How Beijing Escapes the 'Bush Doctrine'

President George Bush is a man with 'deep convictions,' who has risked his presidency to institute democracy in Iraq. But the President's doctrine of opposing dictatorships doesn't seem to apply to China. Sadly, according to this op-ed article from Hong Kong's The Standard, even a man like George W. has succumbed to 'The China Exception.'

By Liu Kin-ming

December 20, 2005

Original Article (English)    

As a long-time student of U.S. policies and attitudes toward China, I am constantly amazed at one enduring element I call the China Exception. Presidents can come and go; Congress can be led by either the Democrats or the Republicans; but China has always viewed in a very special way by Americans.

The United States, the bastion of anti-communism during the Cold War, considered the Russians to be wicked and dangerous. The Chinese, somehow, were seen as more benign and misguided. In other words, the Russians were bad communists while the Chinese were good communists.

American attitudes toward China always swung between love and skepticism, but the Soviet Union was always considered the bad guy. What's more, the Soviet Union didn't have lobbyists like the Fortune 500 the way China does.

Even George W Bush, the most revolutionary U.S. president since Ronald Reagan, doesn't seem immune to this romanticism about China.

I happen to be a strong supporter of Bush. I admire his courage and insight in trying to bring democracy and liberty to many parts of the world. This, Bush argues and I agree, is the best way to fight terrorism. In a nutshell, I like the Bush doctrine.

But it seems to be applicable everywhere but China. Ellen Bork, acting executive director at the Project for the New American Century, made a compelling case at a panel discussion hosted by the American Enterprise Institute last Wednesday in Washington.

Bork simplified the Bush Doctrine down to three key points.

First, the United States would show active leadership.

Second, it would promote liberal democracy.

Third, it would oppose dictatorships, and one of the strategies for this is regime change.

But Washington apparently is not pursuing these policies toward Beijing.

"The U.S. has not made the establishment of liberal democracy a top priority for China," Bork said. Instead, Washington still believes in "economy first, politics later."

Bush's speech in Kyoto last month cited Taiwan and South Korea as examples of political liberalization through economic development. He claimed Taiwan "has moved from repression to democracy as it liberalized its economy.

"And like South Korea, the opening to world markets transformed the island into one of the world's most important trading partners. And like South Korea, economic liberalization in Taiwan helped fuel its desire for individual political freedom - because men and women who are allowed to control their own wealth will eventually insist on controlling their own lives and their own future."

But it's much more complex than that, Bork said. In the 1980s, the United States started to withdraw support from dictatorships in Asia, from South Korea, to the Philippines to Taiwan.

"Democracy is not inevitable for economic development," Bork said.

While development can provide a basis for real change, just getting people rich won't do it. Constant pressure and vigilance, as well as the economic card, are a must for meaningful change.

The United States still has leverage over China. Think of why the European Union did a U-turn on lifting the arms embargo on China earlier this year.

And Bork said: "The fear of losing most-favored nation status led to the release of [political] prisoners."

To apply the Bush Doctrine to China, Bork says, the United States should spend some yet-to-be-spent capital.

"Washington shouldn't look to the Chinese Communist Party for reforms and should stand with Chinese dissidents like we did with the Soviet dissidents before," she suggested.

Fellow panelist Pei Minxin, senior associate and director of the China program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, disagreed.

He said: "Bush can't just stop by [former secretary to late party general secretary Zhao Ziyang] Bao Tong's house for coffee" as it's impossible for reasons of protocol.

Another panelist Lorne Craner - formerly assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor and currently president of the International Republican Institute - rejoined: "That could take place at the U.S. ambassador's residence."

And Ying Ma from the AEI suggested that U.S. officials meet Chinese dissidents in the United States more often.

Of course, Bush didn't receive any dissidents during his trip to China. Instead, he worshipped in a state-sanctioned church, a move that might end up sending the wrong signal.

While Bush was critical of China in his Kyoto speech, he was more restrained when he went to China.

Bush is someone with deep convictions, risking his presidency to try and implement democracy in Iraq.

But when the president pays Beijing much more courtesy than he would other dictatorships, then I know that sadly, the China Exception is here to stay.