HOME INDEX ARCHIVES FALL 98 SPRING 98 SPRING 99

DESPITE GORE'S PROMISES, WORKERS ARE STILL HURT BY TRADE By Chris Knudtsen Congress will vote on the explosive issue of whether or not the United States should grant China permanent normal trade relations later this month, on May 22; President Clinton and his aides are currently saying that they are still a few votes short of passing the proposal in the House. Michael Porcell, Ph.D., a professor of international economics, says that this vote will decide both the foreign and domestic policies of the United States for the next several years. "This will determine not only the degree of hostility or courtesy that we will have with China," he said, "it will determine whether the United States continues to become more involved in a global union or if we become more concerned with our domestic interests." The permanent normal trade relations, formally called Most Favored Nation status, would end the yearly review of China's status by Congress, a measure that many believe will take away the leverage that the review has on Beijing's commitment to improve human rights and work standards. President Clinton has made several attempts to sway undecided members of Congress to pass the trade agreements in the past several weeks, claiming that refusal to do so will be detrimental to the nation's best interests. The majority of Democrats in the House are expected to vote against the agreement while support for the bill is strong with Republicans, leading Clinton to focus on uncertain members of his party. Two undecided Democrats, Gregory Meeks of New York and Ruben Hinojosa, were flown to China in what was supposed to be a larger convoy led by Commerce Secretary William Daley at the beginning of May. The trip was intended to bring wavering lawmakers to China so they could view human rights conditions and the values of trade. The trip was originally scheduled for several other representatives as well but many backed out due to fears of coming under attack from organized labor lobbyists. Both representatives who went to China say they remain unsure of how they will vote later this month. Proponents of the China bill are using the recent victory in the House of a new trade bill that grants broad trading privileges to countries in Africa and the Caribbean as a springboard. Clinton supporters said that while the situations between the passed bill and the upcoming China are not identical, they are similar enough to show that they are gaining support. The China trade issue has received heavy criticism from several groups within the country, most notably from labor unions. Union members are concerned that granting China permanent trade relations will severely damage the American workforce as companies rush across the seas to where labor is cheaper. Tim Vaccate, a spokesman for the UE, Union Employees, said that companies will leave the United States for a workforce that has lower wages and more lax labor standards. "All we want is equal opportunity," he said, "and we won't get that with a globalized economy where companies can hire out countries that use sweatshops." Clinton's administration is not as skeptical however. Clinton has pushed for the trade bill, saying that the new market in China will serve to bolster the American economy by providing an extra customer for American exports. Shawn Shieh, Ph.D., a professor of international politics and specialist in Chinese culture, says that the consequences of increased trade with China are exaggerated. "There's always that fear in America that the workforce will be left behind, similar to NAFTA," he said, "but there is already a significant number of American businesses in China and they won't necessarily abandon their US shops after a few move into China." Human rights activists are resisting further relations with China because of the poor labor practices, as well as the oppressive policies of the Chinese government that shows little religious tolerance or freedom of speech. Michael Auginelli, a spokesman for the United States chapter of Amnesty International, said that the violations of human rights by the Chinese government should not be ignored or endorsed. "The Chinese government must be told that they can not continue their practices," he said, "by agreeing to permanent trading relations the United States is actually encouraging them to continue as they are doing." Others, such as Doug Guthrie, Ph.D., a professor of economic sociology and modern China, disagree and argue that human rights conditions and work environments will improve over time if China receives favorable trade relations with the United States. In his recently published article, "The evidence is clear: foreign investment spurs workplace reform in China," he says that China will improve with foreign aid. "Political and economic engagement [with China] will have a real, if not immediate and dazzling effect on Chines society," he said, "Chinese factories that have formal relations with foreign firms pay their workers more than their counterparts that do not." In an attempt to gain more support for the bill by appeasing concerns of human rights violations in China, Sadner M. Levin, a Michigan Democrat in the House has started a proposal that would establish an American commission with powers to monitor progress in human rights and labor policies. The commission would consist of five members from each house of Congress and five presidential appointees, supported with a full staff. The proposed commission is intended to keep pressure on Beijing to continue improvements in human rights and to comply with trade agreements. Proponents of the developing proposal are claiming that the additional bill will sway many uncommitted Democrats as well as extra Republicans. There are many critics however, such as the House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, who say that the commission would not be strong enough to effectively monitor China and will not have the power to place checks on Beijing if violations are found. Environmentalists have also joined in opposing the trade agreements with China, as well as organizations such as the IMF, because many countries, including China, have much lower standards for environmental regulations. Steve Barr, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said that many American businesses will be likely to move to China because of the lower environmental standards. "If the trade agreement is passed, businesses will flock to China," he said, "the companies that are hassled for environmental misconduct here would never have trouble in China. It is much cheaper for them to go there." Clinton, as well as his supporters in Congress, argue that it would be a critical mistake for the United States to refuse trading privileges to China because of their likely entrance into the World Trade Organization. Refusal to grant them trading privileges as a peer member of the WTO would be seen as adversarial, and a confrontation at this time between the two countries has been likened to a second cold war, say supporters of the bill such as the national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger. Supporters of the trade bill also argue that the United States will be losing a high-potential market in China should they join the WTO. As other countries reap the benefits of a brand new open market, the United States will be left behind. Porcell agrees. "China will almost definitely be admitted into the WTO," he said, "the United States could wind up watching from the sidelines as the other members dig into an open China. That will hurt the American economy far more than losing a few companies overseas." Upon China's likely entrance to the WTO, they could invoke Article XIII of the Marrakesh Agreement that established the trade organization. This would allow Beijing to withhold commitments made to other members of the WTO from the United States. The United States may be left alone in a standoff with China after their entrance into the WTO as other member countries rush to their market. Shieh said that the United States will have to agree to normal trade relations with China in the future. "We may want to do it now to stay competitive instead of doing it eventually," he said, "in the long run, we're going to have to do it anyway."