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