I have a little objection to want was said by Mike in the introduction in which he hoped that President Clinton would be as courageous as I was. I think right now in doing so many bad things he is already too courageous. What I hope that he will do is perhaps be less bold in doing such bad things and take into consideration the good for all of humanity.

The Chinese have a certain custom which is that in the course of eating a meal we won't discuss too many negative things because it would have a bad impact on digestion, but today, I am afraid that since we have been discussing the question of foreign affairs, there are very few nice things that I can say. I can only say what is actually happening and my perceptions of why it is happening.

Today, I believe many of the friends here are hopeful that I will speak a little about my feelings on American foreign policy. In having discussions with many foreign policy experts inside the United States and also officials and experts from many European countries, I have always wanted to ask the question and often talk with them about whether they think there is one specific deficiency in American foreign policy. They would answer, "Well, there is this deficiency, or that deficiency, and well, of course there is another deficiency," but for the most intelligent of them, they and I share the same conclusion: there is, in fact, no set foreign policy for the American government. I believe this viewpoint makes a lot of sense and does follow closely the perceptions I have from carrying out my own investigation of their foreign policy. There are certain things that Americans do that take the appearance of foreign policy, but even some people have told me that, if a policy is carried out for a period of six months, it is already a pretty difficult thing to do.

Why is it so difficult and why does this phenomenon occur so regularly? They say that foreign policy must be concerned with new conditions that exist and that this flexibility would allow them to be able to react to new condition. In fact, I believe that many American foreign policymakers see foreign policy as being something that simply must be explained positively in the media and that is simply all. I do not believe that they take into consideration the fact that the United States as a nation needs to determine for itself what is its long-term foreign policy objectives. So for people to ask me for a comment about foreign policy in the United States, it is very difficult because what I say today may not be accurate in six months. So at this point I must apologize because the only thing I can talk about is what I would imagine a country such as the United States should have as a foreign policy. And so, just like in my conversations with these politicians, I must leave a lot of time to get into great detail about this question.

First, what should constitute American foreign policy? Because the United States is a democratic nation, all of the considerations of foreign policy should come from the benefits of the people and from the benefits of advancing democracy. A democracy should stand in opposition to authoritarian dictatorship systems. But I believe that under a democratic system, many Americans no longer believe that it is important to maintain this type of system. I want to remind everyone that this system itself is very important in maintaining the democratic process. In this respect, it would be very easy to evaluate who can become your friends and, equally, who cannot become your friends. For example, if you are lamb, is it possible for you ever to become friends with a wolf? On this point, I believe that the Chinese communists are much more intelligent than President Clinton. They have come to the conclusion that there is no way that a democratic system can ever serve as their friends because the natural opposition to the survival of their authoritarian dictatorship is the emergence of democratic forces. But on this point, President Clinton has not come to this conclusion. In fact, he is saying, "Well, although you are a wolf and your skin is a little bit different, I still think that we can become very good friends." So in this question, I think that the American people should be very clear and should be telling the American government very clearly that there is no way that a lamb and a wolf can ever become friends, that there is no way that if you consider China to be your friend, the Chinese communists will ever consider us, America, to be their friend. Since the wolf itself is naturally going to eat the lamb, there is no way that the lamb can convince the wolf to go against his nature. For the lamb to try and become friends with the wolf is itself a dangerous opposition. Because America is a democratic country and perhaps the world's leading democratic country, what it should be most concerned about is seeing that democracy takes root around the world to ensure world peace. This is one way for it to also protect its own democratic system. If the American presidents take into consideration this most sensible of positions, then they should see very clearly who can be their friends and who can never be their friends.

I am afraid that on not only the question of China, but on the question of many other countries around the world, the Americans are still not very clear on this question, Who are their friends and who are not their friends? Yet the Americans say, "Well, we have put so much time and effort into helping these people, why are so many still opposed to what we do?" For others around the world, this position is quite clear. To make it very simple, I'll give you my analysis of the situation of the central African country of Zaire.

Over a long course of time, the Americans were very much supportive of the Zairian government led by the dictator Mobutu. Over this time, they convinced the American population through the media that there were no other forces inside the country that could control the population, leaving us with no choice but to support Mobutu. So American policy was to support the dictatorship of Mobutu and not to work closely or even say anything of support for those inside that country working for democracy or human rights. Because this authoritarian dictatorship continued to oppress the people, it did it with such thoroughness that they were unable to continue their own authority. It happened one day that all of the people would stand up and overthrow this power. Even with foreign help, there is no way that you can solidify this type of power.

The American government did not foster a relationship with the democratic forces inside of Zaire, and in the end Mobutu was still forced from the stage—but when he was forced from the stage, he was replaced by someone who did get a great deal of support, and who did get a great deal of international assistance, and that is the man now known as Kabila. The Americans are not willing to foster these types of relationships with their friends, but I can tell you that the Chinese communists and other forces who are in the anti-human rights camp will spend a great deal of time fostering these types of relationships. So now that you see a man like Kabila, who twenty years ago was in Beijing studying and who you could say has been fostered for twenty years, has now taken power and has authority in Zaire.

This was reinforced in the visit of Clinton to South Africa when he spoke with Mandela. Mandela said, "At the point when we most needed the help, we were not able to count on your assistance. Now that we have come to power, we are not able to forget those who gave us the assistance when we needed it most." But I think that Clinton simply did not understand what he was being told, because now in his policy towards China, he is simply repeating the same bad policies he had toward South Africa, toward Zaire, and toward other small dictatorships.

I think that President Clinton is not a foolish man—he simply understands what is being told to him. But I am afraid that he has a different concept. Perhaps he thinks that twenty years to wait for such a change is much too long of a period of time, since he only has to worry about four years and he is concerned about what happens during his tenure. If it happens long after he is gone, that is another man's problem. Perhaps it might even be his opponent's problem. I believe that this is a common problem for many politicians in the United States: before they take the power, they spend very little time considering foreign policy questions because they must devote one hundred percent of their energies into simply being elected. I believe that even after they have been elected they do not spend a great deal of concern over foreign affairs because it is still the period of time when they were elected that they are most concerned about. And I believe that in the absence of having a long-term stable foreign policy, you have simply a very weak foreign policy. This situation exists today for the reasons behind the recent developments—the Chinese consistently defeat the U.S. on the foreign policy stage. I believe that a political system that does not take into consideration the political ramifications of foreign policy itself is a very dangerous thing, so I am simply here to put forth this opinion and I hope that all of us are able to consider and find ways to resolve this problem.

Thank you very much. I hope that what I have said has not influenced your digestion.