In an age of public cynicism for politics, criticizing the political establishment for being hypocritical is almost trite. In the case of the Clinton administration's contradictory trade policies with Cuba and China, however, the charge of hypocrisy is warranted. While both countries are guilty of flagrant human rights violations, the prized "Most Favored Nation" (MFN) trade status has been bestowed upon the far more culpable Chinese.

The Helms-Burton Act of 1996 was authored in retaliation to the shooting down of two American planes by the Cuban government. Helms-Burton entitles American citizens to sue foreign companies that use property confiscated from Americans by Castro's government and also denies U.S. entry visas to those companies' employees. The act has been met by almost unified international opposition.

A chorus of Europeans, Canadians and Mexicans have told the United States that the days of exploding cigars are over--if we are ever to unseat Castro, these nations say, we must make economic love, not war. They are right to point out the discrepancy which exists in U.S. trade policy, wrong to criticize the U.S. government's stalwart position on Cuba. Conscience calls upon the United States to continue to oppose Cuba for depriving its citizens of free expression, even if the price is standing alone among the nations of the world.

Should we abandon our sanctions against rogue terrorist-sponsoring nations such as Iran, Libya, and Syria in the Wilsonian hope that we will make them "safe for democracy?" (The U.S. is, incidentally, conspicuously alone in the crusade against these nations as well.) Were we not right to have imposed economic sanctions against South Africa during Apartheid in spite of the negative economic effects of the sanctions for both the United States and South Africa?

My fear is that conscience is not the primary incentive for our sanctions against Cuba. If our Cuban policy has been dictated by conscience, why is our China policy so remarkably unconscionable? China was awarded in spite of its hostility toward Taiwan last year, its foot-dragging in releasing and pardoning the Tiananmen dissidents, its limitations on the number of children parents are allowed to have and other untold abuses on the lives of Chinese citizens.

Clinton overturned former president Bush's China policy to grant a nation guilty of flagrant human rights violations MFN trade status. Even if this can be excused as an attempt to introduce the Chinese to capitalism (and thereby, inevitably to coerce the fall of one of the lasting bulwarks of communism), it must still be recognized as an abandonment of the principles which Americans hold dear. Our attempt to create a "favorable investment climate" in China by "exporting democratic values" may be an effective tool for bringing China's relationship with communism to an end, but at what ideological price?

The Cuba headache, of course, is seen by the current administration as an entirely different situation from China. How they arrived at this distinction is inexplicable. There are only two differences which could have prompted our dual policies. First, being much closer to the U.S. mainland, Cuba is more effective in reminding the U.S. government of the principles we once cherished but abandoned in China's case. Second, Clinton has a significant constituency of Cuban-American exiles who oppose Castro's government and no analogous core of exiled Chinese supporters. (In the latter case I may yet be proven wrong if allegations about Clinton's Asian campaign contributors are well-founded.)

The British have criticized the American refusal to be tried in the court of the World Trade Organization (WTO), calling the United States' position "arrogant." In defense, the United States has threatened to invoke "national security" as a justification for its ban on Cuba. This poses a problem for the potential effectiveness of the infant WTO in ensuring free trade practices. (Japan has also invoked "national security" in defense of its inflated rice tariffs.) It would have been much more savvy to avoid resorting to the crutch of national security, but given our contradictory attitude toward the Chinese, we are prevented from stating the case in the simple terms of ideological opposition--Castro's reign has destroyed lives, is inimical to free expression, and Cubans should be given a leader of their own choosing.

The Clintonites have to justify their different stances toward the authoritarian government the U.S. has decided to embrace as a partner in trade (China) and the authoritarian government the U.S. has not (Cuba). What complex axiom of foreign policy justifies this hypocrisy? Economic expedience perhaps, but certainly not moral conviction. The administration must explain the discrepancy between its two contrasting policies not just so that it can avoid the embarrassment of a hostile international community, but more importantly, because it is the promise of American democracy to aim higher than our neighbors' low criterion of convenience.

Justin C. Danilewitz is a sophomore and Crimson editor living in Currier House.