Posted on 12/29/2001 12:15:26 AM PST by Enemy Of The State
U.S. grants China permanent normal trade status By SCOTT LINDLAW - The Associated Press CRAWFORD, Texas -- President Bush granted China permanent normal trade status Thursday, ending a quarter-century policy of using access to U.S. markets as an annual enticement to the Chinese to expand political and economic freedoms. The president's decision will end yearly battles in Congress that have been waged since 1980 and that sometimes divided the Democratic Party during the Clinton years. The decision was set up by China's admission last month to the World Trade Organization. Bush called the trade proclamation the "final step in normalizing U.S.-China trade relations" and said it would open up the vast Chinese markets to billions of dollars in American goods. The new trade status will take effect Jan. 1, Bush said in the announcement, which was released in Crawford, Texas, where he is vacationing. Bush's proclamation formally removed China from having to adhere to the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974. The amendment, initially aimed at the former Soviet Union's restrictions against Jewish emigration, withholds normal trade relations with communist states that restrict emigration. Since 1980, China has enjoyed temporary normal trade relations with the United States under annual presidential waivers of the law. But each waiver has prompted debates in Congress over China's record on human rights and weapons proliferation. The last debate occurred in July, when the House voted 259-169 to approve Bush's waiver this year, the last that will be necessary. The annual congressional battle pitted American business and its Republican allies against big labor and its Democratic supporters. President Bill Clinton, at odds with many in his own party, started the process of moving China toward permanent trade status before he left office. Congress last year granted the permanent status to China contingent upon its entry into the World Trade Organization. Its application was formally accepted at the organization's annual meeting last month in the United Arab Emirates. The annual struggle also inflamed tensions with China each year and prompted worries in that country every time it arose. China and the United States reached an agreement, as part of China's WTO entry, that will lower China's tariffs on U.S. goods and open up its service sector to American companies. China's tariffs on U.S.-made goods are to fall from an overall average of 25 percent to 9 percent by 2005. Duties on America's primary farm products are to drop from 31 percent to 14 percent. China has an $80 billion trade surplus with the United States. Bush has long supported trade with Beijing, even during the standoff over a U.S. spy plane that collided with a Chinese jet fighter and made an emergency landing on Chinese territory early this year. In asking Congress for a temporary extension in June, Bush argued that normal relations would benefit the American economy and promote an "economically open, politically stable and secure China." Trade with China helps American farmers and American business, Bush said. Last year, he said, U.S. farmers exported goods to China and Hong Kong worth more than $3 billion, and American businesses increased exports to China by 24 percent.
Date: 12/27/01 22:15
The China normalization initiative is one of many signs increasingly intense lobbying efforts by busines. In Chicago in Sept. 1996, for example, a group of corporations including Motorola, United Airlines, Arthur Anderson, Caterpillar, Deere and Company, and others (all with headquarters in the Chicago area) announced the Illinois Coalition to Support U.S.-China Commercial Relations. Motorola's top executive for Asia, Rick Younts, said: "Illinois jobs depend on trade, and trade with China is at the top of the list of future growth opportunities for a wide variety of industries." And in a press release, the group announced that its goal is "to encourage public policy at the federal, state, and local level, which supports the normalization of trade relations between the US and China.
The main reason for Washingtons resistance to Beijing's admission to the WTO has been China's trade and tariff policies, wich are themselves in part responsible for the close to $50 billion deficit that the United States now has with China. Qian Qichen (China's vice premier and foreign minister) called for MFN to be "renewed indefinitely." (apparently when China speaks, Washington listens) He also added an implicit threat, one that was first raised years ago by Deng Xiaoping. He effectively warned that the United States will suffer the consequencesif it doesn't grant China better trading terms so that the Chinese economy can continue improving. "A China with a stagnant economy, an impoverished population and even social termoil that produces massive exodus of refugees will indeed be a threat to world peace and stability," he said.
Not coincidentally, the same argument was being made in Washington by businessmen and memebers of the National Association of Manufacturers who testified at a House committee hearing held that same week as the Chicago reception. Lawrence Clarkson, senior vice president of Boeing, told the committee that the repeated debate over MFN had created a "lack of predictability" in American China policy that was hurting business:"Europe extends MFN or standard Tariff treatment to CHina, just as it does the majority of its trading partners on a permanant basis. THis contrast in policy has not gone unnoticed in Bejing. And clearly contributed to China's decision to purchase one and a half billion dollars in Airbus aircraft in April of 1997."
A representative of the National Association of Manufacturers spoke against "demanding immediate social and political change for the privilege of trading with the United States."
The lesson here is that China's efforts to impose its international political agenda on foreign companies doing business in China has shaken up AMerican businessmen. But it hasn't shaken them into leaving CHina. It has shaken them into doing China's bidding more eagerly than ever.
There is no more dramatic example of this than Boeing, which was selling one of every ten of its palnes to Chinese airlines in the 1993-95 period, accounting for 70% of the entire CHinese market. Boeing seems willing to do almost anything for the Chinese government to hold on to that share.In a series of Articles in the Seattle Times in 1996, Stanley Holmes portrayed Boeing executives frequently reminding Chinese leaders of the political and economic favors they're performing for CHina and Chinese leaders constantly demanding more.
Holmes reports that the quid pro quo between Boeing and China is crass and clear: "Boeing is not only lobbying to extend MFN for CHina this year, but also working with other corporate giants to secure 'permanent MFN' Status for CHina. If the aircraft giant doesnt deliver for CHina, Boeing;s chief international strategist, Lawrence Clarkson, conceded, 'we're toast'". One senate staff member, speaking of Boeings lobbyists, put it this way: "When it comes to China...they're everywhere and they're smart. They do it through front line organizations, they publish studies on exports, they know where their suppliers are and they put pressure on them."
Speaking about the K Street crowd, one senior senatorial staff member made the remark that those in policy-making establishment striving to attach some importance to human rights in China tend to be steamrolled by the increasingly powerful business lobby that fights for China on Capitol Hill. "As more and more businesses have invested in China, we have lost more and more people,". "The business community is speniding tens of millioins of dollars against us every year."
Besides a lot of those slaves over there wouldn't be slaves if they would just stop being Christians. They brought slavery on themselves.
How's the Third Party platform shaping up for 2004?
In China's case there are special circumstances that must be taken into account. And trade isn't always good.
A lot of the time "China" screws itself up with some of the kakamaime schemes they want the world to buy into. Taiwan is supposed to be a 'terrorist group'? The people in Tibet or Western China have no legitimate gripe?
"China" cannot be lumped into one big single body all with the same opinion. Neither can the CCP, yet as a whole the CCP falls on the side of a bunch of con artists and people I don't like very much. There are a whole lot of elements (and beliefs) in both "China" and the CCP that make trade with China as a whole often detrimental.
If it is just between us and those elements, I would say cut them all off, but its not. There is a large group, maybe you can say 'the silent majority' that are friendly. They don't want to blow anyone up, and they are not threatened by America.
The latter group are the only real reason to trade at all. I think those people should be in charge, which now they are only in limited numbers in positions of power. If China stops threatening people then they would not be threatened nearly as much. China often places itself in positions of conflict and contrarian thought then blames the world for being wrong. The latter group is capable of leading China into a better state and actually bring respect to the place. This group can end the conflict with Taiwan on equal and beneficial grounds.
The former group though resist change. They want ONLY the CCP to have control over EVERYTHING. They don't like America. They want to attack Taiwan. They run people over with tanks and abuse their power. All that is just a start. The whole way they even took power, and maintain power, I don't like. Preaching propaganda helps no one. All this "we are going to surpass America and take over Asia" talk, or get revenge on Japan, or conquer Taiwan talk has got to go.
Trade is a mixed bag at best. We cannot help just one of those groups. Although in a trading environment the radical thinkers are limited in what they can do therefore overall trade falls slightly in favor of the "nice crowd". If it ever starts to fall in favor of the "bad crowd" I have a problem with that.
Those friendly elements should be in charge and declare that the CCP is on its death bed. They should voluntarily open the country to outside thought and reform the government into a new system. There is no dignity lost in that at all. Yet, never forget Tian An Men in 1989.
Keep in mind the process has already started and there have been a whole lot of improvements. I am not really suggesting a new path. I am suggesting to continue to follow the path of reform and not digress back into some emperial dynasty. There are a lot of folks resistant to change and getting rid of the CCP and all its corrupt ways, thoughts, ideologies, and systems though. By trade, we help empower those people who can and want to make positive change. We have to put up with a lot of BS in the process, but hopefully the end goal will be accomplished.
If China starts to get too big for itself and starts running its military all over the place threatening wars, or preaching anti-Americanism, then I have a problem with that.
The moment trade starts to prop up the old system instead of rid the world of it, then trade becomes detrimental.
China didn't say that.
>>"China" cannot be lumped into one big single body all with the same opinion.
Different opinions don't mean disintegration of the territory.
>>The latter group are the only real reason to trade at all. I think those people should be in charge, which now they are only in limited numbers in positions of power.
The real reason why the US wants to trade with China is that the trade is in the American interets.
>>If China stops threatening people then they would not be threatened nearly as much.
The Qing dynasty was so weak that it in no way could threaten anyone. However it was constantly threatened by the foreign powers.
>>This group can end the conflict with Taiwan on equal and beneficial grounds.
If you mean "split Taiwan from China" by "end the conflict with Taiwan", I won't think you are right. That group wont do that either.
>>All this "we are going to surpass America and take over Asia" talk,
Who said that?
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.