[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 21]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 31249-31250]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      A BAD WEEK FOR ISOLATIONISTS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 18, 1999

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, for those who might have missed it, I would 
like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a piece by David 
Ignatius from Wednesday's Washington Post.
  As a strong supporter of free trade, I share Mr. Ignatius's optimism 
at the agreement reached earlier this week for China to join the World 
Trade Organization. As foreign trade becomes increasingly important in 
the developing global economy, we must work to ensure open access to 
the emerging Chinese markets, especially in the areas of financial 
services and telecommunications. This agreement will give that access 
to American companies. I salute Trade Representative Barshefsky on her 
hard work at achieving this agreement under difficult circumstances.
  I also agree with Mr. Ignatius's view that the agreement does not go 
far enough. As a member of the congressional delegation to the WTO 
Ministerial in Seattle later this month, I will work to restore some of 
the more favorable aspects of the agreement rejected by the President 
in April.
  I commend Mr. Ignatius's article to my colleagues' attention.

               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 17, 1999]

                      A Bad Week for Isolationists

       If you believe that international engagement is America's 
     best hope for the future, then this is a week to savor. For 
     beyond the headlines, you can see the possibility for a 
     restoration of the confident, outward-looking U.S. consensus 
     that our history teaches

[[Page 31250]]

     is a requirement for global peace and prosperity.
       The cornerstone of this renewed embrace of America's global 
     role is the deal reached early Monday in Bejing for China to 
     join the World Trade Organization. President Clinton let this 
     agreement slip away last April, because of fears about the 
     anti-international know-nothingism that seemed to have 
     infected Congress. That was one of the biggest mistakes of 
     his presidency, and he has commendably been trying ever since 
     to walk it back.
       The deal Clinton got Monday isn't quite as good as the one 
     he backed away from before, but it's good enough. What's 
     better is the new confidence among free traders that they can 
     win the political argument, on Capitol Hill and around the 
     country.
       Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers puts the case for the 
     WTO deal simply and starkly: Twice in this century, changes 
     in the economic balance of power have led to wars--first with 
     the rise of Germany before World War I and later with the 
     rise of Japan. Now the world economic order is changing once 
     again, with the emergence of Beijing as an economic 
     superpower. It is overwhelmingly in America's interest to 
     draw this modernizing China into the global economic system.
       Americans who are confident about the world-changing power 
     of our capitalism and democracy will welcome the agreement. 
     China will now have to live by the free-market rules of the 
     WTO. It will have to accept international investments in its 
     major industries, including banking and telecommunications; 
     it will have to abide by international arbitration of its 
     trade disputes; it will have to accept the Internet and its 
     instantaneous access to information. If you can devise a 
     better strategy for subverting Communist rule in China, I'd 
     like to hear it.
       What makes the anti-WTO camp so nervous? It must be the 
     fact that we're living in a time of economic upheaval. As the 
     global economy becomes more competitive, the rewards for 
     success become greater, and so do the penalties for failure. 
     Optimists embrace this future, while pessimists seek 
     protection from it.
       Fear of the future: That's the shared characteristic of the 
     new anti-internationalists--from Pat Buchanan on the right to 
     AFL-CIO president John Sweeney on the left. They seem to 
     believe that every new job in China will mean one less in 
     America. Thank goodness economics doesn't work that way. The 
     evidence is overwhelming that global prosperity creates new 
     markets, new demand--and more prosperity for all of us.
       That doesn't mean that there won't be losers--there will be 
     and the U.S. textile industry and some blue-collar traders 
     will undoubtedly be among them. But in macro terms, this is a 
     pie that gets bigger, a game where two sides can win.
       The administration's most articulate champion for this kind 
     of internationalism is Summers. And it must be said that the 
     new Treasury Secretary is cleaning up some of the unfinished 
     business left by his predecessor, Robert Rubin.
       Summers helped rescue the WTO agreement with a trip last 
     month to Beijing, where he met with Zhu Rongji, the Chinese 
     prime minister. Summers told him that ``we wanted a deal, but 
     it would have to be on commercial terms. . . . We would both 
     have to make concessions on percentage points.'' Thanks to 
     hard bargaining by U.S. trade negotiator Charlene Barshefksy, 
     that's essentially what happened.
       This week brought other signs of renewed political support 
     for a pragmatic internationalism. the administration cut a 
     deal with House Republicans that will allow the United States 
     to pay nearly $1 billion in back dues to the United Nations, 
     in exchange for a ban on funding any international 
     organization that promotes abortion.
       Summers has worked hard to include debt relief for the 
     world's poorest nations as part of the U.N. funding deal, and 
     his mostly succeeded. Wealthy lenders will take a hit under 
     this agreement, while poverty-stricken nations will get a 
     break. That sounds like the right kind of bargain.
       Another step in the internationalist revival could come 
     next month when Summers pitches European nations to accept 
     some new rules for the International Monetary Fund. He'll 
     urge that the IMF support either tough fixed exchange-rate 
     plans or genuinely free floating rates--but not the muddled 
     in-between schemes that have gotten so many countries in 
     trouble. He'll also urge a new IMF assessment system to 
     detect when countries' short-term liabilities are rising 
     toward the danger point. And in light of the recent Russian 
     fiasco, he may argue that countries should accept outside 
     audits as a condition of receiving IMF funds.
       Some Americans still believe that ``IMF,'' ``free trade'' 
     and ``WTO'' are dirty words--symbols of an elitist conspiracy 
     that will harm ordinary Americans. This view is dangerously 
     wrong, and it was good to see it losing ground this week.

     

                          ____________________