IT IS almost an American political tradition. Every four years, the opposition candidate will vow to "get tough" on China. President Clinton criticized President Bush in 1992 for "being soft" with the Chinese. Bob Dole did the exact same thing to Clinton four years later. And you can be sure that Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R) will use a similar attack against Vice President Gore.
The fact is that no matter how many politicians vow to get tougher with China, U.S. policy largely will remain the same -- we will continue to trade with China. There are not many Americans who don't have strong objections to China's barbaric human rights record. The economic reality of the world is that the U.S. needs China in the World Trade Organization. Despite all of China's downsides, the United States has too much to gain and far too much to lose with the upcoming Congressional decision on free trade with China.
Here's how the new trade arrangement would work: If the House approves the trade agreement, China will gain membership into the WTO. With this new membership, China agrees to open its markets to foreign products -- the same
products that right now are extremely expensive and difficult to obtain in the legitimate market. In exchange for the opening of Chinese markets, the United States agrees to charge incoming Chinese goods the same low tariff rates as goods from most other countries. Because of low wages in China, the United States already imports many labor-intensive manufactured goods. That is, since we already import a great many goods from China, why shouldn't we want them to do the same for us?
Why is this such an important issue? After all, China is on the other side of the planet -- what does it matter whether we have open trade or not?
Because China is such a massive country, it offers many opportunities to U.S. producers.
Every economic sector -- from farming to telecommunications -- has a group of ready consumers in China. Chances are that by the time we graduate, most sectors will be trading with China. Think about it: a country with well over a billion people that is willing to open up its markets to foreign competition. We should be salivating over this huge opportunity.
As China's chief negotiator Long Yungtu said, "I firmly believe that the Sino-U.S. trade agreement is in the interests of the business community. I don't see any reason that the U.S. Congress would not pass the legislation ("China meets with WTO members", Associated Press, March 21)."
Of course, it's one thing for a Chinese official to take such a pro-WTO stance. Even right-wing conservatives in Congress are pulling for a "yes" vote on permanent normal trade relations with the Asian giant. "We're going to go forward with [permanent NTR]. We're going to pass it into law. It's a hard vote to get, but we're going to get it," said House Majority Leader Rep. Dick Armey (R-Tex.) ("U.S. House may set date for China trade vote -- Armey," Reuters, March 21), a man I am normally loathe to agree with.
Obviously, China has nothing to brag about with its human rights record. Its myriad violations of such basic rights as free expression and religion, in addition to its unjustifiable occupation of Tibet, leaves much to be desired in this area. The totalitarian government wouldn't even let that firebrand, Pope John Paul II, visit Hong Kong, which is supposed to have autonomy over its own political freedoms. The U.S., and every other member of the WTO, is right to be concerned with this disturbing side to Chinese society. Several members of Congress have proposals that would link continued loans to China from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the U.S. Export-Import Bank to China's records on human rights, labor issues and the environment ("US Exploring China Trade Provisions," Associated Press, March 18).
The U.S. policymakers certainly have reservations about this trade policy. At the U.N.'s human rights forum in Geneva, the U.S. has announced that it will introduce a resolution that would criticize China for "deteriorating human rights conditions," including its ridiculous mistreatment of the Falun Gong movement ("China blasts U.S. resolution on human rights," Reuters, March 21). As you can guess, the Chinese reacted with their typical anger at U.S. interference in their internal affairs. But this is not surprising coming from a government that last year openly encouraged and bused its citizens over to the U.S. embassy to vandalize it.
It's not an easy thing to give freer trade privileges to such a brutal dictatorship. But isolation as a foreign policy has rarely worked. There are few, if any, politicians who support Chinese entry into the WTO without some kind of accountability for human rights. The basic premise remains the same: The United States would be shooting itself in both feet if it turned down this chance at improved trade relations. For our own economy's sake, we need open trade with China.
(Timothy DuBoff's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 53 minutes agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
