By Michael Kelly

Wednesday, July 1, 1998; Page A23

On June 27, at the close of the climactic day of President Clinton's trip to China, the president's national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, said: "I think this has been quite an extraordinary day in the evolution of U.S.-China relations." He was right, unfortunately.

Throughout the end years of the Cold War, the United States adhered to a China policy rooted in the idea that a limited friendship between two adversaries was not a bad thing when it served to trouble a third, more dangerous, enemy. This rationale disappeared with the Soviet Union. Since then, American policy has attempted to deal with China as it was -- a Communist totalitarian state guided by an ideology inimical to American interests and repugnant to American values -- but to also encourage China's evolution toward a more democratic society. The principal element of this policy was to link the blessings of trade and international recognition that Beijing coveted to Beijing's behavior in the areas of human rights, free trade and nuclear weapons proliferation.

This is the course that the White House says triumphed in Beijing. Actually, it died there, finally, and a new China policy was born. The extraordinary evolution that Berger noted was not China's but ours. As critics have warned would happen, we did not change China; China changed us.

Our new policy is to regard China and the United States as "partners, not adversaries," in the words of President Jiang Zemin. In this policy, what Clinton called "partnership and honest friendship" with China is of such immense importance "for the future sake of the world" that the United States must accept China as it is. The desired end of the old, linkage-based policy was to force improvements in the behavior of the Chinese government. Under the new policy, the United States will no longer presume to force change, only to speak its mind. "We do not," the president assured his hosts, "seek to impose our vision on others."

No, we don't. We agree, as friends do, to disagree. Agreeing to disagree is an end in itself. We will, from time to time, forthrightly express our disagreement with some of Beijing's practices, and Beijing will forthrightly express its disagreement with our disagreement, and we will all get on with our business, which is mainly business.

The clearest illustration of this policy at work occurred when Clinton addressed the delicate subject of Tiananmen Square. "For all our agreements, we still disagree about the meaning of what happened then," said Clinton with exquisite tact. Yes, we do disagree. We say that "what happened then," nine years ago, was that the tanks of the People's Liberation Army murdered unarmed students whose only crime was to gather in a cry for democracy. The People's Republic of China says, as Jiang informed Clinton, that "had the Chinese government not taken the resolute measures, then we could not have enjoyed the stability that we are enjoying today."

And that is that. 'Nuff said. Let's move on. How do we move on? Clinton offered two steps by which the United States and China might "deal with such disagreements" as that which arose over the late unpleasantness at Tiananmen, "and still succeed in the important work of deepening our friendship and our sense of mutual respect."

First, he said, Americans must "acknowledge the painful moments in our own history when fundamental human rights were denied," and "we must say that we know still we have to continue to work to advance the dignity and freedom and equality of our own people." Second, he said, "we must understand and respect the enormous challenges China has faced in trying to move forward against great odds, with a clear memory of the setbacks suffered in periods of instability."

So. The lesson of Tiananmen Square is not that China's dictators must change. It is that Americans must change. We must be more sensitive. We must acknowledge our sins. We must be patient. We must not judge lest we be judged. And what must the People's Republic of China do? About this, the president said not a word.

What happened in Beijing was that the men who rule China learned that they may do as they wish. Linkage is dead. The United States will no longer seek to force change in China. China's government may deal with democracy's advocates as it sees fit. It may continue to require its female citizens to undergo forced abortions. It may continue its armed occupation of Tibet and press forward with its goal of enfolding Taiwan.

We will express our disagreements, and then move on, in partnership and honest friendship. We have our vision and the men whom Bill Clinton once called "aging rulers with undisguised contempt for democracy" have their vision, and we do not seek to impose.

Michael Kelly is a senior writer for National Journal.