Editorials
Tuesday, June 30, 1998

Clinton has done
fairly well on China visit

PRESIDENT Clinton has made the best of an awkward situation on his visit to China, openly criticizing the Communist regime's violations of human rights, including the 1989 massacre at Tiananmen Square. Remarkably, the government permitted a domestic television broadcast of Clinton's sparring with President Jiang Zemin at a 70-minute news conference.

As William Safire notes in an adjacent column, Clinton's remarks were pretty tame stuff and Jiang at a minimum held his own defending the regime's policies. Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel Berger, was brutally candid in describing China's human rights record as "terrible," but that description probably didn't reach the Chinese people. At least domestic viewers got a taste of America's concerns about their government's repressive policies, which was a breakthrough in a nation where the news media are still strictly controlled.

A subsequent exchange between Clinton and university students was also televised in China, but it appeared that the students' questions and comments were carefully programed to reflect the regime's views. There were no pro-democracy dissidents at this exercise, which was probably a sham.

Despite Clinton's cautiously critical remarks, the Beijing leadership undoubtedly views the visit as a success in that it can be exploited as evidence that the United States accepts the regime's legitimacy nine years after the shock of Tiananmen. Clinton's appearance at the square was meant to underline that message -- and offset his verbal objections to the crackdown. Such manipulation was probably an unavoidable price of maintaining reasonably good relations with Beijing.

The Clinton visit brings to mind the U.S.-Soviet summit meetings of the Cold War era in the sense that communication between the leaders is essential although they do not particularly like each other -- if at all. Behind the formal mask of geniality lie serious conflicts that were only lightly touched upon in public.

China has been a recent target of criticism in the United States because of allegations of illegal campaign contributions and improper acquisition of sensitive satellite technology. And there is a lot more. Jiang made no concessions on human rights, defending the Tiananmen debacle and defying criticism by conducting a sweep of dissidents to clear the way for Clinton's visit.

China's agreement to cooperate in the battle against proliferation of nuclear and other weapons has to be taken skeptically in view of its past record, particularly in supplying Pakistan with nuclear technology. So should Jiang's assent to discussions with the Dalai Lama on the future of Tibet. The agreement to cease aiming missiles at the United States -- in return for a reciprocal step -- was merely cosmetic; the missiles can be retargeted in a matter of minutes.

At bottom is the fact that China is an emerging great power -- both economic and military -- that could one day challenge the United States' current dominant status. Clinton wants to "engage" China, rather than "confront" it, which is wise. So a visit like this was probably necessary. But engagement should not translate as appeasement. The possibility that confrontation may be required if engagement fails cannot be dismissed.

Sexual harassment

SEXUAL harassment has been widespread in American workplaces, but that could change if employers pay heed to two recent Supreme Court decisions. The court ruled that employers can be forced to compensate victims of harassment perpetrated by supervisors without the knowledge of top company officials. Companies can protect themselves from lawsuits only by initiating strong policies against sexual harassment and responding quickly to complaints.

Under federal education laws affirmed by the court last week, schools may not be liable for sexual abuse of students if administrators were unaware of the abuse. Workplace discrimination laws are tougher, however, holding companies and government agencies responsible for incidents resulting in a hostile work environment, even if no "tangible job consequence" can be shown, such as demotion or dismissal.

Victims of sexual harassment are prohibited by federal law from suing individual supervisors. The ability to sue the employer is crucial because of the frequency of supervisors harassing lower-ranking employees. Studies have shown at least 40 percent of all working women have experienced harassment. Two-thirds of all complaints are brought against supervisors who outrank the victim, according to one study.

The high court's rulings could result initially in an influx of lawsuits against companies. However, U.S. Chamber of Commerce attorney Robin S. Conrad welcomes the court action as a clarification of how companies can ward off lawsuits. The rulings are fair warning.

Athletics appointment

THE selection of Keith Amemiya as executive director of the Hawaii High School Athletic Association was a surprise because Amemiya does not have experience in athletics administration. Now there is a question as to the legality of the appointment.

The Star-Bulletin's Pat Bigold reports that only three of the five school principals selected by their leagues to sit on the executive board were present when Amemiya was hired. The organization's constitution states that a quorum consists of four regular members of the board.

The association has been criticized for conducting board business in private although it receives state funds and operates out of a public school facility. If the selection had been made in public, perhaps the question of a quorum would have been raised.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO

John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher

David Shapiro, Managing Editor

Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor

Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors

A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor