8 September 2000 Senator Bunning: Because of Proliferation, China Does Not Deserve PNTR China is a threat to the United States and does not deserve Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status, according to Senator James Bunning (Republican of Kentucky). "My gut reaction is to vote for free and expanded trade. In my mind, there isn't any doubt that the world is really drawing closer and closer together, and that it will be through trade that the United States can take advantage of its economic and technological advantages to maintain our dominant position in the world," Bunning said in September 8 remarks to the Senate. "But in other, more important, ways this vote is easy is for me--because the issues are so clear when it comes to China, and because China's behavior has made it so undeserving of improved trade ties with the United States," he continued. "Why should we give the best trade privileges possible under our law to a communist nation that so clearly threatens us and our values?" Bunning said in explaining his decision to vote against H.R. 4444, the bill that would grant China PNTR status. The United States "didn't grant most-favored-nation status to Russia during the Cold War," he noted. But now, Bunning continued, "we are on the verge of passing the most privileged trade status we can give to the communist nation that is bent not only on supplanting America as the dominant economic power in the world, but is also actively supporting dangerous, rogue nations that threaten our citizens and our way of life." Bunning urged Senate colleagues to cast a `yes' vote on a bill sponsored by Senators Fred Thompson (Republican of Tennessee) and Robert Torricelli (Democrat of New Jersey) that would monitor China's proliferation activities and provide sanctions for entities that support its proliferation efforts. "The Chinese have not earned the right to trade with us, and they have show no inclination to change their ways," Bunning said. "Senator Thompson's proposal," he added, "is at least a modest attempt to preserve our options and to keep closer tabs on Communist China in case things take a turn for the worse." Bunning refused to accept the argument of what he termed the "the pro-China trade forces," who suggest that "expanding trade with China is the carrot we can use to bring about democratic change in that country." The evidence "has proven them wrong time and time again," Bunning said. Trade "has not worked before as a carrot, and it certainly won't work in the future if we remove the stick of annual reviews and possible sanctions. That's why it's so crucial that we pass the China Non-Proliferation Act," he said. The Chinese, Bunning continued, "certainly haven't given us any reason to take them at their word." The China Non-Proliferation Act "is our best hope of insuring that China will live up to its word. Otherwise, why should we blindly trust a country that has proven time and time again that it doesn't live or play by the rules," he said. Bunning criticized Beijing for "making weapons of mass destruction available to rogue states like North Korea, Iran, and Libya." Lastly, the strongest case against PNTR "can be made based on China's pathetic, indefensible human rights record," he said. Following is the text of Senator Bunning's speech from the September 8 Congressional Record: Mr. Bunning: Mr. President, I rise in opposition to granting permanent normal trade relations to China, and in support of Senator Thompson's China Non-proliferation Act. It is a sad time in the Senate. Soon we are going to vote on extending permanent normal trade relations--PNTR--to China. And it looks like it is going to pass. If we grant PNTR and give our seal of approval to China's application to join the World Trade Organization, Congress will not only relinquish its best chance to scrutinize China's behavior on a regular basis, but it will also give away what little leverage we have to bring about real, true change in China. I think that is a serious and dangerous mistake. For years, we have been able to annually debate trade with China in Congress, and to use the debate to discuss the wisdom of granting broad trade privileges to Communist China. When the Chinese troops massacred the students in Tiananmen Square, or when the Chinese military threatened democracy on neighboring Taiwan, or when revelations came to light about China spreading weapons of mass destruction to terrorist nations, we had a chance in the House and Senate to shine the spotlight on Communist China. I served on the House Ways and Means Committee for 8 years, and every year we debated most-favored nation trade--so-called MFN status--for China. Supporters of MFN always had the votes to pass it, but it was still an important opportunity to focus attention on China's misdeeds and to make sure the American public knew about China's dirty little secrets. Now we are going to lose that ability. I would like to take some time today to talk about why we should not grant PNTR to China and explain my reasons for opposing it. While I know that the votes are probably there to pass PNTR, I want to lay out for the record what is at stake and also to argue that we should at a minimum take the step of also passing Senator Thompson's bill to maintain some semblance of accountability for Communist China. First, let's look at China's record when it comes to arms control and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that China's practice of making weapons of mass destruction available to rogue states like North Korea, Iran, and Libya has made the world a more dangerous place. The commission led by Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that recently examined this problem pointed out in its final report that China is `a significant proliferator of ballistic missiles, weapons of mass destruction and enabling technologies.' We know Communist China has sold nuclear components and missiles to Pakistan, missile parts to Libya, cruise missiles to Iran, and that it shared sensitive technologies with North Korea. In the last few months it has even been reported in the press that China is building another missile plant in Pakistan, and is illegally using American supercomputers to improve its nuclear weapon technology. Many of these technologies are being used by enemies of America to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. In short, Beijing is guilty of spreading the most dangerous weapons imaginable to some of the most treacherous and threatening states on the globe. That is about as bad as it gets. From experience, we know that China doesn't change its policies just because we ask them to. China only makes serious non-proliferation commitments under the threat of the actual imposition of sanctions. We have to hold their feet to the fire. A memorandum from the assistant director at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency to the Clinton White House in 1996 makes the case: The history of U.S.-China relations shows that China has made specific non-proliferation commitments only under the threat or imposition of sanctions. Beijing made commitments [to limit missile technology exports] in 1992 and 1994, in exchange for our lifting of sanctions. Over the years, it is only when the United States has clearly brought economic pressure to bear on China that we have seen real, hard results from Beijing. For instance, economic pressure in the late 1980s and early 1990s led to China's agreement to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1992. In 1991, the Bush administration applied sanctions against China after Beijing transferred missile technology to Pakistan. Five months later, China made the commitment to abide by the missile technology control regime. In 1993, the Clinton administration imposed sanctions on Beijing for the sale of M-11 missile equipment to Pakistan in violation of international arms control agreements. Over a year later, Beijing backed down by agreeing not to export ground-to-ground missiles in exchange for our lifting of sanctions. Time and time again we have seen that Chinese respond to the stick, and not the carrot. And this experience certainly points to the fact that the threat of sanctions like those in the Thompson bill, and not the olive branch of greater trade, is what the Chinese will respect. Beijing's behavior has not been much better when it comes to democratic Taiwan. I have been to Taiwan, and seen how its commitment to democracy and the free market has enabled that country to build one of the most vibrant economies in the world. Taiwan is a friend of the United States and a good ally. But time and time again Communist China has rattled its saber and threatened the very existence of free Taiwan. Less than 5 years ago, China actually fired missiles over Taiwan. Since then China has conducted a massive military buildup across the Taiwan strait. Last year, CIA Director Tenet reported to Congress that while China claims it doesn't want conflict with Taiwan, `It refuses to renounce the use of force as an option and continues to place its best new military equipment across from the island.' This belligerent attitude threatens not only Taiwan, but more ominously relations throughout East Asia. The Pentagon's 1998 East Asian strategy report notes that many of `China's neighbors are closely monitoring China's growing defense expenditures and modernization of the People's Liberation Army, including development and acquisition of advanced fighter aircraft; programs to develop mobile ballistic systems, land-attack and anti-ship cruise missiles, and advanced surface-to-air missiles; and a range of power projection platforms.' Recently there seems to have been a thaw in relations between China and Taiwan. This is a hopeful sign. But who knows when Beijing will change course and revert to its belligerent ways. We need to help keep the pressure on. Eliminating the annual debate on China trade in Congress will remove one of our most effective and high-profile options in pressuring the Chinese. In dealing with an adversary as tenacious and patient as China, this is exactly the wrong philosophy to adopt. Even more ominous than threats to Taiwan have been recent signs of increased Chinese belligerence toward the United States. In February, 1999, the CIA reported to Congress that China is developing air and naval systems `intended to deter the United States from involvement in Taiwan and to extend China's fighting capabilities beyond its coastline.' And we should not forget the recent threat from a Chinese general to fire a nuclear weapon at Los Angeles if the United States were to interfere in Taiwan-China relations. There are even indications that China's military could be anticipating a confrontation with the United States. In January, 1999, the Washington Times reported that for the first time, China's army conducted mock attacks on United States troops stationed in the Asia-Pacific region. Intelligence also reported that United States troops in South Korea and Japan were envisioned as potential targets of these practice attacks. President Reagan used to talk about adopting a policy of peace through strength in approaching the Russians during the cold war. That policy worked then, and it should be the policy we follow in confronting the Chinese. All of the experts tell us that China potentially poses the strongest military and economic threat to America in the 21st century. Passing PNTR sends the signal to China that we want trade more than we want peace. Instead, we should heed the lessons we learned in winning the cold war and understand that the Communist Chinese are more likely to respect our strength than to fear our weakness. Finally, the strongest case against PNTR can be made based on China's pathetic, indefensible human rights record. Let me quote from the very first paragraph of our own State Department's most recent report on human rights in China: :The People's Republic of China is an authoritarian state in which the Chinese Communist Party is the paramount source of all power. At the national and regional levels, party members hold almost all top government, police and military positions. Ultimate authority rests with members of the Politburo. Leaders stress the need to maintain stability and social order and are committed to perpetuating the rule of the Communist Party and its hierarchy. Citizens lack both the freedom peacefully to express opposition to the party-led political system and the right to change their national leaders or form of government." The report goes on to note that in 1999: "The government's poor human rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the year, as the government intensified efforts to suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent." That is our own State Department saying that. It doesn't sound like a nation that we want to encourage with expanded trade privileges. Many of my friends in this body argue that China is making progress on human rights, and that expanded trade and western influence will help turn the tide. They tell me that in China things have improved dramatically in recent years. I say, tell that to the tens of thousands of members of the Fulan Gong who have been hunted down and punished by Beijing over the past 2 years. Tell that to the prisoners in China's Gulags who continue to suffer under conditions that, in our own State Department's words, are `harsh' and `degrading'. Tell that to the political dissents who are jailed out without charge only because they threaten the communist party's political dominance. Tell that to the children who were murdered because of China's brutal one child per family policy. Tell that to the people of Tibet. Mr. President, all those who say that things are getting better in China and that PNTR will help improve conditions in China are wrong. It's been 11 years since the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and the Chinese Government still carries out the same brutal, repressive tactics. Things aren't getting any better in China. They're only getting worse. The supporters of PNTR made the same argument year after year during the annual debates on most-favored-nation status for China. And year and year, Beijing showed no sign of changing its ways. None. In one way, this is a hard vote for me, Mr. President. Many of my friends support expanded trade privileges for China, and they make an enthusiastic argument for expanding access to Chinese markets in order to help American business compete with their overseas competitors. My gut reaction is to vote for free and expanded trade. In my mind, there isn't any doubt that the world is really drawing closer and closer together, and that it will be through trade that the United States can take advantage of its economic and technological advantages to maintain our dominant position in the world. But in other, more important, ways this vote is easy is for me--because the issues are so clear when it comes to China, and because China's behavior has made it so undeserving of improved trade ties with the United States. Mr. President, I've tried to simplify this issue in my mind and I've boiled it down to a single question that I've asked of everyone I have talked to about China trade: Why should we give the best trade privileges possible under our law to a communist nation that so clearly threatens us and our values? We didn't grant most-favored-nation status to Russia during the cold war. But now we are on the verge of passing the most privileged trade status we can give to the communist nation that is bent not only on supplanting America as the dominant economic power in the world, but is also actively supporting dangerous, rogue nations that threaten our citizens and our way of life. It just doesn't make sense. In conclusion, I urge a `no' vote on the China PNTR bill, and a `yes' vote on the Thompson bill. The Chinese have not earned the right to trade with us, and they have show no inclination to change their ways. Senator Thompson's proposal is at least a modest attempt to preserve our options and to keep closer tabs on Communist China in case things take a turn for the worse. For years, the pro-China trade forces have argued that expanding trade with China is the carrot we can use to bring about democratic change in that country. The evidence has proven them wrong time and time again. Years of continuing MFN, or NTR, or whatever you want to call it haven't changed things in China. When it comes to China, the old saying still holds true: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Trade has not worked before as a carrot, and it certainly won't work in the future if we remove the stick of annual reviews and possible sanctions. That's why it's so crucial that we pass the China Non-Proliferation Act. Mr. President, when President Reagan negotiated arms control with the Russians, he used an old Russian phrase to sum up his approach--trust but verify. That strategy worked. But by granting PNTR we are trusting, but failing to verify. In fact, we are even giving up what little ability we even have to verify. The Chinese certainly haven't given us any reason to take them at their word. We need to verify and the Thompson bill is our best hope of insuring that China will live up to its word. Otherwise, why should we blindly trust a country that has proven time and time again that it doesn't live or play by the rules. I yield the floor. (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) Return to the Washington File