ALBRIGHT: FRANK TALK WITH CHINA
(Washington Post 6/10 op-ed)

06/10/97 -- Permission obtained covering republication/translation of the text by USIS/press outside the U.S.

NOTE: ON TITLE PAGE, PLEASE GIVE CREDIT TO THE WASHINGTON POST

The following op-ed appeared in the June 10 edition of the Washington Post:

The annual congressional debate concerning China's trading status has begun.

Some argue that we should suspend normal trade relations until Chinese policies on human rights, market access, military exports and other matters change. The administration is convinced our interests are better served by a frank dialogue with China in which differences are aired and opportunities to establish common ground are explored. Let me explain why.

The future of U.S.-China relations will depend primarily on how China conducts itself as its economy grows and its regional influence expands. Our policy is to encourage China to accept the reality that it will find more security and prosperity if it abides by international rules than if it does not.

Currently, China is productively engaged with the international community in some areas. It helped gain approval of a treaty banning explosive nuclear tests. It is helping to prevent instability on the Korean Peninsula. It has supported peacekeeping operations in Cambodia and elsewhere. It has accepted in principle, although not yet fully implemented, effective export controls on sensitive technologies. And it is actively engaged in discussions to enter the World Trade Organization on commercially acceptable terms.

We would like to see China travel further down the road toward full observation of international norms, particularly those on human rights. But given the undemocratic nature of its government, we expect that movement to be gradual and would be disappointed, but not surprised, by setbacks. We are convinced, however, that progress is more likely to result from dialogue than from a quixotic effort to isolate a nation single-handedly. We must remember that one of every five human beings on this earth lives in China.

Those who oppose continuing normal trading relations with China have legitimate concerns -- which the administration fully shares -- but the tool they have chosen is less scalpel than wrecking ball. They proceed from the fragile hope that unilaterally imposed trade sanctions would cause China to change both its domestic and foreign policies.

The administration proceeds from the realistic conviction that revoking China's trade status would derail prospects for U.S.-China cooperation on issues important to America's strategic interests, ranging from dismantling North Korea's nuclear program to encouraging dialogue between Beijing and Taipei to controlling nuclear proliferation to safeguarding the global environment to cracking down on international terror, drugs and crime.

Another objection to ending normal trading relations with China would -- as democratic leaders in both places attest -- severely damage free market economies in Taiwan and especially Hong Kong. The Hong Kong government has estimated that this step might cut as much as $30 billion of the territory's trade, eliminate as many as 85,000 jobs and reduce economic growth by half. These losses would weaken Hong Kong just when it most needs to assert its strength and autonomy.

Moreover, China would surely retaliate against U.S. exports, endangering more than 170,000 high-paying American jobs. And higher tariffs on our low-cost Chinese imports would add more than $500 million to America's shopping bill.

Critics say that disrupting commerce with China is essential to uphold U.S. principles. I believe strongly that our strategic dialogue can both protect American interests and uphold our principles, provided we are honest about our differences on human rights and other issues and provided we use a mix of targeted incentives and sanctions to narrow these differences. In contrast, the elimination of China's normal trade status, rather than advancing human rights and the rule of law, would actually harm those in society most dedicated to their promotion.

Whatever the outcome of the debate, China will be a rising force in Asian and world affairs. History teaches us the wisdom of encouraging emerging powers to become part of international arrangements for settling disputes, facilitating shared economic growth and establishing standards of international behavior.

Domestically, we should not let the differences voiced in the current debate obscure agreement on long-term goals. Whether our particular interest in China is diplomatic, security, commercial or humanitarian, our overriding objective is to encourage in China full respect for the rule of law.

If you are a business person, you will care whether China's legal structure respects individual rights, and whether the political environment is stable. If you are a military planner, you will want to see China moving ahead with reform because you know that an open society contributes to peace. If you are a human rights activist, you will welcome the long-term liberalizing effects of expanded commerce, a strong private sector and a broad dialogue between China and the world's democracies.

And if you are secretary of state, you will be determined to move ahead on all fronts, encouraging the full integration of China into the international system.

(The writer is Secretary of State)

Return to The United States and China.

Return to IIP Home Page.