[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 18, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Page S5466]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   WILLIAM SAFIRE'S ARTICLE ON CHINA

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday, in the New York Times, William 
Safire had an essay called ``Cut the Apologies.'' I am shortly going to 
ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. It perhaps says 
some things beyond what I might, but I am concerned. I have watched 
what has happened and the reactions of China to the accidental bombing 
of their Embassy in Belgrade. I hold no brief for the totally 
negligent--I might even say stupid--mistake made in the bombing of that 
Embassy. It is as inexcusable and unexplainable as the maps that 
brought about the death of the people in the cable car in northern 
Italy.
  Having said that, however, for the Chinese, who will not allow any 
kind of demonstrations--and haven't since Tiananmen Square--criticizing 
their own government, to whip people into a frenzy and let them go and 
destroy much of our Embassy and the British Embassy in Beijing, and to 
say how shocked they are that this is going on, and that we have done 
that, demanding all kinds of apologies, frankly, is irresponsible and 
unimaginable. I can't accept it. I don't know how many people would.
  If the Chinese think that by doing this somehow we are now going to 
jump in and let them join the WTO and everything else, that is a sad 
mistake. Their conduct is incomprehensible. We have apologized for 
bombing the Embassy, which we would expect somebody to do with a 
similar mistake damaging ours. This is a war going on, and things 
happen, as General Schwarzkopf said, in the fog of war.
  China is not the one to lecture the world on free and open 
demonstrations. China is not the one to lecture us on how we should 
conduct our economy. China has a great deal to explain on everything 
from their attempt to steal our secrets, spying on our country, and 
human rights violations in their own country and their own repression.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Safire's column be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, May 17, 1999]

                           Cut the Apologies

                          (By William Safire)

       Washington.--After a week of whipping up hatred of 
     Americans by accusing us of deliberately murdering Chinese 
     journalists in Belgrade, President Jiang Zemin Deigned to 
     accept a call from The Great Apologizer.
       For the fifth time, President Clinton apologized, expressed 
     regrets, sent condolences, kowtowed and groveled, begging to 
     be believed that we did not bomb China's embassy on purpose.
       But it is America that is owed an apology. After an 
     accident of war, we have been falsely accused of killing 
     Chinese with malice aforethought. That is a great insult, 
     compounded by the calculated trashing of our embassy by a 
     bused-in mob encouraged by police.
       The truth is that Beijing's leaders, worried about 
     demonstrations on the 10th anniversary next month of the 
     Tiananmen massacre, are milking this mistake for all it is 
     worth.
       By lying about our intent and suppressing coverage of our 
     prompt admission of error, the nervous rulers are diverting 
     their people's anger toward us and away from themselves.
       By demanding we investigate the accident, they seek to 
     water down the current Congressional investigations of their 
     nuclear spying--a series of penetrations of our laboratories 
     and political campaigns that was no accident.
       By making Clinton beg forgiveness, they are able to cancel 
     human rights talks while extracting new trade concessions. 
     The deal: they will accept Clinton's apologies when he caves 
     in on their application to the World Trade Organizations.
       No wonder that no reputable diplomat would accept the 
     President's pleas to replace our fed-up ambassador in 
     Beijing. Clinton is now trying to appoint an admiral whose 
     amiable association with the Chinese military and U.S. arms 
     contractors will be closely examined by the Senate.
       Though Clinton is softer than ever on China, he's taken a 
     hard line in resisting Congress's investigations into 
     Beijing's penetration of our nuclear labs and our political 
     process. His latest trick: the improper use of documents 
     submitted for intelligence declassification to prepare 
     advance refutations of evidence of security lapses.
       The White House has delayed for four months the three-
     volume report on security laxity by the House select 
     committee headed by Representative Chris Cox. Clinton 
     spinners are already distributing a packet of reprints of 
     derogations by offended scientists, China-defenders and 
     favorite journalists.
       Cox has used the ``clearance'' delay to rewrite the turgid 
     prose and to enliven the report with photographs and diagrams 
     showing what missiles and satellites were stolen; that might 
     even awaken television interest.
       The Senate Intelligence Committee, headed by Richard Shelby 
     and Robert Kerrey, is not about to hold still for the abuse 
     of clearance. After it submitted one of its reports on 
     nuclear lab laxity for review to protect intelligence 
     sources, it learned of a refutation of that bipartisan report 
     in work by the National security Council response machine.
       The White House was told that the submission of documents 
     was for security clearance only. It was not to be used for 
     (a) advance policy review so that ``rapid response'' would 
     occur in the same news cycle as the reports' release, or for 
     (b) leakage of portions to the press for ``inoculation'' to 
     later reduce its impact as ``old news.''
       The intelligence business is not the publicity business. 
     National security reports are not to be equated with the 
     Starr report about hanky-panky. The Shelby committee made 
     plain to the Berger Rapid-Apology Center that if this 
     undermining of inter-branch comity did not stop forthwith, 
     ``we're going to zero out the N.S.C. staff budget.'' (By 
     withholding some $15 million, Congress could force the 
     spinners onto the Department of Defense payroll or cause 
     agonizing layoffs in the White House basement).
       In both House and Senate, bipartisan committees are 
     discovering serious intelligence weaknesses: too little 
     analysis of too much collection. ``If there's a flare-up in 
     Iraq, North Korea or the Andes,'' worries an investigator, 
     ``we could not handle it and Kosovo, too.''
       The most troubling breakdown is in counterespionage. The 
     F.B.I. and C.I.A., which are not blameless, are telling 
     Congress the weakest link is the Department of Justice. What 
     began as corrupt political protection became dangerous 
     national security laxity. Who will apologize for that?

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________