|
11 September 2000
Thompson Says He Supports PNTR, But Pushes Amendment
In a September 11 speech to fellow lawmakers, Senator Fred Thompson
(Republican of Tennessee) said it was "inconceivable" that they would
not address "what China is doing to endanger our country" while "we
discuss trade issues and a new relationship with China."
Thompson, who said he supports legislation granting China Permanent
Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status, urged his colleagues to support
his amendment to that bill.
The Tennessee legislator said he introduced Amendment 4132 to H.R.
4444, the China PNTR bill, because he had been unable to bring his
China Non-Proliferation Act before the Senate any other way.
"I support PNTR," Thompson said.
But, he added, the United States cannot ignore China's proliferation
activities because "if we ever signal to the world that we are more
concerned with the trade dollar than we are with our own national
security, we will not remain a superpower for very long."
The amendment, Thompson explained, "provides for an annual report to
Congress and to the American people as to the proliferation
activities" of China, Russia, and North Korea. The three countries
"have already been identified as key suppliers," he added.
"I know people in this body want to pass PNTR," Thompson said. "They
do not want any complications."
But, he asked, should the Senate's primary question be "whether or not
the House would ratify what we do? Since when does the Senate vote on
an item simply because they are afraid of what the House of
Representatives might or might not do?"
House Members, Thompson noted, "included provisions in their bill
regarding prison labor, import surges, religious freedom, increases in
funding for Radio Free Asia. All of that was in their bill."
"Are we going to tell the world that nuclear proliferation is not as
much a concern as is funding for Radio Free Asia?" he asked.
Thompson reminded senators that on "the eve of the Senate's
consideration of PNTR for China, and after the House had already
voted, it was revealed that China was assisting Libyan experts with
that country's missile program, illegally diverting U.S.
supercomputers for the use of the PRC's nuclear weapons program, and
helping to build a second M-11 missile plant in Pakistan."
The United States, Thompson said, is making "a gamble" that "by
gradually lowering these barriers to trade, by gradually opening up
society, this trade will lead to a gradual opening up of society ...
that we will wake up one day and China will be a democratic society.
And in the meantime, we will maintain their friendship so that the
world will not be a more dangerous place but a less dangerous place."
On the other hand, he said, the Chinese leadership is taking a gamble
that "they can open up economic trade somewhat, and they can adopt a
more capitalistic society and still maintain dictatorial control from
the top, and that it will not get away from them."
But while taking that gamble, Thompson said, the United States "should
be very mindful of the dangers that are presented to this country down
the road from China and others."
"While we are willing to take this chance and we go down the road to
trade with China, they are engaging in activities that pose a mortal
danger to the welfare of this country," Thompson said. "That is the
subject of the amendment that I have just offered."
Following is a transcript of Thompson's remarks from the September 11
Congressional Record:
To Authorize Extension of Nondiscriminatory Treatment
To the People's Republic of China
(Senate - September 11, 2000)
Mr. Thompson: Mr. President, it has been said that the vote on
permanent normal trade relations with China is one of the most
significant pieces of legislation this body will have voted on in a
long time. That very well may be true.
For a number of reasons, I think most of the Members of this body are
firmly committed to the concept of free trade. It has done the United
States very well. We all know we are in the midst of a technological
revolution that is increasing our productivity in this country and is
giving us advantages we have never known before in the international
marketplace. But it is not a zero sum game either; it has been
beneficial for the whole world.
I sign on to the concept that free trade leads to free markets and
that free markets can lead to freer societies. The new trade
arrangement we will be entering into with the People's Republic of
China is also unique in many respects. As we know, they have 1.2
billion-plus people in China. It is a tremendous market upon which
everyone now is focused. While our trade with China only constitutes
about 2 percent of our international trade at this point, there are
those who believe that can be increased substantially.
Usually we are trading with people who share our ideals and who share
our values. This is not always true as far as the People's Republic of
China is concerned. We have just been reminded again by our own State
Department that the religious persecution that has been going on in
China for some time actually is not only not showing any improvement;
it seems to be deteriorating. Yet there are many here who argue--most
of the people in this Chamber, I assume--that PNTR represents
something so attractive to this country that we must adopt it, that it
is a good deal.
That argument is powerfully set forth, even though the PRC has not
kept agreements in times past. Even its foremost advocates would have
to acknowledge that its record on compliance with agreements in times
past has been spotty at best. When it comes to intellectual property,
for example, it has been a haven of piracy. They have been major
exporters of pirated goods from this country.
One must also wonder whether or not the Chinese can really comply with
the commitments they have made in light of the economic conditions in
their country. They are experiencing slower growth rates. They are
experiencing greater unemployment. We are seeing indications of
rioting in various parts of China because of unemployment and because
of some of the things we have seen happen in Russia and other
countries. When they begin to privatize a little bit, some of the
governmental officials seem to wind up with the goods and the
property, and the average people see that and don't like it. It causes
instability and in some cases rioting. That is prevalent in China
right now. If they lower the barriers in ways they are talking about,
it will only increase that instability. Obviously, it will have to be
done gradually and over a very long period of time.
That is why it is wise for us not to over hype the benefits we may get
out of this action. We do about 2 percent of our trade with China now.
Most people think the maximum probably is going to be up to 2.5
percent of our trade. So it is important to our country, but it is not
of monumental importance, in my opinion, especially in the short run,
in light of all these immediate difficulties they are going to have in
implementing what they say they are going to implement.
We should be realistic, too, especially in light of the fact that we
are going to be giving up many of the unilateral actions we could take
under present circumstances. When we go into a WTO context, we will be
having to depend upon that body, that organization, and the
international community, as it were, in order to seek compliance. Many
writers have pointed out this is going to be very difficult because
China is not a transparent society. How do we prove unfair trade
practices or violations of WTO if there are no records that are
decipherable with which to prove it?
So there are many difficulties with the implementation of this
agreement which might result in greater riches to this country and
doing something about the $68, $69 million trade imbalance we have
with China right now.
So it is a gamble. It is a gamble on our part that by gradually
lowering these barriers to trade, by gradually opening up society,
this trade will lead to a gradual opening up of society with the
Internet and what not, additional travel and additional exchange
programs and additional trade; that we will wake up one day and China
will be a democratic society. And in the meantime, we will maintain
their friendship so that the world will not be a more dangerous place
but a less dangerous place.
That is the gamble we are making because clearly if this is carried
out the way that people on both sides hope it will be, China will
become even more powerful economically with all those great numbers of
people, and therefore they will become much more powerful militarily.
You only have to read a little bit of what is coming out of China
these days by their intelligentsia concerning military plans and their
view of the United States and the fact that many in their country see
conflict as inevitable, and that they are laying the firm economic
groundwork so that they can have a growing and more powerful military
in the future. That should be of great concern to us. We are limited
as to what we can do about that.
So we take this gamble, before that comes into fruition--if that is
their path--that they can open up that society somewhat and lead to a
more open society, a democratic society. On the other hand, the
Chinese are taking a gamble in that they can open up economic trade
somewhat, and they can adopt a more capitalistic society and still
maintain dictatorial control from the top, and that it will not get
away from them. Our people say that once that starts happening, once
we get in there, there will be no stopping it; democracy is right down
the road.
The Chinese don't see it that way. They are gambling. I think it is a
gamble worth taking. I think it is a gamble worth taking because of
our leadership and free markets and free economies and democratic
society in this country. I think we should go down that road and we
should take that chance. And I am not sure we have much of an option
in that regard. But while we take that chance, we should be very
mindful of the dangers that are presented to this country down the
road from China and others. And we should be especially mindful of one
particular category of Chinese conduct right now of all the categories
that concern us, including human rights, religious freedom, and all
the rest.
The one particular category that poses a mortal threat to the welfare
of this Nation has to do with the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. The fact is that while we are willing to take this chance
and we go down the road to trade with China, they are engaging in
activities that pose a mortal danger to the welfare of this country.
That is the subject of the amendment that I have just offered.
The China nonproliferation amendment seeks to do something about this.
I have sought to have a separate vote on this amendment because I
don't consider it to be a trade-related amendment. I have sought, for
about a month now, to have a debate in the context of our relationship
with China but not to have it as an amendment to PNTR. I have been
thwarted in that effort. I only have two choices--either relenting
altogether or doing what I said I would do; that is, filing it as an
amendment to PNTR. Well, that choice is obvious. I have made that
choice today because of the importance that I attach to it.
Mr. President, the world is a more dangerous place today because of a
growing number of so-called rogue nations such as North Korea, Iran,
and Libya, who have obtained and are in the process of obtaining
additional weapons of mass destruction and the missile means by which
to deliver them. Now, Congress has been informed of this on numerous
occasions. It doesn't get a lot of attention but the information has
been consistent. Two years ago, the bipartisan Rumsfeld Commission
concluded that rogue states such as North Korea and Iran could develop
an intercontinental ballistic missile within 5 years of deciding to do
so. It is pretty clear that they have decided to do so.
Shortly thereafter, North Korea surprised our intelligence agencies by
successfully launching a three-stage rocket over Japan, essentially
confirming what the Rumsfeld Commission had told us. Last September,
the National Intelligence Estimate, released a report that `During the
next 15 years, the United States most likely will face ICBM threats
from Russia, China, and North Korea, probably from Iran, and possibly
from Iraq.' It went ahead to point out that as soon as economic
sanctions were lifted against Iraq, they will probably be back in
business. Saddam will be reinstituting his ability to wreak havoc in
various parts of the world along with the rest. We have received other
intelligence reports. Much of it is classified, so I invite my
colleagues to avail themselves of these reports, which are even more
troubling than what has been made public.
Earlier this year, Robert Walpole, National Intelligence Officer for
Strategic and Nuclear Programs, testified that the threats to our
Nation's security are real and increasing. Mr. President, it is clear
that these rogue nations may have ICBMs much sooner than previously
thought, and that they will be more sophisticated and dangerous. And
we have taken note in this Congress--finally, last year--by passing
the National Missile Defense Act. That is the primary reason that we
need a national missile defense system in this country. We belatedly
recognized that because of this threat I speak of from the rogue
nations.
But that is only half of the story. Equally alarming is the fact that
Congress has also been repeatedly informed that these rogue nations
are being supplied by major nations with whom the United States is
entering into increased cooperative arrangements. Last month, the
Director of the CIA provided to Congress the intelligence community's
biannual report on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
We get these reports sent to Congress twice a year.
Basically, they have always been in recent history, the same. This
report identified China, Russia, and North Korea as key players in
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons technology. According to
this report, the Chinese activity has actually increased in support of
Pakistan's activities. And China has also `provided missile-related
items, raw materials, and/or assistance to several countries of
proliferation concern--such as Iran, North Korea, Libya.' China, of
course, has a long history of proliferating chemical weapons
technologies to Iran--nuclear, chemical, and biological.
The DCI's report also describes Russia's efforts to proliferate
ballistic missile-related goods and technical know-how to countries
such as Iran, India, and Libya. Russia is also identified as a key
supplier of nuclear technology to Iran and to India. They also have
provided a considerable biological and chemical expertise and
technology to Iran.
North Korea, of course, was identified as a key supplier. This is an
interesting country because they have a nation full of people who are
apparently starving to death. Yet they not only have managed to become
a threat themselves, they have become the clearinghouse for that part
of the world. They have become a vendor of weapons of mass
destruction. They get help from the big powers, and then with regard
to the other smaller powers in that part of the world they begin to
assist them. The report identified North Korea as a supplier of
ballistic missile equipment, missile components, and material
expertise to countries in the Middle East, south Asia, and North
Africa, just as North Korea is doing.
This latest CIA report is consistent with past reports. We have seen
it throughout the 1990s. China is supplying Pakistan with everything
from soup to nuts for their mass destruction capabilities, and
assistance to North Korea's weapons of mass destruction and missile
programs. Just this summer, it was reported that China was helping
Pakistan build a second missile factory, transferring missile
equipment to Libya, assisted Iran with its missile program, and
diverted a U.S. supercomputer for use to its own nuclear programs. All
of this occurred in violation of a variety of international treaties,
agreements, and U.S. laws.
The bottom line is that these activities by China, Russia, and North
Korea pose a serious threat to the United States. That threat is
growing. This is at a time when we are granting permanent normal trade
relations to China. This is at a time when we are sending over $1
billion a year to Russia and providing other assistance to North
Korea.
It is inconceivable to me that while we discuss trade issues and a new
relationship with China, we will not address what China is doing to
endanger our country. It is just that simple. That is what this
amendment does.
I know people in this body want to pass PNTR. They do not want any
complications. They want to get it done, wrapped up; the President
wants his legacy, and we want to please our friends in the business
community; and we all know trade is a good thing, and so forth. But it
is inconceivable to me that we can address these trade-related issues
and embrace our new trading partner--China--in a new regime without
also addressing and doing something about the fact that they are
making this world, and particularly the United States, a more
dangerous place to live. The Federal Government's first responsibility
is national security.
In July of 1999, the bipartisan Commission to Assess the Organization
of the Federal Government to Combat the Proliferation of Weapons of
Mass Destruction--commonly known as the Deutch Commission--concluded
that `the U.S. Government is not effectively organized to combat
proliferation,' despite the fact that `Weapons of mass destruction
pose a grave threat to United States citizens and military forces, to
our allies, and to our vital interests in many regions of the world.'
It couldn't be any plainer than that, from one of our bipartisan
commissions of experts that look at this and try to come to us and
warn of what is happening.
Therefore, Senator Torricelli and I have introduced the China
Nonproliferation Act. Now we have introduced it as an amendment to
PNTR. This amendment provides for an annual report to Congress and to
the American people as to the proliferation activities of these three
nations because they are the ones on which the CIA is required to
report now anyway because they have already been identified as key
suppliers--the three nations I have mentioned: China, Russia, and
North Korea.
It authorizes the President, if he makes the determination based on
the credible evidence he has before him, to impose some
non-trade-related sanctions on these Chinese companies that are
selling these weapons of mass destruction. It authorizes the President
to take various actions. There is a list of them.
One of the things it authorizes him to do is to cut these companies
out of our capital markets in this Nation. China raises billions of
dollars in our capital markets on the New York Stock Exchange to go
back and spend on its own military. Most people do not know that, I
assume. I am not here suggesting we stop that, unless the President
determines that they or their companies are engaging in activities,
which are controlled by them, that are dangerous to this Nation.
Is this not the minimum we can do in this legislation? There is other
legislation on the books, certainly. But this legislation, by a more
extensive report, requires the President to come to Congress,
basically--it does not force the President to take any action, but if
he doesn't take action against these companies that are found to be
proliferating, he has to tell Congress why.
In this legislation, if 20 percent in Congress decide they don't
accept the President's conclusion, they can introduce a resolution of
disapproval and get a vote on certain sanctions against these
proliferating entities. The President, of course, can veto that. It
would be tremendously difficult for Congress to force anything
through. But it would be a very good debate, and in egregious
circumstances that we have seen in times past, I think Congress
actually could get some responses through.
The legislation also provides for increased transparency. When the
President determines that these companies are proliferating and
selling weapons of mass destruction, the legislation provides that the
President has to inform Wall Street, and the Securities and Exchange
Commission has to come up with rules and regulations that will inform
investors they are investing with a company that our country and our
President has determined to be a seller of mass destruction. They can
still do that, if they want to. But they ought to know about it. It is
amazing that this law is not already on the books.
Lastly, it provides for a Presidential waiver based on national
security if the President decides, for his good reasons, that is
appropriate. The bottom line is that with all of this concern, talk,
and hullabaloo about what this legislation does and doesn't do, until
the President makes a determination that these companies are engaging
in activities that are a threat to this Nation, if our President does
that, do we not want to take action?
We made changes to this legislation. The critics came out of the
woodwork. No one wants anything that will complicate our trade bill
with China these days, it seems. I am afraid some of the pro-trade
people have their blinders on. I agree with them on how important free
trade is and how important this bill is, and so forth. But we have an
additional obligation which I tried to suggest to my friends. We have
an additional obligation not just to put money in our pockets in trade
today but to look down the road for our kids and grandkids to see if
our trading partners are doing something that will endanger their
welfare.
We have listened to our critics. We have made changes. We have tried
to make sure our response was reasonable and measured.
Instead of singling out China, we added the other two countries.
Instead of having mandatory sanctions tying the President's hands, we
gave the President additional flexibility where he must find that
there is cause for a determination to be made against these companies.
The bill now contains a blanket provision that protects the
agricultural community from adverse impact.
The bill's penalties only apply to key supplier countries and not to
U.S. companies and will not affect U.S. workers.
We made changes in the congressional review procedure so one person
couldn't tie up the whole body. It has to be one-fifth of the Members
of either House to sign a joint resolution of disapproval. It is a
measured response to a very serious problem.
Our critics have been numerous, persistent, and vociferous. They claim
that the world will come to an end basically if, while we are passing
PNTR, we irritate the Chinese by informing them there will be
consequences to their irresponsible behavior. I don't think the world
will come to an end if we do that. I think the world will be a more
dangerous place if we don't do that.
Let's take a look at some of the things that have been said: Existing
laws are sufficient, that we already have the authority on the book.
If that is true, why do we see an increasing problem? All we need to
do is look at the latest report from the Director of the Central
Intelligence. Behavior has worsened in the past year. On the eve of
considering PNTR, the behavior has worsened. What will it be after we
approve PNTR?
On the eve of the Senate's consideration of PNTR for China, and after
the House had already voted, it was revealed that China was assisting
Libyan experts with that country's missile program, illegally
diverting U.S. supercomputers for the use of the PRC's nuclear weapons
program, and helping to build a second M-11 missile plant in Pakistan.
And Iran test fired a Shahab-3 missile capable of striking Israel,
capable of striking American troops, capable of striking Saudi Arabia
or American bases located within the border of our NATO ally, Turkey.
This missile was developed and built with significant assistance from
the People's Republic of China, and the classified reports of Chinese
proliferation are even more disturbing.
If everything is so hunky-dory, why is this happening? Why does this
continue to happen? I don't think the critics are that concerned that
we are duplicating existing law or it might be useless. I think they
are concerned that it might be useful and that it will substantially
get the attention of the Chinese. That is exactly what I intend to do.
Some say: We don't want to upset them while we are entering into this
new trade relationship. I say that is exactly the time when we should
upset them, if, in fact, they are making this a more dangerous world
and posing a threat to the United States of America.
Some say: Let us continue with our diplomacy; we can talk to them and
we can work things out. Where is the evidence of this? All I see is
evidence of three delegations of senior administration officials going
to Beijing, hat in hand, asking them to stop the proliferation
activities, and each was sent back to Washington empty-handed and told
pointblank, according to the newspaper accounts and according to the
quotation of those who were on the delegation, that as long as we
persisted in a national missile defense system and as long as we
persisted in supporting Taiwan, they were going to persist in their
proliferation activities.
Basically, we can like it or lump it. Last Friday, I was interested to
see three different delegations, including our Secretary of Defense,
our Secretary of State--not minor; first in the
administration--perceive this problem. They just don't want to do
anything to acknowledge the shortcomings of this administration in
having dealt with this problem or failing to deal with it.
Last Friday, the President got a face-to-face meeting with Jiang
Zemin. I was interested in the subject of proliferation, and their
activities with Pakistan, totally throwing that place out of balance.
It is a tinderbox waiting to explode. Most accounts have Pakistan far
and away leading India now in terms of their abilities. That is a
dangerous situation. . . .
I can't be bothered with you, son. We will continue our activities
while we expect you to approve PNTR--no questions asked and no
amendments added.
We, in the United States, ought to be embarrassed and ashamed at that
turn of events.
Some say the unilateral sanctions can never be effected. I prefer
bilateral sanctions, but we have apparently lost the ability to do
much bilaterally these days. We can't even get a resolution through
the United Nations condemning China for its obvious human rights
violations. Our bill recognizes the value of this multilateral
approach. It would be preferable. But over the years we have seen,
though, that sometimes we need to act ourselves.
The major threat to these missiles and weapons of mass destruction is
not Belgium, or any of our allies; it is the United States of America.
We can't wait until we get everybody together on the same page which,
as I said, is more and more difficult to act. In times past, we have
seen that U.S. economic pressure in the late 1980s and early 1990s led
China's accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1992. In
1991, the Bush administration applied sanctions against the PRC for
missile technology transfers to Pakistan. And on and on. Even the
Clinton administration took measures that led to the imposition of
sanctions on the PRC for M-11 missiles on one occasion, M-11 missile
equipment to Pakistan in violation of the Missile Technology Control
Regime.
Anyway, they backed down and Mr. Berger acknowledged that sometimes
these unilateral actions can be beneficial. Some say the dialog will
assist, and perhaps it will, but only in conjunction with firm action.
The leaders of PRC are not irrational people. They only can go as far
as they can. We have, obviously, allowed them to do what they are
doing. When we take actions detrimental to them, they will respond to
that, as they have in times past.
We need this amendment more than we did even a few days ago. The
President recently decided not to move forward on a national missile
defense. As I said earlier, national missile defense, of course, is in
primary response to these threats of rogue nations. According to our
estimates, they will have the ability to be a threat to us in 2005. By
the President's actions, now we will be unguarded for at least a year,
and maybe 2 or 3.
Doesn't it make sense to take this opportunity to at least have the
threat of some sanctions for their activities during that period of
time? Of course, China and Russia are vociferously opposing a national
missile defense. I find that ironic: The same countries supplying
these rogue nations with technology and missile equipment to build
missiles of mass destruction are the ones that are doing the
complaining.
I talked about the provision concerning transparency and giving the
President, if he finds that it is justified, the authority to do
something about their access to our capital markets. To date, over a
dozen Chinese firms have raised billions of dollars in the U.S.
capital markets.
The Deutch Commission again stated:
The Commission is concerned that known proliferators may be raising
funds in the United States capital markets.
The Cox Commission review of the U.S. national security concerns with
China also conclude:
[I]ncreasingly, the PRC is using U.S. capital markets as a source of
central government funding for military and commercial development and
as a means of cloaking technology acquisition by its front companies.
As we stand idly by.
In conclusion, I understand there are many who are saying: Thompson,
we think you are trying to do a good thing here. Yes, we really do
need to address this. Yes, we let it go unattended for too long. But,
as an amendment to PNTR, if you add it to PNTR it will have to go back
to the House and, goodness, we don't know what will happen over there
if it goes back to the House.
The idea is that, I guess, what, 40 people would change their votes?
With the Democratic Party thinking that they are very close to taking
over the House of Representatives, and with the labor organizations
having lined up support for Vice President Gore for President, the
thinking is going to be that the labor unions are going to press 40
Members to change their votes so going into the election they will
have a vote on each side of this issue? I think that is absurd on its
face. If we agree to this amendment, the House will ratify it within
24 hours.
Besides, doesn't that beg the question? Should our primary question be
whether or not the House would ratify what we do? Since when does the
Senate vote on an item simply because they are afraid of what the
House of Representatives might or might not do?
House Members included provisions in their bill regarding prison
labor, import surges, religious freedom, increases in funding for
Radio Free Asia. All of that was in their bill. And we are saying we
can't add nuclear proliferation to that list of items? Are we going to
tell the world that nuclear proliferation is not as much a concern as
is funding for Radio Free Asia?
I think we should ask what we would be signaling to the world if, at a
time when we say we need a national missile defense system, we act as
though we are not concerned about nuclear proliferation at all. What
signals are we sending to our allies, such as those in Taiwan? If we
don't have the wherewithal to defend ourselves, how can they ever
depend upon us to have the fortitude to defend them, if it really
comes down to it?
What does it say about ourselves in dealing with a country that
threatens Los Angeles? Since the last MFN vote--even besides and in
addition to the increasing religious clampdown that we are seeing over
there--they have sent missiles across the Taiwan Strait and they have
unashamedly stolen nuclear secrets. They continue their proliferation
activities. They tell our delegations, and even our President, that
they are not going to be responsive at all to our concerns. They are
not going to deny at all what they are doing. They are just going to
tell us they are going to keep on doing it.
And sending major delegations to Belgrade and praising Milosevic and
saying the United States of America is making the world a more
dangerous place because of what we did in Yugoslavia? All of that has
happened since the last time we approved PNTR.
What have we done in return? The President goes over and chastises our
allies in Taiwan. He adopts the four `noes' the Chinese wanted him to.
We grant concessions on WTO; We grant concessions on export control;
We give China and Russia a veto on our national missile defense
system; and we turn a blind eye to the proliferation activities they
continue.
We must ask ourselves, Is this the road to peace? Is this the road to
peace? The strategic ambiguity may have worked for a little while in
an isolated place, but it is getting to a place now where the Chinese
do not know where we are coming from, where we will draw the line, or
if we will not draw the line. I don't know, and I daresay the American
citizens don't know. But there have been a couple of other wars that
some historians say, because of this ambiguous kind of posture, became
more likely. It has been more likely to get us into wars than to keep
us out of wars. Leaving the impression that we will not act when, in
fact, we might is just the kind of thing that is going to cause us to
get into trouble.
I finish by saying I support PNTR. There is no reason why we cannot
trade, even with those who are engaging in some of the activities I
have described. But we cannot do so while turning a blind eye to all
of these reports of all of this dangerous activity, all of this
continued activity by these countries. Because if we ever signal to
the world that we are more concerned with the trade dollar than we are
with our own national security, we will not remain a superpower for
very long. Therefore I urge adoption of this amendment.
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
|
