[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 89 (Monday, June 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6074-S6075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               MOST-FAVORED-NATION TRADE STATUS FOR CHINA

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the House of Representatives votes 
tomorrow on whether or not to extend most-favored-nation trade status 
to China. In a more desirable world, revoking China's MFN status might 
be less advisable than handling national security and human rights as 
well as economic issues in more traditional ways. Unfortunately, the 
experience of the last 3 or 4 years, in fact experience going back much 
farther than that, has demonstrated that the administration's policy of 
constructive engagement has failed. The constructive engagement policy 
has in fact degenerated. We have seen conditions in China worsened 
annually.
  The logic behind constructive engagement is, indeed, appealing. It 
goes something like this. If we will expand trade with China, the 
result will inevitably be political liberalization and ultimately an 
improvement in the conditions of the Chinese people, there will be an 
expansion of human rights opportunities, there will be less repression, 
there will be less religious persecution, there will be a warmer and 
more cordial relationship between China and the United States.
  When I was first confronted with the issue of MFN upon my election to 
Congress in 1993, I was almost persuaded by that logic. In fact, I 
wanted to be persuaded by that logic, and I was looking for any 
indication that the policy of constructive engagement was, in fact, 
having the desired results and that, in fact, conditions were 
improving, treatment of the Chinese people had improved, there was less 
repression, and that trade, expanded trade, was in fact having that 
kind of result. Had there been any sign in the last 4 years that this 
policy of constructive engagement was having the intended result, I 
would be voting for MFN this year. Were I given the opportunity, I 
would be supporting most-favored-nation trade status for China.
  But the facts are very clear and the State Department's own report 
makes it abundantly clear that conditions have deteriorated, that the 
policy of linkage has not had the result that we all wanted it to have. 
So it is argued that economic freedom frequently leads to political 
freedom, and in fact it does frequently lead to political freedom. 
There are examples in which that has happened. But in China's case, 
market economics has become nothing but an utilitarian exercise to 
ensure the continuation of a totalitarian regime. They have seen if 
they keep the iron grip upon the Chinese people, that a market economy 
will help them accomplish that; that expanded trade, higher incomes, 
economic opportunities for Chinese people--that makes it easier for 
them to maintain an absolute repression of any kind of free expression 
within China.
  Proponents of MFN say we all have the same goal, expanded human 
rights, we just have a different approach on how we best attain that. 
Russia is often pointed to, the old Soviet Union, where there was a 
little hole in the dike called perestroika and from that little hole in 
the dike the floodgates opened and freedom could not be contained. But 
in China, perhaps they learned the lesson from the Russian experiment 
or from the Soviet Union's experience, for in China there has been no 
perestroika; there has been only repression.
  There are, I believe, many flaws in the policy of constructive 
engagement. First and foremost, it has simply not improved the status 
of the Chinese people; it has worsened it. The administration's 
decision not to consider human rights abuses when granting MFN status 
has proven disastrous for the people of China. As they have been 
removed from the threat of any repercussions in the trade relationship 
with the United States, the Chinese Communist leaders have succeeded in 
jailing or executing every last dissident in a country of over 1 
billion people, according to the State Department's own 1996 China 
report. As we have turned a blind eye, the atrocities have escalated 
and the oppressive government has strengthened its hold on a full one-
fifth of the world's population. The constructive engagement policy has 
produced more persecutions of Christians,

[[Page S6075]]

more forced abortions, more sterilizations of the mentally handicapped, 
more incarcerations of political dissidents, and the near extinction of 
the expression of any opinions contrary to those of the Communist 
regime.
  I have on this chart, I think, a very clear illustration of the 
failure of the constructive engagement policy. On the left of this 
chart we see a dramatic increase of trade with China, a less dramatic 
increase of imports from the United States, and a very dramatic 
increase in exports. We see, in a very graphic manner, while trade has 
increased from 1987 to 1996, we have also seen that human rights abuses 
in China have increased almost in a parallel manner. Homeless 
children--in 1993 over 600,000, in 1997 almost three times as many 
homeless children, homeless children being the result of those who are 
incarcerated and those who are executed. Religious persecution in 
China--in 1993, 2.4 million believers, those people of faith 
persecuted. In 1997, 4 years later, under the policy of constructive 
engagement, 4.5 million, almost doubling.

  So, while trade increased--the logic of constructive engagement would 
say trade increasing, more trade opportunities will mean greater human 
rights and fewer abuses in China. Just the opposite has occurred.
  Reeducation camps--in 1993, 200,000 were in these forced reeducation 
labor camps; in 1997, over 5 million have been detained, according to 
Amnesty International and according to the Congressional Research 
Service. I believe this in fact demonstrates that constructive 
engagement has been very destructive.
  Second, this delinkage has also resulted in a loss of leverage with 
the Chinese Government. I want to pause to read from an editorial that 
appeared in my hometown paper today, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. It 
says:

       But they may not realize that a carrot-and-stick approach 
     isn't likely to be effective if the carrot is always offered 
     and the stick is always withheld.

  That has been the result of this delinkage policy. They would say, 
and they do say: Your words are empty because there is nothing to back 
them up. Delinkage has not worked because, in effect, there has been no 
stick. So, is it any wonder that, in effect, we hear the Chinese 
Government say we don't care what you say because in the end we get 
what we want and we can continue to do what we please? Mr. President, 
that delinkage has resulted in a loss of leverage is clearly evident in 
that State Department report of 1996, in which they said, ``No 
dissidents were known to be active at the year's end.''
  When most-favored-nation status reaches the point that it is no 
longer conditioned, then it becomes absolutely meaningless. When we 
look at China and our own State Department says by every measure 
conditions are worse, yet we say we are still going to extend most-
favored-nation trade status, then that annual exercise becomes nothing 
more than an annual joke that we play in Congress, where we go through 
the process, we go through the debate, all the time knowing most-
favored-nation trade status will be extended, MFN will be extended 
regardless of what conditions may have occurred within China.
  In a flagrant act of intimidation, China effectively blockaded Taiwan 
during a missile testing exercise off its coast in March of 1996. Many 
examples could be given of where the Chinese Government acts with 
impunity toward our Nation because our policy has been one of coddling.
  Third, constructive engagement supposes a true free enterprise system 
in China and that system just does not exist. The logic behind 
constructive engagement is flawed because it assumes that in fact they 
have a free enterprise system. They do not have that. They have 
protectionist trade policies, they have an enormous trade deficit with 
the United States, and the People's Liberation Army controls many of 
the industries in China. So the assumption is wrong and the policy is 
flawed.
  Fourth, constructive engagement supposes a fair trade relationship 
that does not exist. How can you have a fair trade relationship when 
there are 5 million people in slave labor camps? Forced reeducation 
camps, the old gulag in the Soviet Union, the concentration camps, 
that's what they are, with prison industries. Though it is against the 
law, there is no way that we can totally detect what products are made 
in prison factories and what products are not. So there is no fair 
trade relationship with China.
  Then, fifth, constructive engagement ignores the military buildup in 
China. If you reject everything else, the fact is we have a compelling 
national security interest as we see China's defense budget growing. 
United States Ambassador to China James Sasser recently stated that 
fact. The Chinese themselves have announced an increase in that budget, 
which will bring total defense outlays to $10 billion and many believe 
it is closer to $40 billion. So I say, as you look at China's military 
buildup, their willingness to export weapon components, chemical weapon 
components, selling those weapon components to Iran, nuclear weapon 
technology to Pakistan, advanced jet aircraft to Russia and on and on, 
it is clear that our national security interest would say we ought not 
extend again most-favored-nation status to China.
  Sixth, constructive engagement is flawed because it assumes that 
gentle treatment will elicit good behavior while firmness will result 
in escalating tensions. Let me say that again. The assumption is that 
if we will give to China gentle treatment, it will elicit good 
behavior, but that if we dare to take a firm stand, it will escalate 
tensions. In an earlier day that philosophy was called appeasement, and 
it has never worked. It did not work in the days of Chamberlain, and it 
will not work in our day. There is no greater example of it, perhaps, 
or image of it, at least, than when Vice President Gore toasted Premier 
Li Peng.
  Arthur Waldron wrote in his essay ``How Not to Deal with China,'' he 
said:

       China is involved in disputes around the full circumference 
     of its border, disputes which, like burners on a stove, 
     Beijing may turn up or down, but never turns off.

  So they toy as we grant MFN. The logic behind this policy is flawed. 
I believe it deserves a vote of no confidence. I hope the Senate will 
have the opportunity to cast that vote. China has created a dichotomy. 
They say, on the one hand, give us trade. They say give us sales. They 
say give us dollars. And on the other hand, they practice political 
repression, slave labor, forced abortion and religious persecution. 
Between those two statements there is the great wall of China: Yes, 
market economy, free trade, but political repression and slave labor. 
To the extent that free markets lead to free minds, China, in 
recognizing that, built a wall between. And, as we continue to grant 
most-favored-nation status, we allow that wall to exist.
  Mr. President, 2 years ago, I was present, as many of my colleagues 
were, at the dedication of the Korean War Veterans Memorial, the latest 
war memorial on the Mall in Washington, DC. At the edge of the memorial 
is a low wall upon which is inscribed this reminder, I think a good 
reminder for all Senators, a good reminder for all our colleagues in 
the House of Representatives on this eve of the MFN vote. On that 
memorial is inscribed these words: ``Freedom is not free.''
  To those who would say that profits are the ultimate arbiter of 
American policy, I say it is time that, once again, values and 
principles be the determinant of what our national policy is and what 
our trade policy should be. Freedom is not free.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Iowa is to be recognized.

                          ____________________