March 8, 2000
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON CHINA
3:50 P.M. EST
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release March 8, 2000
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON CHINA
Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
Washington. D.C.
3:50 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, President Brody, Dean
Wolfowitz. I thank all the members of our administration who are here --
Secretary Daley, who is coordinating our efforts in the Congress; Secretary
Summers; Secretary Glickman. I want to say a special word of thanks to
Ambassador Barshefsky and National Economic Advisor Gene Sperling who
negotiated this agreement with China and run the last drop of blood out of
it. And my National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, I thank him for his
great advocacy. Ambassador Holbrooke. To our OPIC President George Munoz.
I would also like to acknowledge the presence of a very important
member of our economic team, Lael Brainard, because her mother works here
at SAIS, and I want her mother to know she's done a good job. (Applause.)
She may never speak to me again, but her mother will be happy. (Laughter.)
I want to thank all the distinguished people in the audience who
care so much about China, and the faculty and the students here of this
magnificent institution. And I want to thank my longtime friend, Lee
Hamilton. If I had any respect for this audience, I would just ask you to
wait five minutes, I'd run out and copy his speech, hand it to you. He
said exactly what I wanted to say in about 2,000 fewer words (Laughter.)
I also want to say, President Brody and Dean Wolfowitz, how much
I appreciate the involvement of Johns Hopkins and the School for Advanced
International Studies in China, in particular, at this moment in history;
and for giving me the chance to come here and talk about what is one of the
most important decisions America has made in years.
Last fall, as all of you know, the United States signed the
agreement to bring China into the WTO, on terms that will open its market
to American products and investment. When China concludes similar
agreements with other countries, it will join the WTO. But, as Lee said,
for us to benefit from that we must first grant it permanent normal trading
status -- the same arrangement we have given other countries in the WTO.
Before coming here today, I submitted legislation to Congress to
do that, and I again publicly urge Congress to approve it as soon as
possible.
Again, I want to emphasize what has already been said. Congress
will not be voting on whether China will join the WTO. Congress can only
decide whether the United States will share in the economic benefits of
China joining the WTO. A vote against PNTR will cost America jobs, as our
competitors in Europe, Asia and elsewhere capture Chinese markets that we
otherwise would have served.
Supporting China's entry into the WTO, however, is about more
than our economic interests. It is clearly in our larger national
interest. It represents the most significant opportunity that we have had
to create positive change in China since the 1970s, when President Nixon
first went there, and later in the decade when President Carter normalized
relations. I am working as hard as I can to convince Congress and the
American people to seize this opportunity.
For a long time now, the United States has debated its
relationship with China through all the changes, particularly of the last
century. And like all human beings everywhere, we see this relationship
through the prism of our own experience. In the early 1900s, most
Americans saw China either through the eyes of traders seeking new markets,
or missionaries seeking new converts. During World War II, China was our
ally. During
During World War II, China was our ally; during the Korean War, our
adversary. At the dawn of the Cold War, when I was a young boy, beginning
to study such things, it was a cudgel and a political battle -- who lost
China? Later, it was a counterweight to the Soviet Union. And now, in
some people's eyes, it's a caricature: Will it be the next great
capitalist tiger with the biggest market in the world, or the world's last
great communist dragon and a threat to stability in Asia?
Through all the changes in China and the changes in our
perception of China, there has been one constant: We understand that
America has a profound stake in what happens in China and how China relates
to the rest of the world. That's why, for 30 years, every President,
without regard to party, has worked for a China that contributes to the
stability of Asia, that is open to the world, that upholds the rule of law
at home and abroad.
Of course, the past that China takes to the future is a choice
China will make. We cannot control that choice, we can only influence it.
But we must recognize that we do have complete control over what we do. We
can work to pull China in the right direction, or we can turn our backs and
almost certainly push it in the wrong direction.
The WTO agreement will move China in the right direction. It
will advance the goals America has worked for in China for the past three
decades. And, of course, it will advance our own economic interests.
Economically, this agreement is the equivalent of a one-way
street. It requires China to open its markets, with a fifth of the world's
population -- potentially, the biggest markets in the world -- to both our
products and services in unprecedented new ways. All we do is to agree to
maintain the present access which China enjoys. Chinese tariffs, from
telecommunications products to automobiles to agriculture, will fall by
half or more over just five years. For the first time, our companies will
be able to sell and distribute products in China made by workers here in
America, without being forced to relocate manufacturing to China, sell
through the Chinese government or transfer valuable technology -- for the
first time.
We'll be able to export products without exporting jobs.
Meanwhile, we'll get valuable new safeguards against any surges
of imports from China. We're already preparing for the largest enforcement
effort ever given for a trade agreement.
If Congress passes PNTR, we reap these rewards. If Congress
rejects it, our competitors reap these rewards. Again, we must understand
the consequences of saying no. If we don't sell our products to China,
someone else will step into the breach, and we'll spend the next 20 years
wondering why in the wide world we handed over the benefits we negotiated
to other people.
Of course, we're going to continue our efforts not just to expand
trade, but to expand it in a way that reinforces our fundamental values
and, for me, the way the global economic system must move. Trade must not
be a race to the bottom, whether we're talking about child labor or basic
working conditions or the environment. The more we avoid dealing with
these issues, the more we fuel the fires of protectionism. That's why
we'll continue our efforts to make the WTO itself more open, more
transparent, more participatory, and to elevate the consideration of labor
and environmental issues in trade.
But most of the critics of the China-WTO agreement do not
seriously question its economic benefits. They're more likely to say
things like this: China is a growing threat to Taiwan and its neighbors;
we shouldn't strengthen it. Or, China violates labor rights and human
rights; we shouldn't reward it. Or, China is a dangerous proliferator; we
shouldn't empower it.
These concerns are valid. But the conclusion of those who raise
them as an argument against China-WTO isn't. China is a one-party state
that does not tolerate opposition. It does deny its citizens fundamental
rights of free speech and religious expression. It does define its
interests in the world sometimes in ways that are dramatically at odds from
our own. But the question is not whether we approve or disapprove of
China's practices. The question is, what's the smartest thing to do to
improve these practices?
I believe the choice between economic rights and human rights,
between economic security and national security, is a false one.
Membership in the WTO, of course, will not create a free society in China
overnight, or guarantee that China will play by global rules. But over
time, I believe it will move China faster and further in the right
direction -- and certainly will do that more than rejection would. To
understand how, it's important to understand why China is willing to do
what it has undertaken to perform in this agreement.
Over the last 20 years, China has made great progress in building
a new economy, lifting more than 200 million people out of abject poverty;
linking so many people through its new communications network that it's
adding the equivalent of a new Baby Bell every year. Nationwide, China
has seen the emergence of more than a million nonprofit and social
organizations, and a 2,500 percent explosion of print and broadcast media.
But its economy still is not creating jobs fast enough to meet
the needs of the people. Only about a third of the economy is private
enterprise. Nearly 60 percent of the investment and 80 percent of all
business lending still goes toward state-owned dinosaurs that are least
likely to survive in the global economy and most likely to be vulnerable to
corruption.
Much of China's economy today still operates under the old theory
that if only they had shoveled coal into the furnaces faster, the Titanic
would have stayed afloat. It is ironic, I think, that so many Americans
are concerned about the impact on the world of a strong China in the 21st
century. But the danger of a weak China was set by internal chaos and the
old nightmares of disintegration. It's all so real, and the leaders of
China know this as well.
So they face a dilemma. They realize that if they open China's
market to global competition, they risk unleashing forces beyond their
control -- temporary unemployment, social unrest, and greater demand for
freedom. But they also know that without competition from the outside,
China will not be able to attract the investment necessary to build a
modern, successful economy. And the failure to do that could be even more
destabilizing with more negative consequence.
So with this agreement, China has chosen reform, despite the
risks. It has chosen to overcome a great wall of suspicion and insecurity
and to engage the rest of the world.
The question for the United States, therefore, is, do we want to support
that choice or reject it, becoming bystanders as the rest of the world
rushes in. The would be a mistake of truly historic proportions.
You know, as we debate about China here -- and we love to do it;
it absorbs a great deal of our time and energy -- it's easy to forget that
the Chinese leaders and their people are also engaged in a debate about us
there. And many of them believe that we honestly don't want their country
to assume a respected place in the world. If China joins the WTO, but we
turn our backs on them, it will confirm their fears.
All I can say to you is that everything I have learned about
China as President and before, and everything I have learned about human
nature in over half a century of living, now convinces me that we have a
far greater chance of having a positive influence on China's actions if we
welcome China into the world community, instead of shutting it out.
Under this agreement, some of China's most important decisions
for the first time will be subject to the review of international body,
with rules and binding dispute settlement. Now, opponents say this doesn't
matter, China will just break its promises. Well, any of you who follow
these WTO matters know that China is not the only person that could be
accused of not honoring the rules-making process. If any of you happen to
be especially concerned about bananas and beef, you could probably stand up
and give a soliloquy on that. And now we in the United States have been
confronted with a very difficult decision, because they've made a decision
that we think is plainly wrong, in an area that affects our export economy.
But I will say this: We're still better off having a system in
which actions will be subject to rules embraced and judgments passed by 135
nations. And we're far more likely to find acceptable resolutions to
differences of opinion in this context than if there is none at all.
The change this agreement can bring from outside is quite
extraordinary. But I think you could make an argument that it will be
nothing compared to the changes that this agreement will spark from the
inside out in China. By joining the WTO, China is not simply agreeing to
import more of our products; it is agreeing to import one of democracy's
most cherished values -- economic freedom. The more China liberalizes its
economy, the more fully it will liberate the potential of its people --
their initiative, their imagination, their remarkable spirit of enterprise.
And when individuals have the power not just to dream, but to realize their
dreams, they will demand a greater say.
Already, more and more, China's best and brightest are starting
their own companies, or seeking jobs with foreign-owned companies, where
generally they get higher pay, more respect, and a better working
environment. In fits and starts, for the first time, China may become a
society where people get ahead based on what they know rather than who they
know. Chinese firms, more and more, are realizing that unless they treat
employees with respect, they will lose out in the competition for top
talent.
The process will only accelerate if China joins the WTO, and we should
encourage it because it will lift standards for Chinese workers and their
expectations.
There's something even more revolutionary at work here. By
lowering the barriers that protect state-owned industries, China is
speeding the process that is removing government from vast areas of
people's lives.
In the past, virtually every Chinese citizen woke up in an
apartment or a house owned by the government, went to work in a factory or
a farm run by the government, and read newspapers published by the
government. State-run workplaces also operated the schools where they sent
their children, the clinics where they received health care, the stores
where they bought food. That system was a big source of the Communist
Party's power. Now people are leaving those firms. And when China joins
the WTO, they will leave them faster.
The Chinese government no longer will be everyone's employer,
landlord, shopkeeper and nanny all rolled into one. It will have fewer
instruments, therefore, with which to control people's lives. And that may
lead to very profound change.
A few weeks ago, The Washington Post had a good story about the
impact of these changes on the city of Shenyang. Since 1949, most of the
people of Shenyang have worked in massive, state-run industries. But as
these old factories and mills shut down, people are losing their jobs and
their benefits. Last year, Beijing announced it was going to be awarding
bonus checks to Chinese citizens to celebrate China's 50th anniversary
under communism. But Shenyang didn't have the money to pay, and there was
a massive local protest.
To ease tensions, the local government has given the people a
greater say in how their city is run. On a limited basis, citizens now
have the right to vote in local elections -- not exactly a democracy; the
party still puts up the candidate and decides who can vote, but it is a
first step. And it goes beyond Shenyang. Local elections now are held in
the vast majority of the country's 900,000 villages.
When asked why, one party official in Shenyang said, "This is the
beginning of a process. We realize that in order to improve social control
we have got to let the masses have a say." Well, sooner or later that
official will find that the genie of freedom will not go back into the
bottle. As Justice Earl Warren once said, "Liberty is the most contagious
force in the world."
In the new century, liberty will spread by cell phone and cable
modem. In the past year, the number of Internet addresses in China has
more than quadrupled from 2 million to 9 million. This year, the number is
expected to grow to over 20 million. When China joins the WTO, by 2005, it
will eliminate tariffs on information technology products, making the tools
of communication even cheaper, better, and more widely available.
We know how much the Internet has changed America, and we are
already an open society. Imagine how much it could change China.
Now, there's no question China has been trying to crack down on
the Internet -- good luck. (Laughter.) That's sort of like trying to nail
Jello to the wall. (Laughter.) But I would argue to you that their effort
to do that just proves how real these changes are and how much they
threaten the status quo. It's not an argument for slowing down the effort
to bring China into the world, it's an argument for accelerating that
effort. In the knowledge economy, economic innovation and political
empowerment, whether anyone likes it or not, will inevitably go hand in
hand.
Now, of course, bringing China into the WTO doesn't guarantee
that it will choose political reform. But accelerating the progress, the
process of economic change, will force China to confront that choice
sooner, and it will make the imperative for the right choice stronger.
And, again, I ask: If China is willing to take this risk -- and these
leaders are very intelligent people, they know exactly what they're doing
-- if they're willing to take this risk, how can we turn our backs on the
chance to take them up on it?
Now, I want to be clear. I understand that this is not, in and
of itself, a human rights problem. But, still, it is likely to have a
profound impact on human rights and political liberty. Change will only
come through a combination of internal pressure and external validation of
China's human rights struggle. We have to maintain our leadership in the
latter, as well, even as the WTO contributes to the former.
We sanctioned China under the International Religious Freedom Act
last year. We're again sponsoring a resolution in the U.N. Human Rights
Commission condemning China's human rights record this year. We will also
continue to press China to respect global norms on nonproliferation. And
we will continue to reject the use of force as a means to resolve the
Taiwan question, making absolutely clear that the issues between Beijing
and Taiwan must be resolved peacefully and with the assent of the people of
Taiwan. There must be a shift from threat to dialogue across the Taiwan
Strait. And we will continue to encourage both sides to seize this
opportunity after the Taiwan election.
In other words, we must continue to defend our interests and our
ideals with candor and consistency. But we can't do that by isolating
China from the very forces most likely to change it. Doing so would be a
gift to the hard-liners in China's government, who don't want their country
to be part of the world -- the same people willing to settle differences
with Taiwan by force; the same people most threatened by our alliance with
Japan and Korea; the same people who want to keep the Chinese military
selling dangerous technologies around the world; the same people whose
first instinct in the face of opposition is to throw people in prison. If
we want to strengthen their hand within China, we should reject the
China-WTO agreement.
Voting against PNTR won't free a single prisoner, or create a
single job in America, or reassure a single American ally in Asia. It will
simply empower the most rigid anti-democratic elements in the Chinese
government. It would leave the Chinese people with less contact with the
democratic world, and more resistance from their government to outside
forces. Our friends and allies would wonder why, after 30 years of pushing
China in the right direction, we turned our backs, now that they finally
appear to be willing to take us up on it.
I find it encouraging that the people with the greatest interest
in seeing China change agree with this analysis. The people of Taiwan
agree. Despite the tensions with Beijing, they are doing everything they
can to cement their economic ties with the mainland and they want to see
China in the WTO.
The people of Hong Kong agree. I recently received a letter from
Martin Lee, the leader of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, who has spent a
lifetime struggling for free elections and free expression for his people.
He wrote to me that this agreement, "represents the best long-term hope for
China to become a member of good standing in the international community.
We fear that should ratification fail, any hope for political and legal
reform process would also recede." Martin Lee wants us to vote in favor of
PNTR.
Most evangelicals who have missions in China also want China in
the WTO. They know it will encourage freedom of thought and more contact
with the outside world. Many of the people who paid the greatest price
under Chinese repression agree, too. Ren Wanding is one of the fathers of
the Chinese human rights movement. In the late 1970s, he was thrown into
prison for founding the China Human Rights League. In the 1980s, he helped
lead the demonstration in Tiananmen Square. In the 1990s, he was thrown in
prison yet again. Yet, he says of this deal, "Before, the sky was black;
now it is light. This can be a new beginning."
For these people, fighting for freedom in China is not an
academic exercise or a chance to give a speech that might be on television.
It is their life's work. And for many of them, they have risked their
lives to pursue it. I believe if this agreement were a Trojan Horse they
would be smart enough to see it. They are telling us that it's the right
thing to do, and they are plainly right. (Applause.) Thank you.
So if you believe in a future of greater openness and freedom for
the people of China, you ought to be for this agreement. If you believe in
a future of greater prosperity for the American people, you certainly
should be for this agreement. if you believe in a future of peace and
security for Asia and the world, you should be for this agreement. This is
the right thing to do. It's an historic opportunity and a profound
American responsibility.
I'll do all I can to convince Congress and the American people to
support it. And, today, I ask for your help. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
END 4:17 P.M. EST
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
