MFN: Honesty at last?
It is beyond me that some people on Capitol Hill believe it would be such a great idea for POTUS to create a major international incident by snubbing the welcome being prepared by the Chinese. The yearly wrangle over Most Favoured Nation trading status also has the potential to undermine Clinton's upcoming visit to the People's Republic.
Give it a break, will ya! For once there was a hint of honesty in Clinton's Rose Garden statements when he made the expected MFN announcement. Along with the 'constructive engagement' rhetoric, Clinton said "...it is quite clearly in US interests." Like it or not, doing business with Beijing is important to the American economy. I'd venture further, it is important to economic stability in Hong Kong, Asia and the rest of the World. Hurt Beijing, and the hawks in Washington would be hurting some of their friends as well - not to mention some of their own electorate. Not surprisingly the US Chamber of Commerce here in Hong Kong were delighted - and believe me, they are not all card carrying members of the Democrat Party!!
Get this quite clear, when the hawks make reference to the government in Beijing they are not talking about some penny-ante regime in a Third World backwater. When they call for withdrawal of MFN and even the imposition of trade sanctions they really should be careful what they are wishing for. It's one thing to climb a high moral mountain and fire darts of invective against - for example - the Burmese military junta. A complete withdrawal from Rangoon and the utter isolation of the generals would have a trivial impact on the US economy. The same moves against Beijing would have global ramifications.
Whoa, you say, am I going soft on Beijing? No, not at all. Ever since Nixon the US has painted itself into a corner regarding China. Pre-ping-pong the attitude towards Beijing was pretty much in line with today's alleged stance towards Rangoon. But every president since Nixon has engaged the Chinese.
Presidents - especially before they actually become president - have frequently screamed 'human rights' from the hill tops, but persistently whispered 'business, business, money, money, money' while they engage one of the largest potential markets in the world. Politicians waxing lyrical about concerns over human rights and then really doing nothing practical about it is as much a part of being a politician as shaking hands and kissing babies. It attracts votes by making the politician look like he or she is 'in touch' with his or her basic human instinct for compassion and love of mankind. Asking POTUS to walk away from the Tiananmen Square welcome is an idiotic
attempt to win domestic brownie points. Give it up.
Why do I say 'alleged stance' towards Rangoon? Remember the Unocal friendly trade sanctions? The foreign/trade policy hypocrisy applies to penny-ante regimes as well. Washington will try to make a buck anywhere there is a buck to be made. That's why I was so pleased to see POTUS make some attempt to 'front up' and admit that renewing MFN was ".....clearly in US interests." He spoiled it a bit with his constructive engagement BS, but then, one can't have everything, can one?
Anyone care to make a wager? I am confident that if the next occupant of the White House hails from the GOP, he will follow the same foreign/trade policy track as Clinton. It is sooo popular to harangue the White House for its China policy while in opposition, but the situation looks a little different from the Oval Office.
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot |
