Briefing Book : U.S. Candidates’ Stands on Foreign Issues : * All of President Bush’s major challengers want a sterner line on China. Democrats say he is too tough on Israel. Free trade is a bit of a free-for-all.

With exit polls showing that primary voters are mainly concerned about domestic issues, President Bush and the three Democrats and one Republican trying to take his job have avoided making foreign policy a major issue. But some important differences have emerged.

All of Bush’s opponents--Democrats Bill Clinton, Paul E. Tsongas and Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr., and Republican Patrick J. Buchanan--advocate a much sterner line toward China than the President has adopted. The Democrats would end trade concessions unless China improves its human rights record and takes other steps, while Buchanan would downgrade relations regardless.

The Democrats all say Bush has been too tough in his relationship with Israel.

The differences on foreign trade, a key issue in an economics-dominated election, may be more apparent than real. Although all the other candidates complain that Bush is too committed to free trade and has failed to protect U.S. companies and their workers, none of them have advocated overtly protectionist policies.

All the candidates want to cut the defense budget. But Bush’s rivals want to cut spending more deeply than he does.

TRADE

President Bush (Republican): He addresses the issue in the language of free trade. “To succeed economically at home, we need to lead economically abroad. Economic leadership means markets for American products, jobs for American workers and growing room for the American dream. The American people do not believe in isolationism because they believe in themselves.” He advocates creating a North American free-trade agreement with Canada and Mexico that will remove most trade barriers among the three nations. However, he hopes to impose quota restrictions on Japanese cars and some other imports.

Patrick J. Buchanan (Republican): “No American wants a trade war, but we have to stop being trade wimps,” Buchanan says. He says he is ready to threaten retaliation if other nations fail to open their markets to U.S. goods. “Play hardball in trade talks,” he says. “Rather than lecture Japan’s cartelists on the beauties of free trade, U.S. negotiators should demand reciprocity. No nation should enjoy a huge, permanent trade surplus with the United States while walling off its domestic market.”

Gov. Bill Clinton (Democrat): “Freer trade abroad means more jobs at home,” he has said. Nevertheless, he complains that the United States has suffered because some of its competitors have taken advantage of its free-trade policy. He says it is time to change that. “Government must ensure that international competition is fair by insisting that our European, Japanese and other trading partners play by the same rules.”

Paul E. Tsongas (Democrat): “We are becoming an economic colony. America is up for sale. One percent of Japan’s manufacturing base is foreign-owned; 2% of Germany’s; 3% of France’s. Ours is 18% and growing rapidly.” However, he has not suggested overtly protectionist trade policies. Instead, he insists that the balance can be redressed by improving America’s overall economic structure.

Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. (Democrat): “Fast-track legislation isn’t the answer to North American trade problems,” he says, referring to the Administration’s plan to accelerate negotiations for a North American free-trade agreement. “While we have to integrate Canada, Mexico and America, we shouldn’t do it overnight, and we shouldn’t do it at the expense of jobs or the environment or the fabric of our community. We need to have people representing the interests of average American workers because those people are getting trampled as the big corporate executives steamroll down the fast track.”

ISRAELI LOAN GUARANTEES

Bush: The dispute over terms for $10 billion in loan guarantees, which Israel is seeking to resettle Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union, has generated an unusually high level of tension between the traditional allies. Bush is demanding a freeze on West Bank and Gaza settlements as a condition for the loan; Israel refuses to stop its building program.

Bush says he supports U.S. assistance to provide housing and jobs for the immigrants but objects to Israel’s using the funds, even indirectly, to pay for settlements in the occupied territories.

Buchanan: “At a time when many Americans are losing their homes or having trouble meeting the mortgage or the rent, taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize Israeli settlements 10,000 miles away.”

Clinton: “I think the loan guarantees should be approved” because to continue to delay assistance to Israel to resettle Jews from the former Soviet Union will “undermine a 20-year humanitarian policy.” However, he has indicated that he sees some merit in the Administration’s effort to prevent the U.S.-guaranteed loans from making it easier for the Israeli government to build Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Tsongas: “The U.S. should not erect obstacles to (Soviet Jews) by politicizing this humanitarian issue,” his campaign argues. “The loan guarantees don’t detract from U.S. domestic priorities. Israel has a perfect record of repaying its loans. Tying the settlements to the loan guarantees was wrong. Settlements are an issue to be negotiated at the peace conference.”

Brown: He says he supports the loan guarantees but also endorses efforts to restrain Israeli settlement activity. “Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge the fact that this furious settlement pace is going to undermine the peace process and make any kind of lasting solution impossible is just not facing the facts as they are,” Brown says. “I support the loan guarantees, but I agree with Mr. (Yitzhak) Rabin, head of the Israeli Labor Party, who has condemned what he calls political settlements.”

CHINA:

Bush: He is the only candidate who favors unconditional extension of most-favored-nation trading status to China. He vetoed legislation that would have required China to make “substantial progress” in human rights, in ending restrictive trade practices and reforming its weapons export policy in exchange for continued MFN status. He says that attaching conditions to Sino-American trade relations would result in “weakened ties to the West and further repression.”

Buchanan: The United States should immediately withdraw most-favored-nation status. “Why is Mr. Bush playing footsie with Li Peng and Deng Xiaoping? Were these not the gentlemen who sent tanks to roll over the children in Tian An Men Square?” He also criticizes Bush for sending White House National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger on a secret diplomatic mission to China shortly after the 1989 Tian An Men Square crackdown. He calls them “the kowtow twins of (former Secretary of State Henry A.) Kissinger and Associates.”

Clinton: The U.S. government should withdraw most-favored-nation status unless China cleans up its human rights record and stops its “irresponsible” arms-export policy. “The Administration continues to coddle China, despite its continuing crackdown on democratic reform, its brutal subjugation of Tibet, its irresponsible export of nuclear and missile technology, its support for the homicidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and its abusive trade practices. Such forbearance on our part might have made sense during the Cold War, when China was the counterweight to Soviet power. It makes no sense to play the China cards now when our opponents have thrown in their hand.”

Tsongas: He opposes renewal of most-favored-nation status unless China “ends its abuse of prison labor, its suppression of Tibetan nationalism, religious persecution and its continued detention of dissenters.” He sharply criticized Bush for meeting in January with Chinese Premier Li Peng at the United Nations: “I am astounded that President Bush would meet with the architect of the Tian An Men Square massacre.”

Brown: He also opposes unconditionally renewing most-favored-nation status. “American trade with China needs to be linked to human rights progress. Certainly, we should not be buying products from them that are made by prison slave labor.”

MIDDLE EAST PEACE

Bush: He points with pride to the ongoing Arab-Israeli peace talks, the most comprehensive negotiations ever between the antagonists. “A critical region of the world vital to (U.S.) economic well-being is secure,” he said. “Thanks in large part to our efforts, direct peace talks between Arabs and Israelis are under way and for the first time; multilateral negotiations on regional arms control have begun.” Although he insists that he is neutral in the talks, he strongly opposes Israel’s construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, calling them “obstacles to peace.”

Buchanan: “President Bush’s policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict is basically sound. The United States has a moral commitment to guarantee the security and survival of the state of Israel. Israel is entitled to secure borders, a lifting of the Arab boycott and recognition by her neighbors. But there will be no lasting peace in the region until the longing of the Palestinian people for a homeland is satisfied. What they want is a homeland, a flag and a state of their own.”

Clinton: “The Administration deserves credit for bringing Israel and its Arab antagonists to the negotiating table. Yet, I believe the President is wrong to use selective public pressure tactics against Israel, because in the process he’s raised Arab expectations that he can deliver Israeli concessions, and he’s fed Israeli fears that its interests will be sacrificed in an American-imposed solution.” He maintains that the United States should recognize that Israel is its most dependable ally in the region.

Tsongas: He supports the Middle East peace conference but, according to a campaign position paper, objects to “Bush’s adversarial approach to Israel.” He maintains that neither side will make any concessions unless it feels secure. He endorses limited self-government for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip but opposes creating an independent state because that “would not be economically viable and would have a destabilizing effect on the region.”

Brown: “American policy must ensure a strong, secure and democratic Israel, and at the same time, vigorously pursue a Middle East peace process which addresses the legitimate interests of all the parties concerned. We need a policy of realism which recognizes that Israel is an ally, a friend, and that we stand behind her security, but at the same time, the people who live in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have their rights, their interests and their dignity.”

FORMER SOVIET UNION

Bush: He hopes to develop a “true partnership” with the new states that have replaced the Soviet Union. The Administration has committed about $5 billion in aid to the republics, but $3.75 billion of that is in loans to finance the purchase of American agricultural goods. Bush is asking Congress for a total of $620 million in new appropriations for both this fiscal year and the next one. Much of an earlier Congressional appropriation of $500 million remains unspent.

He was stung by criticism from former President Richard M. Nixon that the U.S. aid effort is far too small. He responded: “There isn’t a lot of money around. We are spending too much as it already is. So to do the things I would really like to do, I don’t have a blank check for all of that.”

Buchanan: “If people are starving in the old Soviet Union, we will be the first there with food aid,” Buchanan says. “But taxing American workers to send billions of dollars to politicians in the (Commonwealth of Independent States) works against everybody’s interests. Private capital will pour into the resource-rich C.I.S. so long as C.I.S. policies make the C.I.S. an attractive place to invest. If the vestiges of socialism survive there, no amount of American aid will help.”

Clinton: The United States must respond to the threat posed by “the spread of deprivation and disorder in the former Soviet Union, which could lead to armed conflict among the republics or the rise of a fervently nationalistic and aggressive regime in Russia.” He advocates giving more assistance to the former Soviet republics but does not specify how much more.

Tsongas: “It is in our interest to have the least amount of economic chaos and disintegration in the Soviet Union or its successor entities.” He suggests a “new Marshall Plan” for the former Soviet Union although he does not specify how much aid should be sent.

Brown: “I support necessary and appropriate humanitarian aid to the peoples of the former Soviet Union. What I object to are the priorities of Mr. Bush, who focuses on foreign policy to the extent that he’s ignored the problems here at home.” But Brown says the United States should provide “appropriate seed money” to help the new states develop markets and promote economic stability. He does not say how much he considers appropriate.

DEFENSE POLICY

He plans to cut the Pentagon budget by $50 billion over the next five years but vows to resist any deeper reductions. “I say this to those who want to put down the scalpel and swing the meat ax: This deep, no deeper.” He has proposed ending the B-2 bomber program after completing 20 planes now on order; terminating research on a small, single-warhead intercontinental ballistic missile; ending production of the giant MX missile and stopping purchases of advanced cruise missiles.

Buchanan: In general, he supports a strong defense but he opposes overseas entanglements. He makes no estimate of how much his plan would cost. “This country has to remain first militarily,” he says. “That means first on land, first on sea, first in the air, first in technology. We must still build a land-based missile defense system, as well as deploy the Strategic Defense Initiative to ensure our security. I will not ask our allies who have been freeloading off us for the entire Cold War to carry more of the burden of their own defense, I will tell them they have to carry more of the burden of their own defense because American troops are coming home. Why do we need 200,000 American troops in Bavaria when the Red Army is going home?”

Clinton: “We cannot afford to go on spending too much on firepower and too little on brainpower.” He calls for deep--but unspecified--cuts in forces arrayed against the former Soviet Union while advocating a buildup in airlift and sea-lift capability needed to fight localized wars. He also calls for programs to cushion the impact of Pentagon budget cuts on military personnel and workers in defense plants. He calls for cancellation of the B-2 bomber program, cutting troop levels in Europe to less than 150,000 and reducing 12 aircraft carrier battle groups to 10.

“The Administration has called for a 21% cut in military spending through 1995. With the dwindling Soviet threat, we can cut defense spending by over a third by 1997.” But he adds: “The government should look out for its defense workers and the communities they live in.”

Tsongas: “We must divert part of our defense budget . . . to making us competitive in world trade markets,” he says without specifying an amount. “I would opt to reduce our troop commitments overseas and retain the research-and-development capabilities.” Also, he says the United States must be restrained in using its power as the world’s only remaining superpower. “We cannot intercede in every case where clashes have broken out. That temptation is a snare and must be resisted. No American blood should be casually spilled taking sides in the international affairs of woeful nations.”

Brown: “The Cold War is over. The military budget was increased 100% in response to the enhanced Soviet threat. Now, the changed circumstances in that part of the world require a 50% reduction, to be accomplished over the next five years. We can do this without compromising our national security.”