[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 27 (Friday, March 11, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                RETHINKING UNITED STATES POLICY ON CHINA

                                 ______


                       HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

                           of american samoa

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, March 11, 1994

  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, as spring approaches, attention is 
rapidly focussing on what has become an annual rite of Congress: 
whether the United States should revoke China's most-favored-nation 
tariff status.
  As we prepare for this year's exercise on China policy, I recommend 
to the attention of Members the following article in the San Francisco 
Chronicle by Stanley Lubman, an attorney and teacher specializing in 
international law. Mr. Lubman makes a number of observations in his 
article that warrant consideration.
  First, and most importantly, Mr. Lubman correctly states that United 
States policy-makers should concentrate on defining and maintaining a 
coherent long-term policy toward China that supports broadbased Chinese 
reforms.
  Second, Mr. Lubman notes the annual threat of MFN revocation based 
upon short-term results is a ``clumsy and dangerous foreign policy 
instrument.'' As he points out, an end to MFN treatment would severley 
undermine China's economic growth and stability--thereby jeopardizing 
the very economic and societal conditions in China that best promote 
progress for political reform and protection of human rights.
  Last, the argument that China's MFN, status should not be revoked 
because it will adversely affect United States jobs and exports, 
although well-intentioned, is short-sighted and oversimplifies the 
matter. Moreover, As Mr. Lubman notes, balancing human rights against 
jobs while debating MFN policy leaves the U.S. policy-makers open to 
charges of sacrificing morality for greed.
  Mr. Speaker, in the upcoming months as we review these issues, I 
would urge our colleagues to adopt a long-term policy perspective 
toward China that supports economic progress and concommitant political 
reform. A China policy that is excessively preoccupied with short-term 
results may only undercut achievement of those vital goals. Again, I 
recommend highly to the attention of our colleagues the excellent 
article by Mr. Lubman.

           [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 14, 1994]

               Long-Term China Policy Should Be U.S. Goal

                          (By Stanley Lubman)

       As U.S. policy makers re-examine our relationship with 
     China, it is important that they get right the reasons for 
     change.
       Since 1989, the United States has sought to pressure the 
     Chinese government to make progress in ending human rights 
     abuses by using the threat of ending so-called most-favored 
     nation (``MFN'') treatment. An end to MFN would mean raising 
     tariffs on Chinese exports to the United States.
       In recent weeks, the Clinton administration has emphasized 
     ``reengagement'' with China. Last week, Representative Robert 
     Matsui, D-Sacramento, urged that the two issues of tariff 
     treatment and human rights be decoupled because of the impact 
     on jobs in California if MFN treatment is ended: Chinese 
     exports would decline and China would buy less from the 
     United States.
       While Matsui is correct in arguing in favor of continuing 
     MFN status for China, the theme of jobs versus human rights 
     is short-sighted. Instead, policy should change because of 
     U.S. hopes for China's prospects over the long run. Moreover, 
     it is important to anticipate economic and political 
     uncertainties that may lie ahead in China.
       Clearly, the treatment of millions of Chinese, especially 
     dissidents and prisoners, by the security apparatus and 
     prison system, cruelly violates widely-held standards of 
     decency and governmental conduct. And the injection of human 
     rights idealism into U.S. China policy disregards differences 
     between Chinese and Western cultural traditions, concepts of 
     law and political ideals. It judges Chinese practice by our 
     ideals, regardless of how far short we ourselves may fall 
     from them in practice.
       The threat to end MFN treatment is a clumsy and dangerous 
     foreign policy instrument, whether the focus is human rights 
     or economic. China's remarkable economic reforms have 
     ``dramatically'' improved the lives of most Chinese, 
     according to U.S. Ambassador Stapleton Roy. And cultural 
     openness to the West has grown considerably.
       An end to MFN treatment would cripple Chinese export 
     industries and deal a terrific blow to economic growth and 
     reform. It would create economic hardship for millions of 
     Chinese and for Hong Kong. Economic distress also could lead 
     to unrest and another political crackdown.
       If the United States wants political reform, it should 
     promote Chinese economic reform. Economic growth does not 
     necessarily nourish individual rights and the rule of law, 
     but at least it creates the economic conditions in which 
     progress toward political change might be possible.
       Reconsideration of the MFN issue to avoid injuring U.S. 
     exports to China oversimplifies these issues and also invites 
     moralizers to argue that the issue is one of greed against 
     morality.
       U.S. policy should anticipate that Chinese economic 
     development will be uneven. In the next months, for example, 
     a hard landing by the Chinese economy is very possible. The 
     rate of growth is so high that some Chinese leaders tried to 
     slow down investment last summer, but had to surrender by 
     autumn because too many provincial leaders are committed to 
     unrestrained local investments.
       Inflation is 20 percent yearly by official figures and more 
     by unofficial reckoning. The World Bank has warned the 
     Chinese leadership that it must slow economic growth or risk 
     major inflation. Because the power of the central government 
     is decaying, it has difficulty controlling local investment 
     and collecting tax revenues.
       Administration policy should focus on defining and 
     maintaining long-term U.S. interest in Chinese reform, 
     despite the possibility that real economic and political 
     problems may appear in the short run. Realism would make the 
     change in policy seem less opportunistic, both at home and in 
     Beijing, where the Chinese leadership is wont to emphasize 
     America's need of the China trade.
       By taking the trouble to educate the American public about 
     its China policy, the administration can help prevent U.S. 
     perceptions from swinging yet again from excessively high 
     expectations to exaggerated disappointment. But in the 
     meantime, policy makers must get their reasons for change 
     right.

                          ____________________