[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 82 (Thursday, June 12, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1212-E1213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               INFORMATION ON MOST-FAVORED-NATION STATUS

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 12, 1997

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the insight added to the 
policy debate on most-favored-nation [MFN] status for China by Rev. 
Robert A. Sirico in an article he authored in yesterday's Wall Street 
Journal. Reverend Sirico succinctly highlights the danger which occurs 
when ``labor unions and other left-liberal protectionists'' align 
themselves with those factions of the religious right who, at times, 
are ``insensitive to the difference between urging certain moral ends 
and using government coercion to bring them about.''
  Reverend Sirico, a Paulist priest, explains that pleas from 
evangelical missionaries currently working in China have passionately 
urged United States policymakers not to cut off trade with China as 
this would endanger Christian's status in China as well as possibly 
lead to the Chinese Government revoking Christian's visas.
  ``Economic prosperity through free trade is the most effective 
distributor of wealth and power, and trade with China is the surest way 
to break the grip of centralized political power'' according to 
Reverend Sirico who also finds the Chinese Government's treatment of 
Christians morally objectionable.
  It is important, in evaluating United States policy toward the 
government of China, or any other sovereign foreign government, to 
differentiate between lowering trade barriers, as MFN status simply 
does, and United States taxpayer financing of foreign governments 
through various forms of foreign aid as well as engaging in corporate 
welfare through such agencies as the World Bank, OPIC, and the IMF. 
While lowering trade barriers necessarily results in greater economic 
well-being, foreign aid, and international corporate welfare programs 
are neither economically prudent nor constitutional. Additionally, 
misnamed multilateral agreements like NAFTA, or more honestly, 
government-regulated international trade does not constitute free trade 
and should be opposed on the same grounds of unconstitutionality and 
economical ineptness.
  I commend the research of Reverend Sirico and thank him for his 
important contribution to the policy debate regarding most-favored-
nation status and recommend a careful reading of his article by 
everyone genuinely interested in both the proper moral and economic 
resolution of this issue.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, June 11, 1997]

                      China and the Trade Warriors

                         (By Robert A. Sirico)

       Despite occasional tensions between social conservatives 
     and economic conservatives,

[[Page E1213]]

     most social and cultural goals have an economic dimension 
     about which the two camps are generally in agreement. But now 
     a leader of the socially conservative camp has proposed that 
     there is an issue that pits morality and prosperity 
     irreconcilably against one another--U.S. trade with China, a 
     nation known for human-rights violations, and particularly 
     for religious persecution.
       Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council is demanding that 
     the U.S. government wage economic war against China with 
     sanctions, boycotts and embargoes. In his campaign for trade 
     restrictions with China, Mr. Bauer and a few other 
     conservative leaders are working hand in glove with labor 
     unions and other left-liberal protectionists, normally 
     diehard opponents of the religious right.


                       Barricades Have Collapsed

       The usual political barricades have collapsed as Mr. 
     Bauer's comrades join forces to oppose congressional attempts 
     to continue normal trading relations with China. In a recent 
     letter, Mr. Bauer compares the urgency of imposing sanctions 
     to issues such as ending slavery and defeating Hitler.
       How restricting trade with China will help strengthen 
     American families, faith and morality is unclear. What is 
     clear is that Mr. Bauer finds China's treatment of Christians 
     morally objectionable. I do, too. And he is to be commended 
     for his efforts at raising the public's awareness of Chinese 
     persecution. Christians are threatened, jailed, expelled and 
     even killed in China. Whether this occurs more or less today 
     than in decades past is in dispute. But one human-rights 
     violation is one too many.
       That's why I, along with many others, signed an open letter 
     from the Family Research Council to Vice President Al Gore 
     that appeared in major newspapers. It objected to Mr. Gore's 
     failure to emphasize China's poor human-rights record during 
     his March visit. The letter particularly highlighted China's 
     vicious suppression of the rights of Roman Catholics to 
     worship in freedom. The letter said nothing about a broader 
     trade agenda.
       I would have signed a similar letter about the appalling 
     treatment of Christians in Egypt (which receives U.S. aid), 
     Saudi Arabia (which the U.S. has defended militarily) and 
     Iraq (where a Kurdish convert to Christianity, Mansour 
     Hussein Sifer, was recently martyred). Friends of freedom 
     should oppose restrictions on worship and religious speech 
     anywhere they may appear, including the U.S.
       When I signed the letter on China, however, I did not know 
     that it was a prologue to a full-blown political campaign 
     that would seek to curtail commercial ties between China and 
     the rest of the world. Mr. Bauer's position has evolved from 
     a strong moral stand in favor of religious freedom to waging 
     total trade war.
       A charge often leveled against the Christian right is that 
     it is not sensitive to the difference between urging certain 
     moral ends and using government coercion to bring them about. 
     It's usually a canard: In the case of the arts, for example, 
     the religious right seeks not censorship but an end to 
     taxpayer subsidies for blasphemy and obscenity. I regret 
     having to say that this time, however, the Family Research 
     Council has lived up to the stereotype. It is attempting to 
     enlist government power, at the expense of everyone who 
     benefits from U.S.-Chinese commercial relations, thus 
     choosing an inappropriate means to achieve a moral end.
       What's more, trade sanctions would be counterproductive. 
     Sanctions won't bring freedom for religious expression in 
     China. They won't end China's cruel policies limiting family 
     size. They won't stop the horrific policy of forced 
     abortions. They won't bring democracy. They can only further 
     isolate China and close off avenues for greater Western 
     influence.
       The growth of Western businesses in China, however, would 
     dilute the power of China's communist rulers. As commercial 
     networks develop, Chinese businesspeople are able to travel 
     more freely, and Chinese believers have more disposable 
     income with which to support evangelistic endeavors.
       No one understands this better than evangelical 
     missionaries currently working in China. Mr. Bauer's 
     passionate campaign has elicited pleas from many of them for 
     Congress not to cut off trade. Such an action would endanger 
     their status there, and possibly lead China to revoke their 
     visas. It would severely limit opportunities to bring in 
     Bibles and other religious materials. These missionaries 
     understand that commercial relations are a wonderfully 
     liberating force that allow not only mutually beneficial 
     trade but also cultural and religious changes. Why doesn't 
     Mr. Bauer listen to those who know far more about China than 
     Washington think tanks and labor unions do? ``They may be too 
     close to the situation,'' he answers, somewhat flippantly.
       Until recently, trade warriors have cited the case of the 
     U.S. Catholic bishops, who have opposed renewing normal trade 
     status with China. At the same time, however, Hong Kong's 
     official Catholic newspaper, the Sunday Examiner, reports new 
     contacts between Beijing and Hong Kong's Catholic hierarchy. 
     These contacts are a major step toward an official 
     recognition of the Catholic Church on the mainland.


                              To the Good

       This would all be to the good. Diplomacy and international 
     trade strengthen people's loyalties to each other and weaken 
     government power. Beijing has shown itself to be supremely 
     interested in fostering prosperity at home. Christians must 
     take advantage of this impulse, rather than recklessly 
     treating China as a monster that must be slain.
       This need not be an issue that divides social conservatives 
     from economic conservatives. Economic prosperity through free 
     trade is the most effective distributor of wealth and power, 
     and trade with China is the surest way to break the grip of 
     centralized political power. Religious conservatives should 
     broaden their focus beyond purely social and cultural issues. 
     Mr. Bauer and his supporters are right to decry the immoral 
     treatment of believers in China. But allowing themselves to 
     be used by protectionist and labor lobbies is an imprudent 
     approach. Just as religious freedom offers the best hope for 
     Christian social influence, economic freedom is the best hope 
     for spreading that influence around the world.