[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6861-S6863]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            PARTISAN FIGHTING OVER FOREIGN RELATIONS POLICY

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are here to debate one of the most 
significant components of our foreign relations policy, and that is the 
Department of Defense authorization bill.
  There is often a great temptation to exploit foreign policy debates 
for partisan political purposes. We all are tempted. But I believe that 
when we do--that is, on a foreign policy debate--it is a mistake. Such 
partisan fighting over critical issues of worldwide importance is both 
dangerous and counterproductive, and that is why I see engaging in 
congressional debates over China policy at this time, particularly 
amendments which are perceived as mischievous, is not a good idea. 
Although China does not manage its affairs as we would like, it makes 
little sense to base our relationship entirely on that concern. We 
should base our relationship, rather, with China on a clear view of 
United States interests, a

[[Page S6862]]

foundation of basic American values, and appropriate methods that will 
secure those interests and advance those values.
  China is the fastest growing country in the world. It is the world's 
most populous country.
  It has the largest army in the world, is a nuclear power. China is a 
force to be reckoned with. And of all the areas our foreign policy must 
address--peace and security in Asia, prosperity and open trade, 
environmental protection, the prevention of climate change, and human 
rights--we will achieve our goals more easily through a cooperative 
relationship with China than with a destructive one of confrontation, 
one that seeks common ground and addresses differences frankly rather 
than through a policy limited to sanctions and confrontations. That is 
an approach that has succeeded with China over the past 25 years.

  China is a large country. The most progressive regions of the country 
are those engaged in trade with the West. That is no accident. Our 
presence in China has an enormously positive influence--one that would 
be lost if we cut off trade or cut off discussions with China.
  This relationship with China has grown out of the foresight and the 
cooperative efforts of those who have gone before us.
  Our modern relationship with China began over 25 years ago with a 
visit to China by President Nixon. President Nixon anticipated the 
difficult nature of this relationship. But he also recognized the 
importance of establishing a sound working relationship with the most 
populous nation in the world.
  As Envoy to China, former President Bush continued the efforts to 
open China to the rest of the world. His work set the stage for the 
U.S.-China relationship we have today. Perfect, it is not. But it is a 
relationship, and it can be improved. And it calls to mind other 
relationships which we have encouraged over the years.
  Fifty years ago, we had no relationship with Japan. Since then we 
forged an enduring alliance with that important nation. It is the work 
of statesmen like Douglas MacArthur and Yoshida Shigeru after the end 
of World War II; Dwight Eisenhower and Kishi Nobusuke, who steered the 
U.S.-Japan Security Treaty through the Senate and Diet in 1960; and 
Montana's own Mike Mansfield, who served for years as our Ambassador to 
Japan.
  This relationship was not--and is not--a partisan issue. Its 
champions came from the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. And 
we have all benefited from their hard work.
  This relationship has weathered great adversity in the last half 
century--the Chinese Revolution, the Korean war, Vietnam, and 40 years 
of the cold war. Through it all, this relationship has helped many of 
the nations in the Pacific give their people better lives.
  It is important to remember that we spent years engaged in a standoff 
with the former Soviet Union. But by engaging that nation, we witnessed 
the end of the cold war, the end of the conflict and the birth of a new 
relationship with Russia. It took hard work and cooperation to make 
this new Russia a reality. The same is true in our dealings with China.
  A policy of engagement--tough, frank, hard-nosed engagement--is 
correct, not because it is in the interest of China, but because it is 
in the interest of America.
  There are still great strides to be made with China, particularly on 
human rights. It is a mistake to focus only on our differences and to 
ostracize China.
  We must ask ourselves whether we should seek to reform China by 
continuing engagement in a positive manner, or, instead whether we 
should seek to force the Chinese to change course by isolation.
  I think we ought to pursue the first choice--engagement.
  Mr. President, some have suggested that we are appeasing, even 
coddling, China, that we are ignoring their human rights abuses and 
other egregious acts, that somehow they are being given undue special 
treatment. I disagree.
  Obviously, there are problems with the way China cracks down on 
political dissent and treats its dissidents. However, I think the 
insinuation that there is double standard for China is not correct.
  We must continue to speak up when China acts contrary to 
international norms. Simply put, we cannot and should not look the 
other way when China disregards its commitments.
  However, we cannot have much say in these matters if we do not talk--
if we do not engage in constructive dialogue. After all, China's most 
repressive periods have occurred when China was isolated from the rest 
of the world.
  During the debate on this bill, as we consider amendments we should 
ask ourselves one question.
  Does the amendment strengthen America's hand, and improve our 
relationship, or will it make things worse?
  If the latter, I would urge my colleagues to vote it down.
  Let me apply this question to the pending, divided, amendment.
  The distinguished Senator from Arkansas has proposed a series of 
amendments to the DOD authorization bill which aim to change China's 
behavior through a series of minor but bothersome sanctions.
  I deeply appreciate the Senator's reservations with some of China's 
policies. We all have reservations with some of China's policies. But, 
I believe this amendment goes about changing them in the wrong fashion.
  Surely every member of Congress would take issue with forced 
abortions--I would; we all would--religious persecution the same, and 
the imprisonment of individuals for the expression of political 
beliefs. That is clear.
  Americans hold as their most cherished freedoms the right to worship 
as they please and speak their minds. It is a measure of the country's 
greatness that we are allowed to speak freely.
  We expect this freedom on this Senate floor and indeed we have it. We 
expect it in our homes and throughout our workplaces.
  It is therefore natural that we extend these freedoms to peoples in 
other lands. We object strongly when those rights are denied. Clearly, 
there are other issues concerning China that Americans can disagree 
with.
  Despite significant progress, today's China is still too repressive 
and too restrictive. Those who would speak out against the government 
still risk imprisonment, house arrest and the denial of political 
rights. I wish to change that. We all wish to change that, and change 
that eventually with the right policies we will.
  We must hold China accountable to the human rights agreements it has 
signed, most notably the universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  But alienating China will not convince China. Ostracizing China will 
not endear it to the practices we would most like to see implemented.
  We can continue to facilitate China's transformation through 
engagement and dialogue or we can give in to the isolationist 
sentiments that these amendments represent.
  As we near the President's departure for China tomorrow, I urge the 
Senate to express its support for continued engagement of the Chinese 
Government.
  No doubt about it, the President has much to discuss when he gets to 
Beijing. But it is both important and appropriate that the discussions 
occur. They must occur. Frank discussions of necessary improvements in 
China should be forthcoming.
  The success of the trip will be enhanced with the endorsement of this 
body.
  Mr. President, today's debate illustrates an even more important 
point--the need for a bipartisan approach to foreign policy. It has 
been said that politics ends at the water's edge. When it comes to 
foreign policy there are no Democrats, there are no Republicans, there 
are only Americans.
  In this world today, there are many serious, global issues: India and 
Pakistan exploding nuclear bombs, the expansion of NATO, the collapse 
of the Asian economy. To the maximum extent possible, we must work 
together to address these issues. But often, partisan actions hinder 
progress on important issues of national importance.
  One such instance is the conflict over funding for the International 
Monetary Fund.
  The attempt to link family planning policy and international 
financial assistance is an effort to conduct a debate for the benefit 
of a domestic constituency. If a debate on the IMF is in

[[Page S6863]]

order, then we should debate the IMF on its merits. But to stall the 
passage of this important legislation may weaken the hand of the U.S. 
Government and it may allow real problems to get worse. This is a 
situation where cooperation is critical.
  Last week, I invited my colleagues to join me in an effort to 
establish a more cooperative, bipartisan approach to our foreign policy 
matters.
  I, along with Senator Hagel of Nebraska, am working to focus more 
energy seeking constructive solutions to American foreign policy 
problems. We intend to work together, to help reduce the rancor that 
partisan bickering tends to produce.
  Just as engagement is the proper way of working with China, so too 
must we engage each other in order to better articulate Americans' 
interests and needs aboard.
  We are many voices. We represent many ideas. Making progress requires 
constructive dialogue by all parties, and I encourage my colleagues 
engage in that discussion.
  One final note, Mr. President. When President Clinton travels--when 
any American President travels overseas--he is the President of the 
United States of America. He is not a Republican President. He is not a 
Democratic President. He is the American President. When he travels, we 
in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives must give him our 
full cooperation. There are other times when he returns when we can 
debate what our foreign policy should be. But when it comes to foreign 
policy, we Americans will do much better, our stature in the world will 
be much higher, if we work out these differences among ourselves so 
that in the end we truly have a bipartisan foreign policy, a foreign 
policy that the Congress and the President have worked out together so 
that we stand taller and get more done than we otherwise might.

  There is plenty of room here in domestic politics for partisanship. 
There is more than enough here for partisanship in domestic politics. I 
deplore most of it, even in domestic policy, but when it comes to 
foreign policy, we must stand together.
  I urge Senators who have amendments to think twice before offering 
them, and perhaps bring up that issue when the President returns from 
his trip to China, because then the country is much better off.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________