THE catch-phrase of U.S. President Bill Clinton’s China journey can well be termed as "principled pragmatism". To many critics this sounds like trying to mix oil and water.

But be that as it may. the rationale for visiting stemmed from the conviction that somehow a way must be found to sustain the lucrative economic love affair between China and corporate America while not seeming to endorse China's contempt Tor human rights and their cynical willingness to Erovide under-the-table techno-tgical support to Third World states in search of nuclear muscle.

Another term that has been used for this policy is "constructive engagement. The reasoning goes that, yes. the Chinese are not saints. Yes. they have time and again violated strictures laid down by international agreements and Congressional flat pertaining to transfers of nuclear and missile technology. Yes. these deeds have promoted proliferation and technically made China eligible for American sanctions. Yes. they shot down hundreds of their own students in Tienan-men Square for demanding political reforms that are taken for granted in the West and in India.

But. say the proponents of constructive engagement, if we deny them Most Favored Nation (MFN) status, if we impose the sanctions mandated by American law; If President Clinton would have canceled his state visit, or. if he went

there, refused to be feted in Tienanmen Square, the result will simply be to "isolate" the Chinese. Isolating them will Rrove to be counter-productive.

will severely damage their self-esteem. It will drive them toward greater rather than less economic and political roguishness - toward more arms and technology deals, more xenophobic adventurism, more domestic political repression.

Therefore. Clinton and his advisers contend, preserving U.S. national security and building a stable international order can best be advanced by assuring continued economic progress in China and maintaining a political atmosphere in which mature dialogue can occur on "issues relating to weapons of mass destruction" and "the cause of democracy and human rights In China."

Let us assume for the moment that such "principled pragmatism" actually does have some merit: that it is indeed better to entice the ageing Bolsheviks. and their carefully cultivated protegees, who run the country gradually out of their autocratic shell and toward liberalizing Chinese society. Will not punitive measures, after all. merely drive them to retaliatory extremes if they feel that their backs are being pushed against the Great Wall?

The question we must ask. however, is why is it that sauce for the goose Is not also sauce for the gander? In other words, if "principled pragmatism" and "constructive engagement” is

the way the Clinton administration believes China can best be made a responsible citizen of the global community, then why is this policy not equally the sensible way to deal with India and Pakistan following their fall from grace over the nuclear issue?

The ciystalising American solution for South Asia is in fact the diametric opposite of Clinton's principled pragmatism/ constructive engagement thesis being applied to China. In South Asia we have two nations of massive proportions, that have already fought three wars, that are now poised on the brink of unleashing a nuclear holocaust against each other.

One country (Pakistan) is virtually bankrupt and has a barely functional civilian government whose survival ultimately rests tn the hands of Its unpredictable military. The other (India) is a developing country governed by a coalition whose lead party (the BJP) received only 25 per cent of the vote in the last election and faces enormous domestic problems ranging from rampant corruption and deep social divisions to pervasive poverty and severe overpopulation.

Is a policy of principled pragmatism and constructive engagement not called for In this region as well when one contemplates the disastrous consequences which a nuclear mis-step caused by some xenophobic reaction to Internationa] quarantine would have for not only South Asia but for

the entire world?

Is it wise to inflict sanctions and political ostracisatlon on two countries in such precarious straits as India and Pakistan if it is claimed that punishing China for its far less immediately threatening misdeeds will have a destabilising' impact on the international order?

Why the difference between the two cases If principled pragmatism and constructive engagement are supposed to represent a coherent policy initiative? The answer, of course, is that In the case of South Asia one of the cardinal principles of mature diplomacy has been forsaken. Emotion and pique have been allowed to get in the way of principled pragmatism and constructive engagement which is supposed to oe the Clinton administration's defining strategy for keeping temperamental states in the fold.

India's and Pakistan's obduracy in refusing to sign the CTBT/NPT protocols in their present form and then going nuclear despite American entreaties and threats have generated so much puritanical rage in the White House, on Capitol Hill, and among the non-proliferation theologians inhabiting the Washington think tanks, that the blatant inconsistency In their policy positions on China and South Asia respectively are simply either ignored or not even perceived.

— India Abroad News Service

The author is Visiting Professor of South Asian Studies at the University of Virginia.