[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2350-E2351]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       IN SUPPORT OF CONTINUED CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH CHINA

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TIM ROEMER

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 13, 1997

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit an insightful editorial 
article published in the November 4, 1997 edition of Indiana's LaPorte 
Herald-Argus newspaper. This article thoughtfully and accurately 
reflects many of my views in support of continued constructive 
engagement with China as a method of improving our critically important 
bilateral relationship and pursuing our foreign policy goals regarding 
human rights. While progress is at times too slow and painful, talks 
and diplomacy are key aspects of this bilateral relationship.
  President Jiang Zemin's recent visit to the United States to 
participate in the United States-China Summit is the first step in 
achieving these goals through constructive engagement. While President 
Jiang conceded less than we hoped for with respect to ongoing human 
rights abuses, religious persecution, and exporting nuclear materials, 
it is still very important to recognize that we have now opened a new 
dialogue with the People's Republic of China. I am confident that this 
will result in more talks and serious negotiations and hopefully, more 
progress on these critically important issues.
  I am encouraged that President Clinton admitted that China was on the 
wrong side of history regarding Tiananmen Square. Moreover, I am 
pleased that President Clinton told President Jiang that continuing 
reluctance to tolerate political dissent has prevented China from 
achieving economic and social progress at the same pace as the 
developing nations and the rest of the world. This kind of exchange and 
mutual recognition fosters constructive engagement.
  Without question, the summit talks are more useful than continued 
diplomatic tensions and certainly more productive than no dialog at 
all. Case in point: The cold war began to thaw, among other reasons, 
when the United States and the Soviet Union began to open diplomatic 
channels. Our much improved relationship with Russia and the new 
republics clearly demonstrate that constructive engagement helps 
advance our foreign policy goals. This has helped end the war in 
Chechnya, dismantle weapons of mass destruction, and contributed to our 
sense of stability in the region. I am confident that this kind of 
success can be achieved with respect to our foreign policy toward 
China.
  The United States-China Summit concluded with President Jiang's 
approval of the International Technology Agreement and the removal of 
numerous tariff barriers of United States exports to China. This is how 
the United States benefits from constructive engagement with China. I 
am pleased that Congress extended MFN status to China again this year, 
and I am hopeful that we can continue to improve our mutually 
beneficial trading relationship. This is critical to our business 
interests and future relations with the world's most populous nation. 
Trade is among the most useful tools in constructive engagement with 
China, and fair trade should be implemented and enforced by the United 
States in every possible way.
  Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that constructive engagement with China 
will advance our interests and our foreign policy goals, and I 
encourage my colleagues to review the LaPorte Herald-Argus opinion 
which follows.

       On China, Weak Admonitions Are Better Than No Talks At All

       Not much of substance emerged from last week's meetings 
     between Chinese leader Jiang Zemin and President Clinton.
       The only concrete news was that Boeing will sell $3 billion 
     worth of airplanes to China and that other firms will be 
     allowed to sell nuclear power technology to the nation, and 
     that Jiang promised China will no longer sell nuclear 
     materials and other weaponry to countries such as Iran.
       The first bit of news angered those who feel Jiang's visit 
     revolved more around big bucks and business than on how China 
     treats its people. Indeed, guests at the state dinner for 
     Jiang were mostly Fortune 500 leaders representing firms such 
     as General Motors, IBM, AT&T and Eastman Kodak.
       The second bit of news is tenuous at best. Jiang has 
     promised before that China will not sell weapons to third-
     world nations and has not kept the promise.
       U.S. business leaders are champing at the bit to capitalize 
     on China's emerging role in the trade world. But protesters 
     chastise the United States and Clinton for having anything to 
     do with Jiang and his country given its human-rights stance 
     or lack thereof, including continued persecution of 
     Christians and dissidents.
       During his eight-day visit, Jiang shrugged off such 
     critics, even when they questioned him face-to-face. 
     Responding to a question on the massacre of students at 
     Tiananmen Square in 1989, the most Jiang could muster was 
     that ``naturally, we may have some shortcomings and even make 
     some mistakes in our work.'' Quite a belittlement of a 
     country's bloody attack on its own people.
       To his credit, Clinton did sit down with Jiang to talk 
     about the human-rights issue. He even stated publicly at a 
     joint press conference with Jiang that China was ``on the 
     wrong side of history'' regarding Tiananmen Square.
       Critics thought, though, that Jiang--the first Chinese 
     leader to visit the U.S. in 12 years--shouldn't have been 
     allowed to set foot in this country, much less gain more 
     business with the U.S.--until the persecution stops.
       But Clinton's weak admonitions are better than opening no 
     dialogue whatsoever with

[[Page E2351]]

     Jiang. There are two words that prove this: Cold War. Not 
     until U.S. and Soviet Union leaders began talking did that 
     war begin to thaw.
       With that approach in mind, perhaps Clinton's hope is that 
     as China becomes less isolated and more of a global 
     participant, a Gorbachev-type leader will succeed Jiang, and 
     China's appalling treatment of some of its citizens will 
     improve.

     

                          ____________________