[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 145 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11187-S11189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     UNITED STATES-CHINA RELATIONS

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to address the state of 
United States-China relations as the summit with Chinese President 
Jiang Zemin approaches. President Clinton is expected to give a speech 
this afternoon on United States-China relations, a speech that will, no 
doubt, continue to defend the administration's policy of so-called 
``constructive engagement'' with China. The policy generally posits 
that there is no alternative for the United States but to accommodate 
China in virtually any behavior in hope of establishing a good 
relationship with Beijing.
  I want to be clear that I certainly do hope that a stable and 
positive relationship can be established between our two countries, but 
the administration's China policy of engagement gives little regard to 
the behavior of China and is putting the prospect of a strong 
relationship with Beijing at risk. Rather than constructively engage 
Beijing, this administration's China policy has been advanced at the 
expense of discarded American principles and lost United States 
credibility in the international arena. For instance, China has a 
weapons proliferation record that is unrivaled in the world, 
distributing weapons of mass destruction in spite of previous 
nonproliferation commitments. Beijing also maintains trade barriers 
which continue to block United States goods and United States companies 
from being involved in the kind of free and open commerce we should 
have with China. And in the last several years, Beijing has had a human 
rights record that has resulted in the most intense religious 
persecution in several decades, and in the silencing of all active 
political dissidents.
  The latest State Department report on human rights noted that all 
Chinese political dissidents had been detained and imprisoned. We have 
to remind

[[Page S11188]]

ourselves that there are 1.3 billion people in China and to be without 
any political dissent in a country that large is indeed a troubling 
matter.
  In spite of these distressing areas in our relationship with China, 
there is near unanimity in the administration that China must be 
embraced, that it must be accommodated, that it somehow must be 
honored. Betraying our country's history of leadership in defense of 
freedom and a stable international environment is not a way to enhance 
our relationship with China.
  I believe a strong relationship would be based on mutual respect and 
trust, but when we constantly compromise, when we constantly 
accommodate, and when we constantly ignore violations by the Chinese of 
their responsibilities in the international community and their 
responsibilities to respect human rights, I believe we don't provide a 
foundation for a good United States-China relationship.
  Nuclear cooperation with China is one of the issues for discussion 
during the summit, and it is an issue of particular concern to me. If 
the President allows nuclear cooperation with China to proceed, it may 
be the clearest illustration yet of the appeasement-at-any-cost 
approach in our present United States-China policy.
  The President is considering giving China advanced United States 
nuclear technology in spite of the fact that a CIA report identified 
China as the world's worst proliferator of weapons-of-mass-destruction 
technology. This CIA report is not a stale document. This report 
indicates that the Chinese have been the worst proliferators of weapons 
of mass destruction, and this report came out last June.
  The report says:

       During the last half of 1996, China was the most 
     significant supplier of weapons-of-mass-destruction-related 
     goods and technology to foreign countries. The Chinese 
     provided a tremendous variety of assistance to both Iran's 
     and Pakistan's ballistic missile programs. China was also the 
     primary source of nuclear-related equipment and technology to 
     Pakistan and a key supplier to Iran during this reporting 
     period.

  The period the CIA report covers is the last half of 1996. In May 
1996, just before the period for the CIA report was to commence, the 
Chinese made a commitment to stop their proliferation activities.
  In the face of one of their rather notable assurances that they were 
going to act differently, they continued to persist in their active 
nuclear technology proliferation and the proliferation of other weapons 
of mass destruction technologies. Of course, the definition of weapons 
of mass destruction includes nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. 
If there is any doubt as to what kind of nuclear-related equipment was 
provided, the CIA report goes on to state:

       Pakistan was very aggressive in seeking out equipment, 
     material and technology for its nuclear weapons program with 
     China as its principal supplier.

  The administration says China has honored its nonproliferation pledge 
of May 1996. But let me again make clear that the CIA report covers the 
last half of 1996, the period after China made its so-called nuclear 
nonproliferation commitment. How the administration can expect to be a 
credible actor in the international community by saying that the 
nonproliferation commitment of May 1996 was honored, when the CIA says 
that after May, China was the principal supplier to Pakistan of 
equipment, material and technology for a nuclear weapons program--how 
the administration can say that is consistent with the nonproliferation 
commitment is beyond me.
  Since 1985, no President has been able to certify that China's 
proliferation activities meet the legal requirements that would allow 
us to start designating them as a nuclear cooperator and to extend to 
them nuclear exports from the United States. I certainly don't believe 
China's recent activities warrant such certification now, not in the 
face of our own Government's report that they were the worst 
proliferators of components, equipment, and technology related to 
weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons of mass 
destruction.

  I might point out that Ken Adelman, President Reagan's Director of 
the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and a key official involved in 
the formulation of the original 1985 agreement, also does not believe 
that China's recent activities warrant the certification for nuclear 
cooperation to proceed.
  China has made several nonproliferation promises in recent weeks to 
reassure the administration. While these commitments have the potential 
to improve China's proliferation record, China has made and broken 
nonproliferation commitments for a decade. I think we should first ask 
that China at least keep its word for some interval of time rather than 
blindly accept China's most recent nonproliferation promises even 
though the previous ones have been broken.
  We all know the potential for this nuclear technology to be used in a 
variety of settings and ways. I believe China must establish its 
commitment to nonproliferation in deeds, not just words. Chinese 
credibility should be established before nuclear-related trade takes 
place between the United States and China.
  The administration does not want Chinese President Jiang Zemin to 
return to Beijing emptyhanded. I think that is kind and generous and 
warm hearted, but I question the need to give China nuclear technology 
just to make President Jiang happy.
  Have we forgotten the summit itself is a major gift to President 
Jiang, and why are we so anxious to make concessions to China? I hope 
the President of the United States understands that at stake in the 
nuclear cooperation debate is the credibility of the United States in 
combatting the global spread of weapons of mass destruction. Rather 
than forcefully address this critical national security threat, our 
administration apparently is downsizing our counterproliferation 
apparatus and making life uncomfortable for key personnel who have 
dedicated their lives to protect our country from the spread of weapons 
of mass destruction.
  The recent announcement of the retirement of Gordon Oehler from the 
Central Intelligence Agency is, according to an article in the 
Washington Post, driven by the administration's disapproval of Mr. 
Oehler's candor and his honesty in informing Congress of the weapons 
proliferation activity, not only of China but of other nations.
  Is our administration so infatuated with charming China at any price 
that we are willing to ignore the facts presented by our intelligence 
personnel, and when the facts are troublesome to us, that we make these 
intelligence officers so uncomfortable that they resign?
  Government personnel like Gordon Oehler should be praised and thanked 
for helping defend our country and keeping Congress informed of rising 
threats to our national security.
  Mr. President, China potentially has broken every major commitment 
that it has made concerning the production or proliferation of weapons 
of mass destruction or the missile delivery systems to deliver such 
weapons. In light of China's behavior, it is difficult to understand 
why President Clinton is so eager to accept placebos and questionable 
promises in exchange for the transfer of valuable and potentially 
dangerous nuclear technology. The United States needs to be sober and 
vigilant in dealing with China.
  A stable and truly constructive relationship with Beijing will be 
established only when our national security interests are defended and 
when our commitment to the principles of liberty and freedom is 
preserved.
  There is something substantially different between our commitment to 
freedom and liberty and what is occurring in China. President Jiang's 
remarks recently indicate that he does not believe that freedom is for 
all individuals, that freedom is something that is negotiable. He said, 
``The theory of relativity worked out by Mr. Einstein which is in the 
domain of natural science, I believe, can be applied to the political 
field.''
  We in the United States believe in God-given rights that are not 
relative, and our policy with regard to China should be a policy which 
is based on credibility and integrity. Appeasement or engagement 
without integrity is nothing more than a surrender of American 
principles.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post 
article to which I referred earlier be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S11189]]

                      The Aging Maoists of Beijing

                           (By Michael Kelly)

       It has been 12 years since the leader of the People's 
     Republic of China has honored the United States with a visit, 
     and in the meantime relations between us have become--as they 
     say--strained. It has seemed at times almost as if the aging 
     Maoists of Beijing were trying to flaunt their disdain for 
     American values and American interests. There was the ever-
     ending campaign of torture and imprisonment against advocates 
     of political and religious liberty. There was, despite 
     Richard Gore, the continued occupation and subjugation of 
     Tibet. There was the unpleasantness at Tiananmen Square. 
     There were the arms sales and the nuclear assistance to 
     nations unfriendly to the United States. There was the 
     missile-rattling off the cost of Taiwan. There was the finely 
     calculated humiliation of Warren Christopher. There was the 
     cool, unblushing dismantling of democracy's infrastructure in 
     Hong Kong. Finally, it appears, there was the attempt to 
     subvert our very own democratic system by illegally funneling 
     PRC cash into the 1996 elections.
       Now comes Jiang Zemin, president of China, 
     unapologetically. On the eve of his week-long American 
     journey, Jiang gave careful interviews to The Washington Post 
     and Time magazine. He told the reporters that the slaughter 
     of democracy's hopefuls at Tiananmen had been necessary for 
     China's economic boom (you can't make an omelet without 
     rolling a tank over a few hundred eggs); that Taiwan must 
     accept ``the principle that there is only one China,'' which 
     is to say rule by Beijing; that Chinese democratic activists 
     such as Wei Jingsheng and Wang Dan were languishing in prison 
     ``not because they are so-called political dissidents but 
     because they violated China's criminal law''; that the good-
     hands people of Beijing would continue to hold Tibet in their 
     cossetting grasp; and that the United States must accept that 
     China has its own standards of what constitutes a proper 
     respect for democracy and human rights. ``The theory of 
     relativity worked out by Mr. Einstein, which is in the domain 
     of natural science,'' the old despot lectured, ``I believe 
     can also be applied to the political field.''
       Quite so, say the Einsteinists in the Clinton 
     administration who are driving the China policy they call 
     ``engagement.'' Under the rules of this engagement, the 
     United States has during the past five years answered China's 
     slights and slurs with shows of affection. The Commerce 
     Department has had its way in maintaining trading status for 
     China as a most-favored nation. The State Department has kept 
     its complaints about the oppression of democrats and 
     Christians to a discreet murmur. The president himself has 
     most graciously entertained the friends of Mr. Johnny Chung 
     and Mr. John Huang. The approval for an official visit by 
     Jiang Zemin was the greatest engagement gift yet. The trip, 
     which will begin with Ziang laying a wreath for the slain of 
     1941 in Pearl Harbor, is planned as an elaborate exercise in 
     propaganda, and it is intended to serve both to ratify 
     China's post-Tiananmen diplomatic rehabilitation and to 
     solidify Ziang's domestic political status.
       And yet, the nervous suitors at the White House fret, there 
     must be something more we can do, something really grand. 
     Indeed, it develops, there is. Jiang's government would like 
     to buy some of the new-generation nuclear reactors that have 
     been jointly developed by the American nuclear industry and 
     the government in an $870 million research project. The 
     moribund nuclear industry is desperate to sell to China, and 
     it has lobbied the administration heavily. The nuclear 
     industry has, of course, large sums at its disposal, and this 
     president is always willing to grant potential or actual big-
     money donors what he has called ``a respectful hearing,'' so 
     there is naturally a desire at the White House to see the 
     sales go forward.
       But there is a problem: China's impressive record in 
     spreading the advance of the bomb--a record that includes the 
     export of nuclear technology and materiel to Iran, Iraq, 
     Pakistan and India. In 1985, as Washington prepared for the 
     last Sino-American summit, the Chinese were found, in 
     violation of recent promises, to be assisting the Pakistani 
     nuclear program. As a result, Congress passed a law barring 
     implementation of the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement signed by 
     president Reagan and the then-Chinese President Li Xiannian, 
     to permit nuclear trade with China until the President 
     certified that China had stopped aiding the spread of the 
     bomb.
       Such certification has never been given because China has 
     never changed its behavior. Gordon Oehler, the CIA's senior 
     official responsible for monitoring mass-weapons 
     proliferation, has testified to Congress that China has 
     provided Iran with large numbers of anti-ship missiles that 
     are considered a direct threat to U.S. naval forces in the 
     Persian Gulf. Oehler, by the way, resigned this week amid 
     reports that he had been under pressure from administration 
     policymakers over his unwelcome assessments.
       The administration insists that China has--just in the nick 
     of time for a gift grand enough for a summit--changed its 
     ways. it points to two promises: one in 1996 to stop aiding 
     Pakistan's nuclear program; the other last week not to sell 
     any more anti-ship missiles to Iran. So, that's that, the 
     White House argues, it's time to certify China as a 
     respectable member of the nuclear club at last and get on 
     with the business of the United States, which is business. As 
     for human rights--if everything goes to their satisfaction 
     next week, the Chinese hint they might be willing to let Wang 
     Dan out of jail for a while.
       This is policy so wrongheaded that it isn't even 
     interesting. It is possible that the Chinese are suddenly 
     serious about nonproliferation. And it would be nice to 
     provide some foreign business for the nuclear industry, so it 
     doesn't die from a lack of business at home. But the Chinese 
     have broken or bent most of their previous promises on issues 
     of nuclear exports, and their new promises are untested.
       We are engaged for the moment. A responsible president must 
     not attempt to certify what he cannot know to be so; a 
     responsible Congress must stop, by a veto-proof two-thirds 
     majority, a president who puts the interests of Beijing and 
     Westinghouse ahead of national security. Let's verify before 
     we trust. And let's get something in return a little less 
     pathetic than the release of one well-beaten man from his 
     prison cell.

  Mr. HAGEL assumed the chair.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________