Alan Keyes
February 21, 2002

ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Good evening. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.

In light of the tragic and difficult events that we've seen in the course of the day, we're going to be following two stories for you tonight. First, as you just saw, President Bush wrapping up his trip to China, answering questions from students there, and we will be discussing the China policy and China as a possible member of the “axis of evil” later on in the program.

Following the news that Daniel Pearl, the “Wall Street Journal” reporter who was kidnapped in Pakistan last month, has indeed been killed by his captors, we're going to be taking a look first of all at that story, reaction to it, and also at what appears to be in that context a possible change in the articulation of U.S. policy toward these hostage takings under the Bush administration.

First, we'll get a quick update on the Daniel Pearl story. Joining us now is MSNBC's Dawna Friesen, who is live from Karachi via video phone — Dawna.

DAWNA FRIESEN, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Alan. Yes, confirmation of Daniel Pearl's death came in a videotape, that videotape received by Pakistani authorities here in Karachi late Thursday evening.

U.S. officials then viewed the videotape and confirmed that it is in fact Daniel Pearl. They say that it shows graphic and indisputable evidence of his death.

Now, there's no date on this videotape, we understand. So it's not clear exactly when he died.

The “Wall Street Journal” has called his death an act of barbarism. Pearl was 38 years old, a reporter who had dedicated his entire professional life to explaining the grievances of the dispossessed to the rest of the world. He's described by his family as a gentle soul. His colleagues are heartbroken. They say his death makes a mockery of everything that Danny's kidnappers claim to believe in.

And tributes have been pouring in from people around the world, including President George W. Bush, who said all Americans are sad and angry, he said especially sad for Daniel Pearl's family and for his unborn child, President Bush saying that this only demons the resolve of the United States to rid the world of terrorism.

But perhaps most devastating this morning here in Pakistan is Pearl's wife Marianne. She is pregnant with their first child, due to give birth to a baby boy in May.

She's a journalist herself who was helping Daniel Pearl on his stories, researching Islamic extremism here in Pakistan. And throughout the kidnapping, she has been making repeated public appeals to the captors to please release her husband, saying that he is just a reporter trying to do his job, Alan.

KEYES: What had been the reaction of the Pakistani government to these events? Have you been able to discern?

FRIESEN: Well, Pakistani authorities have been trying to investigate this as thoroughly as they can. U.S. officials confirm that and say they agree Pakistani — the government and the authorities have been doing everything they can. But tonight from — or this morning, rather, here in Pakistan, from the Pakistani government, a statement saying — condemning Daniel Pearl's death as an outrage, extending condolences to his wife and family and colleagues.

And they also say that they are committed to bringing those responsible for his murder to justice, that his murder will further strengthen their resolve to do this. They also say that Pakistan remains committed to root out terrorism in all its forms.

But right now, the state of the investigation is unclear. They have this videotape, but they do not have a body. They do not have those responsible for killing Daniel Pearl. So there's a great deal of work left to be done.

They have the names, or at least aliases, of several suspects who they ave been trying to find in the past several days. So far, no success on that front.

They do have three people in custody who are believed to be the men who sent the e-mails announcing Daniel Pearl's abduction and the photographs showing him in captivity. And, of course, they also have in custody the man believed to be the mastermind, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. He, in fact, confessed to the kidnapping last week in court here and said at that point that he believed Daniel Pearl was dead. But that confession was not done under oath in court. And prosecutors are now saying they will need more evidence in order to convict Sheikh Omar, Alan.

KEYES: Dawna, thank you very much for that update. We really appreciate your being with us.

These events obviously have touched Americans all around the country. They have shaken us again in a way that reminds us of the terrible perils that exist in this world, but also of the senseless violence that comes from the heart of that evil under the shadow of which these days we appear, sadly, to live.

In reaction to these events and the context that they create, there has, in fact, been apparently a change in the articulation of U.S. policy toward these hostage takings by the Bush administration. It's not clear, at least as I read it, what this change in articulation means, what it comes from. We'll be talking this evening with a couple of folks I'll introduce in a moment about that.

But it appears to be the case that in a crucial change we have a policy that is removing language that had existed previously. In a crucial change, the new policy removes a paragraph that says U.S. Foreign Service posts will limit their participation to helping make contact with foreign governments in cases in which private organizations or citizens negotiate ransom.

The old policy also stated flatly that the U.S. government cannot participate in developing and implementing a ransom strategy. The new policy says if the hostage taking is resolved through concessions, the U.S. government will find and prosecute hostage taking.

Now, that summary of the policy changes comes from an Associated Press report. And obviously, for many of us, including folks like myself who in the course of my government experience had worked for a while on the policy toward terrorism, that possible change in articulation has raised some serious questions.

Joining us tonight to help us look at those questions, their implications, and the implications of the Daniel Pearl tragedy and its aftermath, we have former FBI agent and hostage negotiator Clinton Van Zandt, a consultant to MSNBC, and former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, who used to be one of my bosses at the State Department and colleague and friend. Welcome to MAKING SENSE, really appreciate your joining us tonight.

Let me start with you, Lawrence Eagleburger. Looking at this overall situation, I know you have probably seen and heard reports of the change in policy articulation.

What sense do you make of it? I'm kind of asking myself the question why we needed a new articulation of a policy that had over the course of years developed some real clarity. Does this make sense to you? And where do you think it's going?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: It makes absolutely no sense at all. I share your view that I can't even understand what it's saying, except that it is introducing the waffle factor into an issue where things were fairly clear.

And what I have to say is I think it is at least the indication that some people want to retreat from the former policy. But they aren't even clear about to where they want to retreat. But I don't like it, I'll tell you that much.

KEYES: One of the things that I can't understand, and I've been thinking about both the reporting that's taken place, the kinds of things at that seem to be going on. There doesn't seem to have been any pressure for the administration or the government to play any greater role in these events.

I think a lot of folks understand that there are limits to what the government can do without endangering the rest of us. What were they responding to in this changed articulation?

EAGLEBURGER: It beats me. The only thing I can assume is not that there was any great pressure, but that somebody in the State Department or the White House or somewhere is of the view that it is wrong or immoral or something to stand back and catch somebody like this particular case end up dead.

That's the only thing I can describe it to. And I must tell you if that's the case, it's nonsense because they haven't thought through the consequences of what they're now starting to do.

KEYES: Clint Van Zandt, you have experience as a negotiator in situations of this kind. Look at the policy articulation, the possible change that may have taken place here. What sense do you make of it? What do you think this implies?

CLINT VAN ZANDT, FORMER FBI AGENT: Well, yes. My position was somewhat like yours, Alan. I was a practitioner, where the secretary of state helped form these policies.

But when I would go overseas on a kidnapped U.S. citizen, we had the support of the State Department. We had liaison with the local government. We would work with either government negotiators or private negotiators with the whole premise of let's get this U.S. citizen back.

Now, if the articulation says we will do everything we can to get a U.S. citizen back, up to and including as the Brits would say, the final option, which is some type of tactical force, if we had to do it, I'm not advocating that. but I'm saying if I was a U.S. citizen and if I was kidnapped and everything was being done to negotiate my release and it wasn't working, I'd still like to know that the cavalry could be coming over the hill trying to get me out there. And that's a risk in my case I would have been willing to take.

EAGLEBURGER: How about paying ransom?

VAN ZANDT: I don't think the U.S. government should ever, ever entertain paying ransom. Now, you've got to differentiate one more time, if you're a private individual, if your family pays ransom, if your company does, they can still do that. And the U.S. government doesn't tell you not to do it. But the last thing we need is the U.S. government signing a check and turning it over. It's open season on Americans if we do that.

KEYES: That's one of the things that I think has always been very clear. And it was one of the major rationales for the policy we had articulated and maintained.

You not only are declaring a marketplace. There is a market open now on certain individuals out there. But if the government gets involved with the seemingly limitless coffers of the U.S. government, doesn't every American citizen then become a target for whoever wants to join in this marketplace of human lives?

VAN ZANDT: Absolutely.

KEYES: Isn't that the case, Larry Eagleburger? I've always thought that that was so crystal clear that no one would want to confuse a policy like this.

EAGLEBURGER: Well, it's crystal clear to me. I thought it was crystal clear. There's no question that that's what it's opening the door to. And in addition to that, you have to then ask, all right, if we now are changing the policy so that we are one way or another going to become involved in trying to get these people out beyond the question simply of talking to the other side, then does that mean we have to do it for every single American who is ever kidnapped? And the answer I would think is, yes, we can't make distinctions.

KEYES: I actually think we've seen a little example of that fact, that the government can't make distinctions in the fact that when the government took over the airport security the other day, they eliminated the lines that had existed for first class passengers to move through security more expeditiously. And I think the thinking is that a government agency can't discriminate among American citizens.

VAN ZANDT: That's right.

KEYES: It makes perfect sense, and it would clearly be the case when dealing with hostage situations. We can't send a signal that somebody's life as an American citizen is worth more than somebody else's when the government is responsible to all of us and for all of us in this context.

VAN ZANDT: Let me throw you a wild card, though. What if, as has been the case in the past, you've got an American overseas who is a drug dealer, an arms dealer, an explosives dealer? He is clearly violating the laws of both the United States government and the host government. Are we going to exert that same level of care and concern when he put himself in harm's way to begin with?

KEYES: Well, see, that's the sort of question that wouldn't come up if we weren't articulating a policy that kind of led to the assumption we were going to involve ourselves in all these things.

EAGLEBURGER: Yes.

KEYES: I look at the present situation. And, Lawrence Eagleburger, I say to myself, I don't see what's broken here. I understand that sometimes people are taking risks, many of them knowing the risks that they are taking. But under these circumstances, I thought the policy we articulated was clear, and that in point of fact it did work to discourage to some degree the wholesale assault on Americans around the world. Why change it?

EAGLEBURGER: Whether it worked or not we'll never clearly know. But the fact of the matter is at least everybody knew where we were and what we would permit and what we would not. And the difference between talking to the other side and negotiating with the other side I think is fairly clear. I don't mind talking. But I certainly don't believe in negotiating.

I think you're right. I don't know what was broken. The only thing I can assume is that somebody in this particular event became very uncomfortable with the fact that we were sitting there with a policy and in the end that this gentleman died because of it.

Well, he didn't die because of the policy. I don't think even if we had had a policy of negotiating, I don't think we could have saved this man's life.

KEYES: Joining us now is Tina Susman, a journalist who spent 20 days held hostage while covering the war in Somalia for the Associated Press. Tina is now a journalist for “Newsday” in New York. Tina, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

Given your situation, you have a very unique perspective to bring to all of this. And the first thing I wanted to ask you, I mean, you were actually held hostage in a situation like this. What is your take on the kinds of things that should be done? Should we be paying ransom in this situation as the U.S. government or not?

TINA SUSMAN, JOURNALIST, “NEWSDAY,” HELD HOSTAGE IN SOMALIA: No, we shouldn't be paying ransom. I don't think anybody should be paying ransom. I think be it a company that pays ransom, a government that pays ransom, it is just going to open the door and send a message that other people can be taken hostage. And kidnappers will benefit from it.

Even though I was held for 20 days, it was longer than I certainly wanted to be held. But no ransom was paid. And I'm grateful for that because if I had walked out of there after 48 hours because somebody had brought in a suitcase full of cash, I would have felt terribly guilty every time another journalist was kidnapped in Somalia. And I'm quite certain it would have happened.

KEYES: Well, what do you say to those folks who look at Daniel Pearl's case, for instance, and suggest that somehow he was taking unnecessary risks? Do you feel that that is the case with folks in your profession in a context such as that that we're dealing with in the world right now?

SUSMAN: No. When people say he was taking unnecessary risks, I get very indignant about that. It's as if they're insinuating that somehow he did something wrong, that somehow any journalist who has been harmed or kidnapped or killed did something wrong.

The fact is nobody did anything wrong except the people that kidnapped Daniel Pearl. It was the same in my case.

And when people say perhaps a journalist takes an unnecessary risk by going down a deserted road or by going out at night or by talking to the wrong people, the fact is that people who are going to do this kind of thing, they have a targeted person. And they're going to get that person no matter what. I was kidnapped in broad daylight in the middle of a busy city, in the middle of a busy intersection.

KEYES: That basically means we have to be careful to leave the blame and responsibility in this situation with the evil people who are doing the deed, not with those who are the victims of the deed.

We're going to continue our discussion with our guests right after this and talk to the parents of American missionaries currently held in the Philippines. And later, President Bush in China. We'll be asking ourselves should that communist country be included in the “axis of evil”? All that and more when we return.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Those who would threaten Americans, those who would engage in criminal, barbaric acts, need to know that these crimes only hurt their cause and only deepen the resolve of the United States of America to rid the world of these agents of terror.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: That was President Bush a couple of hours ago in Beijing addressing himself obviously to the situation that we've been discussing in this program.

We have received the news, the confirmation, that Daniel Pearl was indeed killed by his captors. And in the face of that tragic news, obviously an outpouring of both grief and outrage from around the world.

Tonight we're joined by former FBI agent and hostage negotiator Clint Van Zandt, who is a consultant to MSNBC, former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, and Tina Susman, a journalist who was held hostage in Somalia for 20 days. As we look at this situation, obviously one question that does occur, whether in the context of this articulated policy or just in the context of these tragic events, is what kind of things can in fact be done in a situation like this? And what are the limits on what can be done?

Clint Van Zandt, given your experience and given your background, what do you think the range of options are when we're faced with a kidnapping like Daniel Pearl's? What should be done, particularly by the government in this situation?

VAN ZANDT: Well, part of this, Alan, I think it's a two-track — I'll speak as a former FBI agent. It's kind of a two-track investigation.

Track one is the negotiators working with the State Department, working with the host government, working with law enforcement, doing everything you can from the political and from the investigative standpoint to bring about the release of that captured hostage citizen. But there should be a parallel track.

President Bush told us at the start of the war that there were going to be operations that we wouldn't know about. But they're going on anyway. That second track is where you have Delta, SEAL Team Six, whoever it is who's also working with the local government, who's making a plan that should we find that citizen, we have a capability to go in and rescue him if we have to.

So, two tracks. Political, investigative, that should be our primary. But we have to have that velvet covered brick ready to use it if we need it.

KEYES: Secretary Eagleburger, do you think we should be doing something to try to curtail the kind of negotiations and ransom paying that has been going on for private parties because that, after all, does encourage at least a partial market in this kind of human merchandising?

EAGLEBURGER: You're right. But my view on that is you have to leave it alone. If a company wants to engage in that sort of thing, I think that's their right. I don't agree with it. But at the same time, I can understand why they might want to do it as long as it's understood that from the point of view of the United States government, we will not negotiate. And I underline the word negotiate.

If the companies want to do it, I think it's wrong. But I also don't think we ought to try to prevent it.

In the first place, Alan, let me say even if we try to prevent it, I know from my own experience, and I suspect you do...

KEYES: Yes.

EAGLEBURGER: ... that the companies on occasion have done it anyway...

KEYES: That's right.

EAGLEBURGER: ... even though they knew we didn't like it.

KEYES: Short of ransom paying, do you think that there are steps that can be taken, any kinds of concessions that can or should be made in situations like this?

EAGLEBURGER: In my view, you don't make one single concession. The minute you start down that road, where do you stop? Now, I'm sorry, I know that can well turn out to be heartless. And maybe there are some minor exceptions someplace, but I haven't found any. And I think we ought to make it very clear we will talk to these people, but we will not negotiate.

We'll talk to them, try to find out where these people are, etcetera, etcetera. But we're not going to negotiate with them.

KEYES: Obviously, that has some implications for folks who are in the situation and who are suffering along with those who are in that situation. We have joining us now on the phone, Oreta and Paul Burnhams. Their son Martin and his wife Gracia have been held hostage for nine months by a Muslim extremist group in The Philippines. Welcome to MAKING SENSE, and thank you for joining us this evening.

ORETA BURNHAM, MOTHER OF HOSTAGE MARTIN BURNHAM: Hello.

KEYES: You have been looking at these terrible events in the course of the day and I hope hearing some part of the discussion we've been having. We've been talking about what kind of concessions or other things might be made in this situation.

Obviously, you all are suffering right now in a terrible situation. What is your sense of what should be done in these situations?

BURNHAM: We have been trusting the government of the U.S. and the country that our son is in, The Philippines, to handle this. And we have really put our trust and confidence in their opinion, in the government, and that they will do everything right to get our son and daughter-in-law back.

KEYES: It must be, however, a very difficult situation when you contemplate what the consequences might be. What is your sense of whether or not in a situation like this ransom should be paid? Do you think that that would or wouldn't be a good idea?

BURNHAM: We have trusted everybody in this situation. And I guess it's whatever the State Department goes by, that is what we are standing by.

KEYES: I can understand that it must be difficult as you watch the events that have transpired in Pakistan. And I know many folks in countries around the world must try to pray and to feel a sense of identification with folks in your situation. How do you get through it? What makes it possible on a daily basis for you to continue with hope?

BURNHAM: We have always said right from the beginning that the Lord is in control. And we know that He's going to use all powers. And we just want to trust Him to use whatever He can. And we are trusting that He will get our son and daughter-in-law out.

And we saw this happen with Heather Mercer and those in Afghanistan. We know that many believers have been supporting them and supporting our son and daughter-in-law as well.

KEYES: Well, I hope you know that as we react to the terrible events in Pakistan and the fate of the journalist Daniel Pearl our prayers and our hearts go out to you and to all folks who are right now in situations like yours around the world where the shadow of this evil has struck your lives. And we are praying along with you that God's hand will protect your loved ones and that they will come back safely to you. Thank you so much for joining us tonight on the program.

PAUL BURNHAM, FATHER OF HOSTAGE MARTIN BURNHAM: We want to send our condolences to the wife of Daniel Pearl. And we do appreciate the help that government has tried to do to get him. But we recognize it's a hard situation. So we do want to send our regards to the family. And we can empathize with them.

KEYES: Well, God bless you both. And our prayers are with you.

O. BURNHAM: Thank you.

KEYES: We have today joining us Tina Susman, who was a journalist herself held hostage, former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger, Clint Van Zandt, a hostage negotiator.

When you are confronted with that human dimension of the situation, Tina Susman, what is one to say to the folks who are in this situation suffering every day with the possibility that their loved ones will be killed in the course of events like this? It seems awfully hard to face them, as a president might have to do, as others might have to do, and say that we can't pay ransom, that we can't be making concessions. If we take that sort of a stance, what do we say to folks like this and in this situation?

SUSMAN: I guess the same thing I used to say to myself for those 20 days when I was in Somalia knowing that my company, my government, would not pay ransom or negotiate with the hostage takers. You have to remain hopeful. You have to just keep telling yourself that it will end. It will end well.

And you have to say that no matter how difficult it is to accept the fact that ransom won't be paid and that negotiations won't take place, in the long run it will be better because it will deter people from future hostage takings.

KEYES: Tina, I have to tell you that I listen to your words and I see the resolve with which you say them, and I cannot but express my own sense that I hope that every heart in America has the integrity and courage that you show in that response because I think that if we don't show it, we're not going to be able to get through this situation without doing tremendous harm to a lot of people.

But it clearly takes a very special kind of courage that I think is a wonderful characteristic that you are showing, but that I think is also there in many Americans.

Secretary Eagleburger, do you have confidence that the American people can continue to accept the implications of a policy like this?

EAGLEBURGER: Oh, I think the American people can. I'm beginning to worry about whether officials in Washington can.

I think the American people by and large will understand something like this. And, by the way, I should say, Alan, I've been in those shoes when I've had to talk to people about what we would not do. And it is not comfortable. It is not easy and very often making exactly the point that the young lady just made, namely that if you go along with this, somebody else will be kidnapped and so forth.

That doesn't always work with the person who was living with the thing at the immediate time. That's why I have such admiration for what she said.

And I will also say to you in a similar circumstance, I don't know what I would do. And I will tell you when I was an ambassador, I wrote a letter which I left with my deputy chief of mission, which said if I'm ever taken, no matter what I say after I get taken, don't believe it. Here is what I do believe. And it was in the letter.

KEYES: I think it is very difficult for all of us to look at situations like this, wonder how we would react. That's why I think a special word has to be reserved for you, Tina. And I hope you realize the example you're setting I hope will be an inspiration to people around this country.

It is the spirit that's going to be needed to confront this matter by all of us. And the kind of wisdom, intelligence, but also the concern for the public good that you're showing is something that I think needs to inspire every American to search their hearts and understand that it's in the best interests of this country that we take this stance.

This is my own deep belief. I want to thank all of you for joining us this evening and helping us both to confront and think through this very tragic and difficult situation. Thank you for being with us tonight on MAKING SENSE.

Next, we're going to take a look at America's relationship with China and ask some tough questions about whether or not the “axis of evil” list should be expanded to include communist China given some of the activities they have engaged in with some of the front-line states on that “axis of evil.”

We will be discussing that subject when we return. Stay with us here on MAKING SENSE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: You're looking at President Bush and Jiang Zemin as they greeted each other yesterday on the president's arrival in China.

In the course of the day, he has had a press conference. He has addressed students and answered their questions.

Obviously, in the context of a visit like this, a lot of good feelings generated and the possibility of understanding between the two countries that could also potentially be two great rivals as they seek some understanding in their relationship.

Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.

In the context, though, of the kind of good feelings that are always generated by these kinds of visits, serious questions have to be addressed as well about what kinds of things are involved in the relationship.

Those questions raised in some quarters have to do with China's human-rights record, with their repression of religious minorities and sects that are not controlled by the Chinese communist regime, with their willingness to continue contacts with some of the states — Iran and North Korea in particular — that are on the axis of evil, and even to provide those states with arms and technological information that could, in fact, be used to deploy weapons of mass destruction in dangerous ways, that we have declared to be unacceptable and that the president has said quite clearly will not be tolerated by the United States.

That has raised the question in some minds of whether or not China itself should be included in the axis of evil, whether we're not deluding ourselves in the belief that this relationship is simply about trade and good feeling, when there is the undercurrent of this kind of ominous Chinese activity.

To talk about this, we are joined this evening by Kenneth Roth, the executive director of the Human Rights Watch; John Tkacik, a research fellow for China, Taiwan, and Mongolia at the Heritage Foundation — he was a foreign service officer in the State Department from 1971 to 1994 stationed in China; and Willard Workman, the senior vice president of international affairs for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

John Tkacik, I want to start with you this evening and ask you whether or not, as you look at the overall pattern of China's behavior, you think that that surface relationship, emphasis on areas where we can reach understanding and trade and cooperation, are we turning a blind eye to some of the aspects of China's behavior in the world that ought to concern us?

JOHN TKACIK, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, I think — we talk about China, whether they're a member of the axis of evil. I think certainly there's at most one degree of separation between China and the axis of evil, if you will.

The Chinese have sold chemical weapons technology, chemical weapons precursors to Iran. They've supported the North Korean military. They've provided the Iraq military with communications infrastructure. There's no doubt that there's a problem there.

I think, on the other hand, there's a dilemma for U.S. foreign policy because, as you know, China is a big country. It is America's fourth largest trading partner. It's $116 billion in trade between the United States and China each year, albeit a hundred billion in goods going from the United States — from China to the United States with only $16 billion in U.S. goods being sold to China.

Number two, as you know, China is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. We can't get anything done through the U.N. without at least their acquiescence.

And I think, number three, you have a whole new generation in China that President Bush was addressing himself to at Tsinghua University.

So you have to — it is a dilemma, and I think — if you treat China firmly but fairly, I think we'll — we can get through this.

KEYES: Kenneth Roth, you obviously follow closely developments in the human-rights area. I think many of us are aware that China's record in the human-rights area has been one that has come in for severe criticism, I think quite rightly.

What is your sense of the role — we look at regimes that we have talked about in this country now over the last several weeks, in Afghanistan, for instance, and elsewhere, that are very repressive toward religion. We have repressive policies in China.

What do you make of the Chinese human-rights policies, and how do you think we should be reacting to the kind of abuses that seem to occur?

KENNETH ROTH, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: Well, I think that there's no question that China's human-rights policies are absolutely abysmal.

There is no freedom to organize one's independent prayer, to organize an independent newspaper, to organize an independent labor union or an independent political party. If you happen to be Tibetan or Weager (ph), you face repression of your culture.

So there's no question that this is a very repressive government.

There have been some who have argued that — let's just trade with China, let's just engage with them, and that will be enough to change them. I think we've seen that now, though, that strategy has utterly failed because, while there has certainly been tremendous economic growth and opportunity in China, there has been no change for the better in Chinese repression. Indeed, in many ways, things have gotten worse in the last few years. So what's needed is not just trade but consistent pressure.

I think President Bush made a good first step this evening in his speech at the university where he spoke very eloquently about a vision of respect for human rights and actually spoke to the insecurities of the Chinese government, its fear that freedom would lead to chaos, and he said, no, that's not the case. The United States represents an example where, indeed, you can have dissent, you can have diversity without having strife or revolution.

That was a very important message, and I think the U.S. needs to look for ways to reaffirm that message in the future to intensify the pressure at the same time as it engages, because it's only with pressure that we have any prospect of the Beijing authorities changing their human-rights record.

KEYES: I have to confess, though, I hear you use the word “pressure,” and I'm asking myself, well, if we're entering into a relationship and we're willing to do whatever the Chinese feel is going to be beneficial and whether it's working on the economic front, the trade front, the admission to the World Trade Organization, Most Favored Nation Status — I mean, these are the things that they seem to value, and if one is not willing to take them off the table in the face of some of these abuses, what kind of pressure are we putting on?

Willard Workman, what do you think? Is it right that we establish some linkage between our concerns in these areas of policy and some of the economic things that the Chinese put a large store by, or do these have to operate on separate tracks?

WILLARD WORKMAN, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: Well, I think the — our whole relationship with China — everyone has to recognize that it's a very complex relationship. You can't just turn the trade spigot on and off.

I'm amused by some people who are concerned about the rightly condemned human-rights practices in China, and their solution to addressing the Chinese problem of human rights is to aim a missile at American business and American workers trying to do business in China.

I also disagree with — one of the other guests said that, you know, 23 years of economic engagement with China has wrought virtually no change, there aren't any private institutions in China. That's just not true.

At the Chamber, we've helped establish a private, independent, economic think tank to look at the issue of bankruptcy law. As China goes through, which to me is the more interesting thing, looking forward over the next 20 years, as China begins to transform under the pressure from having to comply with its commitments to the World Trade Organization, some of their state-owned enterprises are going to go out of business.

And right now, they don't have a good, orderly way to make that happen so that there isn't chaos. So they are looking, and, quite frankly, they are willing to...

KEYES: But...

WORKMAN: ... tolerate and welcome independent think tanks to give them opinions on what to do.

KEYES: When we get back, we are going to go into this further because I have a feeling — I will be addressing a question, Kenneth Roth. I do wonder whether or not all the language of pressure when we're not willing ourselves to take any risk or make the Chinese pay any cost — what sense does it make? So we will be back to continue our discussion with our guests.

Before we do, though, I want to you think about this. Kofi Annan, the U.N. secretary general, has been in the forefront of those who have been calling for some kind of global regime that would do something to curtail access to small arms around the world.

Well, lo' and behold, his security detail turns out to be in possession of paramilitary assault rifles that are regulated within the United States, and they don't have the U.S. government's permission to have these weapons.

Apparently, Kofi Annan wants to have these global regulations applying to everybody but himself. Does that make sense?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Freedom of religion is not something to be feared. It's to be welcomed because faith gives us a moral core and teaches us to hold ourselves to high standards, to love and to serve others.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: That from a speech that President Bush has given within the hour at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

We are talking about our relationship with China with Kenneth Roth, John Tkacik, and Willard Workman, specifically the issues that have to do with the human-rights record of China, with its involvement in certain kinds of relationships with some of the front-line countries on the axis of evil, and just how it is we can fit this into a cooperative relationship.

Now I listened to all the talk of human rights and the pressure we want to put on them. Kenneth Roth, I've got to tell you, if business as usual just continues, how can you say that we're putting pressure on the Chinese to do anything?

ROTH: Well, I agree that business as usual is not enough, and I — frankly, I can't let pass the comment by your guest from the Chamber of Commerce because really if he gives as an example of burgeoning freedom in China the fact that the Chamber of Commerce has been able to set up a think tank — I mean, come on.

Has he tried to set up an independent newspaper? How about an independent political party, an independent labor union? How about a group that advocates for greater autonomy for Tibet or, God forbid, a church in one's house that's independent of government? If you try one of those things and you don't find yourself advising the government on economic policy, you find yourself in prison.

That's the reality in China today. Yes, there's greater economic choice for people, but there is not greater political freedom. And my challenge to the Chamber of Commerce is if you want to make a difference, let's go beyond just trading and more business and pretending that that makes a difference.

Why not commit that all American businesses will not report on Falun Gong members who are in their business so that they can are turned over to the police and arrested? Why not vow that every American business doing business in China will permit independent labor unions and will defend the activists rather than watching them be put off in prison? That will make a difference, not just trade.

KEYES: Willard Workman — that reminds me, by the way, of an approach that was taken by American business, for instance, in South Africa where they drew up codes of conduct that were followed by businesses that were working in South Africa to assure that they would be part of progress on human rights instead of...

ROTH: That's what I mean.

KEYES: ... cooperating in the suppression of those rights. Isn't that possible in China?

WORKMAN: Well...

KEYES: Why haven't we seen that kind of courage shown by the folks who are doing business with the Chinese?

WORKMAN: Well, Alan, I hate to correct you, but what happened in South Africa — the principles that were drawn up were drawn up by the Reverend Leon Sullivan, not by American business, and some, not very many, but some American companies and other foreign companies signed on to them.

But let me respond to my friend who says that the Chamber of Commerce — all we've done is set up an independent think tank in China. We've also done journals and training in partnership with the Asia Press Foundation for economic journalists. Independent economic journalists. We've also been working on a number of different projects at the township and village level, and we've been doing this for the past 10 years.

So, yes, we are trying. We believe engagement works. We understand that it's going to take a long time. That's why we've been at it for 10 years.

KEYES: John...

WORKMAN: So, you know, we don't have to take — play second fiddle to anybody in terms of our commitment to larger business interests...

KEYES: John Tkacik...

WORKMAN: ... larger values that benefit business and everybody.

KEYES: John Tkacik, I'd like to ask you because you had a concern about the role that China has been playing in security — is this kind of engagement actually going to keep them from pursuing relationships that thus far it seems have not been curtailed with Iran and with North Korea? I mean, don't we have to take a stand that is actually going to make them pay a cost if we're going to get their attention to these matters?

TKACIK: Well, look, two things. I think that the government is — we do have sanctions on the Chinese. One of the sanctions is we — we're not permitting U.S. satellites to be launched on Chinese launch vehicles. That sort of hurts them in their pocketbook. But let's get to the broader issue.

And I'm going to make a — I'm going to make a bold prediction here, and I'm going to predict that the Communist Party is going to make tremendous changes in the next five years. The reason I say this...

KEYES: John, I'm going to have to interrupt you because, on that note, we're going to have to end. I have to say we haven't seen such bold changes from this policy of engagement as it has been pursued over the last little while. I wonder why we'd expect such breakthroughs, but we will see. This is only the first shot we'll be taking at this on this program.

TKACIK: OK.

KEYES: We'll revisit the issue.

Gentlemen, thank you for joining us tonight.

Next, I'm going to have a final note on the murder of Daniel Pearl. So stay with me for that final word here on this special edition of MAKING SENSE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: I know that in this time of their grief, all of us share the pain and feel a deep sense of compassion for the family, the wife, the unborn child of Daniel Pearl.

I pray to God that he will rest his hand upon them and lift their hearts up with a sense of hope in spite this tragedy and that we will, all of us, take courage from this event and resolve that we will act in such a way as to assure that the world into which his young child is born is a world in which the courage of our people and our resolve have, in fact, as the president said, rid the world of the scourge of terrorism.That's my sense of it this evening. We'll see you right back here again on Monday. Good night.