A strong tide of world politics has flowed through President Clinton's visit to China this week. New ground was broken on all the major areas discussed, including China's political freedoms and economic development, Tibet, Taiwan and nuclear weapons programmes. It is clear that a new bilateral relationship is being forged which will have profound implications for neighbouring Asian states and the wider international community.
Its significance can be gauged by the anxieties expressed in Japan, Taiwan and India over Mr Clinton's visit to China. In Tokyo there has been speculation that it marks a shift away from a bilateral USJapan relationship which Mr George Bush once famously described as the most important in the world, bar none. A running theme has been the need to forge a stable framework to handle the Asian economic crisis, in which the weakness of the Japanese economy has featured so large in recent weeks. The bank rescue package announced yesterday in Tokyo at last addresses the issue comprehensively and serves as a necessary reminder that Japan's status as the world's second largest economy puts it in a different league from China in that respect. But, from the political point of view, Washington appears to be convinced that China is now the more important partner.
Taiwanese leaders loudly disputed the right of the US and China to decide on their island's future bilaterally. But there can be no mistaking the message Mr Clinton conveyed in spelling out so clearly his "three noes" policy on Taiwan: No to independence, No to two Chinas and No to Taiwan's participation in any international organisation for which statehood is required. This leaves little option but negotiation of something akin to Hong Kong status, perhaps with a confederal aspect to suit Taiwan's particular circumstances. It is a substantial concession to the Chinese leadership and signifies a turning point in their relationship. In India there was also loud complaint that China and the US, as nuclear states, are trying to copper-fasten their regional hegemony.
So far as China's internal policies are concerned this visit has been equally significant. The decision to broadcast the press conference given by Mr Clinton and Mr Jiang Zemin in Beijing on radio and television, the president's address to students in the university there and his phone-in on Shanghai radio are regarded as momentous departures from normal practice. They allowed Chinese citizens to hear Mr Jiang debate with Mr Clinton two taboo subjects: Tibet and the Tiananmen massacre of 1989. Both men put their points clearly and with respect for their differences. Mr Jiang broke new ground by saying he would be prepared to have a dialogue with the Dalai Lama if he acknowledged Tibet is part of China; observers noted his description of Tiananmen as a political disturbance rather than a counter-revolutionary incident. Mr Clinton found a way to express clearly his vision of how democracy and economic development are related when he said that " . . . (if) you limit people's freedom too much, I believe you pay an even greater price in a world where the whole economy is based on ideas and information and exchange and debate". He also underlined effectively the universality of basic rights of association and freedom of speech and conscience. This was a substantial achievement, irrespective of the precise outcome of his encounter with China's leadership, which will only be made clear in the months and years to come.