03 February 2000
Text: Secretary of Commerce Daley Remarks on China, NTR, and WTO
(WTO is fastest way to advance democracy in China) (2470) U.S. Secretary of Commerce William Daley warned an audience at Catholic University February 3 that failure to grant China permanent normal trade relations (NTR) "would weaken positive forces for change in China." "Failure could strengthen those most hostile to human rights in China," he added. "The fastest way to advance democracy in China is by bringing them into WTO, making them a constructive player." Daley urged members of Congress to grant China permanent NTR before China becomes a member of the WTO. Currently, U.S. trade law requires China's NTR status to be renewed annually. Failure to provide permanent NTR status might place U.S. firms seeking access to China's markets at a disadvantage to firms from other WTO members which have already granted China NTR status without restrictions. Daley admitted, however, that the Clinton administration faced "a tough battle" in convincing Congress to grant NTR to China. He cited several issues leading to Congressional resistance, including: the United States' $60 billion-plus trade deficit with China; China's poor human rights record; China's questionable compliance with trade accords; and political ramifications of the upcoming U.S. elections. "To be honest," he said, "with every day that goes by, the politics gets harder." Daley nonetheless suggested that it would be best for Congress to vote on China's trade status sometime between mid-April to mid-June, noting that progress with China's WTO membership negotiations with other countries could also be a key factor in the NTR vote. Following is the text of Daley's remarks, as prepared for delivery: (begin text) Remarks by Secretary of Commerce William M. Daley at Catholic University February 3, 2000 Washington, DC [As Prepared For Delivery] Since I am the first Commerce Secretary of this century, and the longest serving in the century, I wanted to spend some time talking with the future workers and leaders of America. The last century -- most agree -- was the American century. And I believe that in the next hundred years, we will continue as a leading force in the world. No doubt about it. But when the historians look back at the 21st century -- long after I am gone -- I think they will see it as a century when the world truly became a global community. But as I think you all know, this won't happen without some growing pains. There will be many highs -- such as this economic expansion of ours, which this week became the longest in U.S. history. But there will be some downs, also. And, obviously, a lot of challenges: How do we spread democratic principles to more nations? How do we advance human rights and the rule of law? How do we make sure more people -- both here and overseas -- share in the prosperity of a global economy? And at the same time, how do we protect the environment? So today I want to talk about China, and the World Trade Organization. We can't leave China and a quarter of humanity out of this global community. But the issues are very complex. So are the politics. They touch many of the hot buttons we face as a global community in the new century. Without a doubt, this is the number one trade issue we face in America, and, I believe, around the world. There are others on the agenda, to be sure. There's: linking Africa to the global economy; cementing trade ties with our neighbors in Latin America; finding ways for peace efforts in the Middle East to pay economic dividends; reforming how the WTO works, just to name a few. But China is a pivotal issue. How it all turns out will set the tone for global commerce for years to come. As President Clinton says: the world will be better off by giving China the chance to choose wisely and become constructive members of the global community. I can think of no better way of doing this than by engaging them economically, by opening their markets to our businesses, by making them full partners with the 135 members of the WTO. Let me get a little personal. As a Catholic, and an Irish Catholic at that (and a graduate of Loyola University in Chicago) to be honest, I feel a little torn about all this. I am a great believer in expanding global commerce. But I am deeply concerned about China's suppression of religious and political freedom. It troubles me greatly that China won't let its Catholic churches recognize the authority of the Pope in Rome, that it detains Catholic leaders, and that it suppresses many other faiths, also. To be sure, strides have been made in the last 20 years since the days of China's Cultural Revolution, when freedom of religion did not exist. But frankly, we need to see more progress on human rights in China. And we should encourage this by engaging China on all fronts, as we are doing in the UN Human Rights Commission. The Reverend Billy Graham, whom I greatly respect, may have said it best when asked to comment on the China trade debate. He said he didn't want to get involved in the politics. But he favored doing all we can to strengthen the relationship, to keep China as a friend, and treat it less like an adversary. What struck me most was Rev. Graham's explanation: in his experience, he said, nations respond to friendship just as much as people do. Now, let me turn to what we are doing. As you may know, President Clinton has asked me to lead the effort -- along with his deputy chief of staff -- Steve Ricchetti -- to convince the U.S. Congress to grant permanent normal trade relations with China. We need this before China can join the WTO. We have been renewing China's trade status annually, since 1980. Winning this vote is extremely important to the President, and to me. He made that very, very clear on Saturday at a meeting with hundreds of business and government leaders in Davos, Switzerland. And a week ago in his State of the Union address to Congress. But he also made it clear that the politics of this will be tough. One of the great ironies in our trade fights is that the same thing usually happens. There are two camps, miles apart. There are the free traders, in the one camp, who want absolutely no controls. Then there are protectionists who want to throw up a fortress around America, and keep all imports out. President Clinton believes -- as do many of us in politics -- that it's time we found common ground because it's a different world out there. It's not an either-or-situation. You won't survive in the 21st century unless you trade. But it has to be fair trade for it to work. If it's not, we'll end up with one banana war or steel crisis after the next. So bringing China into the WTO is a good deal for the world economy. For one, it levels the playing field. For the first time, China will have to abide by WTO rules. That means we will have a way of resolving disputes when they arise. The deal means also, that the world will be a better place because it gives us another way to make progress on human and economic rights issues, such as child and prison labor. And the same can be said for national security issues. We all know about these problems, and the difficulties in resolving them. We have been working on them for many years. They are top concerns for this Administration. Sandy Berger, the President's national security advisor, made that very clear in remarks yesterday. But I think the fastest way to advance democracy in China is by bringing them into WTO, making them a constructive player. I think failure to pass normal trade relations would weaken positive forces for change in China. And failure could strengthen those most hostile to human rights in China. Can you imagine a better way to allow for the free flow of ideas, than for China's 1.2 billion people to be connected to the Internet, and to billions of people in other nations? I believe Chinese bureaucrats will find that they cannot control the Internet, as they are trying to do now. It is too powerful a force for freedom of expression. And what about E-commerce? I do not think the world has ever seen a more powerful engine for economic growth and social change. Obviously, the trade deal we made with China is a good deal for America, and for China. Neither of us would have signed if it weren't. While we both gain, I have to say it is largely a one-way deal. We don't give anything up. We gain tremendous market access. America now takes in 33 to 40 percent of all China's exports, and I'd like their market to be as open as ours is to them. We also gain strong protections for our workers. No deal on WTO membership has ever included stronger measures against unfair trade. And we retain our anti-dumping powers, to prevent cheap imports from illegally flooding our market. These are key issues for Democrats and for Republicans in Congress. Frankly, without these we don't have the credibility we need to convince the normal people, the people outside of Washington, that trade is an important piece of their future. Without these powers, all they will see are the layoffs, not the payoffs of trade. Now, I am a realist: when Congress takes this up -- it will be a tough battle, for many reasons. We have a huge $60 billion-plus trade deficit with China. We have a record-breaking overall trade gap because of a strong, open U.S. economy. There's human rights, and congressional concerns over China's compliance, and its ability to comply. We have the November elections looming. And don't forget, there was the Battle in Seattle last December, which has forever changed trade talks. As to the timing, to be honest, with every day that goes by, the politics gets harder. The window for action, as I see it, is mid-April to mid-June. There is a consensus that we move as early as we can, and maybe even sooner. To be frank with you, what we need most right now is progress on deals between China and Europe and others. We welcome the progress on Brazil. In all about 14 nations need to strike deals with China, as we have, in order for the WTO to put together what's called a protocol agreement. It's the document that China must sign to join WTO. But Congress likely will want to feel that the terms of a WTO protocol allowing China to join are pretty much set ... before lawmakers will want to consider taking a vote. So, the obvious question is the one the President got asked on Saturday: Is this winnable? Yes! Absolutely! Why? There are strong economic reasons. Business is with us, and so is the international community. The leading Presidential hopefuls -- Democrats and Republicans -- are with us. And we have total Administration commitment. We have a senior board of directors: Secretaries Albright, Summers, and Glickman, Ambassador Barshefsky, Gene Sperling, and Sandy Berger are the other members of the team. We meet regularly -- once a week. Obviously, we're reaching out to Congress. Already we met with 110 Democrats who have backed MFN for China in the past. We're going to meet with every lawmaker. Look them in the eye. And tell them why we need their support. I hope they will be sick of seeing us! And finally, we are prepared to talk about ways to make the deal work better, such as devoting more resources to compliance efforts. This we hope will allay fears that China won't live up to its commitments. In the President's new budget, which goes to Congress next week, we will be asking for more resources to beef up enforcement of our trade laws and trade agreements with other nations. For the first time, for example, we'll have trade compliance people stationed in Beijing to keep an eye on things. And we'll be doing the same in other capitals, also. All our trade agencies -- Commerce, State, USTR, Agriculture -- will all have a hand in this initiative. The final point I want to make is this: the key to our strategy (and I believe to our success) is to take the story outside of Washington. I hope many of our CEOs and community leaders ... and our academic leaders, also! ... will help us take the case to the working people. And we need to openly talk about the negatives, and the positives of trade. Most people -- about 60 percent according to some polls -- don't believe trade is good for their jobs. I saw it last year during a 20-city trade education tour we organized with business groups and civic leaders. Let me tell you, it was pretty rough. People can get very emotional about trade. But these are the people that we need to be talking to, explaining that this is a pocket book issue. I came from the private sector. So I know CEOs don't like going to their workers, especially when the issue is difficult, such as trade. But these are different times. They are going to have to change. Despite our prosperity, there is anti-big business sentiment. You saw it in a recent Business week poll. So, people need to know more about how trade works. They need to see on their pay stubs ... as one of our companies puts on them ... Farmland Industries: ... and I quote "China will account for nearly 40 percent of the future growth of U.S. agricultural exports." Before I take your questions, let me make one other comment. I have a famous quote of Teddy Roosevelt framed in my office. It's the quote, where he says "it's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena." We may take our hits. We may stumble. But we will be in the arena. This thing is winnable. It is absolutely doable. And I know that your generation, and those who are your age in China, will be far better off as a result. Thank you very much. (end text) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
