The New York Times

September 12, 1997

The Chinese Plot

Two months after Senator Fred Thompson boldly declared that China had developed a plan to influence the 1996 American elections with secret and in some cases illegal operations, his serious accusation remains unproved but also unimpeached. That is unnerving, for the charge is not only one of the ' most explosive elements of the campaign finance scandal but also central to the Management of Washington's relations with Beijing. Both the Senate and the White House have an obligation to tell the country what they know and what they make of it.

There has been much partisan debate about the accusation among Mr. Thompson's colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee, and President Clinton has several times said that evidence of improper Chinese activities would be a matter of concern to him. The Senate Intelligence Committee, in an effort to help resolve the confusion, has reviewed the relevant intelligence material. On Wednesday, it heard secret testimony about the matter from Attorney General Janet Reno, Louis Freeh, the Director of the F.B.I., and George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence. None of this, alas, has provided the American people with a single piece of helpful information.

They have been left to puzzle over circumstantial evidence suggesting a Chinese plot, including the transfer of large sums from Chinese banks to a number of generous donors to the Democratic Party, including Yah Lin (Charlie) Trie. Last year several members of Congress reported that the F.B.I. had notified them that China might attempt to funnel money into their campaigns. Unfortunately, some of the people most likely to know whether there was a Chinese effort, like Mr. Trie and John Huang, the Democrats' primary solicitor of Asian money, have declined to testify before the Thompson committee. Mr. Trie has fled to China.

Part of the problem is the sensitive nature of whatever hard evidence there is. Through wiretaps and other forms of electronic intercepts, the United States has clearly collected some information about Chinese plans. Washington, understandably, is fearful that any public disclosure of that information would expose the specific intelligence sources and methods used to obtain it. Ms. Reno has told the Senate she fears public disclosure would compromise whatever investigation she is conducting into the fund-raising affair.

These obstacles can be overcome by preparing a summary or assessment of the information that shields the details while providing some judgment whether the evidence of a plot looks credible and whether there is any tangible indication that illegal activities took place. The Senate Intelligence Committee seems best equipped to do that job, but it has so far failed to settle on a plan to do so. If it cannot muster the will to provide this public service, the Senate leadership ought to appoint a panel of independent experts to review the information. Mr. Clinton, for his part, could instruct Mr. Tenet and Mr. Freeh to prepare a public report.

If the charge of Chinese involvement is unsupported by reliable evidence, it should be withdrawn. If there is information showing planning but not implementation, that should be publicly established. If there is strong evidence of actual Chinese interference in the Presidential or Congressional campaigns, it ought to be made available in some form. Simply confirming that such information is available would help, even absent detail. The matter is too important to be left to speculation and closed meetings of the Intelligence Committee.

With China's President, Jiang Zemin, due in Washington next month, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Thompson, Ms. Reno and Senator Richard Shelby, the Intelligence Committee chairman, should spare no effort to solve this puzzle. That means getting the China evidence before the public in some fashion.