July 16, 1997
Open the China File
s a result of disclosures in yesterday's campaign finance hearings, the Democratic National Committee said it would return $50,000. The money wound its way from the Lippo Group in Jakarta to President Clinton's friend and fund-raiser John Huang to the party coffers back in 1992. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said it "certainly looks like the movement of foreign money into an American campaign in 1992." That makes two campaigns in a row, since we already know that the Democrats have returned $2.8 million in suspect foreign contributions in 1996.
So much for the commentators who spent last weekend assuring the country that there was nothing to be learned from these hearings. The fact is that every time the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee can get a straight answer or a fresh document, another $50,000 or $100,000 wire transfer from Asia turns up. The hearings have not been splashy or even available on live television to New Yorkers interested in finding out what went on. But one fact is beyond dispute. The White House's fund-raising cannot be covered by its standard spin of they-did-it-too or the equally shopworn whoops-sorry-about-that.
There is a pattern here of money pouring in from Asia, some from Chinese banks, that calls for a public airing of the information that led Senator Fred Thompson to say the Chinese Government had a plan to influence the election. The same information provoked Senator John Glenn to say that Mr. Thompson had interpreted the material too "loosely." Yesterday Senator Lieberman, a Democrat who nonetheless has deplored the abuses of the Clinton re-election drive, said he now felt there was indeed a Chinese plan last year to influence the Congressional elections with illegal money. But he differed with Senator Thompson's view that the plan was aimed at the Presidential contest too. Given the importance of the issue, the confusion is unacceptable. The matter needs to be clarified.
Mr. Thompson's statement was based on his own investigation and a review of intelligence reports garnered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency. The Washington Post reported that the F.B.I. Director, Louis Freeh, was involved in clearing Mr. Thompson's statement summarizing the intelligence findings before he released it. A Clinton political appointee, Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois, countered with a letter saying that the Justice Department review was only for the protection of classified information and that Senator Thompson's conclusions were "not necessarily those of the law enforcement or intelligence community."
It defies common sense that Mr. Freeh would review a statement he thought erroneous in its basic interpretation and then let it go forward, but put that aside for the moment. The question of what American intelligence agencies know is too crucial to be left up to a Ping-Ponging argument among these senators. The issue must be settled in full view of the American people, and it can be. Making that happen ought to be Senator Thompson's highest priority, regardless of Democratic obstruction and myopic commentary.
Congress has plenty of experience in placing intelligence information in the public domain in a form that does not compromise spying sources and techniques. It was done during Senate consideration of cold-war arms control treaties, as well as in the Congressional investigation of the Iran-contra case. The information can be safely summarized by the new Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, or by Mr. Freeh, in public testimony. If they are unwilling to do so, the Senate Intelligence Committee can prepare a public report on the China connection. China's role rests at the center of this affair, and it cannot be allowed to remain a mystery.
Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company
