President Bush’s Policy on China
Baum draws the conclusion that Bush’s veto of the bill protecting Chinese students from deportation was “appropriate.” I would give the professor a C-minus on his article for the following reasons:
The speed with which Bush rushed to appease the Chinese leaders after the massacre was inappropriate, in my opinion. The first contact by Scowcroft was so embarrassing that at first Secretary of State James Baker even denied that it took place.
Secondly, where’s the need to mollify these very old Chinese leaders? Their successors will no doubt spring from the very students that we’re letting down and disillusioning today. Based on events in Eastern Europe, this could occur faster than one thinks.
Thirdly, The Times (Dec. 10, 1989) ran an article on the major deals that Prescott Bush, the President’s brother, is involved in with China. Based on this information, the President’s veto of the bill becomes controversial and raises a question of “conflict of interest.”
Lastly, the Chinese need the United States far more than we need them, so to “cave in” to their threats is not playing our cards wisely.
ALBERT CANE
Santa Monica
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
