The Wall Street Journal October 10, 2000

By EDUARDO LACHICA

Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- If their rhetoric is any guide, George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore are each intent on redefining how the U.S. handles Asian affairs. But the broad thrust of U.S. policy isn't likely to change much no matter which candidate is elected to be the next U.S. president.

The Republican Party candidate, Mr. Bush, and his Democratic Party opponent, Mr. Gore, belong squarely to their respective parties' free trade, internationalist wings. Both favor a productive relationship with China and the maintenance of a strong U.S. presence in the Asian-Pacific region.

"If there's going to be a difference, it will be in the way they implement policy and not in the policy itself," predicts Robert Manning, an Asia specialist with the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Texas governor, for instance, has vowed to restore the primacy of the U.S.-Japanese relationship if elected president. He says it was a mistake for President Clinton to skip Japan and South Korea after favoring China with an uncommonly long nine-day presidential visit in 1998. "This president is one who went to China and ignored our friends and allies in the Far East. He has sent a chilling signal about the definition of friendship," the Texan said during his campaign for the Republican nomination.

• Defending His Record

Mr. Gore is proud of the Clinton administration's record in Asia -- bringing China closer to membership in the World Trade Organization and freezing North Korea's attempts at nuclear bomb-making could be counted among its achievements. But the vice president also intends to be his own man in foreign as well as domestic affairs.

U.S. Presidential Election Is off Most Investors' Radar Screens (Oct. 6)

In last week's presidential debate he spoke about serving in the Vietnam War despite his father's antiwar position -- a subliminal reminder to voters that he is prepared to protect America from its enemies and can't be stuck with Mr. Clinton's draft-dodging rap.

Except when it concerned China, the Clinton administration has suffered from lapses of attention to Asian affairs because of a lack of senior policy makers with a career background in the region. That wouldn't be the case with a Gore administration, particularly if it brings in the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke, as secretary of state. Mr. Holbrooke was an unusually assertive assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs during former President Jimmy Carter's administration.

The two candidates offer contrasting management styles. The Republican candidate is a greenhorn at foreign affairs. But he has surrounded himself with a phalanx of Asia-savvy advisers who have proven their worth in the Reagan and Bush administrations. This group includes Paul Wolfowitz, a former deputy secretary of defense and U.S. ambassador to Jakarta; Richard Armitage, a former assistant secretary of defense and U.S. bases negotiator; and former National Security Council staffers James Kelly and Douglas Paal.

Mr. Gore appears to be the more seasoned man at this craft, however. He takes credit for having launched, together with the late Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi, a joint program to help East Asian economies recover from the late 1990s financial crisis. The downside of his extensive foreign-policy service is being vulnerable to blame for the tanking of U.S.-Russian relations during the Clinton Administration's watch. Mr. Gore was the administration's co-manager of this relationship while Russia was wasting billions of dollars in loans and economic aid.

For Asian expertise the Gore campaign relies on James Sasser, the former U.S. ambassador to China, and Sandra Kristoff, a former White House and U.S. trade office aide. But the vice president is known to listen most to his long-time mentor Leon Fuerth, the likely national security adviser in a Gore White House. The rumpled, publicity-shy aide is one of the authors of Mr. Gore's "forward engagement" strategy in foreign affairs. Mr. Fuerth defines that strategy as "being able to spot things coming in over the horizon and beginning to think about the policy implications at an early stage."

• New Problems

What this means in practical terms, the Gore campaign says, is that in addition to minding the traditional national security concerns, the new administration has to tackle a new generation of global problems like environmental degradation, the spread of AIDS and the continuing vulnerability of emerging markets to financial crises.

The differences in the candidates' approach to national missile defense could have a profound impact on Asia.

Mr. Gore would proceed cautiously with testing a limited land-based system, taking care not to provoke Chinese countermeasures or violate an antiballistic missile treaty with Russia dating back to the Soviet era.

Mr. Bush wouldn't have any such hesitation about putting a missile shield in place, and he prefers a sea-launched version, which implies the possible participation of Japan and other Asian allies in its development. That bolder stance fits neatly with Mr. Bush's interest in making Japan, not China, America's real strategic partner in Asia.

One of his senior advisers, Robert Zoellick, sees an incoming generation of Japanese leaders prepared for a larger role in regional security -- more peacekeeping missions, greater logistical support for U.S. forces. Mr. Zoellick wouldn't be daunted by Chinese recriminations. "If a Chinese general storms out of the room because we have an alliance with Japan, fine. When he is ready to talk, we are ready to talk," he told a recent Asia Society meeting.

Each campaign is quick to find fault in the other's Asian strategy. In his last foreign-policy speech Mr. Gore accused his Republican opponent of being "stuck in a Cold War mind-set" that continues to treat Russia and China as "present or future enemies." In the vice president's view, the two former enemies should be America's "vital partners" in fighting the new global menaces.

The Bush team speaks less about new challenges than it does about maintaining traditional relationships. It is scornful of the way the Clinton administration passed up a chance to rush to Thailand's aid at the onset of the Asian financial crisis.

"That was no way to treat an ally," says Mr. Armitage, a Republican who served three tours of combat duty during the Vietnam War. Mr. Bush wants to have "our allies with us when they are needed and to respect them even if they aren't needed," Mr. Armitage says.

• Fierce Debate

Whether one candidate could deal more effectively with Asia than the other is a matter of fierce partisan debate. Mr. Gore's friends insist that the studious, hard-working vice president is better prepared than the Texas governor. Mr. Gore "understands the problems with China, Pakistan and India as well as anyone in this room," said Dale Bumpers, a former Democratic senator from Arkansas, in a recent American Enterprise Institute gathering of foreign-affairs aficionados. The Gore team paints its Republican opponents as being incoherent on the issues of China, Taiwan and missile defense.

"It's hard to tell what the Bush policy is because there are two schools that speak up -- the hard-liners and the moderates," says Bruce Jentelson, a Duke University political scientist who advises Mr. Gore.

Mr. Bush's advisers insist that his plain-speaking, consensus-building approach would make him more effective at getting the executive and legislative branches solidly behind what the U.S. ought to do in Asia. They recall how difficult it has been for Mr. Clinton to obtain or defeat China-related legislation because he is distrusted by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Or as Condoleeza Rice, a Russian affairs expert who serves as Mr. Bush's senior foreign-policy adviser says it, "Credibility is everything."