Don't know much about Jiang, but assume he is at core an ideologue, as each past Red Chinese leader. There were pictures of him floating about made up like Thomas Jefferson (during a tour of Monticello or something). Heart warming... Have mixed feelings regarding what our posture towards China should be. On the one hand, I believe America should be uncompromising in it's advocacy of the cause of freedom- everywhere, every time, regardless of cost. True to the ideals that made us great, and all that (and I don't mean the Ronald Reagan definition of greatness- which is rather esoteric, actually, having something to do with the juxtaposition of total ICBMs, and people sleeping under bridges). On the other hand, it feels so RIGHT to be on the opposite side of any issue from Richard Gere...

Now, how did Richard Gere slip in here? Isn't it the other way around, isn't Gere on the side of the oppressed, the downtrodden and buddies with the Dalai Lama? It's a tough issue. The Clinton strategy is to influence the Chinese by example. They, the Chinese, seem to have put a full court lobbying press on the White House.

Okay, I'm appropriately chastened- not nice, I suppose, to pick on Gere, who is on the right side, probably, of this issue, and is undoubtedly only exercising his constitutionally protected right to speak his mind, and to encourage our minions in congress to do-the-right-thing. Still, he has about as much credibility as Shirley MacLaine among Unwashed- and every time he opens his mouth, he energizes a bunch of ditto heads (or some other bunch of cranks and numbskulls), and basically undoes that which he s trying to accomplish... And China is, indeed, a tough issue. While I don't necessarily agree with Clinton's policy, I do understand it, and it's hard to fault him for it, political realities being what they are...

Rob Schneider portrayed Gere all to well in this respect on the Tonight Show last week. It was classic. Side splitting.

U.S. foreign policy always has been and always will be screwed up. It is hypocritical, uneven, and has nothing to do with American values such as freedom of press, freedom of religion, free elections, and the like. China is a great example. China is a communist country that we have most favored nation trading status with. Cuba is a communist country that we are waging economic war upon. We have American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, protecting the Saudi Royal Family (a non-elected brutal regime). We continue sending millions of dollars to corrupt, brutal regimes in Central America. Israel gets billions of dollars from the U.S. as they continue their racist policies against the Palestinians. The CIA murdered Allende in Chile in 1973 to set up a brutal dictator who still remains in power. It seems that the only thing that matters in foreign relations is $$$. China has over a billion consumers. Cuba has only a few million. Saudi Arabia has oil. You get the picture. John

I agree with everything you said- differ only, I suppose, in expectations. By necessity, foreign policy must balance political ideals with political expedience. Too often, as a result, it is left to amoral Kissinger-types, or given to the identically amoral concerns of Coca Cola and I.T.&T. Such has it ever been...

U.S. foreign policy will continue as it has in the past. Overall, it is neither Democrat or Republican in its stature. The president, is held responsible should any flairup against U.S. economic interests occur. It is my opinion that the U.S. tends to take a negative outlook on foreign policy. Sure, the leader of a country may be brutal or corrupt, but the U.S. policy takes the approach that another leader could be worse. A strong dicatator or monarch that keeps their country under control, through whatever repressive means possible, will never find itself at odds with the U.S. The only exceptions to this are countries which are communist. Long ago, the U.S. has discovered that in many instances, an economic war is just as effective as an actual fighting war. Cuba is becoming a wasteland because of this policy. Normalization of relations with Cuba will never take place because of political reasons. The Cuban exiles living in Florida are all anti-Castro. These are the swing votes in an elector l rich state. No president would jeopardize losing the state of Florida to the other political party. Hence, the status quo remains in effect. John