4
OPINION
Page 4
Friday, March 11, 1983
The Michigan Daily
Progress and problems with China
IM
U. S. - Chinese relations have
progressed a tremendous amoun-
tsince President Nixon's historic
visit to mainland China over a
decade ago. The two nations have
since normalized relations and
begun , economic, cultural,
educational, and diplomatic ex-
changes.
Michael Oksenberg, a University
political science professor, is an ex-
pert on China and served on
President Carter's National Security
Council. He has visited China on
numerous occasions, and has recen-
tly returned from there. Daily staff
writers David Spak and Kristin
Stapleton spoke with Oksenberg
earlier this week about U.S. -Chinese
relations.
Dialogue
-Daily: Since normalization of
relations, what sort of progress has
been made in relations with the
People's Republic of China?
Oksenberg: It's now been four years
since normalization occurred on
January 1, 1979. A great deal has oc-
curred both in the governmental
relations and non-governmental
relations with China. In the governmen-
tal realm, in the first two years
following normalization over 35 treaties
and agreements were signed with the
People's Repiublic of China. Those.
argeements established a basic legal
framework for carrying out economic,
cultural, scientific, educational ex-
changes with China. Almost every
department of the American gover-
nment developed some kind of program
with China.
Turning to non-governmental realm,
relations have also developed exten-
sively over the four year period. For
example, in the educational realm
there are over 9,000 Chinese students
and visiting scholars on American
campuses and there are several hun-
dred American students in China at the
present time. In the business realm,
perhaps one of the most important
developments is nearing the decisive
stage. I refer to the negotiations bet-
ween American multi-national oil cor-
porations and the Chinese goverment
authorities in the petroleum field for
exploration and development of
possible substantial petroleum deposits
in the South China Sea.
Daily: What, then, are the problems
the two nations face in furthering these
ties?
Oksenberg: The most important of
these remains the differences between
our two governments over the Taiwan
issue. The Chinese believe that con-
tinued American arms sales to Taiwan
violates Chinese national sovereignty
and is involvement in Chinese internal
affairs. The United States government
believes that arms sales contribute to
the stability of the region.
' An agreement was reached last
August between the two governments
leading to the August 17 joint com-
munique on U.S. arms sales to Taiwan,
but that document itself has produced
different interpretations to date in the
two capitals, and is a source of conten-
tion.
Daily: What effect has Secretary of
State George Shultz's recent visit had
on relations?
Oksenberg: It takes about six months
for the results of a trip of that sort to
begin to be fully evident, and I think
therefore that it would be premature to
really assess that particular visit. To
this point one cannot cite any major
issue between us which was resolved on
that trip, but Secretary Shultz did not
go to make any significant single
breakthroughs, and the issue is now
whether the American management
and the Chinese management of the
relationship becomes more meticulous
and demonstrates greater sensitivity to
the needs of the other than has been the
case during the past year.
Even on that score, however, the
immediate results of the Shultz visit on
the American side have not been
satisfying. President Reagan made
some statements concerning his inter-
pretation of the August 17 joint com-
munique which baffled the Chinese, to
put it mildly. And at this point, that is
one of the sources of strain in the
relationship.
Daily: What kind of relationship do
the Chinese ultimately want to have
with us? What are they looking for?
Oksenberg: The Chinese seek, I
believe, a broadly-based and construc-
tive relationship with the United States.
They seek such a relationship, first of
all in order to cultivate relations with
what they perceive, after all, as one of
the major powers of the world. And
they recognize that constructive
relations with us enhance they own
security. And also, perhaps, offer them
access to technology, to commodities,
to manpower which would facilitate
their economic development.
But a recitation of this list of things
that they might seek from us, may lead
to a false impression that China
believes they need us. That they don't
believe. They seek a constructive
relationship with us only if it is conduc-
ted on principles which they believe are
respectful of their sovereignty and
which do not intrude on what they con-
sider to be some of their basic domestic
needs.
Daily: What does the United States
want from this relationship?
Oksenberg: On the part of the United.
States, when you ask what are our pur-
poses, you raise a much more difficult
question. Who is the 'our' that you are
speaking about? Mine or yours? This
particular administration's? Or in
some broader sense, the American
people over a ten year period, as ex-
pressed in the past three or four ad-
ministrations? Let me take the last,
namely, the underlying consensus in
American policy towards China in the
past four administrations. What seems
to be driving us?
I would say three things. First, a
recognition that China plays a very im-
portant role in the maintenance of a
global balance of power. In that con-
text, the United States seeks to improve
relations with China so that it will con-
tinue to play a responsible role in East
Asia, in Southeast Asia, and in the
world, more generally.
Secondly, we seek a strong relation-
ship with China for bilateral advan-
tage, though that is not the most impor-
tant reason, but there is a recognition
that we have something to gain out of
scientific, technological, and economic
relations with China.
Then there is a third consideration.
Namely, that China is, in the years
ahead, a power of growing importance
whose role in world affairs will in-
creasingly shape the nature of world af-
fairs. We seek a good relationship with
them now in order to maximize the
chance that we will have a good
relationship with them later.
Daily: Recently the Chinese and the
Soviet Union have renewed their efforts
to put aside their differences. What ef-
fect would such an agreement have on
out own policy toward China?
Oksenberg: That depends on what the
nature of the agreement is.
Daily: Is it likely in itself?
Oksenberg: I believe that we can an-
ticipate a reduction in tensions between
the Soviet Union and China. Indeed,
tensions have already diminished bet-
ween them, and have been diminishing
rather steadily since the death of Mao
in September, 1976.
4
I
Daily Photo by DEBORAH LEWIS
Oksenberg: U.S.-Chinese relations are on the decline.
Now, will that affect us? It could. If
depends on the context of our relations
with both the Soviet Union and China. I
believe that world affairs is very fluid
and in my answer to this question, as to
others, much really depends on the con-
text in which a particular development
takes place.
We have sought, over the past ten
years, to have better relations with both
China and the Soviet Union than they
have with each other. In that context,
we could have looked upon an im-
provement in Sino-Soviet relations with
some equanimity. And I say some
equanimity, because, in that context,
neither one would have had much in-
centive to use the improved relations
against us.
Unfortunately, in the past two years;
we have lost that favorable position in'
the triangle. We do not now have better
relations with both the Soviet Union and
China. In fact, our relations with the
Soviet Union are probably worse now
than Sino-Soviet relations, and our
relations with China are eroding
slightly. In that context, and if we
allow our relations with China to con-
tinue to weaken, it is possible that both
the Chinese and the Soviet Union would
see fit to use improvements in relations
between them to secure some advan-
tage against us, and we would have to
be concerned.
r
die aid tga nt an
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
Sinclair
Vol. XCIII, No. 125
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board j
Walker exposes hypocrisy
With all the righteous indignation
over Herschel Walker's profes-
sional contract with the United States
Football League, one would think the
harmony between college education,
college football and professional foot-
ball has been destroyed. In fact, there
never was such a harmonious
coexistence.
In the midst of the controversy, most
college coaches, NCAA officials, and
the rival National Football League
would have us believe their primary
concern is the athlete's education. But
their vested interests lie elsewhere and
the hypocrisy shines through.
College coaches claim the player's
college education is at stake when he is
recruited by professional teams before
the end of his fourth year. But what
they are really worried about is college
eligibility.
Most schools and coaches aren't in-
terested in the athlete's education but
in his performance on the field. Of
course, the University of Georgia and
other schools are worried about being
"raided" by the pros. But all the
clamoring about waiting for the fourth
year in education amounts to sheer
hypocrisy for the most part.
Sports Illustrated reports that of all
the hundreds of players in the NFL,
fewer than 30 percent have college
degrees. Here at the University, stan-
dout Anthony Carter recently quit
school to sign with the Michigan Pan-
thers of the USFL, yet he is a full two
terms from earning a degree. Carter's
move provoked very little moral
outrage. Why? He had already played
out his four years of eligibility.
Some of the same coaches howling
about "education considerations" are
those who steer their athletes into cake
courses that do not lead to degrees or
worthwhile educations.
The NFL has also decried the
recruiting of underclassmen using the
same reasoning as the coaches. Yet it
is just as bad. The league has had no
qualms about yanking athletes out of
classs to do a few wind sprints at their
special training camps, or in selecting
those who have completed four years
of football eligibility, but not four full
years of academics to earn a degree.
It is clear the NCAA and college
coaches want to take full advantage of
the athletes who have helped fill their
coffers. It is equally clear that the NFL
wishes to maintain the free farm
system colleges provide them. Now,
both groups are complaining about the
same basic policies they have used for
years.
The storm over Herschel Walker has
helped expose the system for what it
is: a system that uses athletes for the
profits they bring in instead of em-
phasizing a bona-fide education.
Perhaps only by opening up the doors
to recruitment of all football players,
so that football programs are effec-
tively raided of players, will the NCAA
see the system needs reform, not lame
excuses for its problems.
I
if
LETTERS TO THE DAILY:
'U' Clerica s need rep resen a tion
To the Daily:
We often take for granted an
important part of the University
community - the clerical staff. A
moment's reflection reveals the
tremendous contribution made
by University clerical employees
to every University educatiop.
The campus couldn't run for one
day without the clericals who
keep our records, arrange our
appointments with faculty, ad-
ministration or health services,
produce coursematerials,
research grants, reams of com-
Municipal Employees (AFSC-
ME) as their union represen-
tative. Of course, the decision is
theirs alone. We want to express
our support for those who feel
university clericals deserve a
vocal and democratically elected
advocate for their interests.
We feel having a union would
be good for the clericals, and
good for the rest of us as well. A
union will offer clericals more
than just financial security. By
making the University a more
fair and humane place to work.
rapidly shrinking under pressure
from cutbacks in state and
federal funding. We disagree.
Now is a time of critical decisions
that will determine the size and
shape of our university for
decades to come. All portions of
the University community should
be drawn into the dialogue. Like
the rest of us, University
clericals have a stake in shaing
the "smaller but better"Univer-
sity of Michigan.
Like the rest of us, clericals
need a strong, elected and
terests through the popularly
elected Board of Regents. Only
some 3,300 University clerical
employees are without a voice; a
union is the natural way for them
to be heard.
We appreciate the enormous
contributions made by the
clerical staff to the goal of ed-
cucation at the University.
University clericals are far too
important not to have an elected
advocate. We urge fellow studen-
ts (and faculty) to join us in
showing support for the clericals
An