TEXT: SEN. HELMS INTRODUCES CHINA MFN DISAPPROVAL RESOLUTION
(China should not get same trade treatment as others)

Washington -- The Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Jesse Helms (Republican of North Carolina), introduced a resolution June 3 to disapprove President Clinton's extension of China's most-favored-nation (MFN) trading status.

Speaking on the Senate floor June 3, Helms said: "There are many who are asserting the truth that the term MFN, which stands for Most Favored Nation, is a misnomer. MFN in fact means that a country gets trade treatment that's as good as anybody else's, not that it gets more favorable treatment than any other country.

"I accept that, and I oppose MFN on exactly those grounds. China gets the same trade treatment that virtually everybody else gets. When a country like China gets normal trade relations with the United States, it is getting better treatment than it deserves," Helms said.

"There's no valid reason for the United States, the world's leader in freedom, offering the same trading terms to China that the U.S. offers to other nations that do honor their citizens' human rights, and that do respect the rule of law," he said. "There can be no such thing as normal trade with the world's largest country, a communist system engaging in proliferation of conventional, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"A country of which our State Department can say, there was not a single dissident active in 1996.

"A country which is violating commitments it made in an international agreement to preserve Hong Kong's institutions and way of life virtually intact.

"A country whose economy is built on prison labor and People's Liberation Army joint ventures with U.S. companies.

"A country which fires missiles across the Taiwan strait in an attempt to intimidate the people of Taiwan from conducting democratic elections.

"A country which makes money from organ transplants taken from prisoners.

"A country which has a policy of forced abortion.

"A country which has systematically destroyed Tibet's religion and culture.

"A country which violates international law in the South China Sea.

"A country which has a huge and growing trade deficit with the United States."

Following are the texts of the resolution and Senator Helms' statement:

(begin text)

S.J. Res. 31

In the Senate of the United States

Mr. Helms (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. Wellstone) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on ________________.

JOINT RESOLUTION

Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favored-treatment) to the products of the People's Republic of China.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress does not approve the extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to the Congress on May 29, 1997, with respect to the People's Republic of China.

FLOOR STATEMENT OF SENATOR JESSE HELMS
INTRODUCING A RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL
ON MOST FAVORED NATION TRADE STATUS FOR CHINA

MR. HELMS: Mr. President, in offering a resolution formally disapproving President Clinton's renewal of MFN for China, I am pleased that the able Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, is a principal cosponsor of the resolution of disapproval. And that the distinguished Senators from Arkansas and Minnesota, Mr. Hutchinson and Mr. Wellstone, join us as principal cosponsors.

Like other Senators, I moved around my state during the Memorial Day recess and I was impressed with the attitude of a majority of North Carolinians who are absolutely persuaded that the United States must conduct its policy toward China on the basis of morality as well as pragmatism. It has made no sense, either morally or practically, for the U.S. to have conducted its China policy as it has for so long.

There are many who are asserting the truth that the term MFN, which stands for Most Favored Nation, is a misnomer. MFN in fact means that a country gets trade treatment that's as good as anybody else's, not that it gets more favorable treatment than any other country.

I accept that, and I oppose MFN on exactly those grounds. China gets the same trade treatment that virtually everybody else gets. When a country like China gets normal trade relations with the United States, it is getting better treatment than it deserves. And that's just plain wrong foolish.

Those who favor MFN for Communist China also like to point out that other countries with at least equally dubious records --like Iran and Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Burma -- qualify for MFN without an annual debate. Therefore, the pro-MFN crowd says, China ought to get MFN without an annual debate.

The trouble with that, Mr. President, is this. Those people who rely on the cases of these countries to make their points about MFN for China haven't done their homework. It is disingenuous of the pro-MFN lobby to create the impression that Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria are trading with the U.S. on normal terms. They are not.

MFN for Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya is a moot point since nearly all trade is banned with them due to their involvement in state-sponsored terrorism. Burma may technically have MFN status -- but it also is the subject of a ban on new U.S. investment. Syria and Burma both are denied low tariff benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences.

Besides, policies against individual countries have evolved in response to historical developments and the needs of U.S. policy. No proponent of MFN renewal would say that the U.S. should treat every country exactly the same way, regardless of specific conditions inside the country, the type of government it has, or the type of threat it poses to the U.S. or its neighbors.

China is a special case. When you think about it, there's no valid reason for the United States, the world's leader in freedom, offering the same trading terms to China that the U.S. offers to other nations that do honor their citizens' human rights, and that do respect the rule of law.

There can be no such thing as normal trade with the world's largest country, a communist system engaging in proliferation of conventional, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

A country of which our State Department can say, there was not a single dissident active in 1996.

A country which is violating commitments it made in an international agreement to preserve Hong Kong's institutions and way of life virtually intact.

A country whose economy is built on prison labor and People's Liberation Army joint ventures with U.S. companies.

A country which fires missiles across the Taiwan strait in an attempt to intimidate the people of Taiwan from conducting democratic elections.

A country which makes money from organ transplants taken from prisoners.

A country which has a policy of forced abortion.

A country which has systematically destroyed Tibet's religion and culture.

A country which violates international law in the South China Sea.

A country which has a huge and growing trade deficit with the United States.

It matters not whether one calls China's trade status Most Favored Nation, or Normal Trade Relations as the White House Office of "new speak" wishes to call it. Either way, it's a bad policy, when one considers that in every important area of U.S.-China relations -- from weapons proliferation, to human rights, to trade and intellectual property, to Hong Kong -- the White House crowd has made the word "engagement" synonymous with the word "appeasement."

Let's talk for a little while about China's record of weapons proliferation. In April, a subcommittee of the Governmental Affairs Committee chaired by the able Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, held a hearing which laid out the truth about Chinese proliferation, that this Administration has repeatedly failed to impose sanctions required by U.S. law for China's transfers of equipment, components and weapons of mass destruction to Iran and Pakistan.

On human rights, the State Department acknowledges continued widespread abuse of human rights by China. This year's annual human rights report catalogues violations of rights of speech, assembly, and association, and abuses including extra-judicial punishment, prison labor, and religious repression.

Even more shocking than the extent of these abuses is the Administration's refusal to use U.S. leverage to influence China, or even U.S. allies. This year, the U.S. failed to mount a credible campaign to introduce and pass a resolution condemning Chinese human rights abuses at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva.

The Commission's meeting is not a mystery. It is scheduled a year in advance. Yet this Administration did almost no lobbying until the last minute. That's because the Administration hoped against hope that the Vice President's trip to China would result in some concessions by the Chinese which would enable the Administration to abandon the resolution once and for all.

But just guess what happened. China did not make concessions to Vice President Gore and the Clinton Administration was left trying to put together a coalition at Geneva.

In trade, the story is the same -- no improvement. The U.S. trade deficit with China climbed once again this year, to just under 40%. According to the President, that's an increase of 17% over last year. U.S. companies have precious little access to China's market, even as they are pouring investment into China. Sometimes, U.S. companies deal with the People's Liberation Army. Sometimes they deal with factories using with prison labor.

The U.S. buys 30% of China's exports. Yet China makes up just 2% of the U.S.`s export market. This past year, U.S. exports to Taiwan, Hong Kong -- and even to Belgium -- were greater than U.S. exports to China, even though the populations of each of these countries are a tiny fraction of China's population.

Just the same, we hear rhetoric from certain businessmen who contend that the U.S. needs to trade with China. It will open up their society, they say. But what is going on in China isn't free trade, but trade on the Chinese government's terms.

The Chinese military operates commercial enterprises so it can pay for the ever growing military and acquire technology from foreign businesses.

No rule of law protects Chinese or foreign investors. Official corruption is widespread. A disagreement with a business partner who has official connections can land you in jail, or worse.

Want a run down of stories you won't hear from those lobbying Congress for MFN?

In 1994, Revpower, a Florida company won an international arbitration award against a Chinese state-owned enterprise. Despite China's obligations as a party to the 1958 Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, China has failed to enforce the award in its courts.

In 1994, James Peng, an Australian citizen, was seized by Chinese police in Macau -- which is not yet under Chinese control -- and taken to China. In this case, the court found Peng innocent of any wrongdoing, but local officials who saw an opportunity to extort money from Peng and his partners. Peng has been in jail ever since.

Troy McBride, a U.S. business man, had his passport seized and was detained for several weeks in a hotel in China in 1995. You can read about this in last year's State Department Human Rights Report.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Philip Cheng, a Chinese-American, was jailed without charges in 1993 over a dispute with his joint venture partner. In the story about Mr. Cheng, a Western diplomat was quoted as saying:

"When a deal goes sour we only hear about the worst cases. But dozens, perhaps hundreds of businessmen have been mobbed, punched and even jailed to make them pay what the locals demand. In most cases the victims make no fuss because their companies want to keep doing business in China."

Zhang Gueixing, a U.S. resident immigrant was imprisoned for two and a half years in connection with a dispute over bicycles. While in prison, Zhang witnessed executions of prisoners.

China has steadily reneged on its commitments in the 1984 Joint Declaration. In that agreement, China promised that Hong Kong would have an elected legislature, an accountable executive, an independent judiciary, and a broad range of personal and political freedoms including rights of speech, assembly, association, and religion. For the past several years China has first announced a violation of the Joint declaration, then carried it out. This is all a matter of public record.

Yet, the United States has failed to prevent or reverse a single violation of the Joint Declaration. How can it when the Administration's official position is that the U.S. is not entitled to say what does or does not violate the Joint Declaration?

Where the President will not lead, the Congress must act. An editorial from The Weekly Standard noted that: "The Clinton Administration obstinately refuses to link U.S. China policy to anything the Chinese do or fail to do. Linkage must be reestablished; equilibrium must be restored to the relationship between the United States and its most troublesome and persistent challenger. That mission falls to the Congress by default."

For far too long, the U.S. has failed to recognize and use its leverage over China.

Mr. President, revoking MFN will not be the end of our China policy. MFN is the means toward restoring equilibrium in the relationship.

China scholar Harry Harding's book, A Fragile Relationship, chronicles the early 1990s, when there was a real threat of MFN revocation in response to the Tiananmen Square Massacre. In response to the threat Beijing ended martial law, released several hundred political prisoners, bought Boeing aircraft and let a prominent dissident out of the country.

The Congress should withhold MFN status for China this year, otherwise the Administration will continue to acquiesce to every violation of international law, international agreement, bilateral agreement, and U.S. law. The Administration's policy toward China has been an abject failure. Abject, means both "utterly hopeless" and "shamelessly servile." Which, it seems to me, fairly sums up the situation.

(end text)

Return to The United States and China.

Return to IIP Home Page.