30 March 2000
Transcript: Clinton March 29 Comments on U.S.-China Relations
(President pushes Congress on permanent NTR status for China) (2290) President Clinton called on Congress to grant China permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status "this spring" in a March 29 White House press conference. While urging the Senate and House of Representatives to pass legislation that would end application of Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (the Jackson-Vanik amendments) to China, President Clinton also said the United States wanted to see Beijing and Taipei lessen tensions through dialogue. "We need to give our businesses, farmers and workers access to the world's largest consumer market, in China," Clinton said. "There is no more important long-term international economic or national security issue facing us today," he added. Congress, Clinton stressed, "should pass Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China this spring." Granting permanent NTR status to China will allow the United States to fully benefit from the market opening agreement it negotiated with China last year as part of that country's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). "If we do not do this," Clinton warned, "then the full benefits of all we negotiated will flow to all the other countries in the WTO, but not to the United States." The economic consequences, he said, "will be bad." The national security consequences, Clinton continued, "will be worse." The President said he hoped to see "a lessening of tensions across the Taiwan Straits. I support the 'One China' policy. But part of our 'One China' policy is the differences between China and Taiwan must be resolved by dialogue, and I feel very strongly about it," Clinton added. Following are excerpts from the official White House transcript: (begin excerpts) THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary March 29, 2000 PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT The East Room 2:10 P.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: ... (W)e must keep the economy growing, first by opening new markets here at home, in our hardest-pressed communities, rural and urban. And, second, by opening new markets for American products and services around the world. Especially, we need to give our businesses, farmers and workers access to the world's largest consumer market in China. There is no more important long-term international economic or national security issue facing us today. Congress should pass permanent normal trade relations with China this spring. I will say again: This requires us to take no further action on our part to lower tariffs or open markets. All the concessions are being made by China in return for entering an open trading system. If we do not do this, then the full benefits of all we negotiated will flow to all the other countries in the WTO, but not to the United States. The economic consequences will be bad. The national security consequences will be worse.... Q: Mr. President, you are lobbying Congress to pass permanent trade relations for China. You're having a difficult time getting your own Democrats to vote for it. Vice President Gore has said even though he is for this agreement, if he was President he wouldn't negotiate trade deals like this, he would only negotiate trade deals that included labor and environmental standards. How is that stand of his complicating your efforts to convince Democrats to vote for this? THE PRESIDENT: It isn't, because if we were having a trade agreement with China, instead of an agreement on their accession to the WTO, we could do that. But keep in mind, I favor -- I believe I was the first person in a national campaign ever to advocate the inclusion of labor and environmental provisions in trade agreements. And we put some in NAFTA. And we've gotten some good environmental improvements as a result of it. Even though there are still environmental problems along the Rio Grande River, a lot has been done. And there have been some labor standards improvements as a result of it in some places. So I know a lot of the people who wanted it aren't satisfied that we've done as much. But it was really a groundbreaking effort. I went to the International Labor Organization in Switzerland, and to the WTO, and to Davos, Switzerland, to argue for different approach to trade. I don't think you can take economics in a global economy that is becoming increasingly globalized and act as if it's totally separate from child labor or other abusive labor practices, or what the impact of economic activity on the environment is. That is not what this agreement is. I still believe if we can just get everybody to read what this agreement does, it will pass handily, because this agreement will create jobs for America, it will create jobs for labor union members, it will grow the economy. I will say again: in this -- I mean, this is an agreement about the conditions under which China enters the WTO. The United States doesn't lower any tariffs. We don't change any trade laws. We do nothing. They have to lower tariffs. They open up telecommunications for investment. They allow us to sell cars made in America in China at much lower tariffs. They allow us to put our own distributorships over there. They allow us to put our own parts over there. We don't have to transfer technology or do joint manufacturing in China anymore. This is a hundred-to-nothing deal for America when it comes to the economic consequences. And most of what we have negotiated, we will absolutely lose the benefit of. If they go into the WTO and we don't approve normal permanent trade relations with them, what will happen is, all the work that Charlene Barshefsky and Gene Sperling did to get those concessions will go to Europe and Japan, and all the people who didn't negotiate it. They'll get all the benefits and we won't. So the consequences, the economic consequences are quite clear and unambiguous for the United States. And so I think, to -- and under the rules of the WTO, we couldn't impose different standards on their membership than were imposed on us or anyone else. See, that's the difference in this. I agree with the Vice President. When he gets to be President -- I believe he will be -- he should continue to work harder on integrating a whole vision of the global economy that includes labor and environmental standards and the whole idea of what it will mean to be part of a global society in the 21st century. I think that is important. But if people understand what this is, this is a vote on whether we will support their membership. And the only way we can do it -- and that we will benefit from their membership. And the only way we can do it is if they get permanent normal trade relations. It is not like we had a bilateral trade agreement with China; that is not what this is about. So if we were in bilateral negotiations, we could argue more strongly for certain agreements on, for example, climate change, because we would be giving them something while they were giving us something. We're not giving up anything here. These are the terms of their membership and it's a hundred-to-nothing deal for us. All we lose here is if we reject it, we will lose economic opportunities we will regret for 20 years and will hurt our national security interest.... Q: Mr. President, when you finished your trip to China two years ago, you gave a news conference in Hong Kong in which you praised Chinese President Jiang Zemin as a visionary, a man of good will, and someone who was the right leadership at the right time for China. Since then, China's record on abusing human rights and threatening Taiwan has, of course, continued to be quite checkered. I wonder if today you still think Jiang's leadership still deserves that praise you gave it or if your judgment today would have to be more severe? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I still think, given the alternatives of who could have been the President of China that I'm aware of, and who could have been the Premier, I think that President Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji are the best team that could have been in their positions at that time. As you know, I generally strongly disagree with the Chinese view that to preserve stability in their society, they have to repress political and sometimes religious activists to the extent that they do. I think that's wrong. And there have been several cases in the last couple of years that have deeply disappointed me. I know that China has an historic -- almost a phobia of internal disintegration because of the problems that they faced in the last -- if you just take the last 100 years, problems that our society has never faced. I know that they say that to some extent their cultural views are not as oriented toward individual rights and liberties as ours are. But I believe that the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights is a universal document and I believe it should be observed and that's why we voice our disagreements with China every year, and so I don't like that. And I hope that -- I will say again, I hope that we will see a lessening of tensions across the Taiwan Straits. I support the One China policy. But part of our One China policy is that the differences between China and Taiwan must be resolved by dialogue, and I feel very strongly about it. But having said all that, I still believe that, given the available alternatives of which I am aware, these two men have been the best team that was available for China. And I think this decision they've made to join the WTO is a decision basically to modernize China in ways that will go far beyond the economy. I think it will lead -- you get all this telecommunications revolution permanently manifest in China, they will not be able to control the Internet, they will not be able to control access to information, they will not be able to control freedom of expression. It will become a more free country, and a more open country. And that is a very, very good thing. That's another big reason we ought to sign onto this, because we ought to be a part of their opening. There will be more openness in the next five years, if China enters the WTO and all the telecommunications revolution hits it full force, than there has been in the last 20 years, since Deng Xiaoping started this.... Q: Mr. President, back on China for a second. This morning, the Chinese told Sandy Berger that U.S.-Chinese relations were at a critical juncture. Do you agree that things are critical right now? And also, you mentioned your continued support for a One China policy. Do you envision any circumstances in which you could support Taiwanese independence? THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I think they're at a critical stage primarily because of this -- of the China-WTO decision before the Congress. And secondly, I think that they would be at a critical stage if we were to abandon our One China policy. But you know, we made an agreement with the Chinese a long time ago, when we normalized relations under President Carter after a period of years of developing them, starting with President Nixon's historic trip there, it has been the unanimous bipartisan position of every President and every administration that that was the right decision. It has also been to this point the position of all elected leaders in Taiwan. I remember, I was there as a governor in 1986 at their Tientien (phonetic) Day celebration, and they had a map of China which showed Taiwan being a part of China, too -- even though they had the political tilt the other way. And I think that they have so much to gain from each other. I mean, the investment of Taiwanese in China, for example, as you know, is enormous. And if they just keep talking, they'll work this out. They'll find a way to work this out. The Chinese have been quite clear that they were willing to be patient, and to negotiate an arrangement which might even be different from that in Hong Kong. And I think that Taiwan's got a lot going for it. And I don't think either one of them needs this crisis right now. So I just think they need to -- and I've been very impressed by the President-elect in Taiwan and the way he's handled this since his election, what he's had to say. And he seems to be quite well aware of the weighty responsibility he now has, and the great opportunity he has. And so I just think they need -- this is a big issue. They need to get together, start the dialogue again, and figure out where to go from here. But if you look at the future that awaits the Chinese, and that is already embracing the Taiwanese -- you know, they have huge market percentage globally in a lot of the various components of the computer industry, for example. Huge. And I just don't think they want a political problem to take all that away from their people. And they'll find a way to do it. They need to stick with this framework and find a way to get their dialogue going again. (end excerpts) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
