Posted on 06/25/2004 1:19:53 PM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
Rep. Phil Crane, chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, wants to bring to the floor H.R.3943, a bill that would extend nondiscriminatory, most-favored nation treatment (called mistakenly “normal trade relations” in U.S. parlance) to the products of the Lao People´s Democratic Republic. Such an action at this time would only bring disgrace upon the House of Representatives given the brutal nature of the communist Pathet Lao regime.
Any trade policy action should provide real benefits to the American economy while advancing American interests and values in world affairs. Granting NTR to Laos fails on all counts. The economy of Laos is smaller than that of Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Its per capita GDP is less than $500, meaning that is cannot provide a meaningful market for American exports. U.S. commerce with Laos is so insignificant, indeed nearly non-existent, that it did not even warrant an entry in the USTR´s 2004 National Trade Estimate report.
Laos does not have consumers, just more low-wage laborers for use in the production of export goods. However, any capital invested in Laos or hard currency earned by trade will be used to keep the Pathet Lao communist party in power. Though Laos claims to have been engaged in economic reform since 1986, the results have been poor and prospects for the future are bleak because of the oppression and corruption of the regime.
On May 6, the House passed by a vote of 408-1 H. Res. 402 expressing the urgent need for freedom, democratic reform, and the international monitoring of elections, human rights, and religious liberty in Laos. Granting NTR to Laos would be wholly inconsistent with H. Res. 402. It would reward a regime that the House has just gone on record as characterizing as an unreformed and unrepentant tyranny.
The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination criticized the Pathet Lao´s civil and political human rights record last August, focusing on the continued campaigns of ethnic cleansing of the highland Hmong, a fiercely independent people who were anti-communist allies of the United States during the Vietnam War. The Hmong refugee community in the United States, which includes many combat veterans who fought valiantly alongside American soldiers, is strongly opposed to giving NTR to the Pathet Lao regime. They know it would only serve to give more resources to those who are trying to exterminate their brethren.
Amnesty International in its 2004 report on Laos concluded “lack of freedom of expression, the administration of justice and corruption in the judicial sector remained of serious concern.” The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has Laos on its Watch List.
These reports on the despotic conditions in Laos remain accurate even if the country is looked at only in narrow economic terms. The 2004 Index of Economic Freedom published by the Heritage Foundation counts Laos as one of the most unfree countries in the world, in the company of Burma, Zimbabwe and North Korea. The term “corruption” is used frequently in describing the environment of business and government. The report states, “The communist government recognizes the growing problem of corruption among party members, but has not instituted the necessary political reforms to make public officials accountable or strengthen the rule of law.”
Proponents of NTR for Laos argue that increased investment and trade will help move political reform forward (an argument used and proven wrong in the case of "normal trade relations" for China -- where all political dissendents remain in prison)and aid in preparing Laos for eventual entry into the World Trade Organization. Such an argument puts the cart before the horse. Should Laos ever reform itself sufficiently to meet WTO standards, it would then gain NTR as a result of WTO membership. To grant NTR before such standards are met would be to give the Laotian regime many benefits–namely access to the U.S. market, without having to reform first, as is the situation in China.
While commerce can be used as a part of American foreign policy to support reformers and allies, this would not be the case in Laos. Any increased trade or capital flows would go through the hands of the regime or its supporters, who are not reformers or allies of the United States. The primary effect of granting NTR to Laos at this time would be to subsidize the dictatorship and become its accomplice.
Why would Rep. Crane, once a leader among conservative Republicans, want to aid the Pathet Lao? The answer is that Crane has embraced the narrow philosophical position that trade should be run on its own account, by business and for business, without regard to geopolitical or moral consequences. That is the concept behind the formal change of terminology from “most favored nation”– which implies some judgement, to “normal trade relations” which implies that commerce is the “normal” state of the world regardless of the nature of the regimes involved. But is it both a dangerous and immoral principle to proclaim that the actions of the Pathet Lao are in any way “normal” and thus an acceptable standard in international behavior.
The United States must, as a matter of principle as well as self-interest, discriminate between good and evil, friend and foe, in its international economic relations. A non-discriminatory trade policy must be rejected, which is what the Laos NTR issue is really about.
William R. Hawkins is Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council.
ping
I liked Crane better when he was a drunk.
He does have ANOTHER excuse for this miserable move: Laos is merely a smaller version of Red China, minus nukes because Laos never got the W-88 recipe through spying and/or assistance from the Clinton regime.
I make a point of not buying products produced in communist countries. I also make a point to tell store managers these concerns, and that that is why "I am unable to buy these items, and thus unable to shop at your store". I'll tell you what, it makes it hard to do any shopping, though.
Remember, sending money to these evil countries is supporting slavery and the evils of communism. A dollar to these communist countries is a bullet in you and your families' backs. A dollar to China for any product is a bullet in the head of an american G.I.
Boycott communist countries, and be loud about it.
Why do we even bother to cut off Cuba?
Bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.