The revelations early this week that sensitive military technology had been leaked to China has Washington abuzz. A Chinese-American scientist working at the famous U.S. laboratory in Los Alamos (where J. Robert Oppenheimer '25 led the development of the first nuclear bomb) is being investigated by the FBI as the link which allowed the Chinese to develop miniature warheads, leaping ahead 25 years of technological advancement in the field of nuclear weaponry.

Most military analysts see the espionage, which took place in 1988, as possibly the worst since the Rosenbergs were executed in the 1950s for spying for the Soviet Union. More importantly, they argue, the theft represents a grave threat to national security.

For the last couple of months, a Congressional committee has been studying the effects of the theft, which was surprisingly only discovered while Energy Department officials were pouring over old files. According to The New York Times, the committee unanimously concluded that "China had harmed national security during the last 20 years by stealing American nuclear secrets and acquiring other American technology."

The Clinton administration vehemently denies downplaying the seriousness of this breach in national security, correctly pointing out that the theft occurred during the Republican administration of Ronald Reagan. However, the Clinton policy towards China in this matter is still far from reassuring.

The administration's policy of "constructive engagement" allows China a lot of breathing room, especially in terms of economic affairs. While the administration seems to embrace China because it claims to supports "free trade"--very much controlled by the Communist government--they ignore Chinese arms sales to Pakistan and Iran, theft of American satellite technology for military use, attempts on the part of the Chinese military to influence the 1996 election, and now this key development.

It is possible to understand the dilemma the administration faces towards China. Many analysts and entrepreneurs who support Most Favored Nation status and trade agreements with China, saying the United States should allow it to develop economically before it develops politically (despite egregious human rights abuses). Yet the Clinton administration's laxity towards the second greatest military power in the world is extremely naive.

Clinton has always been known for his tip-toeing on delicate issues, but this is no time to be politically vague. When any policy threatens the national security of the United States, it should be scrutinized without hesitancy. This includes "constructive engagement." As Vincent Wei-Cheng Wang, assistant professor of political science at the University of Richmond, says, "The United States should engage China prudently, rather than blindly." We agree.