LETTERS.

Feinstein and China

I firmly believe, as we debate our nation's relationship with China, that we must keep our eye on the goal of developing a China that is stable, open, respectful of its people, and a leader for peace and security in Asia.

Unfortunately, your article on April 19 ("Princess Di-Fi" by John J. Miller) seriously distorted my position and history on this issue. Attached is a very recent opinion piece written for the San Jose Mercury News, which I urge you to publish so your readers can fully understand the importance of engaging China as we seek to achieve these important goals. [That article was published in the Mercury News on March 28.]

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Washington, D.C.

We have read your recent article. Shame on Mr. Miller's purported reporting and your fact-checking-the article is full of inaccuracies, almost from the beginning to the end, too numerous to mention in this letter. For the record, let me clarify certain facts about Richard Blum and the investments by Richard C. Blum & Associates, L.P., in China.

(1) Richard C. Blum & Associates has only one investment in China today, and it represents less than one-third of 1 percent of the assets we manage. (2) Our investments in China since Sen. Feinstein has been a United States senator have made almost no money. (3) Richard Blum publicly stated some time ago that if there were any profits from investments in China, he would give his portion to the American Himalayan Foundation, a foundation he started 18 years ago for social, educational, and health-related programs in Tibet. It is patently unfair to smear Mr. Blum's longstanding commitment to Tibet and the AHF, as you did, by quoting an unidentified member of Congress who challenged his commitment.

On another subject, you are correct that Mr. Blum has known Jiang Zemin for 15 years and has met with him many times. At these meetings, Mr. Blum has discussed human, political, and religious rights and autonomy for the Tibetan people. His many trips to meet with the Chinese leaders since 1989 have been to assist the Dalai Lama and his agenda pertaining to Tibet. Many of these meetings have been focused toward arranging direct talks between the Dalai Lama and Jiang Zemin. Unfortunately, to date, these talks have not taken place.

Murray Indick,General Counsel

Richard C. Blum & Associates, L.P.

San Francisco, Calif.

Sen. Feinstein and her husband's lawyer, Mr. Indick, accuse me of writing a "seriously distorted" article "full of inaccuracies." Yet neither of them points to a single factual error. And Mr. Indick's claim that "our investments in China . . . have made almost no money" sounds an awful lot like how the Clintons defend Whitewater. -J.J.M.

Look Back

I'm surprised and disappointed after reading the lead editorial in the April 19 issue ("Don't Look Back"). How can the world's respect for NATO be secured by continuing a policy that was wrong from the start? NR laments that "Republicans have borrowed the language of the Left in making their case against Clinton's policy," but it is NR that has succumbed to the Left's "logic" of pouring resources into a poorly conceived and failing endeavor. What does the future hold when we hear even from the Right that Clinton foreign-policy missteps create vital national interests where none exist?

Jay C. Mumford

Carlisle, Pa.

CORRECTION

Jay Nordlinger's article on drug czar Barry R. McCaffrey ("Clinton's Good Soldier," May 3) inaccurately reported a conversation concerning James R. McDonough, the McCaffrey deputy who in September 1998 published a piece in the Wall Street Journal sharply critical of President Clinton. In answer to the question, "Did James McDonough keep his job?," McCaffrey said, "You're darn right he did. Absolutely." He did not say, as the article stated, "You're darn right I did," in answer to a question about prior approval. The word "approve" was not used. McCaffrey in fact said, "I knew about the letter [which in the Journal became a piece] and defend his right to express these viewpoints." In answer to the question, "You mean, in advance you knew?," McCaffrey said, "Yes, sir."