• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

10 May 2000

Text: Secretary of State Albright Speech on China, Foreign Affairs

(Albright: Congress should pass PNTR, fund foreign policy) (3000)
U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright told an audience in
Denver, Colorado May 9 that Congress should pass permanent Normal
Trade Relations (PNTR) status for China and approve funding for
foreign affairs programs.
Albright said the United States has a significant economic interest in
encouraging China to open its vast market and take its place in a
global trading system based on the rule of law.
She also noted the United States has a foreign policy interest in
encouraging the Chinese government to respect labor and human rights,
as well as a 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," she said.
"All will be set back if PNTR is rejected ... withholding PNTR is no
way to make progress," she added.
Albright said Congress' annual review of China's trading status has
proven to be an inadequate instrument for leveraging change on human
rights, and "despite concerns, Congress has recognized the folly of
trying to unilaterally isolate China and has granted normal trade
relations every year since 1979."
Albright also said Congress should recognize the importance of
spending money on foreign policy and grant the funds requested by
President Clinton.
"Diplomacy has always been our nation's first line of defense," she
said.
"When we succeed, it is less likely that our soldiers will be called
upon to fight, more likely that our workers and businesses will
benefit from open markets, less likely that our citizens will be
harmed by international terror, and more likely that our children will
grow up in a world that is peaceful and prosperous, healthy and free,"
she concluded.
Following is the State Department text of Albright's remarks, as
prepared for delivery:
(begin text)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
(Denver, Colorado)
As Prepared for Delivery
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Address to the World Trade Center
Denver, Colorado
May 9, 2000
Thank you, Mayor Webb, Mr. Reis Mr. Wilkes. It's always a pleasure to
return to Denver, the city that welcomed my family so generously after
our arrival in America half a century ago. This is where I learned
about U.S. ideals, and developed the interest in international affairs
that would shape my life. I live in Washington and travel the world,
but Denver, more than anywhere else, still feels like home.
I want to begin tonight by saying a word of appreciation about your
Representative in Congress, Diana DeGette, who helped arrange my visit
to Denver today.
Because Congress is considering the Child Health Act, which
Representative DeGette is sponsoring, she was not able to be here
tonight. But this just reflects how hard she works on your behalf. She
is a true fighter for this district; a leader on social and
environmental issues; and a champion of strong and principled U.S.
leadership around the globe.
I want to recognize Denver's own Jim Lyons, who has been doing yeoman
work as the President's and my Special Adviser for Economic
Initiatives in Ireland. Jim has helped to advance the peace process in
northern Ireland for the past seven years, and I know he is as
encouraged as I am by the hopeful developments there this weekend.
I also want to join Marjory Searing in congratulating the Hach Company
for earning the President's "E" Award -- and for helping so many
people around the world to have clean water.
I know there are dozens of other Colorado firms represented here this
evening with international success stories to tell.
This reflects the fact that the American economy is strong today
because of the energy, innovation and skills of our people. We have
the most competitive economy on earth and nearly full employment. The
U.S. State Department cannot take credit for that, but we can and do
support it.
Over the past seven years, the Clinton Administration has completed
nearly 300 trade agreements, including the Uruguay Round, NAFTA and
pacts on Telecommunications and Financial Services. And during the
same period, American exports have increased by over $300 billion.
States such as Colorado, an export leader, have gained the most. For
example, your high-tech sector is benefiting from the Information
Technology Agreement that we negotiated in 1997. And our "Open Skies"
and other aviation agreements have enabled Denver International
Airport to add direct flights to Europe and Canada, and one-stop
service to China.
Achievements on trade have been accompanied by success in foreign
policy more generally. In this first year of the new millennium,
America is at peace. 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 in diplomacy as in business, standing still means falling behind.
Experience warns us that the course of world events is neither
predictable nor smooth. And, given the pace of our era, we know that
new perils to our security and prosperity could arise with 21st
century speed.
This means we must work hard 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 foreign
policy questions our nation has faced in a long time -- and that is
the current debate in Congress over Permanent Normal Trade Relations,
or PNTR, for China.
In the coming years, we can expect that the pace of technological,
social, economic and political change will continue to accelerate.
And we can expect that one of the forces propelling that change will
be a China increasingly engaged in global commerce, and increasingly
prominent on the regional and world stage.
In our own country, there are some who see this and want us all to
panic and run for cover. They point to China's rising military budget
and its poor record on human rights, and say we should oppose China
and seek to isolate it from the world.
I don't agree. It would be absurd, in any case, to try to isolate a
country representing one-fifth of the world's people. Our interests
are better served by exploring ways, consistent with our principles,
to work with China.
The United States has a significant economic interest in encouraging
China to open its vast market and take its place in a global trading
system based on the rule of law.
We have a foreign policy interest in encouraging the government in
Beijing to respect labor and human rights.
And we have a 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. All will be set back if PNTR is rejected. This
evening, I'd like 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
must conclude similar agreements with other countries and the European
Union. When it does, it will join the WTO.
Our Congress will not vote on whether China enters the WTO. Sooner
rather than later, China will join. The issue before Congress is
whether America will share in the full economic benefits of China's
membership, or leave those benefits to our competitors in Europe and
Asia.
For America to benefit, under WTO rules, we must give China the same
trading status we grant to other countries that belong to the
organization.
The economic advantages of doing so would be substantial.
Since 1993, Colorado's exports to China have increased by an average
of 55% a year. And that trend should continue if Congress approves
PNTR.
Colorado's exports to China run the gamut from semiconductors to cow
hides, with different products and services finding a niche each year.
And in case after case, your companies will benefit significantly from
the market-opening measures required by the World Trade Organization.
For example, tariffs on frozen beef sold in China will fall from 45
percent to 12 percent. Overall industrial tariffs will decline, on
average, from nearly 25 percent in 1997 to less than ten percent by
2005.
And if Congress approves PNTR, 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 in Beijing.
The agreement will also enable U.S. companies to export to China from
home, rather than being forced to set up factories in China. This
means we'll be able to export our products without exporting our jobs.
So on the economic merits, the choice for Congress is easy. This deal
is a winner for American businesses, workers, consumers and the
economy. We give away nothing -- nada, zip, zilch, bubkis. China alone
will cut its tariffs and lower its barriers to trade.
But the critics point to other concerns. They say that China tramples
on labor and human rights and we shouldn't trade with it; that China
exports destabilizing weapons and we shouldn't let it; and that China
threatens Taiwan and its neighbors and we shouldn't stand for it.
The Administration shares these concerns. 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
recognized the folly of trying to unilaterally isolate China and has
granted normal trade relations every year since 1979. As more and more
in Congress are realizing, there has to be a better way to support the
cause of improved 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.
As a member of the WTO, China will have to reduce further the role of
state-owned industries and open its regulatory system to public
scrutiny.
And by accelerating the spread of telecommunications technologies and
the Internet in China, we will help to reduce the power and reach of
government censorship.
Increased trade and investment will also increase contact with
foreigners, including Americans, and deepen ties with trading partners
who live under very different systems in Hong Kong and Taiwan.
That kind of openness should especially help to improve the status of
women in China, by giving then new opportunities and by making it
easier for them to compare their experiences with those of women in
other countries around the world.
In sum, China's entry into the WTO can only help the human rights and
political situation in China. Conversely, while denying PNTR might
cause some to feel good in the short run, the long-term outcome is
likely to be harmful both for us and for those in China who want to
live freer lives.
Passing PNTR will also enhance our ability to protect the global
environment. This afternoon, I met with representatives of Colorado
companies that are world leaders in selling environmentally friendly
goods and services. They told me that PNTR will make it easier for
them to export to China.
And the more China is integrated into the international system, the
better our chances of making it a partner in our efforts to combat
climate change, the spread of toxic chemicals, and ozone depletion.
Finally, granting PNTR is plainly the right vote for our national
security. The more we integrate China into the world economy, the more
incentives it will have to deal peacefully with Taiwan, to help
preserve stability on the Korean Peninsula, and to play a constructive
role on issues such as halting the spread of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons.
Conversely, China might well interpret rejection of PNTR as a
strategic decision on our part to treat it as an enemy. This would
make it easier for hardliners to move China in the direction of
confrontation instead of cooperation, heightening tensions across the
Taiwan Strait and the risk of disruptive incidents in the South China
Sea.
For all these reasons, Taiwan's President-elect, Chen Shui-bian, has
voiced support for normal trade relations between China and the United
States. It is why our allies in the region agree. And why many of our
past and present national leaders from both parties gathered at the
White House this morning to express support for PNTR and for moving
forward in our relationship with China.
Of course, China's future direction will be determined by the Chinese.
We can't control that, anymore than Beijing can control America's
destiny. But our policies and actions are among the factors that
China's leaders will take into account when formulating their own
policies. We can encourage China to move in the right direction. Or we
can turn our backs and almost certainly push it in the wrong
direction.
The vote on China PNTR may well be the biggest economic and national
security decision Congress faces this year. But the arguments in favor
are overwhelming. It should not be a close call. For Colorado, and for
America, the smart choice is "yes."
Another smart choice that Congress should make would be to appropriate
sufficient resources for American diplomacy.
Those of you who have never lived in the District of Columbia may not
follow the federal budget process very closely. I do not blame you.
Unfortunately, I do not have the same luxury.
Most Americans are astonished when I tell them that our government's
entire array of international programs only consume about one penny
out of every federal dollar we spend.
In fact, we devote a smaller percentage of our wealth to assisting
overseas development than any other industrialized country. During the
past decade, our rate of investment has declined by half; since the
days of Truman and Marshall, by more than ninety percent.
And this downward trend is still continuing. Already this year,
Congress has approved a budget resolution that will slash more than
twelve percent from the President's foreign affairs funding request.
Meanwhile, the Senate has lagged in approving emergency funds to help
Colombian President Pastrana rescue his country, and therefore ours,
from drug criminals.
And Congress has not provided the resources we need to pay our full
share of costs in Kosovo. This is wrongheaded. Because when we invest
in stability and recovery in that region, we help the people of Kosovo
regain control of their lives, and make it possible for our armed
forces to return home sooner and more safely than would otherwise be
the case.
Some in Congress object to spending money on foreign policy because
they think we should put "America first." But when we provide
resources to stem the flow of cocaine and heroin from the Andes, or
join with our Allies to bring stability to a key part of Europe, or
safeguard nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, or train
foreign police in counter-terrorism, we are aiding America.
Diplomacy has always been our nation's first line of defense. When we
succeed, it is less likely that our soldiers will be called upon to
fight, more likely that our workers and businesses will benefit from
open markets, less likely that our citizens will be harmed by
international terror, and more likely that our children will grow up
in a world that is peaceful and prosperous, healthy and free.
So I hope you agree. Congress should approve the funds the President
has requested so America can protect U.S. interests and meet our
responsibilities around the world.
This evening, as we discuss trade and technology at the start of a new
millennium, it is 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 cool spring air of the Mile High City.
The Aspen-covered splendor of the Rocky Mountains and the stark beauty
of the Great Plains.
The pioneer spirit of the American West.
And the purpose of America.
As I said earlier, I will never forget the warmth and generosity of
the people of Denver, after my family came here to escape Communism
and find freedom.
But 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 Colorado 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 very much.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)