CAMBRIDGE, England -- So the U.S. presidential-election campaign is over and we will soon know who is the next "leader of the free world." This time no one has alleged that any Chinese organization or individual has tried to affect the outcome. But why shouldn't they? Analysts say that Texas Gov. George W. Bush's statements imply that he wants to move away Clinton's policy of constructive engagement to one more like earlier containment policies.
Given that "U.S.-led NATO," as China calls it, now accepts that it has the right, even obligation, to interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign states why shouldn't the Chinese, or any other nation with an interest in the outcome, have a say about who should lead the United States? Americans have been covertly and overtly involving themselves in the choice of leaders and governing parties in other countries for a long time. Given that whoever leads the U.S. is more important to more people in more countries than the leader of, say Grenada, is to the citizens of the U.S., surely they should have a right to be involved in U.S. politics. Globalization should mean more than just spreading junk-food habits. Next time round, maybe we should organize a parallel election on the Internet.
But sauce for the goose is good for the gander and all that. As political developments in China will have a significant effect on all of us, especially our children and grandchildren, maybe we should have a say in Chinese politics as well, Hands up among all those who have doubts about Jiang Zemin's performance as president of China. I thought so; quite a lot of you feel that way. And I am not surprised.