UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

USIS Washington File

10 May 2000

Text: Pelosi Challenges Clinton Administration Claims on China Trade

(Pelosi: Clinton does "grave disservice" to China debate) (1770)
Bringing out former U.S. Presidents to speak in favor of granting
permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status to China doesn't make
that policy either a good one or a sustainable one, according to
Representative Nancy Pelosi (Democrat of California).
Speaking in the House of Representatives May 9, Pelosi criticized
President Clinton for doing "a grave disservice to this very serious
debate" by trying to frame the issue as one of whether or not to
engage China.
"Certainly we need to engage China," she said, "but we need to do it
in a sustainable way that sustains our values and sustains our economy
and sustains a world peace in making the world a safer place."
Pelosi contrasted statements U.S. Trade Representative Charlene
Barshefsky has made regarding the U.S.-China agreement on China's
World Trade Organization (WTO) accession negotiated last November with
recent ones by Chinese trade officials.
To get the benefits of that trade deal, the United States must grant
permanent Normal Trade Relations status to China, since all WTO
members must be given equal access to other members' markets. Granting
China permanent NTR would require that the Senate and the House of
Representatives vote to end the application of Title IV of the Trade
Act of 1974 to China (the Jackson-Vanik amendment), which subjects
China's access to U.S. markets to an annual review by Congress.
According to Pelosi, the U.S. Trade Representative's fact sheet on the
WTO accession agreement says China "will import all types of U.S.
wheat from all regions of the U.S. to all ports in China."
China's trade representative, in contrast, "says it is a complete
misunderstanding to expect this grain to enter the country. Beijing
only conceded a theoretical opportunity for the export of grain," she
said.
"The President's request (to vote to grant permanent Normal Trade
Relations status to China) is based on broken promises, not proven
performance," Pelosi said. "Already, China is engaged in its
traditional reinterpretation of the agreement."
Following is the text of Pelosi's remarks:
(begin text)
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
On Trade with China
May 9, 2000
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, some people think I can talk all day on China
and are afraid that I will, so I will try to be succinct and get to
just a few basic points, because so many of my colleagues have touched
on the very serious human rights violations and the very substantial
trade violations.
Mr. Speaker, China has violated agreements between our two countries
and, of course, there is the issue of proliferation. I think I will
focus in the short time allotted to me, Mr. Speaker, on the fact that
today a number of our former Presidents joined President Clinton in
calling for Congress to pass Permanent Normal Trade Relations with
China. These Presidents, who have been a part and parcel of this
policy which is a total failure, are asking Members of Congress to put
their good names next to a policy that has failed in every respect.
Permanent Normal Trade Relations is the cornerstone of the
Clinton-Bush China policy. There are three areas of concern that we
have in our country about that policy. First of all, and in no
particular order of priority, we have the issue, since this is a trade
issue, of the substantial violations of our trade relationship which
continue. When we started this debate, we were talking about 1, 2, $3
billion that was the trade deficit we suffered with China. That was
over a decade ago. Now the trade deficit for this year is projected to
be over $80 billion.
So this idea that if we kowtowed to the regime, and we gave them MFN,
Most Favored Nation status, now called Permanent Normal Trade
Relations, the name has been changed to protect the guilty, if we do
that then the China market will be opened to U.S. products, it simply
has not happened.
In the area of trade, China has violated every trade agreement, be it
the market access agreement, the agreement on intellectual property,
the agreement on use of prison labor for export, the agreement on
transshipments, any trade agreement we can name.
So, President Clinton is sending us this request for Permanent Normal
Trade Relations based on the 1999 U.S.-China trade agreement. What
reason do we have to think that China will honor that? The President's
request is based on broken promises, not proven performance.
Already, China is engaged in its traditional reinterpretation of the
agreement. For example, let me give some comparisons. The Trade Rep's
fact sheet, our Trade Rep's fact sheet says China will import all
types of U.S. wheat from all regions of the U.S. to all ports in
China. China's Trade Rep says it is a complete misunderstanding to
expect this grain to enter the country. Beijing only conceded a
theoretical opportunity for the export of grain.
On meat, China, according to our fact sheet, the U.S. Trade Rep's fact
sheet, China will lift the ban on U.S. exports of all meat and
poultry. China's negotiator said diplomatic negotiations involve
finding new expressions. If we find a new expression, this means we
have achieved a diplomatic result. In terms of meat imports, we have
not actually made any material concessions.
The ink is not even dry on this agreement. This is a 1999 agreement
that is already being reinterpreted by the regime. The list goes on:
Petroleum, telecommunications, insurance, et cetera. I talked about
the history of it and I do not have enough time to go into the history
of their trade violations.
Some would lead us to believe that we who are opposing this request of
the President are willing to risk U.S. jobs in support of promoting
human rights in China. But the facts point to a situation where this
is a very bad deal on the basis of trade alone. On the basis of trade
alone. If we could forget the brutal occupation of Tibet. If we could
forget the serious repression of religious and political freedom in
China.
If we could forget that for a moment. If we could forget China's
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That would be chemical,
biological and nuclear technology to Iran, to Pakistan, to the Sudan,
to Libya.
To Libya, it is very recent. This is a major embarrassment in the
Clinton administration policy. But fortunately for them, this
information came out during the Easter break and it has not really
sunk in. But this is a very serious violation. And it proves again
that kowtowing to the regime does not get us any better benefits in
terms of stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
making the world a safer place, any fairer treatment, making a fairer
deal.
Mr. Speaker, they want us to give China a blank check, while China
gives us a rubber check by not even honoring the deal that they are
putting forth. And then in terms of human rights, we are a country of
values. When people say, well, other countries do not do this. We are
not other countries. We are the United States of America. We are the
freest country in the world and we have a commitment to promote the
aspirations of people who aspire to freedom. That does not mean we go
to war for them or anything like that, but it does mean that we should
at least, at least recognize the repression they are suffering for
freedom.
Wei Jingsheng, a hero. He has spent many, many years of his life,
probably half of his adult life in prison. Harry Wu has spent years in
prison. They know that the United States must not act from fear of
what the Chinese regime might do. We have to act from strength and
confidence in our own sense of values.
So when the President says, `Oh, you either want to isolate China or
engage China,' he does a grave disservice to this very serious debate.
Certainly we need to engage China, but we need to do it in a
sustainable way that sustains our values and sustains our economy and
sustains a world peace in making the world a safer place.
The administration is willing to ignore Tibet and China and all of
that. They are willing, more seriously, to ignore China's
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They are willing to say
that the human rights situation is improving in China, when we have
the National Catholic Conference of Bishops supporting us; when we
have, as was mentioned by others, the new Commission on Religious
Freedom supporting us in this, and the list goes on. In terms of the
environment, the Sierra Club, in terms of agriculture, the National
Farmers Union, the list goes on.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join the working people of America to
oppose this and say to the President there is a way to do it. A decent
way. And it is a way that says let us see some proven performance
before we surrender to the dictates of the Beijing regime the only
leverage we have, which is our annual review.
So it is not about `engage or isolate.' Certainly we engage. It is not
about whether we trade or not. Certainly we trade. It is a question of
how we do it. And it does not have to be according to the terms and
the timing of the Beijing regime, but more in keeping with what is
right and what is appropriate for our great country. We are leaders in
the world; we should continue to be so. And I would hope that the
President and the former Presidents would respect the intelligence of
the Members of Congress to know that they should not ask us to place
our good name next to their failed policy just so that we can help
redeem the lack of success they have, instead of allowing us to go
forward in a very positive way.
We all have a responsibility. We all have a responsibility to come to
an agreement on trade with China that is responsible. Give us a chance
to do that. I urge my colleagues not to support this, but to allow us
to do it right and not according to the terms and timing of the regime
in Beijing. With that, I will yield back.
(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