Talk Central Section: discuss hot topics of the day online.

All Editorials and Op-Ed columns from this morning's Washington Post.

All editorials and commentary from Sunday's Washington Post Outlook section.

The China Summit

CHINESE PRESIDENT Jiang Zemin left Washington yesterday to visit the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Now more than ever, you have to wonder why he chose such icons of democracy for his first U.S. tour; his comments before and during his visit have shown no understanding of or sympathy for the values they commemorate.

Wei Jingsheng, the courageous and nonviolent spokesman for freedom of speech, is being "tortured to death" in jail, as his onetime assistant Tong Yi said Wednesday; but Mr. Jiang maintains that Mr. Wei is nothing but a common criminal. Monasteries are being shut, and monks and abbots tortured and incarcerated, in Tibet; Mr. Jiang assures us Tibet enjoys "religious freedom." In Tiananmen Square in 1989, the army shot hundreds of unarmed civilians demonstrating for democracy; Mr. Jiang defends the maintenance of "social stability" and "state security."

None of this should come as a surprise. President Clinton is correct that greater democracy and freedom would be in China's own long-term interest. But President Jiang, making his own personal calculation as top banana in a one-party dictatorship, is no doubt correct that more democracy would not be good for his own situation.

Does that mean Mr. Clinton was wrong to welcome the Chinese leader to the White House? No. The summit Wednesday, the first here in a dozen years, was certainly worth holding. China, with one-fourth of the world's population and a rapidly growing economy, is too big to ignore -- and that's true whether or not you accept the administration thesis that trade and diplomatic engagement are likely to promote political openness inside China.

The two powers do have common interests; protecting the global environment is one, and the two leaders made progress on finding ways to work together in that sphere. Agreements to increase U.S. aid and advice to the Chinese judicial and legal systems, and to promote exchanges of various kinds, can only be positive. Similarly, the establishment of a hot line for exchanges between leaders and of new rules to prevent incidents at sea between the two navies can help avoid misunderstandings between two nuclear powers.

None of these is a major breakthrough, nor did Mr. Clinton present the deals as such. The most substantive accomplishment of the meeting and the pre-summit preparation, having to do with nuclear cooperation, will also be the most controversial. Mr. Clinton said he will certify that China is no longer contributing to the spread of nuclear weapons to other nations, thereby allowing U.S. companies to compete to build peaceful nuclear reactors in China.

This may or may not be a justifiable step, but Congress should examine carefully the commitments the administration claims to have received. China has moved in the past few years from an avowed proliferator to a self-declared responsible member of the nuclear club. It has signed test-ban and nonproliferation treaties. Last year it promised not to help nuclear programs that do not fall under international inspection (Pakistan), and now it has extended that promise to programs that do (in Iran). Moreover, the reactors the United States is now prepared to sell China would in no way improve its military capability. If U.S. intelligence detects that China isn't keeping its word, U.S. cooperation can be stopped, too. That should surely be an explicit condition of any agreement.

Why is it so difficult to work up any enthusiasm for the accord, or for the summit in general? One reason is the lingering suspicion that Mr. Clinton has become so set on developing warm relations with China that his administration would be tempted to overlook cheating in the future. Another is the undeniable fact that this summit produced progress in nuclear cooperation (good for Westinghouse), commercial aviation (good for Boeing) and tariffs on high-tech products (good for IBM and Motorola), but no progress on human rights. Not only were no dissidents released, but there was no movement on a framework that might point to future progress -- nothing, for example, on Red Cross access to Chinese prisons and labor camps.

More broadly, this relationship will continue to make Americans uncomfortable, because in the end human rights are not just one strand -- as the administration maintains -- among many in a complex bilateral relationship. Human rights is shorthand for the wretched condition of political dissent and unimpeded religious practice and freedom of speech in China. Until this situation changes all summits will have this same kind of asymmetry that will color whatever progress may be made.