BY PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER

CHINESE PEOPLE'S INSTITUTE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS

JULY 24, 1997 BEIJING, CHINA

(Speech as prepared for delivery. Views expressed herein do not necessarily represent official U.S. policy.)

Exactly twenty years ago, I informed my principal advisors that during my Presidency, I wanted to establish full diplomatic relations between the United States and China on terms that would protect American interests, maintain American credibility, and meet legitimate Chinese concerns. By the summer of 1978, the setting was propitious, and in December, 1978, China's preeminent leader Deng Xiaoping and I agreed upon the terms for normalization. That agreement was one of the major accomplishments of my administration.

Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping and I envisioned normalization to be much more than a tactic. We recognized its historic significance. We envisioned a multipolar world of increasing openness in which Sino-American cooperation would be a bulwark for world peace and prosperity.

Based upon the firm but long postponed opportunity provided by the Shanghai Communique of 1972, we committed our government and citizens to work together on behalf of future generations of Americans and Chinese. We knew each side bore responsibilities in a mutual effort. We began to forge a partnership that we hoped would survive inevitable stresses.

We harbored no illusion about the enormity and difficulty of the task before us. Setbacks would be inevitable. Decades of patience and persistence would be required before the bonds between our two countries became firm and predictable. But we knew that future generations would condemn us if we did not start the process.

In recent years, for reasons that are known to all, both Americans and Chinese have lost sight of the original vision that brought us together. The relationship seems to have lost a sense of the common purpose. In both countries, all too many commentators are casting unwarranted aspersions on the intent of the other side. Some even forecast inevitable rivalry and conflict between our two countries. I disagree. Through mutual efforts, we can forge a bright future.

On the eve of President Jiang Zemin's important trip to the United States the first by a Chinese head of state after an excessive lapse of ten years perhaps it would be helpful to remind ourselves of the original aspirations for Sino-American relations.

That is the main purpose of this fifth trip of mine to China: as a private citizen, to use my limited influence to help both sides seize the many opportunities that exist for constructive relations between the Chinese and American people. The rationale for extensive, deep, enduring, and mutually beneficial relations between our peoples is as persuasive as ever:

We share common strategic interests in preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and creating stable post-cold war security arrangements, so that no country feels impelled to embark upon an expansionist path.

We have a common desire to promote stability on the Korean peninsula, to prevent the reappearance of age-old Asian rivalries, and to consolidate the good relations among all major powers in the Asia Pacific region. Everyone would suffer if an arms race were to erupt in this part of the world.

Our economies are complementary, and a genuinely open international trade regime benefits us both. Both sides profit from increased trade, investment, and access to each other's markets.

All humankind looks to our two countries to address such issues as global climatic change, the spread of communicable diseases, trade in narcotics, or the dangers of terrorism. Constructive relations between our two countries will not guarantee solution to these problems. Without our active cooperation, however, the efforts will surely fail.

These realistic considerations demand constructive Sino-American relations. But my approach to China has also reflected other influences. I first visited China as a young American naval officer in 1949. My submarine called at the harbors of Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Qingdao, and I witnessed the poverty and suffering of a nation struggling to recover from foreign invasion, civil war, and chaos.

Moreover, before, during, and after my Presidency, I have believed that the gaps between the privileged and the downtrodden, between the oppressed and the oppressor, between the rich and the poor, between the developed and the developing worlds are the greatest sources of tension, conflict and violence both within and among nations.

That belief inspired me, before my Presidency, to condemn racial segregation and to support the civil rights of African-Americans in my native land.

That belief explains the attention my administration devoted to Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia: returning the Panama Canal Zone to Panama; helping to bring an end to the racist governments in southern Africa; achieving peace with hope for both Israelis and Palestinians alike; firmly resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; and returning human rights, broadly defined, to the agenda of American foreign policy. In all these instances, the United States sought to right previous injustices and to promote a more stable and equitable world.

Since my Presidency, at The Carter Center, we similarly have devoted ourselves to the problems of the impoverished, the weak, and the oppressed, seeking to enable the less fortunate among us to overcome their afflictions and to have greater control over their own destiny. One of the most successful projects of The Carter Center, of course, was to assist China in its efforts to aid the physically handicapped.

From this perspective, China's rapid economic development and the resulting improved quality of life for most Chinese nearly a quarter of humanity significantly reduces global inequality. China's economic development and its increasing involvement in the international economic system mean that the Chinese people are acquiring an increased stake in world peace and stability.

Put simply, as President, I felt that a prosperous China, integrated into the international economy, would become a more positive and constructive force in world affairs than the isolated China of the 1960s and early 1970s. The record since 1977 largely demonstrates the wisdom of that policy. That process should continue to go forward rapidly, before rather than after China acquires major military might.

Each of my successors and the American public have accepted this viewpoint. Enlightened self-interest has prevailed, and both the public and private sectors of the United States have done much to facilitate China's economic development:

Beginning in 1979, the American people have welcomed over 100,000 Chinese visiting scholars and students to our colleges and universities, with the overwhelming number having been funded by the United States. Many have now returned to China to contribute to their motherland and countless thousands of others will do so in the future. I am very proud of this exchange, and hope that it can be expanded in the future.

The United States accepted the entry of the People's Republic into the World Bank and the IMF before its non-market economy fully merited membership.

The United States has opened its markets to Chinese goods. Americans consume nearly 40 percent of all Chinese exports. American corporations and financial institutions are investing heavily in China, and American firms are particularly generous in facilitating technology transfers to China.

And through its military deployments and security alliances in the region, as well as its support of multilateralism in Asia and the Pacific, the United States helps to maintain a security framework that enables not only China but the entire region to enjoy unprecedented peace and stability.

Some ill-advised Americans condemn the policy of welcoming China's growing participation in world affairs. They seek to constrain American trade and diplomatic contact with China. They fear China's economic development and the likely gradual growth in military power that will come with it.

To such voices, I say: It is far better to anticipate the challenges and opportunities posed by a prosperous and friendly China than to confront the dangers of an alienated China or attempt the worthless task of keeping China weak and isolated.

In short, every American administration since 1972 has recognized that the American interests are served by a secure, modernizing, humane and well governed China that contributes to global and regional stability and prosperity. And such a China corresponds to the yearnings of the Chinese government and its people. Similarly, in my view, China's interests are served by a United States that is secure, economically sound, well governed, and constructive in its foreign policy. And I am sure the American people would welcome a statement from China's leaders along these lines.

What does this formulation really mean? To answer this question, we must look not to the past but to the future. We must not dwell excessively on the road we have traversed since the Shanghai communique, the normalization of diplomatic relations, and the 1982 agreement on arms sales to Taiwan, although those documents remain binding. Rather we must explore the terrain ahead.

All humanity and all governments are confronting a similar set of unprecedented but poorly understood challenges resulting from demographic and technological change. For example, throughout the world, people's aspiration and expectations are being transformed through the ease of communication and transportation: the spread of television, satellite dishes, fax machines, personal computers, and electronic communications. Governments cannot halt these technological changes. To the contrary, they must learn to utilize the opportunities that new technologies offer.

These developments also mean that pursuit of national security, economic growth, and effective governance will be conceptually different in the years ahead than they were in the twentieth century. These changes are already evident.

In the realm of security, for example, technological changes are transforming weaponry and military strategy. No nation can effectively attain its security by intimidating its neighbors and making them feel insecure. Those who feel insecure have increasing access to weapons of mass destruction.

In the economic realm, individual countries find it difficult to design an independent growth strategy in an integrated global economy. Political and economic leaders are increasingly subject to the discipline of external forces and institutions. Should they seek to exempt themselves from the constraints of international financial and commercial forces, their economics will stagnate.

And rulers everywhere are increasingly judged by their adherence to international standards of conduct. Permit me to cite several examples:

Nations are criticized when they do not fulfill their financial obligations to international organizations, such as the United States for its failure to meet its payments to the United Nations.

Nations find themselves isolated when they depart from accepted international commercial practices, such as the United States is learning in the controversy over the Helms-Burton act.

Nations come under special scrutiny when they violate internationally accepted standards of human rights or when it appears they are denying basic freedoms to ethnic and religious minorities. For example, China's treatment of its Tibetan people is eliciting increasing concern around the world.

In light of these changes, what will be required for the United States and China indeed for any country to be effectively and humanely governed in the 21st century?

Clearly, the fundamental nature of human beings will not change. All people will still share common yearnings: to have adequate food, shelter, and clothing; to live without fear of random violence, arbitrary arrest and torture; to worship as they choose; to enjoy freedom of speech and assembly and to participate in their own governance. Responding to these yearnings is the essence of promoting human rights. And our constitutions, laws, and our voluntary accession to many international charters and convenants obligate both of our countries to meet these yearnings.

But effective governance in the 21st century will entail more than government protecting the human rights of its citizens against abuses. Positive actions will also be required:

providing for the welfare of increasing numbers of elderly citizens;

providing humane solutions to the consequences of unprecedented population migration within and among nations;

strengthening the rule of law;

improving techniques for resolving civil conflicts;

enabling citizens to participate in the major political decisions that will affect their lives;

developing effective means for securing adequate governmental revenue;

preventing vast inequities in income distribution even as the global economy seems to be exacerbating inequalities among and within countries;

striking the appropriate balance between regulation of the market and permitting it to flourish;

appropriately allocating authority among the central, provincial, and local governments.

These are some of the issues that demographic and technological challenges are bringing to the fore. Neither of our countries will enjoy stability and prosperity if these challenges of governance go unmet. These are the challenges that both China and the United States must solve if our countries are to be effectively and humanely governed in the 21st century.

In recognition of our inadequacies, both of our countries are experimenting in many areas of governance, in the light of our own traditions and international commitments. For example, the United States is decentralizing its welfare system, increasing competition in the market place and adjusting the responsibilities of the national and state governments. China is conducting village elections, expanding the rule of law, enlivening parliamentary bodies, developing a market economy, and improving urban governance.

In both countries, these reforms are just beginning. Creative thinking is needed concerning how governments and societies everywhere can best benefit from the implications of technological change, economic integration, and multipolarity in the 21st century. The best answers are likely to be conceived not by national governments but at the local levels, not only by government but also in the private sector.

In different ways, both of our countries fall short of our aspirations and commitments, and it is beneficial for each of us to evaluate ourselves and one another. Each of us should welcome reminders of our deficiencies as long as the comments are constructive rather than arrogant or self-righteous. And when one of us makes improvements, the other should acknowledge it. Both China and the United States have neglected these simple points in our human rights discussions in recent years.

I offer The Carter Center as one location where influential people from our two countries, on the basis of equality and mutual respect, can share ideas on the challenges of the 21st century. We have much to learn from each other as we separately seek solutions suited to our distinctive conditions and historical experiences. Extensive dialogue and cooperation on issues of human rights and governance can foster mutual trust and help us surmount the strategic, economic, and cultural differences that could divide us.

Let us join hands to build a better future for our two peoples and all humanity. Let us resume the journey Deng Xiaoping and I started twenty years ago.