Senate Debate on Legislation Attaching Conditions to Renewal of China's MFN Status (Excerpts)

Senator George J. Mitchell, July 22, 1991

In every respect, our policy toward China should receive a careful evaluation as to its success. If it is not working, and I believe it is not, we ought to know that and change it. This bill provides a framework for examining serious questions about our policy toward China. This bill says that we cannot condition the extension of most-favored-nation status on the broad generalities that have been used in the past. It is time to examine the specifics, to measure each of them against the national interest at stake, to balance the importance of our national objectives against the costs and benefits of that policy.

This bill is not a restriction on the President or any intrusion into his conduct of foreign policy. It reflects the fact that any policy must be judged critically and methodically against the national interest it is meant to serve.

The bill gives the President one year in which to work with the Chinese leaders he knows so well to produce change in those human rights, trade, and weapons policy which now strain our bilateral relations. All that requires of the President is that next June, a year from now, if he should again conclude that the policy of granting favorable trade status to China is sound, that he report on the specific elements of that policy in terms of the results it has produced.

Such a report would include answers to several specific questions: has the Chinese Government accounted for those citizens detained, accused, or sentenced because of the nonviolent expression of their political beliefs? Has the Chinese Government released citizens imprisoned for such expression? Has the Chinese Government stopped exporting products to the United States made by force labor?

Has the Chinese Government ceased the supplying of arms and military assistance to the Khmer Rouge? Has the Chinese Government made significant progress in adhering to the joint declaration on Hong Kong, in preventing violations of internationally recognized human rights and correcting unfair trade practices? Has it adopted a national policy which adheres to the limits and controls on nuclear, chemical, and biological arms production?

The answers to each of these questions reflect elements of the national interest which this policy, like all our policies, is designed to pursue. When we have all these answers, we will all be in a better position to judge if the policy is succeeding.

The bill contains one additional, crucial provision designed to directly and promptly respond to the proliferation of missile technology. Missile technology is extremely destabilizing when it is in the hands of non-democratic governments whose relations with their neighbors are in a constant state of tension.

The national interest in a stable world is self-evident. We should not run the risk that another Persian Gulf-type crisis could erupt, where civilian populations can be held hostage and the world community must respond to aggression.

The possibility of Chinese sales of certain ballistic missiles or launchers to Syria, Pakistan, and Iraq is not conducive to global stability. Indeed, it is a clear and direct threat to regional peace. Yet that possibility is far from remote. Intelligence reports as well as routine news stories have made that clear.

So the bill provides that 15 days after enactment, the President must certify to Congress that such sales have not taken place. If, at any time after enactment the President determines that such sales have occurred, he is required to notify the Congress and to immediately terminate most- favored-nation trade treatment for products from the People's Republic of China.

The President has repeatedly said that our goal is to seek a world order based on the rule of law and the fundamental rights of man. I agree. Such a world order would serve American interests. It is what our foreign policy is designed to produce. When a policy produces movement toward a world ruled by law, we should continue and expand that policy. When a policy does not produce that result, we ought to reexamine it. When a policy contributes to the opposite result, we should change it.

When our nation first changed its policy toward recognizing the Government of the People's Republic of China twenty years ago, we made a policy reversal of enormous and difficult magnitude. With the benefit of hindsight, few would argue that it was a mistake. It was not a mistake. With all of its subsequent ups and downs, the greater integration of China into the world community has had benefits for the people of the country and for the world community.

But there is an enormous difference in ending a policy of isolation which served neither American, Chinese, nor world interests, and changing a policy which is not producing any good results.

We will continue to have a relationship with China. The question is what should be that relationship. Should it be one-sided, with Chinese manipulation and cynicism on one side and American frustration on the other? Or should we aim for a relationship in which both parties recognize that there are obligations that go along with the benefits of the relationship?

All the free governments in the world today recognize that they have international responsibilities as well as privileges. It is fair to apply to the Government of China the same standards we apply to other nations. Ultimately, that is what this bill seeks to do.

Senator Max Baucus, July 23, 1991

By denying MFN for China we would be cutting off the vein of democracy that runs from this nation to China. We would inhibit not only the free flow of products between our two nations but also the free flow of people and ideas.

In this morning's New York Times, an excellent column appeared by Li Xianglu, the former assistant to the ousted Communist Party chief and now a leading reformer. Li Xianglu wrote:

"Only economic prosperity and political openness can make democracy achievable. The extension of most-favored-nation status without conditions will help promote these fundamental changes."

The power is in our hands to help China achieve meaningful changes and real reform. The power is in our hands to help the Chinese people see change now, not in 4,000 years.

Cutting off MFN for China would not only be a misdirected shot at the Chinese Government, it would be a fatal blow to thousands of working Americans.

We have talked about United States exports of $5 billion to China each year. Five billion dollars. I have been in the Senate for over twelve years, and that is still a figure that boggles the mind. But what helps make it more clear in my mind is realizing that we are talking about not just $5 billion in trade, we are talking about 100,000 American jobs; 100,000 Americans would be put out of work if trade is cut off to China.

And we are not talking about wealthy jobs--lawyers and bankers and corporate executives would not lose their jobs if MFN with China is cut off. We are talking about the backbone of America. We are talking about farmers across the Farm Belt; we are talking about machinists at Boeing in Seattle or McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis; we are talking about America's miners; we are talking about timber workers in the Northwest.

The supporters of the resolution believe that cutting off MFN is sending a message to China. To those 100,000 American workers, cutting off MFN means that they no longer have a check to pay the rent or their child's day care or their doctor bills or for their family's groceries.

I come from a state where the largest city barely approaches 100,000 people. I am not about to go back to Billings, Montana next weekend and tell the people there that I voted to eliminate more jobs than there are people in that city just to send an ineffective message to [the] Government of China.

This is an issue where we all share common goals--to bring about reform in China while maintaining trade with the world's largest nation. It is a situation where we can all achieve our common goals. That is why I and several of my colleagues have put pressure on the administration to take action at stopping abuses in China.

Late last week, President Bush wrote me a lengthy letter. It was not--as some have said--filled with "mostly rhetoric." It was, for the first time in this administration, a comprehensive review of our policy toward China and a plan for future relations. This letter addressed the concerns that many of my colleagues have raised, and spoke to the conditions that some want to chain to the continuation of MFN...

I view the President's letter as a major victory for those of us who are serious in our desire to maintain trade with China, protect American jobs, and encourage change and reform in China.

Now am I going to sit back and assume that with this letter our problems are solved? No. I am going to be looking over the President's shoulder every step of the way to see to it that he abides by the promises he has made. Not only his market-opening promise, but those he has made on human rights and weapons sales.

In the meantime, I believe that President Bush has made a serious and sincere effort to address our concerns. It is now up to those of us here to work together and reach our common goals.

If we want to send a message to China, then the best message we can send is to let the reformers know we stand with them in their struggle for democracy, not to cut ourselves off from the nation.

If we want to make sure the Communist Chinese Government stops its abuses, then we must make sure President Bush stands by his promises to enforce existing laws.

If we want to protect thousands of American jobs, then we must continue to build a strong trade relationship with China.

Let us remember this: most-favored-nation status is not an endorsement of China's human rights abuses or support for their unfair trade practices. MFN is the minimum status that we give to nations with which we conduct trade. Currently, more than 160 nations around the globe have MFN status: nations such as Syria, Iran, Libya, South Africa, and even Iraq. Yes, Iraq, a nation that just a few months ago was killing our sons and daughters is viewed as a most-favored-nation.

Revoking MFN might make some of my colleagues feel good in the short run, but in the long run it will cost hope to the Chinese reformers and cost jobs for American workers. Do we want to simply make a statement or do we want to be effective?

(Complete transcripts of the Senate debate can be found in the Congressional Records for July 22 and 23, 1991.)