Twisting Off the Hook

They called it a big deal. A U.S. delegation went to Beijing over the weekend to discuss letting Chinese listeners hear Voice of America programs now drowned out by China's own broadcasting on the same frequencies. But Beijing had pledged months ago to negotiate; welcoming the delegation was hardly a new or a large concession.

But a senior State Department official chose to pretend that it was, hoping to endow this minor action with some real, if dubious, importance in helping satisfy U.S. demands for "significant progress" in China's human-rights record. His reaction was one of a number of clues that President Clinton has decided against cracking down hard on China by cutting back trade. Another sign was a secret visit to Beijing by a special envoy, former Ambassador to Japan Michael Armacost; his job reportedly was to coax the Chinese leaders into other concessions that the White House could seize on to justify that decision.

Officially, Clinton is still pondering the decision he must make by next Friday. But all indications are that the President will continue to give Beijing some form of the most-favored-nation status under which Chinese goods enter American markets at low tariff rates. "I think he will find a way not to interrupt MFN," predicted House Speaker Tom Foley, who will have to round up votes to prevent Congress from overturning a Clinton decision. Since a year after the Tiananmen Square massacre, lawmakers have been pressing the White House to punish Beijing by withdrawing MFN status; twice in 1992 lawmakers forced George Bush to veto such moves. That drew from campaigner Clinton an accusation that Bush was willing to "coddle tyrants" in Beijing. Clinton implied he would use trade threats as a club to force the Chinese to behave on human rights -- yet another campaign pledge he now seems to find it wiser not to keep.

There is actually nothing special about MFN status; it is enjoyed by 182 countries that trade with the U.S., vs. only nine that lack it. But there is something quite special about losing MFN. Revocation would result in crippling tariff increases on the $30 billion worth of goods China sells to the U.S. each year -- everything from steel pipes to shirts, sneakers and stuffed animals. According to the argument Clinton seems to have bought, taking away MFN would hurt both the Chinese and U.S. economies because Beijing would retaliate against American firms that are creating a multibillion-dollar market in China and in the process penalize the most progressive sector of Chinese society, its burgeoning entrepreneurial class. The anger of the regime might even worsen the plight of ordinary Chinese citizens.