06 April 2000
Transcript: Albright April 6 on China Normal Trade Relations
(Remarks at Agilent Technologies, Andover, Massachusetts) (4620) Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China are good for both countries, says Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. At a speech at Agilent Technologies in Andover, Massachusetts April 6, Albright noted that the United States "is just six percent of the globe's population. We can't continue to prosper without selling to the other 94 percent." PNTR would expand U.S. access to a market of some 1.2 billion people -- one out of every five humans on earth, she said. With reduced trade barriers, she said, Americans will be able "to export our products without exporting our jobs." The Secretary predicted that China will be "increasingly shedding authoritarian control over people's lives, increasingly engaged in global commerce, and increasingly prominent in regional and world affairs." PNTR for China, she said, is a "realistic" policy. "America has a profound economic interest in a China that opens its vast market and takes its place in a global trading system based on the rule of law," Albright said. "We have an interest in encouraging the government in Beijing to observe labor and human rights, and in fostering changes in Chinese society that broaden the scope of human freedom. "And we have an abiding security interest in seeing a China that contributes to stability in the Asia Pacific and plays a constructive role in world affairs. "All of these interests will be served if Congress makes the right decision now on PNTR," Albright said. Following is the transcript of Albright's remarks, as delivered: (begin transcript) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT TO AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS GROUP Andover, Massachusetts April 6, 2000 SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good morning. Thank you. Thank you very much, Steve Rusckowski. It's a very great honor to have you here with us and it's terrific to be back in the Boston area for the day. I went to Wellesley, not too far from here, and I always love being back in Boston. And it's a special treat to see the amazing things that the people of Massachusetts are doing here at Agilent, and I very much enjoyed the very brief tour. And knowing how much everybody cares about health, you are in the right field. I'm also very, very pleased to be in the district of the US Representative Marty Meehan, who is busy working on your behalf in Washington. He is a terrific Member of Congress and one of my personal favorites, and a true fighter for this district, and a champion of strong and principled US leadership around the globe. In this first year of the new millennium, America is at peace. The stock market gyrations notwithstanding, we continue to enjoy record prosperity, and our alliances are united and firm. And the ideals that underlie our own democracy have spread to every continent -- so that for the first time in history, more than half the world's people live under elected governments. But experience warns us that we cannot relax if we hope to extend these beneficial trends. The framework for American leadership has to include measures to maintain America as the hub of an expanding global economy; to control the threats posed by nuclear weapons and terror; to seize opportunities for settling regional conflicts; and to defend cherished principles of liberty and law. These tasks may seem disparate, but each is necessary to our vision of a secure and prosperous America within an increasingly peaceful and democratic world. And each is related to one of the biggest questions our nation has faced in a long time -- and that is the current debate in Congress over the Permanent Normal Trade Relations, or PNTR, for China. In the coming years, we can expect that the pace of technological, social, and economic and political change will continue to accelerate. I think you all know this better than any group of people. And we can expect that one of the forces propelling that change will be China, increasingly shedding authoritarian control over people's lives, and increasingly engaged in global commerce, and increasingly prominent in regional and world affairs. In our own country, there are some who see this as very bad news - pointing to China's rising military budget, its trade and arms export policies and its poor record on human rights - and they say we should oppose China, seek to isolate it from the world community, and refuse permanent normal trade relations. To them, confrontation is the only principled option we have. I do not agree. Effective diplomacy results not from the recitation of principle alone, but from backing principle with realistic policies; from seeing that it is worth achieving -- that something actually is achieved. And with respect to China and the United States, there is much that is worth achieving. America has a profound economic interest in a China that opens its vast market, and takes its place in a global trading system based on the rule of law. We have an interest in encouraging the government in Beijing to observe labor and human rights, and in fostering changes in Chinese society that broaden the scope of human freedom. And we have an abiding security interest in seeing a China that contributes to the stability in the Asia Pacific, and plays a constructive role in world affairs. All of these interests - and I repeat, all of these interests - will be served if Congress makes the right decision now on PNTR, and all will be set back if PNTR is rejected. This morning, I'd like to take some time to explain why. Last November, the United States signed an agreement designed to bring China into the World (Trade) Organization, or WTO, on terms that will open its market to American products, services and investment. China has to conclude similar agreements with other countries and the European Union and, when it does, it will indeed join the WTO. Our Congress will not vote on whether China enters the WTO. Sooner rather than later, China will. And the issue before Congress is whether America will share in the economic benefits, or leave those benefits entirely to our competitors in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. Now, for America to benefit, under WTO rules, we must give China the same permanent normal trading status that we grant to the more than 130 other countries who belong to that organization. The economic benefits of doing so, I believe, are compelling. Between 1993 to 1998, Massachusetts doubled its export of goods to China. And that trend will accelerate sharply if Congress does, in fact, approves PNTR for China. High tech and financial services are identified as two of the top three employment industries in the greater Boston area. And both will benefit significantly from the market-opening measures required by the WTO. Agilent's own prospects tell this story well. Under our WTO deal signed in November, the tariffs on your hi-tech medical equipment sold in China will be cut by more than a half; while, overall, industrial tariffs on US products will fall, on average, from nearly 25 percent in 1997 to less than ten percent by the year 2005. And if Congress approves permanent normal trade relations, Agilent and other American companies will also gain the comprehensive distribution rights needed to take advantage of these lower tariffs. This means that, for the first time, you will have enforceable legal rights to sell, advertise, and service your products in China without going through the government. And the agreement requires China to eliminate barriers to our companies that cost American jobs. For the first time, we will have a means -- accepted under WTO rules -- to combat such measures as forced technology transfers, and other practices intended to drain jobs and know-how from the United States. As a result, American companies will be able to export to China from home, rather than being forced to set up factories in China. And, simply put, we'll be able to export our products without exporting our jobs. And that isn't just true for one region or one sector of our economy. The barriers will be sharply reduced to American industrial goods, computers, and semiconductors; to a range of key agricultural products; and to services related to banking, law, accounting, consulting and the environment. If Congress approves PNTR, we will reap these benefits. If not - very simple - our competitors in Europe and Asia will, leaving us to wonder, in years to come, why we let this opportunity elude our grasp. The choice is ours. And we can open the China market to the Motorolas and Agilents and Ford Motors of America. Or we can rob our workers of opportunity by abandoning that market to the Nokias and Toshibas and Toyotas of the world. The United States is just six percent of the globe's population. We can't continue to prosper without selling to the other 94 percent. The President's proposal would lock in and expand our access to a market of some 1.2 billion people -- one out of every five humans on earth. Of course, any agreement is only as good as its enforcement. So for the first time ever, China has agreed to subject its judgments on all issues covered by the WTO to impartial international judgment. And the President's budget requests funds for the largest enforcement effort ever devoted to a trade agreement. What is more, we have negotiated specific safeguards that are stronger and more targeted than now provided under the WTO agreement -- should a situation arise in which a Chinese import is causing or threatening market disruption here in the United States. And for 15 years after China joins the WTO, we have the right to use special methods to counteract dumping. Economically, America gives nothing in this deal -- or to quote the President, "nada, zip, zilch," et al, in terms of what we're giving up. China alone will cut its tariffs and lower its distribution barriers. All we agree to do is maintain the same open markets and policies toward the Chinese products that have already expanded choices and lowered prices for US consumers. So on the economic merits, the choice is easy. This deal is a winner for American business, American workers and (the) American economy. But the critics point to other concerns. They say that China tramples on labor and human rights and we mustn't approve it; and that China proliferates weapons and we mustn't let it; and that China threatens Taiwan and its neighbors and we mustn't stand for that. Now, the Administration shares these concerns, and so do congressional supporters of PNTR. And all of us have been working to encourage improvements in Chinese policies. But withholding PNTR is no way to make progress. We know, for example, that Congress' annual review of China's trading status has proven to be an inadequate instrument for leveraging change on human rights. Despite concerns, Congress has granted normal trade relations to China every year since 1979, by increasingly wider margins. There has to be a better way to advance the cause of human rights in China. Joining the WTO will not transform China overnight. But it will reinforce trends in China that will certainly lead to greater economic openness, and possibly political liberalization, as well. For example, by increasing the options open to Chinese workers, and reducing the influence of the state, it will create incentives for Chinese employers to upgrade their labor standards to attract the best talent. And I think that those companies that are in China already see that. It will accelerate the development of telecommunications technologies and the Internet in China. It will increase contact with foreigners, including Americans, and with China's nearby trading partners who live under very different systems in Hong Kong and Taiwan. And it will expand opportunities to strengthen the rule of law. In sum, China's entry into the WTO is not a human rights issue -- but it can only help the human rights and political situation in China. Conversely, while denying PNTR might feel good in the short run, the long-term results, I believe, are likely to be harmful both for us and for those in China who want to have freer lives. Meanwhile, our efforts to encourage China to live up to international standards will continue. We sanctioned China last year under the International Religious Freedom Act, and we pull no punches in our human rights reporting on China. This year, we are again sponsoring a resolution at the Human Rights Commission in Geneva, expressing concern about China's human rights abuses. I recently flew thousands of miles -- from the President's side in India, to Geneva, and then back again -- to press that case in person. And we will continue to reject the use of force as a means to resolve differences between China and Taiwan. At every level, we are making absolutely clear that the issues between Beijing and Taipei have to be resolved peacefully, and there must be a lasting shift from threat to dialogue across the Taiwan Strait. Clearly, every American who cares about our economic interests should favor PNTR. And every American who cares about the state of political freedoms and workers rights in Chinese society should favor the nation's entry into the WTO. US policy towards China has been widely debated since before President Nixon's breakthrough visit in 1972. At that time, China seemed almost as distant and walled off to us as North Korea does now. But the years since have been characterized by a general trend towards broader official, economic, and people-to-people relations. Events such as the Tiananmen Square massacre and tensions in the Taiwan Strait and NATO's mistaken bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade have certainly tested our relationship. But our fundamental common interests in peace, stability and prosperity in the region have endured. And through all the ups and downs of the past three decades, every President has worked for a China that contributes to the stability of Asia, that is open to the world, and that upholds the rule of law at home and abroad. China's future direction will obviously be determined by the Chinese. We can't control that, any more than China can control America's destiny. But our policies and actions are clearly among the factors that China's leaders will take into account when formulating their own policies. And 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 over the past three decades. But rejection of PNTR now -- after all the concessions that the Chinese made in its negotiations with us -- would change the direction not only of US-China relations, but also of China's development. For the leaders of China, this agreement required a more wrenching and fundamental debate than it did even for us - and a debate about the very nature of their society. And so it makes no sense for us to set back our relationship with China, embolden the hard-liners, weaken its reformers, enrich our competitors in Europe and Asia and around the world. Because doing so won't make the Chinese more free; it won't help our workers or businesses; and it won't serve our foreign policy interest in a stable Asia Pacific region, and a more secure world. This helps explain why those closest to China want PNTR to pass. Our allies and friends in Asia welcome China's entrance into the WTO, because they want China to become more integrated into the world's economic and political systems. Interestingly enough, Taiwan's new President-elect supports China's accession to the WTO, and normal trade relations between US and China. And when China and Taiwan join the WTO, we hope that their burgeoning cross-Strait trade and investment will, in fact, become a force for peace and stability in the region. Martin Lee, the leader of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, wrote to President Clinton after the US-China WTO Agreement was reached last year. And he said that this agreement "represents the best long-term hope for China to become a member of good standing in the international community. We fear", he said, "that should ratification fail, any hope for political and legal reform would recede." So if you want a more stable Asia Pacific and a China more integrated into the world community, you will support the proposal for PNTR. Today, as we talk about trade and technology at the start of a new millennium, it's a "natural" to focus on how much has changed, and how rapidly our world is being transformed. But it is also important to bear in mind that some things have not changed: The productivity and genius of the American worker and entrepreneur. The grand sweep of the Charles River and the historic beauty of the Boston skyline. The passion for learning and compassion for humanity that drive Massachusetts' renowned universities and hospitals. The faith that the Red Sox will one day win the World Series. (Applause.) And the purpose of America. As many of you know, I was not born in this country. Because of my parents' love of democracy, we came to America after being driven twice from our home in Czechoslovakia: first by Hitler, and then by Stalin. Because of this nation's generosity and kindness, we were granted political asylum, and I have had the opportunity to live my life among the most generous and courageous people on earth. The story of my family has been repeated in millions of variations over two centuries in the lives not only of immigrants, but also of those overseas who have been liberated or sheltered by American soldiers, empowered by American assistance or inspired by American ideals. As history bears witness, the United States knows no final frontiers. We are doers. And we have faith that if we are true to the principles upon which our nation was founded, we will keep to a course in the new century that will ensure, for our children and theirs, a future of security and prosperity, liberty and peace. There is no better place than in this city, with its proud past and high-tech future, to reaffirm our faith in American leadership. And no better time than now to pledge our fullest efforts to keep our nation strong and free. Thank you all very much. (Applause.) MODERATOR: Thank you, Secretary Albright. We actually have time to take about three questions from the audience. This is the year for the Red Sox, by the way. (Laughter.) Are there questions? Jim? QUESTION: Madame Secretary, good morning. My name is Jim Bateman. I work for the cardiology products division here on site. I must say it's an honor to have you with us here today. My question does pertain to human rights and security issues associated with China, and my question is: Do you feel that - why is this kept separate from the WTO talks? Thank you. SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, let me say that I hope it came loud and clear in my speech that the President and I and other members of the Administration share your and other Americans' concern about human rights in China. And it is a subject that we press at every opportunity. Whenever I meet with a Chinese - either the foreign minister or other members of their government, I make very clear that this is a central core of our policy, and that our relations with China will never be completely normal until they have worked out their human rights problems. We thought long and hard about what the best way to deal with the human rights agenda was, and thought that there were really two aspects of this. One is that there is the Human Rights Commission in Geneva, where there is great focus on various human rights issues, where we either ourselves sponsor a resolution or co-sponsor with others; and by placing that within that context in Geneva, which we have loud and clear, that we will gain a lot more attention for it. The second is that while, as I said, the WTO does not specifically address this issue, the fact that China will be opened up as a result of WTO, I think, in the long run, serves the human rights agenda. I have been in China now any number of times, and I have either gone to - not any meeting with the government leaders, but gone out to universities to talk about the rule of law, and I think that the kind of rule also that has to come in to set up commercial codes and do business is a whole way for them to get used to the rule of law, which is very important. We were talking earlier about the fact that when an American company, such as Agilent, goes into China - and I have met with American business people there - we have a better human rights, worker rights, labor rights, record than other countries. And we are there - I consider American business a part of pursuing American national interest. You are our best ambassadors. And when you are out there and you treat your workers differently, it's an example and it opens up, I think, more human rights issues. And then, finally, we all know every well what the whole information technology is doing in terms of opening up societies. And I have particularly enjoyed stories about - there was one that was in the New York Times a couple months ago, about a woman in some province who, in fact, began to have access to a computer and was able to make decisions about her life and have a life that was freer, and that allowed her "elbow space" away from the government. So in two respects: human rights we are pursuing in a different venue finally and purposefully, and we will never stop, and; second, the WTO Agreement, while not specifically addressed to that, everything about it, I think, presses the human rights agenda. QUESTION: Secretary Albright, thank you for coming today and speaking with us. My question has to do with what impact you think the current presidential politics in this country would have on normalizing trade relations with China. SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that it will obviously have some effect, because everything that's going on in that venue is being watched very carefully, not only in the United States but abroad. I do think that, in fact, both presidential candidates favor moving forward in terms of expanding our trade relations with China. Governor Bush's father, President Bush, played a great role, I think, in opening up our relationship with China, and so understands that. And Vice President Gore has been instrumental in talking about a lot of the important issues with China, the whole environmental agenda that he has been carrying on with them, and is generally supportive of the idea that engagement with China is the best way to move that huge country forward. And I would just like to just move a little bit to the last question. When we engage with China, it doesn't mean we endorse everything that is going on there. But for me, the more than we can talk about the value of having a relationship across the board, the better off we are. Because I think the American people are very smart and, if you present the facts, then people will understand the value of it, and will not see it as somehow detrimental to our interests. So I hope that, in fact, the discussion is there not only at the national level but at all levels during the campaign because, when the facts are out, I think relations with China and trade relations with China are good for American workers, American businesses, and for the American people generally. QUESTION: Good morning. My name is Jenny Saramakis, and my question for you is a little larger than just China. You opened your speech by saying we are at peace, and I was just wondering what we as individuals or as a large multinational corporation could do to help contribute to that and maintain the peace. SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: That is a large question. I must say, I think that it has been and is a great honor for me to be Secretary of State of this country, because we are, not by choice but by destiny at this stage, I think, the sole superpower. And as such, we have a responsibility, I believe, not only to worry about our own territory, but about the larger world because, if you put it in purely selfish terms, because it's good for the American people; because it allows all of you to invest and travel and exist as people who can go around the world. But in a larger sense, I think that Americans feel more comfortable in a world where there are democracies with market systems, because democracies don't go to war with each other. And I think that the best way to put all this is for the word to spread that, if we turn inward and worry only about ourselves, we are going to be in a much more dangerous position than if we engage not only with countries such as China but work, for instance, to develop a pragmatic and practical relationship with the new leadership in Russia; work in order to develop what I call the solidarity of the Americas with our partners in the southern hemisphere, part of our hemisphere; where we deal with issues that are not normally looked at as "foreign policy issues" that only have to do with arms transfers or arms control agreements. But to have the American people understand that we benefit when we deal with drug problems in Colombia, or with ethnic disturbances in other parts of the world that create refugees and desperate people, or when we try to deal with the pandemic of AIDS/HIV; when people understand that peace for us is not just based on whether we are under attack by nuclear weapons, but that peace and stability these days is very dependent upon global issues such as drugs and nonproliferation and dreaded diseases and environmental issues. So the best thing I think to do is to understand the broadness of your question, and that peace and stability is now made up of people issues, real people issues where foreign policy affects the daily lives of every American. And so I hope that this gets translated into people understanding that the State Department is "America's Department." We represent you abroad; we work with the businesses to represent America abroad. And the State Department needs the help of the American people in supporting our budget which, believe it or not, if I were to ask you to guess what part of our budget is devoted to foreign policy you might say 25 percent. But, actually, it's one percent of every federal dollar. One penny of every dollar goes to defending peace by diplomats. So I thank you very much for asking that question. (Laughter.) And I thank you all very, very much. Thank you very much. (end transcript) (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 |
|
|
|
