China Policy

March 29, 1999

Controversy over China's nuclear espionage has opened up a broader question about the Clinton Administration's policy toward China. A recent New York Times editorial makes this point:

"Untangling the various strands of the Clinton Administration's China policy will not be easy in the politically charged atmosphere that prevails in Congress on this issue. But it is essential that the multiple investigations now under way yield a dispassionate assessment of whether the White House was lackadaisical about protecting American security interests, and whether 1996 Clinton campaign fund-raising distorted policy making."

The key year is 1996 when a presidential campaign was taking place and the administration appeared to be changing it's policy toward China. The New York Times believes the two need to be investigated in order to see if there is a link:

"The picture of potentially overlapping interests in 1996 bears review. Just as the Clinton campaign was eagerly accepting large donations from contributors who were linked to China or eager to do business there, the Administration was rethinking its policy and fumbling the first of several warnings that China might be stealing advanced nuclear weapons designs from the United States."

Is there a link between the two? Obviously the White House bristles at such speculation, but the facts on the table suggest an investigation is warranted. The Clinton Administration's policy shifted in 1996 and Congress needs to determine why. The first notification of possible spying at Los Alamos came in April 1996, and virtually no action was taken. Why? Again, Congress needs to investigate.

And in some ways, that investigation has already taken place. A congressional committee headed by Representative Christopher Cox has already issued their report and made some of the connections. Congress needs to begin where that report leaves off and finish the job of investigation.

I'm Kerby Anderson of Probe Ministries, and that's my opinion.