The Times and the China Deal.

In its coverage of permanent normal trade relations for China, The New York Times reheated Bill Clinton's rhetoric and served it up as fact.

The day after Clinton won the vote in the House, a front-page story by David E. Sanger began: "With his victory today on trade with China, Bill Clinton has finally defined his imprint on American foreign policy: the President who cemented in place the post-Cold War experiment of using economic engagement to foster political change among America's neighbors and its potential adversaries."

Sanger is imputing to Clinton the grandest of geopolitical motives. But Clinton may, in fact, simply be serving the interests of U.S. multinationals, which were clamoring for more breaks with Beijing.

"I don't think Clinton or anyone else believes that it's about democracy," says Maurice Meisner, a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and author of The Deng Xiaoping Era (Hill and Wang, 1996). "What's involved is money, pure and simple."

Meisner, who is ambivalent about the trade issue, says it's silly to believe that economic liberalization will bring democracy to China. But he also objects to the whole framework of discussion.

"The assumption that is accepted by all sides is that the United States has the right to say which country is a human rights violator when the United States killed two million people in Vietnam and has never apologized for it," he says. "I just find it repugnant that the U.S. government believes it has the right to make that determination. You can. Presumably I can. But I don't think the U.S. government can."

This was a view you certainly didn't get from the liberal columnists of The New York Times. Instead, Thomas L. Friedman gave two lectures, and Paul Krugman one, on the woolly-headedness of organized labor.

Friedman's first, entitled "Complete and Utter Nonsense," stated: "The truth is the AFL-CIO couldn't care less about political change in China. That is just a cover for their head-in-the-sand protectionism." In the second, a magnanimous "Winners, Don't Take All," Friedman urged advocates of globalization to become social democrats, "ready to spend what it takes to bring the have-nots, know-nots, and left-behinds along." (He also told us what "a united, progressive Democratic Party agenda should be about." I could hardly wait for his answer: "addressing the anxieties and myths about globalization.")

On trade issues, Krugman has taken to writing rough drafts for Friedman and signing his own name to them. His column of May 21, entitled "Workers vs. Workers," concluded: "It's hard for liberals to admit that the U.S. labor movement, with its noble tradition, is now working against the interests of most of the world's poor. But it is."

In case you missed the point, the editors of the Times were in high dudgeon on the very same day. The paper's lead editorial, "Labor and the China Vote," said: "John Sweeney, the president of the AFL-CIO, is doing his country and the labor movement a disservice by fighting so hard against" the China bill. It also praised Clinton for "his commendable willingness to stand up to labor and most members of his own party."

Krugman, Friedman, and the Times editorial page--powerful liberal voices all--failed to take seriously the critique by labor and progressives that the China deal might hurt not only workers in the United States but workers in China, too. They tossed these opponents of the China deal into the isolationist camp, neglecting to recognize that the leaders of the AFL-CIO, along with progressive supporters, are advocates of fair trade, an international system that recognizes the value of economic interaction but insists on adequate safeguards for workers and the environment. Instead, Krugman, Friedman, and the editors of the Times contented themselves with distortion and dismissal.

Matthew Rothschild is Editor of The Progressive magazine.