In this country many governments and organizations have "zero tolerance" for drug abuse [at least the criminalized variety]; in China they have zero tolerance for dissent. The apologists for the Clinton [and previous] administration lament that sanctions won't work with China. Unfortunately, neither does "constructive(?) engagement" - with one major difference: with engagement we are pouring 35+ billion dollars into a repressive economy that is bent on becoming a major military power. Admittedly, with today's geopolitical realities military power is much more of a liability than an asset, but it is helpful in retention of political power at home - for the short term, anyway. The reality is, with today's megaweaponry, no one can really afford a significant victory against a major power. But that hasn't stopped big spenders like Dick Armey, Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich from pouring over a quarter trillion dollars per year [much of which leaks into their districts and states] in pursuit of folly. The big question is: why would anyone who believes in raising military spending levels and strenghening "defense" deliberately support pouring money into a country which most likely will try to challenge us militarily? This voter wants to know.
1/31/97