U.S. Dept. of State - IIP: The United States and China

Excerpt: Lee Hamilton's DVC on China and the Congress
(China is "the most difficult, bilateral relationship" for U.S.)

Former Representative Lee Hamilton (Democrat from Indiana, 1965-1999) took the opportunity of a digital video conference with students and staff at China's Fudan University June 29 to explain the complexities of U.S. China policy in Congress, and to offer suggestions for improving congressional attitudes toward China. "Members of Congress do not approach the U.S.-China relationship with any kind of a strategic vision . . . and they tend to focus on a single issue at a time," the former Chairman of the House Committee on International Relations said.

"What happens is the member of Congress does not put an incident like the spy plane incident into a broader context of the overall relationship between China," he said, referring to the mid-air collision between a Chinese jet and a U.S. Navy EP-3 reconnaissance plane over the South China Sea in April.

"Members of Congress, I think -- and this is unfortunate -- tend to view these incidents without any overall context," he continued, "and that makes it more difficult" to resolve conflict.

To complicate matters, Hamilton said, American politicians emphasize domestic matters over foreign policy and find it acceptable to mix foreign policy with partisan politics.

"So the point is that foreign policy in this country has become politicized . . . [to the point where] American politicians today no longer place the same value that they once did on a united front in dealing with issues overseas."

"In the case of China, the political divisions are not broken clearly on Republican and Democratic lines. They are not even broken clearly on liberal and conservative lines . . . So when you debate China in the United States Congress, you frequently find unusual coalitions, parties being divided, even conservatives disagreeing, liberals disagreeing, on what that policy should be," he said.

One possible exception is the issue of Taiwan, Hamilton said, where "every member of Congress is in a sense pro-Taiwan" because they admire the economic and political changes that have taken place on the island.

"I think every member of Congress wants to have a positive, mutually-beneficial relationship with the People's Republic, with China, but they do not want that at the expense of the people of Taiwan," Hamilton said. "China, the PRC, does itself a disservice with the Congress, I believe, and with the American people, if it places its friends in a position where they have to choose between Taiwan and the PRC. That is not a choice that is going to work to Beijing's advantage, and I think you have to be very careful about that," added.

Hamilton also suggested that the Chinese leaders review their handling of Chinese-American- and U.S.-based-Chinese scholars who are being detained in the PRC under suspicion of espionage.

"Most Americans, and I think most members of Congress, see these detentions as a move by the Chinese government to stifle freedom, to suppress points-of-view . . . it is very important that China make very clear to the United States what the evidence is with regard to these scholars. And China's failure to do that simply reinforces the view here that these scholars are innocent victims."

Hamilton added that Americans do not appreciate the "enormous changes" that China has undergone over the last several decades. "I just think that members of Congress and policy-makers generally need to understand the remarkable changes that are taking place in China and have a better appreciation of it," he said.

To help rectify the situation, Hamilton encouraged the promotion of more people-to-people exchanges "at every level of community life -- agriculture, academic, health care, education."

He added that, "if I were advising the President of China about how to lobby the Congress, I would have him send over to Washington 50 or 100 Chinese diplomats who speak English fluently and who spend full-time lobbying members of Congress and knocking on their doors . . . [and] if I were your government leaders, I would study very, very carefully how Taiwan tries to influence public opinion in this country."

"I think that you and the PRC have got a lot to learn from Taiwan. They're very skillful in their lobbying techniques," he explained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DIGITAL VIDEO CONFERENCE WITH FUDAN UNIVERSITY, SHANGHAI, CHINA
MODERATOR:
DR. JAMES THURBER, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
PARTICIPANTS:
THE HONORABLE LEE HAMILTON, WALTER OLESZEK, AND MARK SIEGEL
Friday, June 29, 2001

MR. HAMILTON: My name is Lee Hamilton .... My task, I think, is to talk a little bit about the Congress and American foreign policy. I will do that very briefly because I understand you area very knowledgeable people. I will focus most of my comments on the attitudes in the Congress toward China and speak for only a few minutes, and then be happy to engage with you in a dialogue.

I think all of you know that in the making of American foreign policy, the President of the United States is by far the chief actor. The Congress plays an important role in the formulation of American foreign policy, but there isn't any doubt, the way our history has developed, that the President of the United States is the chief foreign policy maker.

Now the Congress, as you all know, has what we call the power of the purse, and therefore has many opportunities to impact the process of foreign policy making. But it rarely contradicts a President on foreign policy. It does occasionally, but not frequently, and plays a role sometimes as a partner in the process with the President, sometimes as a critic of the process. Now I'm assuming that you have a pretty good understanding of the American constitutional system. I may be wrong in that, but I don't think I am based on my knowledge of your knowledge level. Let me turn my comments chiefly to the question of China and the United States Congress.

The first point I want to make is that relatively few members of the Congress think of China in a comprehensive way. They tend to look at issues by themselves: the human rights issue, the question of Tibet, Taiwan, trade opportunities, proliferation of weapons, or a controversial matter now on Capitol Hill, whether or not to pass a resolution to oppose Beijing hosting the 2008 Olympics. What I'm saying, in effect, is members of Congress do not approach the U.S. China relationship with any kind of a strategic vision about that relation, and they tend to focus on a single issue at a time and do not look at the whole of the U.S. China relationship.

The second point I want to make is that for a typical member of Congress, foreign policy is a secondary matter. I think that almost every American politician would agree with the observation that the American people today are primarily focused on domestic concerns. By domestic concerns I mean education, health care, the quality of life in their communities. They are not focused on international affairs. They do not sense, at this time at least, any major security threat to the United States, and they, the American people, want their elected representatives to focus principally on domestic matters.

The third point I want to make is that this conviction I've spoken of, that foreign policy is of secondary importance, unfortunately, encourages an attitude that it is okay to mix foreign policy with partisan politics. So the point is that foreign policy in this country has become politicized. We used to have a saying in American foreign policy that America's foreign policy stops at the water's edge. The idea of that phrase was that all Americans were united on the question of foreign policy. I don't think that's the case anymore. If you watch the debates in the Congress, for example, on foreign policy, you cannot help but be impressed by the fact that many, many times those debates have a very hard, political edge to them. So American politicians today no longer place the same value that they once did on a united front in dealing with issues overseas.

Now the next point I make, the fourth point I make, is that in the case of China, the political divisions are not broken clearly on Republican and Democratic lines. They are not even broken clearly on liberal and conservative lines. If you followed President Clinton's tenure here in Washington as U.S. President, you may have noticed that often times on China, some of his harshest critics were Democrats because they did not feel that President Clinton represented strongly enough to Chinese officials our concerns about the human rights, for example. And had it not been for Republican votes, President Clinton would never have been able to get through the Congress normal trade relationships with China.

So when you debate China in the United States Congress, you frequently find unusual coalitions, parties being divided, even conservatives disagreeing, liberals disagreeing, on what that policy should be. I don't know how familiar you are with American politicians, but in the United States Senate today, Senator Helms from North Carolina would probably be identified as one of the most conservative senators in the United States Senate. Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, would probably be identified as one of the most liberal of senators, but Senators Helms and Wellstone came together and supported what you and I would consider, I think, an anti-Chinese side on a number of these issues. That just illustrates in personal terms the point that I was making that the political divisions do not break along party lines or even liberal/conservative lines.

The next point I would make is that the Congress is very reactive when it comes to China. I think that many of my Chinese friends tend to think that members of Congress take a very strategic point of view with regard to China, but I don't think that's the case. They react strongly to individual instances. For example, when the U.S. surveillance plane had to make the emergency landing in China, members became very angry about that very quickly, and you saw some very strong, bellicose, strongly-worded statements coming from the Congress, and it certainly made more difficult the relationship between the U.S. and China. What happens is the member of Congress does not put an incident like the spy plane incident into a broader context of the overall relationship between China. And I think you and I would recognize that that overall relationship contains both elements of competition and cooperation. Members of Congress, I think - and this is unfortunate - tend to view these incidents without any overall context, and that makes it more difficult.

Let me make two further points, and then I think I'll just open it up for questions. One of the very sensitive issues in this town and in this country today is the question of the scholars, including several American citizens, who have been detained in China in recent months. This is a very sensitive matter for almost all Americans, and we don't really fully understand what is happening here. Most Americans, and I think most members of Congress, see these detentions as a move by the Chinese government to stifle freedom, to suppress points of view. I know that China sees it differently. For China, I'm sure it is a matter of espionage and national security. But if that's the case, then it is very important that China make very clear to the United States what the evidence is with regard to these scholars. And China's failure to do that simply reinforces the view here that these scholars are innocent victims. So the question of the scholars is a very sensitive one in this country and in this town.

The last point I want to make relates to probably the most difficult issue between the United States and China, and that is, of course you know, the question of Taiwan. I think every member of Congress that I know of, all 535 of them, have a positive, mutually beneficial relationship with - let me say it this way. I think every member of Congress wants to have a positive, mutually beneficial relationship with the People's Republic, with China, but they do not want that at the expense of the people of Taiwan. It's not a question of being pro-China or pro-Taiwan. Every member of Congress is in a sense pro-Taiwan. They admire, they applaud the economic and political strides that have been made in Taiwan in recent years. Now that does not mean that the member of Congress is automatically anti-China, anti-PRC. Let me repeat again. I think most members of Congress want to have a good relationship with Beijing. China, the PRC, does itself a disservice with the Congress, I believe, and with the American people, if it places its friends in a position where they have to choose between Taiwan and the PRC. That is not a choice that is going to work to Beijing's advantage, and I think you have to be very careful about that.

Let me conclude simply by saying that the U.S. China relationship is, I think, the most difficult, bilateral relationship for the United States. It's now been three decades since President Nixon went to China, and I think it's probably correct to say that no American President since President Nixon and including President Nixon, has found a completely satisfactory policy towards China. The fact of the matter is our countries have vastly different perspectives on a large number of issues. In this country, we have a lot of concerns about human rights abuses, about labor practices, about military deployments, about proliferation of weapons, about ambitions to control Taiwan.

I know that China, the PRC, has a lot of concerns about U.S. activities, and they feel a sense of the United States trying to contain China. China is very worried about U.S. superpower status, you are very worried about our alliances with Asia, you're very worried about President Bush's campaign to build missile defenses, and, of course, you're worried about our support of Taiwan. I think we have to emphasize over and over again the common interests that we have in our two nations, and do the very best we can to manage a very, very difficult relationship. One of the great unknowns of this century is going to be the future of China because there are so many issues - the status of the world economy, international security, a global environment and others - that will depend in part on how your country evolves in the years ahead. Our task, your task, and the task of younger Americans, too, will be to try to manage this relationship in such a way that it will work to the mutual benefit of each country.

Okay, let me stop there and open it up for any questions or comments that you might have.

Q: Can you please comment on how congressional re-election affects their voting behavior, particularly on U.S. China policy.

. . . MR. HAMILTON: The first point would be that China would be an issue in very, very few congressional elections. Maybe in a few districts, but not in most districts. My home state is in the Middle Western part of the country, Indiana, and I ran 34 campaigns - I was in 34 elections if you count the primary elections and the general elections. I can't ever recall China coming up at any time in any one of those 34 elections over a 34-year period.

That would not be the experience of every member of Congress. If you represented San Francisco, for example, I'm quite sure because of the fairly large Chinese population in San Francisco, the issue would come up. In some of the Western states, Seattle, for example, which has a lot of trade - the state of Washington has a lot of trade with China - it might come up. But do not think, for a moment, that China is a major issue in most congressional campaigns.

The place where it might impact is as a bill is being considered in the Congress. Let's take the question of what we used to call most-favored nation treatment for China, which means simply you treat China like everybody else with regard to trade. There you would have a lot of constituent pressure on you to vote one way or the other. If you have, for example, a large manufacturing concern that does business worldwide, that does business with China, that does business with Asia, the representatives of those companies would come to you and say we want you to support most-favored nation. If you had in your community a strong human rights group, focused on the question of scholars or focused on the question of Tibet or some other specific issue, you could feel those constituent pressures. I doubt very much if any member of Congress would think that China is a key issue in their prospects for reelection.

Q: China and the U.S. are two countries with different ideology, but as we know, China is becoming more and more democratic since the 1980s. So my question is to what extent the older image of ideology influence the making of American China policy, especially in Congress?

MR. HAMILTON: Thank you. I think your question is a very good one, and my quick answer is that the view of China as a hard-lined communist country still has a very major impact on the thinking of many American politicians about China. If you listen to the debate, for example, on any Chinese issue in the Congress, you will hear a number of members refer to China as Communist China, as Red China. Those are almost pejorative words and yet it is very common. And what most of us, most members of Congress, do not appreciate is the premise of your question and that is that China has gone through enormous change in the last several decades, and that that change continues. I do not think there is nearly enough appreciation in this country of the changes that have been made.

Let me give you a simple illustration. When I first went to China many years ago, I would get up early in the morning in the hotel in Beijing. I could not find an English language newspaper. I didn't have anything to do early in the morning so I would go out on the street and count the number of bicycles on the street corner. Now when you go to China or Beijing, you're in a traffic jam with many, many cars, and the availability, of course, of all kinds of English language publications. I just think that members of Congress and policy makers generally need to understand the remarkable changes that are taking place in China and have a better appreciation of it. I encourage members of Congress to go to China, to visit not just Shanghai or Beijing, but to get out into the countryside and see China. There's a saying among journalists in this country that no matter what you write about China is true just because the country is so big and so diverse that you can't be wrong about China because of the diversity of the country.

Q: May I have a follow-up question? You have talked about the changes of China not being well appreciated in the Congress. In your opinion, what efforts should we make, on both sides, to make these Congress people understand better? Thank you.

MR. HAMILTON: There are about 20,000 organizations in Washington D.C. that try to affect the views, change the views, influence the views of the members of Congress. It is a huge industry in this town, and it is a very tough job to lobby Congress. Congress is made up of 535 members, each one of them has a large staff and those of you - I'm not sure how many of you - who have been to Washington, know that Capitol Hill is a very large, complicated place. Now I do think China is doing better than it did many years ago. I don't want to put a specific number of years because then you would identify personalities. China is learning how complicated Washington is as a town, how involved the process of formulating policy is, and how difficult it is to influence policy.

What efforts can be made? Well, there are the efforts that are necessary to impact the American political system. First of all, you have to be very persevering in your efforts. You can't expect a single meeting or a single personality to come and quickly change opinion. There have to be repeated contacts with members of Congress. I think your embassy here in Washington in recent years, has done a much better job of lobbying Congress, but if I were advising the President of China about how to lobby the Congress, I would have him send over to Washington 50 or 100 Chinese diplomats who speak English fluently and who spend full-time lobbying members of Congress and knocking on their doors.

Now of course there are a lot of efforts that have to be made that are not directly aimed at the Congress. You have had in the past few months an extraordinary number of emissaries from China coming to this country, trying to understand the Bush Administration. I've met with perhaps a dozen or more of those people in the last few months. I think those visits are helpful and they have to be increased. At every level of community life -- agriculture, academic, health care, education -- we have to have the exchange of peoples between our two great nations. And of course that's picked up a lot in recent years, but a lot more needs to be done in those efforts.

Q: I'm a student and I have a question. Since the '70s, I think that Congress has played a role that cannot be termed as positive. From the perspective of Congress, which are the most important domestic factors for Congress acting in that way?

MR. HAMILTON: I think I would generally agree with you that the overall impact of Congress on U.S. China relationships has not been positive over a period of decades. What's the strongest single factor? I don't know that there's any one factor. Members get concerned about a lot of different things and they tend to accumulate. I guess if there's a single factor that is most important it would be human rights, and the perception in this country that China often abuses human rights. That's a very sensitive matter.

Let me relate a conversation I had with your President, President Jiang Zemin, one time. We were talking about human rights and I asked him about some pending human rights cases in China at the time. And his response was interesting. His response was that you Americans define human rights very differently than we do in China. He said you Americans think of human rights in terms of your Declaration of Independence and your Constitution (and as you know, your President likes to quote President Lincoln, both of which I had heard before, but I was impressed that he knew them). Then he went on to say that for me, human rights means does the person have enough to eat? Does the person have a shelter over their head? Does the person have security in their home and in their community. Now both definitions, of course, of human rights are correct, and you can't say that one is wrong and one is right, but you do get a difference of perspective here.

So members approach this in different ways: some emphasizing human rights, some emphasizing the belief that China is an aggressive nation, that it wants to expand its power. For example, there's a group of people on Capitol Hill now deeply concerned what China is doing now in the Spratlys Islands, and they indicate that because of China's activity there, it's an indication that China is expansionist in Asia. I suspect you don't accept that, but that's a very clear view here among some members of Congress. Other members of Congress get very concerned about China's efforts to export missile technology, and the proliferation of weapons. That's a very deeply sensitive security issue in this country, and we frankly don't like what we've heard that China does with respect to improving the missile capability of nations that we think do not act in accord with international regimes.

So there are a lot of issues that come up and have an influence on members. Underlying it all is a very different view of our strategies worldwide. Well, I'll not develop that. I'll just leave that and we'll open it up for more questions. I have about five minutes left for two more questions I'm told. That's assuming my answers are short, I think. Okay.

Q: I 'm wondering if you can comment because people from Taiwan have a law firm in D.C. and try to lobby the Congress. I wonder if you have a particular comment what you like, some kinds of tactics they use, and what you don't like.

MR. HAMILTON: Well, I think that you and the PRC have got a lot to learn from Taiwan. They're very skillful in their lobbying techniques. First of all, they send people here who are very familiar with this country. That's a huge advantage. They speak English as well as I speak English. They are aggressive in the Washington community and the social circuit, meeting members of Congress all the time. They have developed groups around the country, chapters if you would, that strongly support Taiwan. Many of these groups around the country are made up of Taiwanese Americans. They've had a program in place for as long as I can recall where they invite members of Congress and the staff of members of Congress to visit. They pay their way; that's a very expensive program. Fly someone to Taiwan and put them up in a nice hotel, give them nice meals, move them around the island, and give them the Taiwan pitch if you will. They're just very good lobbyists. They contribute to congressional campaigns. You know our campaigns are financed by private contributions, largely, so they contribute. I'm giving you a lot of advice this morning, this evening for you. You can reject it if you want to, but if I were your government leaders, I would study very, very carefully how Taiwan tries to influence public opinion in this country. If you go to a gathering of American journalists, our TV anchor people and all the people who write the stories about U.S. China relationships, you will find that every single one of the U.S. media people have good friends amount the Taiwan American community. That doesn't happen by accident. That's part of a planned, carefully implemented campaign to influence opinion in this country. I'll take one more question.

Q: One related question: How important is the Taiwan factor in shaping the views of the Congress toward China? Thank you.

MR. HAMILTON: I think the Taiwan factor is very important in shaping the view of members of Congress with regard to China. The reason it's an important factor is that there is genuine admiration here for what Taiwan has done over a period of years, making it a democratic country with open, free elections. You don't have that in the PRC; they do in Taiwan. They have an economy that is market-based, a vigorous free enterprise economy. When Taiwan had a natural disaster, an earthquake some months ago, it dramatically impacted production in a number of American key industries because critical component computer parts were made in Taiwan. There are linkages between the Taiwanese economy and the American economy. So do not underestimate the value of that example.

Now let me conclude here by saying on Taiwan that I believe, and I trust that you believe, that we have to maintain the One-China Policy that says there is one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. I believe that abandoning that policy which has been followed by five U.S. Presidents, would undermine our relationship with China and would severely harm Taiwan because Taiwan has prospered under that policy. There are problems with that policy. It is constantly evolving and I think what we have to emphasize over and over again in our discussions, is that question of Taiwan's future is not for us to resolve; that's for you to resolve, and Taiwan. But it must be resolved in a peaceful dialogue over a period of years, and it is not to the advantage of China, to Taiwan, to Asia, or to the United States, to have that difference break out into open conflict.

Thank you very much for letting me join you. You're questions have been excellent. It's a privilege for me to have the opportunity to meet with you and I hope that I will have the opportunity to meet with some of you in person. Thank you, and good day. ... (end excerpts)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)