China Trade continued

---

Ted Strickland D-Ohio

Today we are going to make an economic decision. But we are also making a moral decision. I believe that being an American means something. The thousands of men and women who have sacrificed their lives for this country did so out of reverence for its values. Individual liberty, personal dignity, self determination. When we encourage unrestricted trade with a nation like China which disregards these values, we dishonor America's heroes.

But there are many countries we trade with which do not share our values. What about the Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia, where women are oppressed and non-Islamic religions are prohibited? By Strickland's logic we should stop trading with any such country.

Furthermore, individuals should not do business with anyone who has different values than their own, according to this logic. Even within a country, especially a country like the U.S., there are differences of values between people. Surely the values of the pro-lifers are greatly different than those of the abortion-rights groups.

Pat Buchanan declared that there is a cultural war going on within the U.S. In addition to this, some say there is a race war going on, or about to break out. There is a war between the gay-rights groups and the anti-gay forces. Also between the pro-gun advocates and the gun-controllers.

So, if you are a member of one of these opposing groups, should you refuse to do business with someone who is on the other side? Do you dishonor America's heroes when you deal with someone who does not have the same "American values" which you have?

No American should presume to dictate to other Americans who is morally fit for them to trade with.

China uses child labor, slave labor, and allows abhorent working conditions to flourish.

So do many other countries, and so did the U.S., and in fact so does the U.S. even today do some of the above. Child labor was necessary in the U.S. rural economy 100-200 years ago, as it is today in many still rural countries. The term "slave labor" is a relative term. The U.S. uses prison labor today, which is essentially "slave" labor. And the practice of military conscription, which the U.S. has practiced, is a form of forced labor.

To single out China as uniquely evil for these things is to be ignorant of history, including very current history. All these conditions are more likely to be improved as a result of more trade with China. But none of these conditions will improve dramatically and suddenly. No country has ever been able to suddenly correct these conditions.

It persecutes Christians, Buddhists, and other religious people, threatening them with fines, imprisonment, and even death.

So do Muslim countries do all the above. In China it is more conspicuous because China has tolerated Christians and others more than Muslim countries have, but has also imposed restrictions on those religious groups. The Muslim countries simply outlaw them altogether.

I believe our national honor depends on us standing with the persecuted in China, our own workers, and against this trade deal for multinational corporations.

No, our honor depends on us defending the right of consumers to have more choice, and requiring workers and businesses to compete as far as possible in the service of consumers. No restriction of trade is going to do anything to help the persecuted in China or anywhere else.

---

David Wu D-Oregon

This trade agreement is just not in fundamental American interest. If both America and China dropped our trade quotas, dropped our tariffs to zero, we would lose control over imports and China would not. China has a non-convertible currency. They have a second-level of control, because you can't get the foreign currency to buy goods and bring it here.

This is a garbled balance of trade of argument, stemming from the myth that it is bad for the economy for imports to exceed exports. Again, no one has ever put forth the evidence that a trade imbalance per se is bad for the economy.

---

Pete Stark D-California

Arguably, those people pushing for most favored nation are trying to help General Electric and the huge corporations that are already the richest in history. So if this passes, those corporations will all make $2.50 a share more in earnings.

But why will they make more? How will this happen? What important point is Stark failing to recognize here?

And that will help millions of Americans a few bucks here and a few bucks there.

Stockholders. But who else is it going to help? Who are the couple hundred million Americans who will be helped, not just a few bucks, but hundreds of bucks each? What basic purpose of trade is Stark leaving out of account?

And it will probably help the CEOs of those corporations get another million or two in stock options. Who's it going to hurt? I'll tell you who it's going to hurt. It's going to hurt probably a couple hundred thousand Americans real bad.

Yes, it will hurt those who are the least competitive in the economy.

It's going to hurt those people who are going to lose their jobs, overnight. They're going to get hurt 30 or 40 thousand bucks 'cause they're going to be out of work.

People who are uncompetitive should be out of work until they become more competitive. Unless of course they are worthless crybabies who can do nothing but leech off those who are competitive.

They may lose their homes. They may lose a chance for their kids to go to college.

But others will gain from the increased competition. Owning your home and sending your kids to college are not entitlements. If you want the American Dream you must earn it, by being and staying competitive in the economy. The millions of consumers who benefit from China trade will become better off and will gain an increased chance to own a home and send their kids to college.

Forcing the uncompetitive to become more competitive raises the living standards of the people generally. While protecting the uncompetitive and keeping them in those jobs where we don't need them only pulls down the standard of living generally.

Every time an uncompetitive worker is replaced, or an uncompetitive business goes under, it hurts those particular workers or business owners. But the rest of the society benefits. Many of those who benefit are themselves poor, some even poorer than the workers who lost their jobs. Why should these poorer Americans be forced to subsidize the higher incomes and lifestyles of inefficient workers who fail to adjust and become competitive?

If you want to own your own home or send your kids to college, you should do it at your own expense, not at the expense of consumers, some of whom are even poorer than you are.

So as you think about how you're going to vote, think about those families who may be looking for Hamburger Helper on the dinner table because Dad lost his job as a result of this. Or you could think about the people who are already making millions of dollars in stock options and the people whose pensions are a little higher or if you're a federal employee and you're into C-fund, your retirement's going to do a little better.

This is worse than Hamburger Helper -- it is baloney, and hogwash. It is the consumers they should think about when trade issues are decided. By serving consumers, all the smaller groups are served best. Whatever is best for consumers is best for everyone. The only ones hurt are those who fail to compete.

Why is it that Stark and other protectionists only see the effect on workers, producers, investors, shareholders -- never consumers generally? This is why they are fundamentally wrong. The whole purpose or function of business in society is to serve consumers. Ignoring this fundamental truth is what leads to all the falsehoods of the free-trade-bashers.

The big corporations get helped big time, and a few of our middle-class Americans have their lives destroyed . . .

Only the least competitive. It is their own fault. It is their responsibility to get their lives in order, not up to consumers to bail them out.

. . . if you vote for this terrible terrible give-away of our leverage to make China do the right thing.

We cannot unilaterally dictate to others what is the "right" thing for them to do. Many countries other than China do bad things. Countries we have normal trade relations with. Even the U.S. does some bad things. Although we can claim to be better than some other countries in some things, we do not have the moral superiority to punish them like children, nor can we succeed in trying to force them to improve through intimidation and threats of reprisals.

Again, if there is a unique extreme case of criminal behavior by the Chinese government (or any other country), the only form of reprisal which can work is a comprehensive international system of sanctions in which all the major countries participate. But the truth is that such cooperation among countries cannot happen because many of those countries are guilty of the same offenses as China is.

At the most, you could argue that China is at the top of the list of offending countries. But close behind are Syria, Russia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and so on. By some accounts, the U.S.A. might also be high on the list, considering its record in Vietnam and recently in Kosovo and Iraq.

---

Duncan Hunter R-California

In March 1941 our former colleague Carl Anderson, representative of Minnesota, warned us about the danger of arming potential adversaries. He said then that the chances of war with Japan were 50-50, and that if our fleet had to meet the Japanese fleet we would meet a fleet which was built with American steel and fueled with American petroleum.

A few months later at Pearl Harbor 21 American ships were destroyed, 300 planes were destroyed, and 5000 Americans killed and wounded by a Japanese fleet that was built with American steel and fueled with American petroleum. Well, whichever side of this debate you're on, everyone here has to concede: American dollars are arming Communist China today.

And therefore the U.S. should not trade with China? By this logic, no country should trade with the U.S. In fact, no country should trade with any other country, except perhaps a country like Costa Rica, which has tried to function without any military force.

Any country with an army or navy gets some of its resources to build these from its trade income, or from equipment partly imported from other countries. In effect, Rep. Hunter is demanding that the U.S. should not trade with any country which has an army or navy.

Why single out China? Historically, China has been far less aggressive militarily than the U.S. has been. The U.S. is arguably more of a "potential adversary" to other countries than China is. U.S. forces are spread out over the globe much farther than China's forces and have intervened in other countries more than China has and has killed more civilians and combattants than Chinese forces have.

So, the mere fact that China is building up its military forces, which of course are a threat to the U.S., just as U.S. military forces are a threat to many countries, is no reason to refuse to trade with China.

Now let's look at what they've done with the 350 billion dollars that they've amassed in trade surplus over the last eight years.

The Sovremenny-class missile destroyers straight from the Russians, designed for one purpose, to kill American aircraft carriers, were purchased with American trade dollars. The SU27 fighter high-performance aircraft capable of effective warfare against America's top-line fighters, were purchased with American trade dollars.

What does it mean to say that the weapons were purchased with American trade dollars? Does it mean that if the weapons had been purchased with something else, then there'd be no objection and it'd be OK to trade with China? How is China supposed to pay for its weapons? Is it supposed to separate its U.S. trade dollars from all its other money, and use only the other money to build its military forces?

What is the problem with China having weapons? Is it that the weapons are capable of being used against U.S. ships and fighters? So then, if only its weapons were designed in such a way that they could not be used against U.S. ships and fighters, then there'd be no objection and it'd be OK to trade with China?

Other countries also have weapons. Aren't their weapons also capable of being used against U.S. ships and planes? What kind of military weapons would it be which would be incapable of firing against U.S. ships and planes? Even U.S. weapons are capable of firing on other U.S. ships and planes. How can we demand that a country raise military weapons which are incapable of being fired against the U.S.? What kind of weapons would those be? What are weapons supposed to be able to do, if not fire on the forces of other countries?

And what about U.S. weapons which are capable of firing on British or French or Canadian ships and planes? Should other countries refuse to trade with the U.S. because it has such weapons which are capable of firing on them?

On top of that Kilo class submarines, AWAX aircraft, air-to-air refueling capability, sophisticated communications equipment, all purchased with American trade dollars, and compounding the danger, . . .

What "danger"? Because China is large and has a military arsenal, therefore it poses a "danger"? But the U.S. is large too, and has a vastly larger arsenal. So is the U.S. a "danger," and should other countries stop trading with the U.S. because of this "danger"?

. . . China's own sales to nations like Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria, and North Korea, of components of weapons of mass destruction.

But the U.S. sells more weapons than China and has a long history and reputation as the world's foremost exporter of weapons. True, the U.S. is not proliferating nuclear weapons to small countries, but why is it wrong for small countries to have these weapons if it is permitted for the large industrial countries to have them?

Why should nuclear weapons be restricted only to the U.S. and a few of its allies? If the U.S. insists on having these weapons, how can it complain if other countries also obtain them? And how is the situation improved by refusing to trade with China, as if somehow this will stop them from selling these weapons in the future?

Is it the particular small countries in question to which the weapons are sold which is the objection? So then, if China sold nuclear weapons to Denmark, or to Peru, or Indonesia, or Kuwait, or El Salvador, or Thailand, then there would be no objection and it'd be OK to trade with China? How about to the Bahamas? or to Puerto Rico? or to Alaska or Vermont? How about to the Basque Separatists in Spain, or to the Irish Republican Army?

Is it because they're small that these should not have nuclear weapons? Is it because they are "bad" guys and not "good" guys? Is it because they are not already in the nuclear "club" and no newcomers are to be permitted in? What then? What is the principle by which these are excluded?

Without such a clear-cut principle, what is the fuss that China sells nuclear weapons components to some of them? So China's formula for membership in the nuclear club does not coincide with that of the U.S. And so we should not trade with China? And how many other countries should we stop trading with because we have a different point of view than theirs?

What about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? If China is violating this treaty, should trade with China be banned as punishment?

But who else might also be violating this treaty? What about Germany? Here is an item from Nuclear Proliferation News, Issue No. 18 - Friday 17 February 1995:

Germany has significantly revised its list of countries excluded from German exports of technology of possible use in a nuclear weapons programme. The so-called 'H-List' was drawn up in 1990 and covered 33 nations. After pressure in particular from German industry and the industrial and economic ministries, the Kohl Government announced in mid-December that as from 1 January only 9 nations would remain on the list.

The nine nations still on the list are: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Somalia, Syria and the former Yugoslavia. The Government apparently resisted pressure to lift the ban from Iran and Syria. China, India and Pakistan were among those nations removed from the list.

Report: Bonn drops Pakistan, India, China from export control trigger list, Nucleonics Week, 15 December.

How is this not a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? If Germany can export "technology of possible use in a nuclear weapons programme" to any country in the world except these nine listed ones, why is it a violation for China to do it? Did anyone propose to discontinue Normal Trade Relations with Germany because of this?

It should be clear that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a rather vague document which can be interpreted any way the seller nation wants to interpret it, to suit its own business purposes. Each signatory is free to decide for itself which countries it will or will not sell to.

In the above excerpt, it is clear that Germany could have chosen to remove any or all of those nine countries from the list and still not be in violation of the Treaty. Germany believes it could sell nuclear weapons material to Iran, Syria, Iraq, North Korea, and Libya, if it wanted to, without being in violation of the Treaty. It is up to their arbitrary choice.

And so why not also China?

If the International Community wants to get serious about nuclear non-proliferation and enforce some real rules that mean something, let the nations take that step. But meanwhile, for the U.S. to unilaterally single out China for punishment, by cutting off trade, is not only unprincipled, but will not work and will not change China's behavior.

If the U.S. should unilaterally cut off trade to every country which does something it perceives as wrong in the world, then it will trade with no one. And if individuals also follow this rule in their lives, then no one would be able to trade with anyone else, even within the U.S. States could not trade with other states, cities with other cities, etc. Also, Republicans could not do business with Democrats, or Catholics with Presbyterians, or Hare Krishnas with Jews, etc.

---

Major Owens D-NY

Greed goes rolling like a bulldozer over all of the numerous logical reasons supporting the denial of a permanent trade agreement with China. The megaprofits to be realized by the corporate elite are so overwhelming that this juggernaut cannot be halted.

But what causes the megaprofits? The fact that consumers want the products and will pay for them. This fundamental fact refutes all the phony arguments against China trade.

What an irony it is that the larger part of the evil empire is now going to be the recipient of largescale investments from the leader of capitalism of the free world. This act will have tornado-like devastation on the employment of hundreds of thousands of ordinary men and women in this nation.

Only on the uncompetitive ones. Again, the blinded protectionists fail to see the benefit to consumers which more competition brings.

Workers on both sides of the world will be the victims of this agreement. Chinese laborers paid 25 cents per hour or less will fill the bank accounts of multinational corporations.

They would be worse off without trade with the U.S. Nothing about ending China trade will benefit Chinese workers.

American workers will be forced to struggle harder and to work more hours as industrial and manufacturing jobs are moved to China.

The least competitive American workers, yes, if they don't improve themselves and become more competitive. Just as happens when they are replaced with robots or computers.

Only lower-paying service jobs or high-tech positions requiring a college education will be left on our shores.

Whatever Americans are best at doing is what will be left. That's the way it should be.

It is irresponsible to consider trade legislation like this without considering the consequences.

The consequences will be a more competitive economy, more choice for consumers, a better standard of living for most Americans.

We need to right now begin to prepare for all those workers who are going to be thrown out of work.

The best preparation is to provide opportunities for all to better themselves and become more competitive. There should be no special programs only for laid-off workers. Those who are more responsible and more competitive should not have to subsidize the uncompetitive by providing special programs for them. Providing opportunity should not take the form of rewarding failure.

---

Nancy Pelosi D-Cal

Today Congress is poised to take a vote which will define us as a nation. We will decide whether we will uphold the principles upon which our great country was founded.

Which principle? Slavery?

The most important principle at stake here is that of promoting competition, which forces businesses to serve consumers and raises the general standard of living.

We will decide if we will support the pillars of our foreign policy, . . .

Our foreign policy should be to open our market to all countries, without exception. And to stop lecturing other countries and preaching at them and interfering in their affairs. Interacting with them and leading by example is far more effective at influencing them than trying to babysit them and presuming to be morally superior.

. . . promoting democratic values, . . .

You mean in democratic countries like Saudi Arabia, which we have normal trade relations with? How are we pressuring Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries to become more democratic? Are we threatening to rescind trade with these countries if they don't shape up?

. . . stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, . . .

By whom? Germany? The U.S. has proliferated more mass destruction and more weapons and more death and mayhem than China has several times over.

. . . growing our economy by promoting our exports abroad, . . .

I.e, corporate welfare. No, the government should not promote imports or exports or try to make the economy "grow". What it should do is step aside and let companies import and export, and let the economy grow such as it will. Let people be free to buy and sell as they are inclined, without any prejudgment that they should sell more or less, or that they should import more or export more. It is the consumers who should make these decisions.

. . . or if we will squander our leverage to please some in the business community who do not share our responsibility to the public interest.

The public interest is for businesses and workers to compete more in order to serve consumers better.

In the course of the debate preceding today's vote, some have said that the annual review of China's trade status has not been useful. They fail to mention that conditioning MFN on improvements in China's trade, human rights, and proliferation behavior has never become law.

Theoretically it is the law. But in practice, it can never be law. There is no way to measure "improvements" from one year to the next. No matter what improvements may take place, the China critics will always say it wasn't enough, and they will always find anecdotes and statistics to make it look like matters are getting worse. Further, there is no way long-term improvement can take place without periodic setbacks in which conditions seem to get worse. Those obsessed with ending China trade will always be able to dig up more dirt on China. But their arguments are all fundamentally wrong for this reason: No matter what the evils are in China, TRADE IS NOT THE CAUSE OF THOSE EVILS.

. . . this year . . . more people in prisons for their political and religious beliefs than at any time since the Cultural Revolution . . .

Ending trade with China will not improve these conditions.

The recent repression in China is easy to explain. This follows the historical pattern. There is a liberalization trend in China which has been going on for 20-30 years. It is a gradual process. As always happens, this trend leads to MORE dissidence, not less. Resistance movements sprout up, there are demands for more liberalization than the regime is willing to grant. Protestors hold meetings, propaganda is published, the rebels become more bold. What inevitably happens? There is a backlash in the government, a crackdown takes place.

It is assinine to suggest that trade is to blame for this, or that reducing trade will do anything to cure it.

. . . and an expansion in China's proliferation activities, from Pakistan making South Asia a more dangerous place, to Iran making the Persian Gulf a more dangerous place, to Libya threatening stability in the Middle East, . . .

How is not trading with China going to stop any of this? By most measurements, the U.S. has done far more proliferating and destabilizing around the world than China has ever done or is currently doing. There are many definitions of "stability" other than the U.S. version. Engaging China in trade will induce it to divert some of its energy from military to economic competition.

. . . as well as threatening the security of Taiwan.

If this is a reason to end trade with China, why is it that Taiwan FAVORS permanent normal trade relations between the U.S. and China? Though we may agree that there is a threat to Taiwan from China, we have no reason to blame this on trade. Merely finding some fault with China is not an argument against trade with China.

On top of all that, there is little reason to believe that the Chinese will comply with this trade agreement. They have violated every bilateral agreement with the U.S. that they have signed on trade.

The only reason that "trade agreements" exist is that some free-trade-bashers insist on them as a condition to doing trade. The terms in these agreements are generally superfluous demands which ought not be made in the first place, except for terms like the prices to be paid and specifications of the products. But demands about labor conditions in the other country, or the use of prison labor, or the environmental standards, which are no one's business except that other country's, make a farce out of these so-called "trade agreements," and so it is no surprise that the terms are violated.

The only legitimate area of dispute between the U.S. and China on terms of trade is that of copyright protection. This problem is being corrected. All the other terms are illegitimate demands which the U.S. inserts into the "agreements" in order to pander to unions and some businesses who are really against China trade and will do anything to restrict it, or who want to pressure China into opening its market.

This demand, that the other country open its market, is based on the false premise that there has to be a "balance" of imports and exports, and this leads to demands that the other country agree to take a certain amount of imports, in other words, to do its fair "share" of the consuming in order to make the trade more balanced. But no one has proved that there has be to such a balance. China will "open its market" to U.S. products when it really wants those products. Achieving a "balance" is not the reason to buy things, but rather, the desire for the things is the reason to buy them.

China's trade surplus of 85 billion dollars for this year enables the Chinese government to buy products, to buy political support, and to buy silence from countries throughout the world.

The U.S. and U.S. corporations buy more of the above than China could ever dream of being able to pay for.

Democratic countries do not invade their neighbors.

The U.S. has invaded far more countries than China has.

. . . what credibility do we have, as the leader of the free world, to speak out against human rights abuses anywhere in the world, if we put deals ahead of ideals in China?

Free trade is an ideal, and it does not conflict with our other ideals. It is based on the principle of serving consumers. There are no human rights abuses taking place because of free trade, and no compromising of other ideals. All the problems in China would be just as bad, or worse, without the trade with the U.S.

And finally, what does it profit a country if it gains the whole world and suffers the loss of its soul?

The "soul" of America is to serve consumers, which comes through more competition and the free market. America loses its soul when it protects some producers/workers from competition, thus hurting consumers, and turning those protected ones into parasites. The uncompetitive leeching off the competitive is what destroys America's soul.

---

End of China Trade, page 2. (more to come)

Do you have a complaint against free trade or against trading with China?

Have it posted it in this web page (click here) or post it in the SocialContract.com Message Board). All arguments against free trade or trade with China will be posted in this website and debunked.

Return to Free Trade Forever front page