It used commonly to be said in Washington at the end of the 1980s, that the United States Japanese bilateral relationship was the most important in the world, bar none. It is a symptom of changing world affairs that this particular refrain is seldom heard today. Attention focuses more on wider regional themes, such as the role of the US in Asia, or the need to reinforce US relations with Europe, which, it is now more clearly recognised in Washington, have much more depth and balance than those with the Pacific region.
But the formula formerly used with Japan could with greater justice be applied in 1997 to US relations with China. That the management of this relationship is one of the most important foreign policy tasks of the Clinton administration, is made plain in Mrs Madeleine Albright's decision to make Beijing her first port of call as Secretary of State next month. Her department's annual report on human rights violations around the world was strongly critical of China's record in that respect. China is not the only target of its criticisms, of course. The report expresses concern about the level of violence against women in this State, for example, has strong comments on conditions in prisons, raises several trenchant questions about press freedom, and has forthright comments on the RUC's handling of Drumcree. Governments around the world have to come to terms more and more with criticisms that breach the traditional boundaries of state sovereignty.
President Clinton himself has admitted that his policy of "constructive engagement" with China - no longer linking progress on human rights to trade and investment decisions - has not yet borne fruit. But he has insisted that, over time, social and economic change in China, together with the availability of information about the world, will work to increase the spirit of liberty there. "I just think it's inevitable, just as inevitably the Berlin Wall fell" he said.
The Chinese authorities have been quick to respond to the US criticisms and to underline the significance of Mrs Albright's forthcoming visit. They have launched a broadside against major US media for their coverage of Chinese affairs, notably of the decisions to revoke legislation unilaterally introduced in Hong Kong by the departing British administration since 1992. It is a very delicate and sensitive moment in US Chinese relations. The Chinese authorities have a good case to make that the British decision to proceed unilaterally, broke undertakings made in 1984 to legislate jointly with them. It therefore behoves Washington not to confuse the revocation of this legislation with an intention by the Chinese government to introduce a more repressive regime in Hong Kong. It behoves Beijing not to present the decisions in this light and to give human rights the attention they deserve.
Mr Chris Patten and the British government have a political motive to highlight what they see as China's bad faith in this matter. But their approach has underestimated China's pride and sensitivity as the long period of imperial interference in its affairs comes finally to a close. Mr Clinton should pay careful attention to the Chinese point of view in this matter. The bad faith is not all on the Chinese side.