Is Baker Being Muzzled on China Comments?

Is Secretary of State James A. Baker III being overruled--or censored--in his comments on China by the White House?

On Thursday, at the last minute, Baker decided to cut references to the need for democracy in China out of his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The secretary’s spokesman insisted Friday that Baker did so simply because of the need to save time.

Baker came for his congressional appearance with a prepared, written statement that singled out both Cuba and China for criticism. But by the time he spoke, the criticism had been narrowed to Cuba.

“Governments that try to shut out universally desired democratic values--such as Castro’s Cuba or in the tragic case of China--serve only to delay their people’s progress,” Baker said in the written statement that was handed out to reporters.

But when the time came for Baker to speak, he left out the phrases “universally desired” and “in the tragic case of China.”

The question now is: Was Baker’s last-minute change a hint that the secretary may have qualms about the Bush Administration’s policy of reconciliation with the Chinese leadership--a subject of persistent speculation?

Baker has on several occasions emphasized that it is President Bush who sets the policy toward China and has avoided any close identification with that policy. On the other hand, whether out of conviction or out of loyalty, Baker also has defended the Administration’s actions toward China in public and has worked hard to help Bush stave off a defeat on China issues in Congress.

At a State Department briefing Friday, Margaret Tutwiler, Baker’s spokeswoman, dismissed speculation about his motives. “He took (the reference to China) out and made his statement shorter because he wanted to make it shorter,” Tutwiler explained. She also pointed out that Baker cut several other lengthy passages out of his prepared speech.

One reporter noted that the references to China in Baker’s speech were so short that “if I say them real fast, I bet I can say them in a second.” But Baker’s spokeswoman stuck to her explanation. “I can’t tell you that it was intentional or not intentional,” she said. “Draw your own conclusions.”