CHINA HAS BEEN MUCH IN THE NEWS lately, what with its most-favored-nation status and its takeover of Hong Kong. We ask, Does China represent a threat to American interests and to peace in general? Or, with economic liberalization, is it becoming less of a threat? It is true that Beijing is permitting private enterprise and encouraging foreign investment. But political tyranny on the mainland continues. There is no freedom of speech, or of the press, or of religion. Citizens who dare criticize the regime or practice their faith are subject to arrest. Some 10 million languish in prison camps.
The same may be said of China's neighbors, Vietnam and Laos. Both of these countries promote free enterprise and succeed in attracting American entrepreneurs, but they remain Communist dictatorships all the same, denying the vote and maintaining tight control of religion and the press. North Korea, of course, is an out-and-out Stalinist state, in which the people are thoroughly subjugated, and starving.
What can the United States do about oppression in Asia? A dictatorial government that encourages a free market can be just as dangerous as a classically totalitarian one, simply because it is more efficient. Americans ought to do more than congratulate themselves for prodigious deal-striking.
A major weapon, already launched, is Radio Free Asia. But it suffers from inadequate financial support. RFA started up in September 1996, as a broadcast service to the Communist countries of Asia. It is now transmitting to China (in Mandarin) and Tibet (in Tibetan), as well as to Vietnam, North Korea, and Burma. Transmissions to Cambodia and Laos are set to begin later this year.
All of these countries are reached by the Voice of America as well. But RFRs role is different: The Voice provides international and U.S. news, along with editorial comments that reflect American policy; RFA provides news mainly having to do with the particular target country. In other words, RFA delivers the type of news that citizens in those countries would get if they enjoyed a free press (this is also known as a "surrogate home service"). The mission of Radio Free Asia is not to urge revolt, but rather to promote democracy by giving listeners accurate news -- otherwise unobtainable -- and commentaries on democratic values. Two years ago at a conference, the difference between the Voice and RFA was summed up by the head of VOA China: " My mission," he said, "is not to change China; my mission is to inform China." Neither does RFA have the explicit mission to "change" China or any other target country. But it has always been the implicit mission of "surrogate home services," such as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, to promote democracy simply by virtue of their being what they are and doing what they do.
There is strong evidence that Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty played a major part in the collapse of communism and the growth of democracy in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The first significant crack in the Communist wall came with Lech Walesa's Solidarity movement in Poland. When Walesa started his strike at the Gdansk shipyards, he was attempting to promote sympathy strikes in other parts of the country. He now says that RFE's reporting of the strikes -- news of which the state media were censoring -- was critical to the success of his effort and the eventual unraveling of communism throughout the region. About the importance of RFE to his cause, he once said, "The degree cannot even be described. Would there be Earth without the sun?" Mikhail Gorbachev testifies that, during the attempted coup by hardliners against him in Moscow, his only reliable source of news was Radio Liberty.
When a Presidential Commission on Broadcasting to Asia recommended the creation of Radio Free Asia in 1992, it suggested a start-up budget of $ 45 million, to be followed by an annual budget of $ 35 million. But when the service was finally implemented -- after four years of congressional foot- dragging -- RFA was given only $ 9.3 million for its initial year. Congress is still debating the 1998 RFA budget. The present House bill authorizes $ 27 million, while the Senate bill authorizes $ 20 million. Although these are welcome increases over the $ 9.3 million, they are still too low, especially given the vast territory to be served and the number of languages to be used. RFA is now broadcasting in Mandarin for four hours a day, and two hours a day in Tibetan, Korean, Vietnamese, and Burmese. The Laotian and Cambodian services that will begin later this year will also transmit for two hours.
The results have been intriguing. RFA China has managed to broadcast phone interviews with people on the mainland who are brave enough to risk retaliation. A particularly heart-rending interview was conducted with the mother of Wang Dan, a leader in the Tiananmen Square demonstration, shortly after he was imprisoned. Other regular features include "Book Corner, . . . . Cross-straits Crossfire" (which deals with Taiwan), and "Party Member Voices" (talks with disillusioned former Communists).
The broadcasts have had a strong and measurable impact. The government has attempted to jam them (with only partial success, because of multiple transmission sites). The official People's Daily has denounced RFA as " disgusting Cold War static funded by the CIA." Until the July 1 handover, Chinese citizens sent a large volume of mail to a Hong Kong post-office box, expressing appreciation. Mail was received from 17 provinces, not only the major cities.
Tibetans say that, in their country, RFA broadcasts have caused grocery stores to begin selling radio sets. The North Korean regime has been publishing articles attacking the service. Vietnam, too, has begun jamming RFA, but, as in China, without total success. RFA Vietnam hopes that the building of more powerful transmission facilities will be able to overcome any further jamming.
The present cost of RFA is trivial, and the possible benefits great. The United States is spending more than $ 250 billion per year on defense, at least a third of which can be attributed to the potential threat of Asia's Communist regimes. As one observer said, the RFA allowance is nothing more than a "rounding error" in the total defense and information budget. A larger budget would enable RFA to function more broadly, more powerfully. This " surrogate home service" by itself will not cause a thousand democratic flowers to bloom. But, given the record of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, it is clear that Radio Free Asia can do much. RFA has the opportunity to provide more than 1.4 billion people -- a third of the world's population -- with a daily dose of truth. Rarely are taxpayer dollars better spent. We should spend more, and spend them gladly.
James L. Tyson, the author of U.S. International Broadcasting and National Security, served on the 1992 Presidential Commission on Broadcasting to Asia.