CEOs vs. Hawks

By Sanger, David E. | Chief Executive (U.S.), October 2001 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

CEOs vs. Hawks


Sanger, David E., Chief Executive (U.S.)


POLICY & POLITICS

U.S. corporations generate $7.2 billion in revenues from China, but Beijing-bound President Bush faces conservatives seeking to tilt support toward Taiwan.

As President Bush travels to China this month, his first trip there since he visited as a graduate student a quarter-century ago, his second most challenging task will be striking the right tone with President Jiang Zemin and the rest of Beijing's leadership. His far bigger challenge is at home, where he must beging to bridge a huge rift within the Republican party over how to deal with China, a divide that pits the pro-engagement business community against conservatives who seek to contain China's power, and tilt American support strongly toward Taiwan.

Reconciling those two extremes is not easy, as Bush has discovered. In the last few months he has moved from a tough line against Beijing's leaders during the spy plane incident to a noticeably softer one.

Other presidents, from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton, also have been forced to back off their harsh campaign rhetoric once they faced the realities of dealing with the world's most populous nation.

For Bush, straddling the engagement camp and the containment camp will prove difficult. Whichever way he leans, he is bound to anger one of his core constituencies. The business community that contributed heavily to his campaign desperately wants China's delayed entry into the World Trade Organization to happen this year, so that the long, slogging process of opening China's markets for banking, insurance, autos, and information technology can begin.

But every time the Chinese authorities detain another scholar, or torture another Falun Gong member, or aim another missile at Taiwan, it strengthens the hard-liners who argue that Bill Clinton ignored a growing threat to American security.

Both sides have their advocates inside the Bush Administration. Hawks have settled largely at the Pentagon, where they argue that America's war-fighting strategies must be focused on keeping China from displacing the United States as the Pacific's military power. While no one will say so publicly, that is one rationale for President Bush's missile defense program: It does not have the capability to suppress Russia's huge nuclear arsenal, but it might help contain China's minimal one.

The doves, with a few exceptions, surround Colin Powell at the State Department. They inherited Clinton's engagement policy, which makes the case that a China economically linked to the world will begin to move toward Western legal procedures, human rights standards, and, eventually, democratic values. Clinton acknowledged, in his administration's closing days, that evidence was still slim. But, he said, "if we treat China as an enemy, it will certainly become one."

Bush himself has zigged and zagged between the two groups. During the campaign and since, he has said he wants to engage China and see it enter the W.T.O. But throughout the campaign he also called China a "strategic competitor" that must be dealt with firmly. He repeated that point in the spring, when he briefly appeared to back a new policy tilting toward Taiwan. Then he backed off, deciding to sell Taiwan a raft of sophisticated weapons, but not the high-tech destroyers that Taipei desperately wanted to counter China's short-range missiles aimed at the island.

Over the summer, the Bush Administration softened its position further. It dropped objections to granting China the 2008 Olympics. Then, during Powell's trip to Beijing to pave the way for Bush's visit, the phrase "strategic competitor" was banned from State Department lexicon.

So far the Chinese have responded well. President Jiang Zemin, in an interview with New York Times editors and correspondents in August, made it clear that he would do everything to make the trip a success, even brushing aside suggestions that Bush is more interested in deals with Russia's Vladimir Putin than with China's leaders.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

CEOs vs. Hawks
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?