, a Chinese general questioned whether we would be willing to "trade Los Angeles for Taipei."
In 1996, just prior to free elections in Taiwan, the PRC conducted extensive live-fire exercises off Taiwan. No one even pretended that this was not an exercise in intimidation. And to his credit, President Clinton did send two aircraft carrier battle groups to the area. This, then, is the context in which President Clinton made his unfortunate statements about Taiwan.
What if the growing independence movement in Taiwan succeeds in taking power? According to President Clinton, we don’t support independence. So, if Taiwan was to declare independence and the PRC attacked, what would we do? And, most importantly, after watching the United States pander to the PRC on the Taiwan issue, would a member of the Chinese Central Committee conclude that America is willing to stand firm in defense of Taiwan? The fact that this is a legitimate question is very troubling, and very dangerous.
Let me be very clear: diplomacy takes many forms, and is often best done in private. But if I am elected president I will deliver a message to the Chinese leadership that makes clear the resolution of these issues will be done peacefully—that China should not even consider attacking Taiwan. But we should move forward on providing Taiwan and key allies like Japan and South Korea the ability to protect themselves through theatre missile defenses.
At the outset today, I said that my goal was a free and prosperous China. Has that goal been advanced in the last 6 years? I don’t think so. What have we accomplished? Well, according to President Clinton’s breathless announcement, China and the United States have stopped targeting each other with nuclear missiles. But missiles can be retargeted in a matter of minutes.
The world is a little more dangerous today because of the policies that underlie fatuous statements like these made by an American president. What we really have accomplished is appeasement. I reject isolationism. I believe in American leadership. We should make clear to the People’s Republic of China that we will not barter away the cause of human liberty and security among nations in return for increased sales. We should make clear that respect is a two way street. We should make clear that the first step toward a productive relationship is honesty. We should make clear that we want nothing more than to have China enter the full community of nations—whatever the venue—but that everyone else has to play by the rules, and China would have to as well.
What I have outlined today may be seen as a tough policy. But I firmly believe that our goal of peace and prosperity in the Pacific will be met only through firmness and respect. In the meantime, we in the United States should insist that our leaders describe how they would carry out the responsibilities of the world’s sole superpower. This is a debate worth having and it should be discussed by every candidate for president.