China Summit Must Proceed

It is as certain as anything can be in the murk of big-time politics that two years ago money from China was slipped by a middleman into the cesspool of Clinton reelection coffers, presumably in the hope of buying influence with the White House. Never mind that Clinton’s people shipped the radioactive yuan back to sender once it became known that the original giver may have been a Chinese army officer. Never mind that the reported amount of about $100,000 was, by the U.S. campaign-contribution yardstick, scarcely enough dough to secure the affections of a dogcatcher, much less a U.S. president. And never mind that in our politics, questionable contributions from U.S. businesses and all kinds of domestic special interests infest both Republican and Democratic parties. The American people still are owed an unsparing explanation.

But the question of whether the Clinton campaign tried to accept money from China, which was clumsily emulating foreign lobbying operations like Taiwan’s and Israel’s, is an issue separate from the question of whether inherently tense Sino-U.S. relations should be kept easing in a good direction. The call by House Speaker Newt Gingrich and other Republicans for Clinton to cancel his state visit to China next month (the first trip there by a president since 1989) is a partisan folly to be avoided if you accept that the bilateral relationship is one whose souring would be truly dangerous to world peace.

Let’s assume the absolute worst: That despite all the “What, us?” denials from Beijing and the White House, the back-channel shoveling of Chinese money influenced Clinton’s decision to allow transfers of sensitive U.S. satellite and missile technology. It’s a serious, though unproved, charge, but are we really ready to risk a new cold war over this? Or should we still keep trying to advance the difficult process of better Sino-U.S. relations as we try to sort out the facts?

Two weeks ago in Beijing, former Secretary of State Warren Christopher was into deep discussion with President Jiang Zemin, at his Forbidden City office, when U.S. Ambassador James R. Sasser dashed over with the first word of India’s surprise nuclear testing. Sasser knew that this shocking decision by a bordering power could powerfully affect China and lead it to renew its own testing. Christopher, now back with his L.A. law firm, O’Melveny & Myers, recalls musing then that “if the president’s trip was important before, it’s vastly more important now. It’s vital to persuade China that it will need no more tests and that it should use its influence with Pakistan not to start testing. Maybe China can even give North Korea incentives not to resume its nuclear program.”

Christopher resolutely refuses to be quoted directly on the explosive allegation that the White House in effect allowed U.S. technology to be transferred to China in return for contributions. But a fair summary of his views is that as secretary of state he was well aware that the president was under pressure to allow technology to be transferred to Beijing. But he is known to recall that while he never once heard of any pressure from foreign campaign contributors, he was aware there was plenty of it from the American business community.

If Newt Gingrich and others are hunting for the possible traitors who’d cozy up to evil communists and give them whatever their hardened hearts desire, they may be snooping in the wrong direction by targeting Asian bogeymen. The enemy within, dear Newt, is much closer to home. It’s those American business lobbyists in their Armani suits who agonize whenever their European competitors scarf up lucrative satellite telecommunication partnerships with China. They were the ones leaning on Clinton to loosen those strict rules barring U.S. technology transfers. Indeed, investigators are probing the full implications of $1 million in political contributions from a Loral Space and Communications executive that preceded a 1996 technology-transfer waiver granted by the White House.

So if Congress is looking for fellow travelers, all the probers have to do is hop on a flight to Beijing. They’ll find them hiding in plain sight in business class. And if our businessmen, Democratic and Republican, did permit loyalty to the bottom line to transcend that to country, let Gingrich expose them. But are these business people really communist dupes? And would they have pushed the president that hard if there had been a substantial national security risk in sharing such technology? That’s difficult for me to believe, though maybe Gingrich feels differently and has a better instinct for where the commies are buried. But until the American people have the sense that they know the full story, with all the complex and conflicting facts, let’s not immobilize American diplomacy. As Christopher says: “People who are saying now that Clinton shouldn’t go to China are giving America very bad advice.” At least as much as congressional hearings, it’s vital that the Sino-U.S. summit proceed apace.

*

Times columnist Tom Plate teaches in UCLA’s communication and policy studies programs. E-mail: tplate@ucla.edu