[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 95 (Tuesday, July 8, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1369-E1370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             WHY I SUPPORT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS FOR CHINA

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 8, 1997

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to my colleagues' 
attention my monthly newsletter on foreign affairs from June 1997 
entitled ``Why I Support Normal Trade Relations for China.''
  I ask that this newsletter be printed in the Congressional Record.
  The newsletter follows:

             Why I Support Normal Trade Relations for China

       Earlier this month, the House of Representatives voted to 
     extend normal trade relations, known as ``most favored 
     nation'' (MFN) status, for China for another year. The MFN 
     debate was hotly contested. Opponents argued that China's 
     record on human rights, trade, proliferation and other issues 
     did not justify extending normal trade relations. I disagree. 
     Engagement--including normal trade relations--is the best 
     means to bring China into the international community and to 
     achieve U.S. political, economic and security objectives.
       China matters. China is the world's most populous country, 
     with the largest army and one of the largest economies. Its 
     actions directly affect peace and stability throughout East 
     and Southeast Asia. As a permanent member of the UN Security 
     Council, China has a say in many decisions affecting U.S. 
     interests. How China evolves will profoundly affect our 
     economic, political and security interests. If China becomes 
     a threat, the U.S. defense budget will go up, tensions in 
     Asia will rise, and Asia's prosperity will be at risk. If we 
     keep U.S.-China relations on track, peace and security in 
     Asia will be strengthened, prospects for human rights will be 
     enhanced, and Asia's remarkable economic growth will 
     continue.
       A policy of engagement. By extending normal trade relations 
     for another year, the House chose a policy of engagement over 
     a policy of isolation. I agree. Engagement has been the 
     policy of every President, Democratic and Republican, for 
     twenty-five years. Engagement is not appeasement. It does not 
     mean ignoring our differences with China. It means actively 
     engaging China to resolve our differences. It means hard 
     bargaining in pursuit of American objectives.

[[Page E1370]]

       Engagement works. It has produced results, such as Chinese 
     adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive 
     Test Ban Treaty, and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Because 
     of engagement, China helped persuade North Korea to sign the 
     pact freezing that country's nuclear weapons program. China's 
     cooperation in the UN Security Council helped create the 
     coalition that defeated Iraq in the Gulf War.
       Engagement with China has changed the lives of hundreds of 
     millions of Chinese for the better. The exchange of goods, 
     ideas, and people has brought increased openness, social 
     mobility, and personal opportunities for the Chinese people.
       Because we are engaged with China, we can use our trade 
     laws to attack Chinese trade barriers and to help American 
     firms export to China. Because we are engaged with China, we 
     can work together to combat terrorism, alien smuggling, and 
     illegal narcotics. China also cooperates on environmental and 
     public health issues--matters with a direct impact on our 
     well-being.
       Key issues. Engagement has not solved all problems. We 
     still have many concerns about Chinese behavior. China 
     continues to fall far short on human rights, for example. 
     China today remains an oppressive society. Political 
     expression is limited, and the rights of the individual are 
     subordinated to the interests of the state--as defined by a 
     self-selected party elite.
       But China is light years ahead of where it was 25 years 
     ago. Personal freedoms for the average Chinese--choice of 
     employment, place of residence, freedom of movement--are 
     greater than ever before. The lesson of China since President 
     Nixon's visit in 1972--and the lessons of South Korea, 
     Taiwan, and other former dictatorships that are now 
     democracies--is that U.S. engagement is the best way to 
     promote human rights.
       The $38 billion U.S. trade deficit with China is another 
     source of tension. Yet revoking normal trading status will 
     not significantly reduce this deficit or bring back lost 
     jobs. Other countries that, like China, can produce labor-
     intensive goods more cheaply than we can will simply pick up 
     the slack. The best way to reduce the trade deficit is not to 
     revoke MFN--which might even increase the deficit--but to 
     bring China into the World Trade Organization, so that we can 
     reduce Chinese trade barriers and help American exporters 
     compete on a level playing field.
       On non-proliferation, China has moved in the right 
     direction. Despite this progress, I remain concerned about 
     Chinese transfers of missile and chemical weapons technology 
     and advanced conventional weapons to Iran, about Chinese 
     nuclear cooperation with Iran and Pakistan, and about Chinese 
     missile sales to Pakistan. But, as the recent record shows, 
     we are more likely to persuade China to accept international 
     norms if we engage China than if we isolate it.
       Revoking MFN. If Congress had revoked MFN, it would have 
     damaged U.S. interests at home, in China and around the 
     world. Revoking MFN would likely make the human rights 
     situation in China worse, not better. It would undermine our 
     stature throughout Asia. Our allies in the region, who 
     support U.S. engagement and benefit from U.S.-China trade, 
     would lose confidence in our judgment and ability to play a 
     constructive role in East Asia. Hong Kong and Taiwan, which 
     support engagement, would be worse off if we revoked MFN. We 
     would also be losing the support of one of five permanent 
     members of the UN Security Council, which would hurt U.S. 
     interests globally.
       Revoking MFN would hurt the United States at home. We would 
     lose markets for $12 billion worth of U.S. exports, which 
     support 170,000 high-paying U.S. jobs. It would raise prices 
     here on low-cost imports. It would deny us access to China's 
     huge market.
       Conclusion. The United States could not isolate China even 
     if we wanted to--China is too big, and too important. We can 
     disengage from China, but no one would follow us and we would 
     only hurt our interests. If we treat China as an enemy, it 
     will become one. Engagement offers a proven record of moving 
     China toward international norms, and a better prospect for 
     achieving U.S. objectives than a policy of isolation.

     

                          ____________________