Insider : Clinton’s Tough China Talk Keeps Diplomats Guessing : Candidate’s adviser denies promising a softer position in visit to Beijing

At the Democratic Convention in New York City last July, Bill Clinton promised his cheering audience an America “that will not coddle tyrants, from Baghdad to Beijing.”

And in his biggest campaign speech on foreign policy, to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, Clinton excoriated President Bush for doing “business as usual with those who murdered freedom in Tian An Men Square.”

Does Clinton really mean it? How would he and a new Democratic administration conduct business with China? How tough would they be? Those questions are now the subject of fervid speculation in Washington, in China and in other Asian capitals.

Consider, for example, the current brouhaha over Richard Holbrooke, his summer trip to Beijing and his dealings with the Chinese leadership.

Holbrooke is the epitome of a Democratic Party insider. He helped Clark Clifford write his memoirs, escorted the Democrats’ grande dame Pamela (Mrs. Averell) Harriman to China and was assistant secretary of state for Asia during the Carter Administration. He was closely involved in Carter’s decision to establish diplomatic relations with China in 1979.

He is also one of a number of foreign-policy advisers to Clinton and is frequently mentioned as a possible appointee to the State Department or National Security Council if Clinton wins the White House.

On July 24, barely eight days after Clinton’s convention speech denouncing the “tyrants” of Beijing, Holbrooke made a trip to Beijing, where he met with senior Chinese leaders including Vice Premier Zhu Rongji and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen. Last month, when Qian visited the United Nations in New York City, Holbrooke hosted a dinner for him.

What happened at Holbrooke’s meetings is the subject of intense debate. Chinese dissidents claim to have heard that Holbrooke went to Beijing as an emissary of the Democratic nominee--and that he told the Chinese leaders not to worry too much about Clinton’s campaign rhetoric because China would preserve workable ties--and its prized most-favored-nation trade benefits--if Clinton wins.

Bush Administration officials, who rarely agree with Chinese dissidents about much of anything else, have heard the same stories and give them credence. One Administration official said he confirmed the account of Holbrooke’s sojourn after checking with a senior Chinese diplomat.

(This official did not leak or volunteer the report about Holbrooke’s trip but answered questions after this reporter raised them. The Bush people, who have been raked over the coals for their own secretive missions to Beijing after the Tian An Men massacre, no doubt relish the thought that a Democrat might do the same thing.)

Holbrooke adamantly denies these allegations about his trip. While freely acknowledging his meetings with the Chinese leaders, he says the notions that he went as an emissary of the Democratic campaign and that he sought to reassure the Chinese about Clinton are “totally false.”

“The Chinese, of course, expressed an interest in the (American) election,” he told The Times. “I told them I thought Clinton would win and that that was good for both China and the United States because it will revitalize the American economy.”

Holbrooke says he was in Beijing strictly on behalf of Lehman Brothers, the investment banking firm where he works and which has a number of private clients doing business in China.

“I said they ought to take seriously what Gov. Clinton said (about China),” Holbrooke explained. “I said I couldn’t amplify it because Gov. Clinton speaks for himself.”

Speaking for Clinton, Sandy Berger, another of the candidate’s foreign policy advisers, said last week: “I can assure you that Dick (Holbrooke) was not there on that trip or any other trip as an emissary of the Clinton campaign. Dick is a valued adviser to the campaign. But as far as Clinton’s position on China, what you see is what you get . . . The Bush people sent secret emissaries to China, not the Clinton campaign.”

Underlying the back-and-forth over the July trip is the uncertainty over what a new Democratic Administration would do about China.

If Clinton is elected, his China policy will be tugged by at least three different factions within the Democratic Party.

The first is the group of former Carter Administration officials, such as Holbrooke, who were most closely involved in China policy during the late 1970s and who tend to favor good relations with Beijing.

The second group includes Democratic lawmakers such as Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (Maine) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (California), who became involved in China policy over the last four years as critics of the Bush Administration and who favor a much tougher stance toward China.

The third faction is the group of labor leaders and old-line Democrats associated with former Sens. Hubert Humphrey and Henry (Scoop) Jackson, who were once active in pressing for hawkish policies toward Soviet communism and who now favor stronger efforts to bring about democracy in China.

Of course, no matter who wins in November, the next U.S. president will face many of the same pressures as he decides what to do about China.

The annual American trade deficit with China may soon approach $20 billion. China has made clear that it will continue at least some arms exports to countries the United States doesn’t like. And it is doubtful, at best, that China’s still-repressive Communist regime will soon have human rights policies that will satisfy the United States.

“Regardless of who’s elected, we’re likely to have some stormy weather in our relationship,” says Rep. Stephen J. Solarz (D-N.Y.), the outgoing chairman of the House subcommittee on Asia. “ . . . While China still has an important role to play in international affairs, it is not nearly as important to the United States as it was during the Cold War.”

Solarz believes that Clinton’s denunciation of the tyrants of Beijing “is real. I don’t believe it’s just rhetoric. If he is elected, we’ll find human rights is given greater weight in our policy towards China than in recent years.”

In November, 1980, China was caught off guard when Ronald Reagan, a staunch friend of Taiwan and critic of Beijing, defeated Carter at the polls. Chinese government sources say they don’t want to make the same mistake again.

They are already thinking ahead, trying to figure out what a Clinton presidency might mean. One Chinese government source said he doubts China will really be in jeopardy of losing its trade benefits in this country until 1994. By that time, he noted, China’s domestic reforms will have gone forward for another two years, and the transfer of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty will be only three years away.