ABROAD WITH FORBES

By Michael Kramer

IS THERE A MIND BEHIND STEVE FORBES' MADDENINGLY robotic ability to stay "on message"? Does he think deeply about anything besides tax policy? Well, Forbes said recently, "I'd put my foreign policy knowledge up against any other candidate." That wasn't as foolish as Gary Hart's daring reporters to prove his infidelity, but there it was anyway: the Forbes Challenge.

So I asked about China last week--and a brain opened. "Taiwan trumps everything," Forbes began. "It's the top priority." Would he defend the island if China attacked? "Of course," he said emphatically. "But unlike Clinton, I'd make damn sure Beijing knew that up front. The so-called creative ambiguity that [Defense Secretary William] Perry pushes is ridiculous. Saying that the possibility of protecting Taiwan would depend 'on the circumstances' invites trouble. We should ignore China's claims to exceptionalism, stop psychoanalyzing the place, stop worrying that we might say something that offends them and state our interests clearly." Nothing emboldens tyrants more than mixed signals, Forbes said. "Truman got the Korean War because he was ambiguous, and Saddam took Kuwait because Bush didn't say 'No' straight out."

That doesn't mean "you scream publicly," Forbes said. "You don't cause China to lose face needlessly. You hit them hard in private and send an unmistakable public signal. You send the Navy to the Taiwan Strait. You don't explain why. You just do it. They'll get the message." Forbes was heartened when Clinton had the aircraft carrier Nimitz steam between China and Taiwan last December, but "dumbfounded" when "some stupid functionary said it was there only because of bad weather in the Pacific." But what if China lobbed missiles at Taiwan instead of invading, as it recently threatened? "Then I'd send cruise-missile ships to the strait--and use them if Beijing didn't stop."

China has "real worries about Taipei breaking away permanently," Forbes notes correctly, "so I'd reiterate that we're against independence. I still want Taiwan in the U.N.," he adds, "but not now. China's succession struggle has everyone trying to out-tough each other. You don't fuel the fire at a time like this."

Because he believes that economic liberalization will eventually yield political pluralism, Forbes has long abhorred linking trade issues to an improvement in China's abysmal human-rights record. "But I'd support another U.N. vote deploring things like Beijing's prison labor camps," he says. "You don't forget your values just because you want to make money."

Forbes would, however, use diplomatic linkage in the latest tension over China's sale of nuclear technology to Pakistan. "Clinton fears harming U.S.-China trade by sanctioning Beijing for that," he says. "I'd explicitly couple Pakistan with Taiwan. If China behaves on Taiwan, I'd let them off the hook on Pakistan and deal with the proliferation questions later."

On the stump not long ago, Forbes had this to say when asked about China: "I read that if the average Chinese ate an extra egg every three days, it would take the entire grain production of Australia to feed the chickens that would have to lay those eggs. That's a big market. We've got to access it." Fair enough--but there's clearly more in his head than eggs, and if he ever permits himself to speak without a script on a steady basis, he might get closer to the job he wants.