[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 80 (Wednesday, June 22, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       A CRITIQUE OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY UNDER PRESIDENT CLINTON

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to again discuss the 
performance of the Clinton administration in the field of Foreign 
Policy.
  On May 4, 1994, I placed a chronology of foreign policy events of the 
Clinton administration into the Record. This chronology detailed the 
unfortunate record of this administration in foreign affairs.
  Today, I wish to include a series of foreign press statements from 
around the world on a variety of foreign policy topics. In this vein, I 
ask that this compilation of statements be printed in the Record 
following the text of my remarks.
  Mr. President, this latest episode which saw the administration agree 
to allow former President Carter to travel to North Korea to conduct 
private diplomacy with Kim Il-song, is a travesty. Worse yet, the 
Washington Post reported that the President and his senior staff 
attended a White House seminar on North Korea. Why does the 
administration have to bring in outsiders to advise the President on 
issues so vital to the Nation when he has the entire resources of the 
Federal Government to do so? Is it because the people chosen for this 
purpose who serve in the administration have been unable to perform the 
task? Or is it simply because the administration is lost in a fog as to 
what they should do and a casting about for anything that sounds 
reasonable?
  I suggest the latter and I might add that the President's continued 
lack of attention, interest and fortitude in foreign policy will come 
back to haunt us. Let us hope that for the sake of 37,000 young men and 
women sitting on the Korean DMZ, this administration's failings in 
foreign affairs don't come back to haunt them.
  The compilation follows:

     Innocents Abroad: How the World Views Clinton's Foreign Policy

 (By Lawrence T. DiRita, Deputy Director of Foreign Policy and Defense 
                                Studies)

       This month marks the fiftieth anniversary of the American-
     led invasion of Hitler's Europe. The Normandy landings turned 
     the tide of World War II and linked American leadership to 
     the future of Europe more closely than ever before. After the 
     Allied victory in Europe, as many as a half-million Americans 
     remained behind to guarantee that the bloody defeat of 
     fascism was not invalidated by capitulation to Soviet 
     communism. By 1991, American leadership had led to the 
     collapse of the Soviet Union, a victory no less complete than 
     that over Nazi Germany nearly half a century earlier.
       American leadership overcame similar challenges in Asia. 
     Next year will see observances of the fiftieth anniversary of 
     the defeat of Imperial Japan and the establishment of 
     stability and prosperity in Asia. The United States since 
     World War II has been trusted throughout Asia with 
     maintaining the balance of power, and resolute American 
     leadership has turned once bitter enemies into the closest 
     economic and strategic partners.
       But as President Clinton returns from Europe, where he 
     presided over the Normandy anniversary celebrations, 
     Americans are uneasy about his ability to sustain the global 
     leadership that the event recalled. In a recent poll, 53 
     percent of those questioned disapproved of his handling of 
     foreign policy generally; only thirteen percent believe he 
     even has a clear foreign policy.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This doubt stems from the confused and often contradictory 
     nature of the Clinton Administration's foreign policy. In 
     Haiti, for example, the President first promised to end the 
     Bush policy of returning refugees to Haiti, then reversed 
     himself and adopted the identical policy. He reversed himself 
     again later by bowing to liberal pressure to tighten 
     sanctions and even to threaten invasion. More recently, 
     President Clinton decided to extend most-favored nation trade 
     benefits to the People's Republic of China (PRC), but only 
     after having accused former President Bush of ``coddling'' 
     the ``dictators'' in Beijing with the same policy.
       These policy reversals and vacillations are symptomatic of 
     a President without a clear foreign policy vision. This lack 
     of leadership already is having an effect on how the world 
     views the credibility and prestige of the United States. The 
     overseas media coverage of American foreign policy has become 
     increasingly negative, often hostile, as the Clinton 
     Administration continues to drift in its relations with the 
     world. Whether it is the recent tribal warfare in Rwanda or 
     the nuclear stand-off on the Korean Peninsula, U.S. policies 
     increasingly are portrayed in the foreign press as 
     indecisive, incompetent, inconsistent, and shapeless.
       This negative coverage is in marked contrast to that which 
     George Bush received during the Persian Gulf War. Typical was 
     the front page comment in Germany's Stuttgarter Zeitung, 
     noting that ``[t]he Gulf War means that the Americans have 
     finally come to terms with the Vietnam trauma. The U.S. armed 
     forces have shown that they can win . . . [T]he United States 
     proved to be a reliable partner who does not dodge a critical 
     situation . . . [and] emerges strengthened out of this 
     conflict. The President showed initiative, leadership, 
     strength, and stamina.''\2\
       Such optimism about U.S. leadership abroad is not readily 
     found today. Consider a recent editorial in France's leading 
     daily, Le Monde. Regarding the current crisis in the former 
     Yugoslavia, the paper acknowledged that ``. . . since World 
     War II, Europe has never appealed so forcefully to the United 
     States. And never has it had to deplore such a noncommittal 
     and inconsistent policy by the United States.''\3\
       What follows are excerpts from a variety of sources that 
     typify the foreign press's coverage of Clinton's foreign 
     policy. Their opinions should be disturbing for Americans. 
     They show a growing contempt and disrespect for a country 
     that only two years ago was the awe and envy of the world.\4\
       Tucker Bailey conducted research for this publication.


                               footnotes

     \1\ABC/Washington Post Poll May 12-15, 1994. Cited in Cord 
     Meyer, ``Foreign Policy Achilles Heel,'' The Washington 
     Times, May 20, 1994.
     \2\``Bush's Victory'' Stuttgarter Zeitung, March 1, 1991. As 
     cited in United States Information Agency (USIA) Foreign 
     Media Reaction Daily Digest, March 1, 1991, p. 4.
     \3\``U.S. Inconsistencies'' Le Monde, May 15-16, 1994, p. 1. 
     As cited in Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) WEU-
     94-095, May 17, 1994.
     \4\Most of the comments have been circulated in the United 
     States Information Agency's Foreign Media Reaction Daily 
     Digest. Those quotes drawn from the Daily Digest are marked 
     by an asterisk. All others are drawn from the original source 
     or as indicated.


        how the world views clinton's foreign policy from europe

       ``Cornered By His Past'':
       ``On foreign policy is simply embarrassing. some of his 
     flailing is understandable. . . . But much of it is the 
     result of lack of attention, time and cure: and, not least, 
     lack of spine.''--The Economist (Britain), June 4, 1994.
       ``Clinton Uninterested In Imperial Aspects Of His Job'':
       Unfortunately, the White House is now inhabited by one of 
     the most parochial and indecisive leaders in the history of 
     the presidency. . . . All the signs are that President 
     Clinton is uninterested in the imperial aspects of his 
     job.''--The Daily Telegraph (London), May 14, 1994
       ``Diplomatic Schizophrenia'':
       ``It is hard to discern the guiding principles upon which 
     any future [American] interventions would be undertaken. . . 
     . As it stands, American policy apparently ascribed equal 
     significance to the restoration of a flaky exponent of 
     liberation theology to the presidency of Haiti as it does to 
     the curtailment of North Korea's nuclear program. . . .''--
     The Daily Telegraph (London), May 9, 1994.
       ``Clinton Needs A Coherent Foreign Policy'':
       ``The problem for the administration is that Mr. Clinton's 
     habit of talking tough and then retreating at the first sign 
     of resistance is now so notorious that it is undermining his 
     credibility from Port-au-Prince to Pyongyang. . . . To stay 
     in the White House in 1996, Mr. Clinton needs to show he can 
     formulate and implement a coherent foreign policy.''--The 
     Independent (London), May 5, 1994.
       ``Is There A President In The White House?'':
       ``Is there a president at the White House? More and more 
     European and Asian leaders start to ask the question. . . . 
     There is a long list of failures on the part of the 
     president, who some days, does not spend more than a half 
     hour on international affairs, but who has multiplied by 10 
     White House funds for polling. . . . The list begins with the 
     withdrawal from Somalia. . . . The refusal to send American 
     ground troops to Bosnia. . . . The officials at Port-au-
     Prince quickly figured how to profit from American 
     indecisiveness in Somalia. . . . Same thing with Kim Il-sung, 
     the old tyrant from North Korea, who trifled for 14 months 
     with the calls from the United States . . . in order to keep 
     secret his military nuclear programs. And while waiting for 
     extension of the Most Favored Nation status, China refuses to 
     assist the Untied States in this affair, because it is 
     convinced of Clinton's immeasurable capability for 
     ambivalence.''--Liberation (Paris), May 3, 1994.
       ``Clinton Foreign Policy A Disaster'':
       ``Clinton, since his election, shows himself a real 
     disaster in foreign policy matters. . . . He can only be 
     proud of one success in this field: The . . . Rabin-Arafat 
     handshake at the White House. For the rest, all the rest, the 
     `imperial republic' . . . accumulates humiliating failures. 
     It gave up in Haiti in front of the rabble. It fled away from 
     Somalia. It did not make a move concerning the drama in 
     Rwanda. . . . the temporary rescue of the `safe area' of 
     Gorazde [in Bosnia] comes too late, after a series of 
     retreats.''--l'Express (France), April 29, 1994.
       ``Why American Doesn't Lead'':
       ``Eighteen months after his election, [President Clinton] 
     still makes foreign policy like a governor of Arkansas. His 
     pollster at his elbow, he tries to dispose of each new 
     problem as swiftly and cheaply as he presumes Americans would 
     like. . . . since it lacks ideas of its own, the Clinton 
     administration looks for guidance elsewhere. . . . Why does 
     this happen, and go on happening?. . . . Mr. Clinton does not 
     care for foreign policy. . . . Mr. Clinton, bereft of 
     instincts in foreign policy, needs to be coaches by an expert 
     to do the job the world requires of him . . . [E]xpert 
     coaching requires what the president is not prepared to give: 
     time, thought and application. . . . In times of crisis 
     Americans have historically rallied round their president, 
     even in support of policies that were neither cost- nor risk-
     free. They long to be led, and that could be Mr. Clinton's 
     vital first step: lead America first, lead the world 
     next.''--The Economist (Britain), April 30, 1994.
       ``U.S. All-Or-Nothing Approach Counterproductive'':
       ``The United States has a comply-or-else approach to 
     foreign policy that is becoming . . . highly 
     counterproductive. . . . It has reduced American public 
     policy in Asia to a series of single issue obedience tests 
     for other countries--human rights in China, nuclear bombs in 
     North Korea, market openings in Japan, American bodies in 
     Vietnam. It gives little room for maneuver, makes annual 
     deadlines into almost automatic crises and walks into the 
     arms of those regimes who need a foreign bogey for their own 
     dim purposes.''--The Guardian (London), May 18, 1994.
       ``Adams and the Alliance'':
       ``The disgraceful decision by President Clinton to grant a 
     visa to one of the world's leading terrorists [Irish 
     Republican Army Leader Gerry Adams] . . . speaks volumes for 
     the manner in which Mr. Clinton chooses to conduct American 
     foreign policy and the sorry consequences it has had for the 
     Anglo-American relationship. . . . The fact that [the 
     decision] meant slighting America's closest ally and plunging 
     the special relationship into its worst crisis since Suez 
     counted for naught. The harsh fact for Britain is that in Mr. 
     Clinton's Washington that relationship does indeed 
     increasingly count for nothing. This is an administration 
     which, when it thinks of foreign policy (and that it does 
     rarely), thinks of Asia.''-The Sunday Times (London), 
     February 6, 1994 (Cited in FBIS-WEU-94-032-A).
       ``Contradictions'':
       ``A [CNN] news conference of contradictions. . . . `Clinton 
     without a clue' was . . . the most prevalent impression the 
     president left behind . . . What he announced was 
     questionable and soft as putty, while failing to address some 
     things at all. . . . He took shelter in generalities and 
     remained vague and was thus not able to refute criticism of 
     his lack of foreign policy concepts.''--Sueddeutsche Zeitung 
     (Munich), May 5, 1994.
       ``Sounded Good, But Left One Wondering'':
       ``[The news conference left one] wondering after it was all 
     over whether [President Clinton] is really in possession of 
     the foreign policy map he had talked about and what he 
     actually said in concrete terms.''--Frankfurter Allgemeine, 
     (Frankfurt), May 5, 1994.
       ``Sounds Like Roosevelt, Draws Back Like Carter'':
       ``Mr. Clinton, who likes to talk like Franklin Roosevelt, 
     often draws back like Jimmy Carter when it is a matter of 
     getting going . . . The Americans don't want their children 
     killed in far-away wars, but they want the United States to 
     keep its role of leader of the free world. Clinton refuses to 
     use his political capital for the management of foreign 
     crises.''--Le Figaro (Paris), May 5, 1994.
       ``Waiting For President's Foreign Policy'':
       ``The mystery of American foreign policy under Clinton's 
     leadership is increasing with each appearance where the 
     president tries to dispel the shadows. . .  After this [news 
     conference], frustrated Americans and the embarrassed world 
     are still waiting for the president's foreign policy.''--
     Liberation (Paris), May 5, 1994.
       ``Clinton Did Not Exorcise Ghosts of Nixon, Bush'':
       ``Clinton . . . did not succeed in exorcising the ghosts of 
     two of his predecessors, Nixon and Bush. The former was, to 
     the very end, a severe critic of the White House's 
     international strategy. The latter, the winner of the Gulf 
     War, is living proof that the United States is still capable 
     of imposing peace and defeating the enemies of the new world 
     order.''--La Repubblica (Rome), May 5, 1995.
       ``No Consistent Or Comprehensible Foreign Policy'':
       ``Washington has not been able to create a consistent and 
     comprehensible foreign policy. The results of its wavering 
     are visible to everybody in places like Mogadishu, Gorazde 
     and Port-au-Prince. None of these places alone harmed vital 
     U.S. interests but together they did. A great power's 
     credibility and prestige have been wasted without any 
     concrete results.''--Helsinging Sanomat (Helsinki), May 10, 
     1994.
       ``Indecisiveness, Inconsistency Of U.S. Policy'':
       ``With Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, and North Korea, American 
     policy has been revealing its indecisiveness and 
     inconsistency for more than a year. . . .''--Dnevnik 
     (Slovenia), May 14, 1994.
       ``Words And Action'':
       ``The surprising element in the U.S. position is its 
     irresolution, the apparent gap between words and action. . .  
     [I]f the United States still wants to be taken seriously, it 
     must take itself at its word. The catalogue of sins that 
     Japan has been confronted with for many years quite obviously 
     does not have the expected effect. Trade delegate Mickey 
     Kantor has a reputation for being tough. Maybe toughness is 
     only a disguise for a lack of concept, a lacking conclusive 
     policy.''--Handelsblatt (Duesseldorf), February 17, 1994 
     (Cited in FBIS-WEU-94-036).
       ``Clinton's Shapeless Foreign Policy'':
       ``For Clinton, his policy on China is only one aspect of a 
     generally shapeless foreign policy. At the [November 1993 
     APEC] summit conference in Seattle, Clinton attached more 
     importance to the Asian-Pacific region than to relations with 
     Europe. Now he is in a clinch with the Japanese and waging a 
     war of words with Singapore. Indonesia has warned the United 
     States not to try and interfere in its policy on labor unions 
     and Malaysians are cool. Under pressure from senators and 
     congressmen in his own party, Clinton is now forced to rap 
     China on the knuckles without causing a revolt among the U.S. 
     business world. . . . In this helpless situation, honesty 
     would be refreshing.''--General-Anzeiger (Bonn), May 18, 
     1994.
       ``Clinton Administration's Problems In Asia'':
       ``The administration's problems [in Asia], as in other 
     aspects of its foreign policy, stem from a failure to grasp 
     the possibilities and limits of American power. . . . As Mr. 
     Clinton is discovering, cost-free economic levers can be as 
     hard to find as peril-free military ones. Asian leaders are 
     resisting the idea that access to American markets requires 
     them to dance to Washington's political tune. . . . The 
     problem lies not with the objectives--human rights, open 
     markets, non-proliferation--but with the means chosen.''--The 
     Times (London), April 5, 1994.
       ``Clinton Policy In Yugoslavia Idiotic'':
       ``With its strident calls for air strikes, the U.S. 
     administration asserts that it wants to reinforce the UN's 
     credibility. Far from it: Washington's policy is to use the 
     UN as a justification for policies already decided by the 
     president and his bumbling entourage. . . . Most American 
     commentators are now saying publicly what some notable U.S. 
     ambassadors privately admit: that Clinton's policy in 
     Yugoslavia is idiotic.''--The Independent (London), May 6, 
     1994.
       ``U.S. Inconsistencies'':
       ``Is there such a thing as a U.S. policy on Bosnia? Judging 
     from the Geneva meeting on Friday, 13 May, the answer can 
     only be negative. While the United States agreed to the 
     approach advocated by the Europeans with respect to the 
     Bosnian crisis, it was once more with plenty of reservations 
     and unresolved contradictions.''--Le Monde (Paris), May 15-
     16, 1994. (Cited in FBIS-WEIU-94-095).
       ``Europe After Clinton'':
       ``. . . [A] large number of people, not counting saxophone 
     lovers, . . . are beginning to find the presidential tone a 
     little thin. Perhaps too many people. And everybody is 
     already wondering: Who will pay for the U.S. President's 
     ulterior motives or errors of analysis? President Clinton's 
     behavior on the Bosnian issue has not allayed these fears; 
     quite the reverse.''--Liberation (Paris), January 18, 1994. 
     (Cited in FBIS-WEU-94-012).
       ``Clinton's New-Found Resolve Greeted With Skepticism'':
       ``[President Clinton's] new-found resolve [over Haiti] has, 
     however, been greeted at best with skepticism, at worst with 
     Newsweek's contemptuous dismissal of his threats as tough 
     talk amounting to no more than `the policy equivalent of a 
     one night stand.' So low is the president's credibility in 
     foreign affairs . . . Mr. Clinton has blamed the UN in 
     Somalia and the Europeans in Bosnia; if he has to order the 
     Marines to Haiti, he will have no one to blame but his 
     secretary of state and himself.''--The Times (London), May 5, 
     1994.
       ``Rwandans Dying Because U.S. Messed Up in Somalia'':
       ``Retrospectively, Washington is trying to present its 
     intervention in Somalia as some UN foul-up, in which it 
     unfortunately became entangled. . . . But the Somalia 
     intervention was made in the USA. . . . Washington cut and 
     ran. Now the Clinton administration is trying to delay troops 
     being sent by other nations to the worst man-made disaster 
     since the Second World War, Rwandans are dying because the 
     United States messed up in Somalia.''--The Times (London), 
     May 18, 1994.
       ``Clinton Unwilling To Assume Global Leadership of U.S.'':
       ``[President Clinton's] attempts to master the many crisis 
     areas with the help of the UN show a deep misunderstanding of 
     [its] role . . . [W]hen things get serious, the UN has to be 
     led into action by the United States, as happened in the Gulf 
     War.''--Wirtschaftsworche (Austria), April 29, 1994.
       ``Clinton's Lack of Will'':
       ``The United States has retreated from President Clinton's 
     fiery rhetoric of last July--when he vowed the destruction of 
     North Korea if it used a nuclear device--to actions that 
     suggest that almost any deal is worthwhile. Having declared 
     then that no inducements would be offered to Pyongyang until 
     it fulfilled its international obligations, the 
     Administration is now offering a string of concessions. In so 
     doing, it has undermined the International Atomic Energy 
     Agency's insistence on regular ``challenge'' inspections of 
     undeclared sites.''--The Daily Telegraph (London), January 
     11, 1994. (Cited in FBIS-WEU-94-007).

                           From Latin America

       ``Is Clinton Not Interested In Foreign Policy?'':
       ``Haiti is just one of the Clinton administration's many 
     international policy failures. . . . The Haitian question may 
     cost the head of another member of Clinton's foreign policy 
     staff, National Security Adviser Anthony Lake. . . . But the 
     Clinton administration's major foreign policy problem is the 
     president himself, who does not like the subject and prefers 
     to avoid it whenever possible.''--Folha de Sao Paulo 
     (Brazil), May 12, 1994.
       ``Does U.S. Have A President?'':
       ``Haiti is at least one, among various cases in which, 
     accused of the sin of omission or hesitancy in action, the 
     Clinton administration gives reason to wonder whether there 
     is a president of the United States.''--O Globo (Brazil), May 
     14, 1994.
       ``Improvised Initiatives, With Polls In Hand'':
       ``From Somalia to North Korea, American diplomacy has 
     become . . . a succession of improvised initiatives, about-
     faces, empty threats and general confusion. From Haiti to 
     China, the credibility of Washington's policy of defending 
     democracy and human rights has evaporated. . . .''--O Estado 
     de Sao Paulo (Brazil), May 2, 1994.
       ``Significant U.S. Step Backward On Peacekeeping'':
       ``After a year of indecision, failures and moderate 
     triumphs in maintaining peace in situations and places so 
     dissimilar like Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti, the Clinton 
     administration has just taken a significant step backward in 
     its effort to build a multilateral structure of a military 
     nature destined to resolve regional conflicts and protect 
     democracy and human rights around the world.''--El Cronista 
     (Argentina), May 10, 1994.
       ``U.S. Haitian Policy'':
       ``President Clinton has done a number of flip-flops in the 
     past year regarding policy on Haiti. If the regime in that 
     country is not soon changed, he may very well have to do 
     another.''--Nassau Guardian (Bahamas), May 12, 1994.
       ``The Empire Attacks And World Applauds'':
       ``What is disconcerting, dangerous and incredible in the 
     Haitian case is that the U.S. president has reached the 
     decision [to consider using military force], possibly against 
     his own wishes and without being sure that it is what suits 
     best the interests of his own nation-empire. . . .''--La 
     Razon (La Paz), May 5, 1994.

                               From Asia

       ``Financial Markets Losing Faith In Clinton Economic 
     Policy'':
       ``The markets' declining confidence in the Clinton White 
     House runs parallel to international loss of faith in the 
     Clinton foreign policy and the erosion of public trust in the 
     Clintons' personal lives--a trifecta captured in the Wall 
     Street rumor this week of a new portfolio of `White House 
     bonds' to be issued by the U.S. Treasury: a Gore bond, with 
     no interest; a Stephanopoulos bond with no maturity; and a 
     Clinton bond with no principle.''--Austrialian Financial 
     Review (Australia), May 6, 1994.
       ``U.S. East Asian Policy Failure'':
       ``President Clinton himself has no experience in dealing 
     with foreign policy. The senior State Department officials he 
     relies on . . . are people who have been out of the foreign 
     service too long or who are new to their job. They are out of 
     touch with political reality and formulate impractical 
     policy. Their inability to see the woods for the trees leads 
     U.S. foreign policy to run into walls in China and Japan and 
     on the Korean peninsula. The world situation has changed and 
     U.S. influence has correspondingly been diminished.''--Sin 
     Chew Jit Poh (Malaysia), March 31, 1994.
       ``Decline Of U.S. Status'':
       ``The adjustment of [U.S. peacekeeping] policy transmits 
     the message that the United States cannot solve various 
     conflicts in the world. . . . Observers believe that the 
     adjustment of . . . policy demonstrates the decline of the 
     U.S. status. . . .''--People's Daily (Peoples' Republic of 
     China), May 10, 1994.
       ``Leadership'':
       ``[Mr. Nixon's] approach to government offers an example of 
     Machiavellian intrigue. . . . But Mr. Nixon provided 
     leadership, whatever its quality. And this is the one Nixon 
     characteristic which the present incumbent in the White 
     House, morally circumscribed and hedged in by principle, 
     might usefully seek to emulate.``--Business Times 
     (Singapore), April 29, 1994.
       ``Hesitant'':
       ``U.S. policy toward North Korea is similarly hesitant. At 
     first it resolved that North Korea would not be allowed to 
     possess nuclear arms. Recently the U.S. secretary of defense 
     said North Korea will not be allowed to have `significant' 
     nuclear bombs. Different quarters wonder if this is a 
     deviation from the earlier position. Similar questions are 
     being asked about U.S. policy toward China and Haiti.''--
     Ittefaq (Bangladesh), May 3, 1994.
       ``The East Has The Numbers To Prevail In APEC'':
       ``[The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum] can 
     provide an international forum in which East Asia can isolate 
     America when it oversteps the mark in flexing its bilateral 
     muscle. . . . Isolated within APEC, the Clinton 
     administration is also deeply divided internally on its China 
     policy. The formula worked out last May by the Clinton team . 
     . . is in deep trouble. . . . The Chinese must now be 
     confident that they have called Mr. Clinton's bluff.''--
     Australian Financial Review (Australia), March 25, 1994.
       ``U.S. Should Change Its Asian Policy'':
       ``Clinton has not done anything worth praising during his 
     interactions with the Asian countries; the reason is that it 
     is wrong to use human rights and trade as the focus of 
     foreign policy. The Clinton administration's Asian policy 
     should change or else the United States will be incapable of 
     handling the Asian situation.''--Sing Tao Daily News (Hong 
     Kong), April 3, 1994.
       ``Does U.S. President Want To Launch A Trade War?'':
       ``The United States has not stopped linking human rights 
     with economic issues and now it wants to link up the Chinese 
     national enterprises. If Clinton is determined to launch a 
     global trade war, the United States will be losing Asia and 
     even the world.''--Tin Tin Daily News (Hong Kong), April 6, 
     1994.
       ``U.S. Must Curb Human Rights Bias'':
       ``Washington was a paper tiger in its trade war with Japan. 
     It will inevitably be a paper tiger one more time in its 
     controversy over trade issues with China.''--Nanyang Siang 
     Pau (Malaysia), March 19, 1994.
       ``Diplomacy By Ultimatum'':
       ``The American `diplomacy by ultimatum' does not seem to be 
     working. It failed in Tokyo, it is failing in Pyongyang and 
     the Chinese crisis is regarded within the U.S. itself as a 
     fiasco of monumental proportions.''--The Times Journal 
     (Manila), March 30, 1994.
       ``MFN Should Not Become A Political Weapon'':
       ``From the facts that Beijing laughed at the human rights 
     card played by Americans . . . , it is apparent that 
     Washington's move to link `human rights' with `trade' is very 
     unwise. . . . To view [the issue] from a practical point of 
     view, `MFN' is really not a very good political weapon.''--
     The China Times (Taiwan), March 27-April 2, 1994.
       ``U.S. Foreign Policy: Driven By The Banks?'':
       ``The United States will have won few friends with what is 
     little short of outright bullying in the cases of China and 
     Japan. In relation to China, the pretense that the United 
     States is seriously concerned about the `human rights' of 
     Chinese citizens deceives no one. China has had at least 
     half-a-million political prisoners for decades. . . . The 
     United States has observed these permanent factors of Chinese 
     society with equanimity for years. Why the sudden outbreak of 
     moral concern?''--News Weekly (Australia), April 6, 1994.
       ``U.S. Prestige Declining Over Human Rights Policy'':
       ``The prestige of the United States . . . is declining 
     rapidly over its human rights diplomacy. Even though the 
     United States . . . continues to single out foreign countries 
     as violators of human rights, it can hardly have it all its 
     own way. The traditional U.S. diplomatic strategy of linking 
     democratization and peace and security also seems to have 
     come off its hinges. Developing countries have detected an 
     opportunistic aspect of [the Clinton administration's] human 
     rights diplomacy. . . .''--Nihon Keizai (Japan), April 5, 
     1994.
       ``U.S. Policies On Labor Anger Asian Nations'':
       ``U.S. policies are increasingly antagonizing Asian 
     nations, with the latest U.S. move to link trade and labor 
     standards in world trade accords bitterly opposed throughout 
     the region. . . . Australia opposes the U.S. move.''--The 
     Australian (Australia), March 31, 1994.

                          From the Middle East

       ``U.S. Schizophrenia'':
       ``The problem is that America has `schizophrenia.' On one 
     hand, it hastens to send troops, and on the other it 
     procrastinates . . . and even forbids others to exert an 
     effort, a matter which encourages aggressors and raises 
     questions about the reality of its foreign policy.''--Al-
     Gomhouriya (Egypt), May 7, 1994.*

                              From Africa

       ``A Constant Filp-Flop'':
       ``The dissolution of the previous bipolar political system 
     following the collapse of the Soviet empire, did not 
     automatically mean an ultimate American dominance and 
     effective leadership as we expected or [were] made to 
     believe. Nothing justifies this point more than the belated, 
     albeit, abject failure by President Clinton to define his 
     administration's foreign policy. . . .''--The Standard 
     (Kenya), May 9, 1994.
       ``China Will Be The Superpower Of The 21st Century'':
       ``The fickleness of American leadership of a largely free 
     world has hastened the appearance of the Chinese dragon on 
     the world scene. And if care is not taken, China may yet 
     emerge as the dominant superpower at the end of this very 
     century.''--The Daily Times (Nigeria), April 6, 1994.

                          ____________________