Clinton Defends Plan to Visit Beijing Square

Two weeks before embarking on the first presidential visit to China since the Beijing regime’s 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square, President Clinton on Thursday defended his planned stop at that site of tragedy.

Justifying his proposed appearance where Chinese troops nine years ago confronted protesters in bloody fashion, Clinton said a stop at the Great Hall of the People on the square will be a necessity of protocol and should not be seen as undercutting Washington’s ongoing push for improvements in human rights in China.

“Some have suggested I should refuse to take part in this traditional [greeting] ceremony, that somehow going there would absolve the Chinese government of its responsibility for the terrible killings at Tiananmen Square nine years ago, or indicate that America is no longer concerned about such conduct,” Clinton said. “They are wrong.

“Protocol and honoring a nation’s traditional practices should not be confused with principle,” said Clinton, who pointed out that leaders of France, Israel and other nations have recently participated in similar ceremonies at Tiananmen Square.

“China’s leaders, as I have repeatedly said, can only move beyond the events of June 1989 when they recognize the reality that what the government did was wrong,” the president said. “Sooner or later, they must do that. And perhaps most importantly, they must change course on this fundamentally important issue.”

Clinton asked aides to schedule his Thursday speech to quiet a growing chorus of critics who question, among other things, whether this president, under fire for his decision to allow U.S. satellite exports to Beijing, should be taking this trip at this time.

“I’m going because I think it’s the right thing to do for our country,” Clinton said in a speech at the National Geographic Society. “Over time, the more we bring China into the world, the more the world will bring freedom to China.”

His lofty rhetoric contrasted with the dense bureaucratic language of a stack of documents that the White House released Thursday in response to the controversy over Clinton’s decision to let Loral Space & Communications Ltd. attach a commercial satellite to a Chinese rocket. The New York-based firm is headed by Bernard Schwartz, the largest individual contributor to the Democratic Party for the 1996 elections.

The documents underscored the theme of Clinton’s speech, a preference for pragmatism over ideology in dealing with China.

Since the early days of his presidency, the documents show, Clinton--despite his campaign promises not to do business with Beijing--favored a pro-business policy.

Three months after assuming the presidency, Clinton allowed exports of U.S. satellite technology that had first been approved by President Bush. Clinton also approved later exports, though a memo from National Security Advisor Anthony Lake and Robert E. Rubin, now the Treasury secretary and then head of the National Economic Council, outlined “concerns that China may have transferred missiles or missile parts to Pakistan.”

The reasons--repeated throughout the documents--for approving the satellite exports included the belief that they would provide a lever to pressure China to keep its promises not to spread nuclear or missile technology; enable U.S. telecommunications companies to compete for the important new market and provide American jobs; and give more Chinese access to Western ideas through television.

In his point-by-point retort Thursday to critics of his China policy, the president argued for pragmatism.

Engagement with Beijing, he said, is crucial to combating arms proliferation, fostering stability in Asia, easing nuclear tensions between India and Pakistan, protecting the environment, strengthening the global economy and fighting international organized crime.

Trying to isolate China would be futile, said Clinton, seeking support for the “different course” of his administration: “We would succeed instead in isolating ourselves and our own policy. More important, choosing isolation over engagement would not make the world safer; it would make it more dangerous.”

As for approving satellite exports, he said his policy reflected a worldwide demand for the products--a fervor for them that outstripped the U.S. capacity to launch them.

While allowing the export of these items--used for television, cellular phones, pagers and other consumer products--there are safeguards to prevent them from being used to bolster China’s missile program, he said.

Republican critics pounced on Clinton’s remarks, saying the White House policy was excessively dominated by business concerns and accusing the administration of employing nothing more than empty rhetoric on human rights.

“The necessity to engage China is not being questioned--we are not forced to choose between engagement and isolation,” Sen. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) said. “The problem is that President Clinton’s engagement of China seems more like capitulation.”

Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.) said the ongoing investigations into U.S. satellite exports to China and other White House controversies will cast a shadow over the trip. “It’s hard to recall a presidential foreign visit ever made under such a dark cloud like the one which envelops this administration,” Hutchinson said in a statement.

Alluding to Clinton’s stop at Tiananmen Square, where a sweep by Chinese troops clearing the area may have cost the lives of hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of pro-democracy protesters, Hutchinson complained that the president “failed to mention a single consequence China would face if they don’t change their behavior on human rights.”

More generally, Clinton said engaging Chinese leaders in policy debate had a better chance of improving Beijing’s human rights policies than seeking to isolate the world’s most populous country.

“The question we Americans must answer is not whether we support human rights in China--surely, all of us do--but rather, what is the best way to advance them?” he said. “Had we been trying to isolate China rather than work with it, would China have agreed to stop assistance to Iran for its nuclear program, to terminate its assistance to un-safeguarded nuclear facilities such as those in Pakistan, to tighten its export-control system, to sell no more anti-ship cruise missiles to Iran?”

By contrast, Clinton maintained that a U.S. effort to isolate China “would encourage the Chinese to turn inward and to act in opposition to our interests and values.”

* DRILLING BAN: Clinton extends ban on new West Coast oil and gas drilling until 2005. A3