Tuesday, May 28, 1996
Exposure to free market ideas will influence change
Finally I have a chance to write about China’s status as Most
Favored Nation!!! Without a doubt, the most captivating issue in
society today. If only I had more space in the Daily Bruin in which
I could enlighten you, my fellow Bruins, upon the vitality and
allure of China’s political arena.
But hey, the world isn’t perfect … For that matter, neither
are China’s human rights practices. Which, conveniently, leads me
right to the heart of the debate: whether or not the United States
should link its trade status with China to human rights.
Last week, in light of China’s unfair trade practices and
abhorrent human rights record, Clinton came under a lot of fire for
renewing China’s Most Favored Nation status. Many a Bruin Walk
dweller proposes a ban on all trade with China until they rectify
these injustices. I will argue that suspending the Most Favored
Nation status, or even all trade, with China would do absolutely
nothing in the way of convincing China to change its human rights
practices or any of its morally dubious trade practices.
Translate: I am  gasp!  siding with a Democrat
president. Is the world coming to an end? Or better yet, this
column? The answer, fortunately or unfortunately, is no. They shall
both continue and thrive!! So read on and prosper, my fellow
Bruins.
It is important to clarify that neither I, nor my esteemed
colleague Slick Willie, support or condone these human rights
violations. We are, however, of the opinion that decreasing trade
or hiking tariffs on Chinese imports is the most ineffective course
of action for the United States. I fear, as usual, that there is a
gap between the president’s outward intentions, and the way that
these intentions are perceived by the public. To that end, I shall
be your bridge.
There has not been a single case in the history of the United
States in which unilateral sanctions on any country have done
anything but sever ties with that country and destroy relations
with them, both political and economic.
Let’s briefly examine the case of Cuba during the early stages
of the Cold War. With the rise of Fidel Castro, the United States
wanted to prevent Cuba from becoming communist. The United States
had two options: improve diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba,
or impose tariffs on Cuba. We chose the latter, and Cuba responded
by turning away from the United States for support, and toward the
Soviet Union. To this day, we feel the repercussions of this poor
decision. Namely, the United States has very little influence on
Cuban affairs.
There are, however, great differences between Cuba and China.
For one, before the sanctions, Cuba was incredibly dependent on the
United States. The United States imported over 80 percent of Cuba’s
sugar, one of Cuba’s main sources of revenue. Despite this huge
influence by the United States, Cuba was able to find a new market
in the former Soviet Union, and largely prospered without the
United States.
Of course, the United States does not have nearly as much
influence in China as it did in Cuba before sanctions.
Historically, China has responded to external pressure by
tightening its grip on the thoughts and freedoms of its citizens.
The Tiananmen Square Massacre  although promoted by Chinese
citizens, not foreign governments  was nevertheless an
indication of the West’s indelible influence on Chinese youth.
Beijing’s brutal retaliation shows their paranoia of the influence
of the Western world.
Should the United States revoke Most Favored Nation status from
China, not only would it lose the largest consumer market in the
world, but far worse, it would compromise what little diplomatic
leverage it has with China.
China’s successor to Deng Xiapong is widely perceived to be a
weak and ineffective leader. He is unproven and lacks the respect
of the People’s Liberation Army, whose support is vital to the
durability of any premier. An act of economic warfare by the United
States would give this new leader the perfect opportunity to
establish an iron-fisted reputation which would gain him the
support of the People’s Liberation Army. Just as President Kennedy
resorted to the Bay of Pigs to silence those who balked at his
weakness on communism, so may China’s new premier relish the
opportunity to prove to the People’s Liberation Army that he is not
overly conciliatory with the Western world.
Moreover, China has begun to show remarkable progression towards
capitalism. Its government has been less restrictive in allowing
the establishment of U.S. companies such as Reebok and Kentucky
Fried Chicken. The people of China are beginning to taste the
benefits of capitalism, and they want more. The revocation of Most
Favored Nation status by the United States would force the Chinese
government to eliminate all of the capitalistic progress it has
allowed thus far.
Historically, the most effective way of undermining a communist
power has not been sanctions, but rather exposure to capitalism and
a free-market economy. This principle is personified in the fall of
the Soviet Union and the Eastern European Communist bloc at the end
of the Cold War. More powerful than any diplomatic fluff or
militaristic threat was the prospect of a free market economy.
The same phenomenon is slowly occurring in China. For the United
States to counter this process by taking away Most Favored Nation
status would be nothing short of moronic. The advent of capitalism,
although many years down the road, is the most effective means of
eliminating human rights atrocities.
Another effective alternative to unilateral sanctions by the
United States is the use of the World Trade Organization. An
internationally unified sanction on Chinese goods would not only
work faster than unilateral sanctions, but it would not allow China
to pinpoint the United States as its sole aggressor.
The World Trade Organization is the United States’ brainchild.
The United States and President Clinton have devoted a great deal
of effort towards the establishment and promotion of this
institution, and U.S. foreign policy in the post Cold War era has
been oriented around economic interdependence, the ultimate goal of
the organization. If the United States determines that sanctions on
China are the best course of action, then for Clinton to avoid the
World Trade Organization would undermine the credibility and
authority of this new player in the international arena.
I sincerely urge all of Clinton’s naysayers in this case (and in
this case alone) to examine the nature of the U.S.-China rapport
before bashing the president. While a superficial glance may lead
one to believe that Clinton is neglecting China’s repressed people,
more careful analysis reveals that the United States is indeed
following the best possible course of action.
Ahhh, so there you have it on a silver platter: incontestable
proof that the sun even shines on a democratic president’s tuchas
on occasion. For that, I extend my fondest congratulations. I guess
that wasn’t so bad after all.
White is a first-year political science/French major.