Every so often, America's China policy runs smack into the fact that China and the U.S. are fundamentally different countries. China is ruled by an authoritarian regime that seeks to increase its military influence abroad. The U.S., on the other hand, is a status quo power that wants to impose its political ideals on other countries. Despite the oft-voiced desire for "partnership" between the two nations, it seems that there is little for them to agree on. While the mistaken bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was, in and of itself, a minor incident, it has removed the Band-Aids that had been applied to cover this gaping wound in the U.S.-China relationship. Good relations with China are a legitimate and worthy goal; however, unless they are based on a real and substantial foundation, events such as the May 7 bombing will continue to rend them apart.

China's response to the May 7 bombing demonstrates how little weight U.S.-China ties currently carry. The protests following the bombing were clearly organized and fanned by the Chinese government. In a country like China, public protests cannot occur without government support; government buses ferried students to the U.S. embassy, and the state-controlled media whipped up the fury and refused to broadcast repeated apologies from Clinton and NATO leaders.

Why would the Chinese government take so provocative a course? Perhaps it sees its short-term interests as more compelling than strong relations with the U.S. This June will be the 10th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square uprising, and the government may feel that nationalism is safer to promote than freedom. Students hurling rocks at the U.S. embassy in Beijing will not take time out to erect a statue of Liberty and shout pro-democracy slogans. Also, the government may hope to spur a guilt-ridden U.S. to grant concessions that it otherwise might not obtain; the Foreign Ministry has suggested that China's entry into the World Trade Organization would go a long way to ease the current tension.

However, it would be wrong to see the protests as mere expressions of government propaganda. The fear of U.S. hegemony is real, and now that Beijing is trying to cool the protests, it is finding it difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. Many protesters are convinced the May 7 bombing was intentional: while we take American benevolence for granted, residents of other countries may look at continued U.S. dominance with apprehension. Any policy that shows a willingness to use force to achieve humanitarian ends frightens countries with human rights problems. Intervention on behalf of the Kosovar Albanians, the reasoning goes, could be a model for intervention on behalf of Taiwan or Tibet.

The Clinton Administration has sought positive relations with China, but it will take something more meaningful than simply a willingness to forgive to keep the U.S.-China partnership together. Accusations have surfaced that the Clinton Administration ignored evidence of Chinese nuclear espionage and illegal money transfers in order to improve relations. If the alliance is an artificial one without strong foundation, the combined effect of such provocations (as well as what is likely to be a steady stream of human rights violations) will eventually break any U.S. consensus for partnership. The same is true for the Chinese public, which will not long support a partnership with a U.S. that it sees as trying to deny China equal standing among nations.

We endorse efforts to maintain positive U.S.-China relations because antagonizing China would have little chance of achieving U.S. aims. A powerful China hostile to the U.S. would be a dangerous, destabilizing world force. But unless the leadership in Washington can make the case that partnership with China advances vital interests on both sides--and its counterpart in Beijing can do the same--any political concord between the U.S. and China will be doomed to failure.