By Ian Christopher McCaleb

WASHINGTON, July 20 (UPI) -- The House's passage of the China Policy Act early Thursday afternoon, while at once presenting an illustration of a unified Congress, also served to highlight sharp contrasts in individual members' approaches to the complexities of diplomacy between China and the U.S. Debate on the measure may have provided a valuable glimpse into the bombastic standpoints taken by many members of the GOP-dominated Congress who strongly differ with the executive branch of the U.S. government, which favors "engagement" and dialogue with the Chinese.

With such sharp divisions in the U.S. government, the road ahead that both countries must travel to mend their ties may be long and difficult. The bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Doug Bereuter, R-Neb., chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the International Relations Committee; and Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., the ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee, blew through the House by a vote of 416-10.

The act, while worded to acknowledge China's "strategic, economic and military importance in Asia," also demanded China desist from "widespread human rights abuses," harassing journalists, and "engaging in discriminatory and unfair trade practices." The bill also demands China immediately release U.S. citizen and human rights activist Harry Wu; adhere to nuclear weapons and missile control treaties; reduce tensions with Taiwan and within Tibet; and pull back from its provocative moves in the Spratly Islands.

The act would require the president to periodically update Congress on the progress of Chinese human rights. As scores of House members took to the floor to have their say during the 90-minute debate on the Bereuter bill, individual expressions of indignation over singular issues sometimes muddled the larger diplomatic picture. And, though the bill was agreed to by a vast majority, the vote in no way illustrated the wide range of congressional displeasure with China.

The statements covered the spectrum of American political exposition -- from harsh hard-line outbursts to conciliatory tones intended to preserve the delicate rapport between two of the world's largest economic and military powers. "What we do here today should not aim to isolate or demonize China," Bereuter said. "China is not an enemy."

House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt's comments to reporters before the House took up the act indicated a great deal of negotiating between Democrats and Republicans transpired before debate, resulting in a positive vote for Bereuter's bill, and the tabling of an effort to deny China most favored nation trading status. Nonetheless, Gephardt voiced extreme frustration with China. "The Chinese have acted improperly in past days, and human rights have never been granted in that country. At some point, enough is enough," Gephardt said. "It would be pretty easy to fall into a cold war with a country like China. We are trying to avoid falling into a long period of no relationship, or a nasty, cold relationship with China as we had with Russia over 40 years," he said.

House members one after another blasted Beijing for its state- sponsored family planning policies and military expansion and trade strategies; as well as its massive prison slave-labor network, and its alleged practice of harvesting the vital organs of prisoners for its highly profitable organ transplant industry. Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., a fierce critic of the Beijing government, lashed out at China's population and family control policies, and said the countries alleged use of forced abortion and sterilization amounted to "state-sponsored murder."

Rep. David Funderburk, R-N.C., condemned the Bereuter bill and the Chinese government, saying, "This bill is tough sounding, but it is full of meaningless threats. "When has any communist regime responded to friendly requests to change its behavior?" Funderburk asked. "Where is the enforcement mechanism? There is none. You don't stop dictatorships by preemptively caving in to their demands." "(Chinese Premier) Li Peng is a butcher, said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va, in reference to the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. 'or China. I pray that China is free," Wolf said. But a panel of China experts told Bereuter's subcommittee earlier Thursday morning that such rhetoric would likely continue to cause severe damage to U.S.-China relations.

"Symbolizing the deterioration in relations, neither Beijing nor Washington now is represented at ambassadorial level in the other's capital," said Michael Oksenberg, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Asia-Pacific research center. "Clearly, this is not a healthy situation. Emotion, rather than reason, dogma rather than realism, are beginning to dominate both capitals," Oksenberg said. Oksenberg urged the subcommittee to support the Clinton administration's engagement policy, (which full committee Chairman Benjamin Gilman described Thursday as a "failure), and cautioned against letting the rhetoric of individual members dictate the formulation on foreign policy in the House. "China policy cannot be dictated by single-issue interests: human rights, abortion, the environment, Taiwan or pro-Tibet lobbies, and business interests," he said. "An integrated, multi-faceted and multi-lateral strategy ... is the only way to ensure the continued...inclusion of China in the world community.

Susan Shirk, director of the University of California's Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, said philosophical differences within the Chinese government may create as many problems for U.S.-China relations as the differences seen Thursday in Washington. With Deng Xiaoping, China's "Supreme Leader" and architect of the country's free market reforms, old and close to death, Shirk said, the competition between reform-minded Communist Party members and Maoist hardliners will likely lead to a clearer picture of Chinese attitudes toward the U.S. "Until the post-Deng successors have consolidated their rule we will see repeated instances of tough Chinese positions toward the U.S.," she said. "Much of Chinese foreign policy is driven by the dynamics of domestic political competition and is only marginally influenced by U.S. actions," Shirk explained. "The challenge for U.S. policy-makers is to help provide opportunities for Chinese leaders to take bold but positive foreign policy initiatives that win them d

omestic support. Demonstrations of international statesmanship can demonstrate a leader's strength even more effectively than saying no to the U.S.," she said.