UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

USIS Washington File

02 May 2000

Text: Rep. Hoyer May 2 Remarks on U.S.-China Trade Relations

(Hoyer to support Permanent Normal Trade Relations status) (3260)
Despite "grave reservations" about China's commitment to improving
human rights, Representative Steny Hoyer (Democrat of Maryland) says
he will support Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for China.
Hoyer, the ranking member of the Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, made the announcement during a May 2 speech at
Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.
He said that the yearly congressional debate over renewing trade
relations with China has failed to influence positive change in that
country.
"Moreover, our vital economic, strategic and national security
interests were not at stake in these annual votes on extending NTR in
the same way that they are now," he said.
"This confluence of our national economic and security interests when
coupled with the ineffectiveness of our annual votes has convinced me
that PNTR is in the best interests of our nation, global stability,
and the nascent democracy, labor and human rights movements in China,"
he said.
Hoyer said he disagrees with the view that passing PNTR surrenders
America's only leverage on the issue of human rights.
"Engagement does not constitute endorsement of China's record on human
rights," he said. "And while I strongly supported the isolation of
South Africa in opposition to apartheid, I believe that approach is
neither possible nor advisable with respect to China."
"China will become a member of the WTO (World Trade Organization),
regardless of whether we pass this legislation or not," Hoyer said.
"However, if we reject PNTR, other countries -- which are negotiating
their own bilateral agreements with China -- will step into the vacuum
and reap the rewards that would have been available to American
companies and workers."
Following is the text of Hoyer's remarks, as prepared for delivery:
(begin text)
PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS FOR CHINA: A 21ST CENTURY OPPORTUNITY
Remarks of the Honorable Steny H. Hoyer
Johns Hopkins University
The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
Washington, D.C.
May 2, 2000
Introductory Remarks
Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me here today.
I want to especially thank Dean Paul Wolfowitz for extending this kind
invitation to discuss the issue of permanent normal trade relations
with the People's Republic of China. I regret that Dean Wolfowitz
could not be with us today, and understand that he had to make a
last-minute trip.
But I'd like to thank Steve Szabo for that kind introduction, and also
to recognize Mike Lampton, the director of your China Studies
Department and a China expert, and my good friend, Steve Muller, the
president emeritus of John Hopkins University.
It goes without saying that the vitality and importance of this
institution are well recognized in the foreign and public policy
communities. That's why President Clinton, Ambassador Barshefsky,
former Congressman Hamilton and others have chosen to speak here on
this important issue.
I also want to extend a special thanks to the students who have come
here today. I understand that you're taking your final exams, and
greatly appreciate that you have taken time from your busy schedules.
A Pivotal Moment in Sino-American Relations
In three weeks, the U.S. House of Representatives will cast a vote
that could reverberate throughout the 21st Century. The historic
importance of our vote on legislation that would grant the People's
Republic of China permanent normal trade relations cannot be
overstated.
In the decades to come, I believe we will look upon this vote as a
pivotal moment in Sino-American relations -- a moment that builds on
President Nixon's breakthrough visit to the People's Republic in
February 1972 and on President Carter's decision to normalize
relations between our two countries seven years later.
Furthermore, I believe that China's accession to the World Trade
Organization will be a seminal moment in the Middle Kingdom's history
-- a history more notable for its isolation and insecurity than its
willingness to engage the world beyond the Great Wall.
In applying for WTO membership, China has recognized the political and
economic imperative of the 21st century: the global economy and
interdependence cannot be ignored. For the first time, it has agreed
to embrace the global trading system based on the rule of law.
This is a momentous step -- for China, the United States and other
nations of the world.
A few years before President Nixon's historic visit to China and the
resulting Shanghai Communiqué, he wrote: "[W]e simply cannot afford to
leave China forever outside the family of nations, there to nurture
its fantasies, cherish its hates, and threaten its neighbors."
In seeking inclusion within the family of nations, China acknowledges
that which it long ignored: isolation imperils its economic
development.
We must recognize that, despite our deep misgivings about the
communist regime in Beijing and its egregious violations of human
rights, we cannot ignore or attempt to isolate the most populous
nation on earth.
Rather, as the most powerful nation on earth, we have a responsibility
to engage China and use our best efforts to move it toward democratic
reform, market economics, the rule of law, and respect for basic human
rights.
We cannot control the decisions China makes regarding its future, but
we can have an influence on them.
Democratic Unity and Human Rights
Many people believe that our vote on PNTR exposes division within the
Democratic Party. This is true only in the most obvious sense: support
for or opposition to PNTR.
In a larger sense, however, Democrats are united in their commitment
to basic human rights and fundamental freedoms for China's 1.3 billion
citizens and all other citizens of the world.
Democrats also are united in our commitment to global trade policies
that strengthen America's position in the world, raise the standard of
living for working men and women at home and abroad, and protect the
one environment that we share and will leave for our progeny.
International engagement and global trade is our rich tradition --
from FDR's conception of a global trading system to Harry Truman's
development of the institutions and policies of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade.
More recently, President Clinton recognized that the United States can
address the problems of the new century "if we shoulder our
responsibility to lead a responsible system of worldwide trade."
When Democrats have disagreed, our differences have not been over the
ends that American policy seeks to achieve. Rather, our differences
have been over the best means through which to achieve them.
As the Ranking Member and former Chairman of the Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe (also known as the Helsinki
Commission), I have long had a deep and abiding commitment to human
rights on the European continent and every other part of the world. In
fact, China's human rights violations have been my principal
motivation for voting against normalized trade relations in the past.
Two weeks ago, my good friend and choice for Speaker, Dick Gephardt,
announced his opposition to PNTR. I have the deepest respect for the
Minority Leader, and my friends and allies in the labor, environmental
and human rights groups that oppose granting PNTR.
I have fought alongside them in many legislative battles, and I
continue to share their grave concern over Beijing's policies on human
rights, labor standards and the environment.
But the Minority Leader correctly pointed out that reasonable minds
can disagree. And, on this issue, we do.
When previously we voted on MFN or NTR, China was not required to make
concessions to earn its trading privileges. WTO accession will change
that.
I believe that our annual votes on NTR, at best, have had a minimal
effect in mitigating repression and human rights abuses in China.
The slaughter of an estimated 5,000 pro-democracy protesters in
Tiananmen Square in June 1989 and the injuries suffered by 10,000
others there did not prompt us to withdraw trading privileges -- even
though in my view it should have.
Nor have we failed to extend NTR status due to China's continued
repression of dissent, its interference with freedom of religion,
association and the press, its counterproductive saber rattling toward
Taiwan, or, more recently, its crackdown on the Falun Gong spiritual
movement.
In fairness, the people of China -- by some accounts -- are somewhat
better off today than a few years ago. The government has extended
some basic rights to citizens: starting a business, choosing a job or
watching a foreign movie.
Over the last 20 years, economic reforms have lifted more than 200
million Chinese citizens out of absolute poverty.
Still, progress on basic human rights has been inexcusably slow.
China's record in this area is not acceptable in a civilized world.
Nevertheless, despite my grave reservations about the communist
government's commitment to improving human rights and expanding
freedoms, the fact remains: There is little, if any, evidence that our
annual votes have produced positive change within China.
Moreover, our vital economic, strategic and national security
interests were not at stake in these annual votes on extending NTR in
the same way that they are now.
This confluence of our national economic and security interests when
coupled with the ineffectiveness of our annual votes has convinced me
that PNTR is in the best interests of our nation, global stability,
and the nascent democracy, labor and human rights movements in China.
Thus, today I am announcing that I will support granting permanent
normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China.
This new century and the new economy marked by globalization and
increased interdependence require a new approach. Our annual votes
have not achieved our ends. PNTR presents a 21st Century opportunity
to do so.
Our Economic Interests
The economic benefits that the United States may reap if we pass this
legislation are well known. I do not intend to recount them all here.
Suffice it to say that Ambassador Barshefsky has done a good job in
negotiating the bilateral trade deal that was finalized last November.
As President Clinton stated here at SAIS on March 8: "Economically,
this agreement is the equivalent of a one-way street."
In my view, that "one-way street" will run in favor of the United
States, where previously it has been solely in China's favor.
Among other things, WTO accession would require China to open its
markets to our products and services, including professional services
providing legal, consulting, accounting and environmental expertise.
Under our bilateral trade agreement, China also has agreed to slash
tariffs on priority agricultural, industrial, and telecommunications
products. Further, China will permit American companies to sell and
distribute our products in China without having to relocate there, or
sell through the Chinese government or transfer valuable technology.
Our agreement provides safeguards against import surges and forced
technology transfers, and includes strong anti-dumping measures. It
also will enforce China's trade commitments through the WTO's
multilateral enforcement mechanism.
Passing PNTR is necessary to realize the benefits of this bargain.
China will become a member of the WTO, regardless of whether we pass
this legislation or not. However, if we reject PNTR, other countries
-- which are negotiating their own bilateral agreements with China --
will step into the vacuum and reap the rewards that would have been
available to American companies and workers.
Let me be perfectly honest. Despite the seeming windfall this trade
agreement provides -- and these benefits will be neither immediate nor
a surety -- I do not believe that potential economic gain alone
justifies our granting PNTR to China.
President Kennedy once said, "We stand for freedom. That is our
conviction for ourselves; that is our only commitment to others."
Today, my commitment would be much different were this decision based
solely on our economic interests. But it is not.
Our Strategic and National Security Interests
While our national economic interests are entwined with our national
security interests, the vote on PNTR undeniably affects core American
strategic and national security interests. They must weigh in our
considerations.
I strongly believe that the United States has a vital national
security interest in China's stability. The lesson of post-World War I
Germany leads me to conclude that such stability is enhanced by
China's inclusion in the world community and diminished by its
isolation.
Second, the United States has vital national security interests in
Asia. As Sandy Berger, the President's National Security Advisor, has
stated, we are a Pacific nation. We fought three wars in Asia in the
last century. Our future is inextricably linked to this region. Asian
countries see China's economic development and political integration,
and stable U.S.-China relations as key to regional security. If we
reject PNTR, the security of these nations is lessened.
I find it persuasive that China's accession to the WTO and PNTR are
not only supported by the President, more than 40 Governors and so
many others in this country, but also throughout Asia.
The list of supporters includes Japan, South Korea and the members of
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which includes
Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.
In addition, Taiwan's newly elected president, Chen Shui-bian, has
stated: "We would welcome the normalization of U.S.-China trade
relations, just like we hope the cross-strait relations also can be
normalized."
Others in the region see China's accession to the WTO as a major step.
In a letter to President Clinton, Martin Lee, the Chairman of the
Democratic Party of Hong Kong, wrote: "The participation of China in
the WTO would not only have economic and political benefits, but would
serve to bolster those in China who understand that the country must
embrace the rule of law."
And Chinese dissident Ren Wanding, a leader of the 1978 Democracy Wall
Movement, says WTO accession "can be a new beginning."
This leads to my third point: the United States has a vital national
security interest in the peaceful resolution of differences between
Taiwan and the PRC. We reject the use of force or threat of the use of
force to resolve differences, and support a direct dialogue. China's
further integration into the family of nations can only support this
interest.
Fourth, the United States has a vital national security interest in
engaging China on issues such as the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and dangerous technologies, and global climate change.
PNTR will facilitate dialogue on these issues, and American influence
on them.
Finally, I believe that rejection of PNTR will be viewed by the
Chinese as a turn from cooperation to confrontation. While China is
neither a close friend nor an ally, it manifestly is not in our
interests to strengthen the hand of those within the Chinese
government who oppose cooperation with the United States and the world
community.
As President Clinton points out, these are the same hardliners who are
most threatened by our alliances with Japan and South Korea; who want
to sell dangerous military technologies, and who believe confrontation
-- rather than dialogue -- is the best approach with Taiwan.
A 21st Century Opportunity
Finally, let me say that I disagree with the view that passing PNTR
surrenders our only leverage on the issue of human rights. In fact, as
I have said, I think the annual NTR review has had little impact on
China's human rights performance.
Engagement does not constitute endorsement of China's record on human
rights. And while I strongly supported the isolation of South Africa
in opposition to apartheid, I believe that approach is neither
possible nor advisable with respect to China.
We must continue to strongly press China to respect basic human rights
through resolutions before the U.N. Human Rights Commission and other
international fora. We also must press China through the other tools
we possess, such as enforcing our laws that ban imports produced by
prison labor.
In addition, the proposal of my colleague, Sandy Levin of Michigan, to
establish a formal congressional-executive commission on China modeled
on the Helsinki Commission is an important step.
The Levin proposal would institutionalize mechanisms for maintaining
pressure on China to improve its record on human rights, labor
standards and other commitments. I believe it should be adopted
irrespective of the outcome of the vote on PNTR.
I know from my experience on the Helsinki Commission that such a panel
can have a significant, positive effect. It is not an empty gesture.
Indeed, I believe that a commission similar to the Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe -- which holds hearings throughout
the year -- will have a vastly greater impact than an annual review of
China's NTR status.
In addition to creating a commission, Congressman Levin also has
proposed several other very good ideas for shaping China's course.
These include putting into U.S. law the anti-import surge safeguard
that China agreed to last year, pursuing institutional reforms of the
WTO to re-enforce openness and the rule of law, and strengthening our
monitoring and enforcement of China's trade agreement obligations by
committing additional resources to the Department of Commerce and the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
I certainly support these objectives.
Likewise, I am supportive of the efforts of my good friend,
Congressman Ben Cardin of Maryland, who is working on a proposal to
strengthen anti-surge safeguards and relief under Section 201 of the
Trade Act of 1974.
Engagement through PNTR represents neither acceptance nor
accommodation of abuses of human rights, but rather a new approach for
the new century. Our policy aims have not changed; the means we use to
achieve them have.
In my view, China's accession to the WTO will deepen market reforms,
empowering Chinese leaders who want to accelerate the move toward
economic freedom. Our agreement will expose China to global
competition, pressuring it to privatize state-owned industries and
expand the role of the markets.
WTO accession also will accelerate the removal of government from
citizens' lives. Our agreement will open China's telecommunications
market, including Internet and satellite services. Thus, over time the
Chinese people will be exposed to information and ideas that Beijing
cannot hope to contain.
Further, WTO accession will strengthen the rule of law in China
because it obligates the Chinese government to publish laws and
regulations, and subjects some decisions to review by an international
tribunal. This will advance our interest in bringing China into
agreements and institutions that will strengthen its stake in peace
and stability.
We of course must be clear-eyed realists in our relationship with
China. Change will be gradual. There undoubtedly will be retreats. And
if the progress we hope for does not happen, we will have to reassess
our position. But we must recognize that we have come a long way since
the People's Republic of China was proclaimed in October 1949 under
Mao Zedong. We have come a long way since President Nixon visited
China and met with Premier Zhou Enlai in 1972.
We must not be adverse to new ideas, especially when past approaches
have proven inadequate, our core national interests are at stake, and
we have an opportunity to achieve our aims.
PNTR is a 21st Century opportunity -- an opportunity to move our
relationship forward and to move China toward political openness,
market economics, the rule of law and respect for basic human rights.
If we fail to seize it, this loss will be felt here at home, as well
as in China and around the world for years to come.
Thank you.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list