Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Thursday, March 23, 2000Congress should OK
China’s trade statusALTHOUGH the Taiwan presidential election and its impact on relations with China have been the focus of world attention lately, another struggle involving China is looming in Washington. This one, over granting Beijing so-called normal trade relations (NTR) status on a permanent basis, also has major implications.The issue: The Clinton administration wants Congress to approve normal trade status for China on a permanent basis.
Charlene Barshefsky, President Clinton's top trade negotiator, made the case for approval of permanent NTR during her visit to Honolulu for the Pacific Basin Economic Council meeting. It's a persuasive one.
Under current law, every year Congress must consider whether to renew China's NTR (formerly known as most-favored-nation status). Every year Congress votes to renew it. As a candidate in 1992, Clinton advocated terminating China's status because of Beijing's human rights violations, but reversed course after his election.
Granting China permanent normal trade relations status would make no substantive difference in China's favor because there is virtually no chance that Congress would not continue to give its annual approval.
China, Barshefsky notes, knows that Congress will give annual renewal, and for this reason the exercise has failed to give Washington leverage in dealing with Beijing, as was expected.
Refusing China permanent NTR would damage American economic interests as well as further strain Sino-American relations. The reason lies in the agreement signed with the United States last November under which China agreed to significantly reduce obstacles to imported goods and foreign investment. This agreement consists largely of unilateral concessions by China that would permit a vast expansion of U.S. exports to and investment in China.
A condition of that pact was that Congress must grant China permanent normal trade status. Defeat of that proposal would mean scrapping the trade agreement. Barshefsky points out U.S. companies' competitors in China would receive concessions under other agreements that the Americans would be denied.
As for objections based on China's human rights record or threats of attacking Taiwan, she maintains that drawing China into closer economic relations with the outside world should have liberalizing effects, while isolating China would be counterproductive. NTR is consistent with continuing efforts to persuade China to mend its repressive ways.
The outlook for congressional approval of permanent NTR is uncertain. House Minority Whip David Bonior of Michigan, a leading opponent, says the vote should be very close. Bonior predicts that at least 30 Democrats and some Republicans who voted in past years to support annual extensions of NTR will vote against permanent status. The AFL-CIO is fighting the proposal and could swing the votes of legislators with strong ties to organized labor.
Barshefsky says she is confident that Congress will approve NTR but adds the administration needs the support of the Hawaii delegation. She notes that the trade agreement would help Hawaii's exports to China of agricultural and fish products.
However, the delegation is divided: Senators Akaka and Inouye support NTR but Reps. Abercrombie and Mink are expected to vote against it. Opposition to permanent NTR is short-sighted. Abercrombie and Mink should reconsider their positions.
Campus speech
PRESSURE against views deemed to be unacceptable has increased in recent years on college campuses. An attempt was made at the University of Wisconsin to withhold funds from mandatory student activities fees from groups engaging in any kind of political speech. Fortunately, rather than creating a political vacuum, the U.S. Supreme Court has ordered continued funding for groups engaged in free speech at public colleges and universities, even speech found by many to be objectionable.
Ironically, the First Amendment lawsuit did not arise from the current movement to stamp out what is regarded as "politically incorrect" speech. It was filed instead by three law students at the Madison campus who described themselves as conservatives and Christians objecting to their money going to 18 groups that support gay rights, women's rights and other liberal causes.
In 1995, the high court ruled that the University of Virginia could not refuse to subsidize a student religious publication on the same basis as other student publications, in the same way that government may not discriminate among speakers in a public forum. The state of Wisconsin said that the "pot of money" available to its student groups was essentially such a public forum.
Members of labor unions and lawyer associations have successfully challenged in court the use of their dues for political activities, but that is not the same. Unions and bar associations claim to spend money in representation of their members' opinions. No such claim is made in the distribution of college students' activities fees.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy pointed out during court arguments last November that open debate has been part of university life since "ancient times." Use of student fees to foster a free discussion of ideas outside the classroom enhances that atmosphere.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
