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."
How's the Third Party platform shaping up for 2004?