Copyright 2000 The Chronicle Publishing Co.
The San
Francisco Chronicle
MARCH 29, 2000, WEDNESDAY, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A25; OPEN FORUM
LENGTH: 635 words
HEADLINE:
SHOULD THE U.S. PERMANENTLY NORMALIZE TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA?;
CON;
U.S. Shouldn't Yield To Unreasonable Demands of China
BYLINE: Nancy Pelosi
BODY:
PRESIDENT CLINTON has sent Congress a request to grant China
Permanent Normal Trade Relations status, based on an agreement
between our two countries for China's entry into the World Trade Organization
(WTO). However, China can become a member of the WTO without Congress
surrendering its right to review U.S.-China trade relations annually.
We
all agree that it would be better to have China inside the WTO, complying with
the rules, rather than the status quo of China on the outside violating its
agreements with the United States. To date, however, the Chinese government has
consistently failed to honor its signed bi-lateral agreements on trade and its
international covenants on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and
on human rights in China and Tibet. The Chinese government has no credibility
and begs the question: why should the United States grant permanent trade status
(formerly known as Most Favored Nation status) on the basis of broken promises
rather than proven performance?
As concerned as many in Congress are
over China's human rights and weapons proliferation violations, there is enough
reason to oppose permanent normal trade relations at this time
on the basis of trade alone. The Chinese government has broken agreements on
opening its markets to the United States, on stopping the piracy of our
intellectual property and on ending the export of slave labor-produced goods.
The U.S. trade deficit with China has grown from $6 billion in
1989 to $70 billion in 1999. This staggering figure does not
even include the estimated losses due to piracy of U.S. intellectual property,
which between 1995 and 1998 totaled $10 billion, according to
the International Intellectual Property Alliance.
The Clinton
administration cites as progress agreements with the Chinese government to stop
the theft of U.S. intellectual property, but the record of compliance with these
agreements, like that of other U.S.-China bilateral trade agreements, including
agriculture, tells a different story. The administration's own "1999 Trade
Policy Agenda" documents the tortured history of China's many agreements on
intellectual property rights, starting with a 1992 memorandum of understanding
to stop piracy, then an investigation and a 1995 enforcement agreement. Lack of
Chinese compliance with that agreement led my colleagues and me to introduce
legislation to force the administration's hand on this subject. The U.S. Trade
Representative then issued sanctions against China. In June 1996, the United
States and China signed yet another accord. According to the "1999 Trade Policy
Agenda," China is still not enforcing copyrights and trademarks: "Of particular
concern is the significant level of unauthorized use of software by both private
enterprises and government ministries."
The issue of the technology
transfer that China demands in exchange for access to China's market is of the
gravest concern to those of us who have long been advocates for our high-tech
community. U.S. technology and other intellectual property are the product of
our free and open society. Our intellectual property is our competitive
advantage, however, we continue to reward the Chinese regime for pirating it. It
appears that some in the business community want to trade with China in the
worst possible way and that is precisely what they are doing. Ironically, some
in the high tech community, which excites the world with the "new, new thing"
are subscribing to the old, old thinking of yielding to China's unreasonable
demands.
It is incumbent upon us, in the public and private sectors, to
work for free and open trade with China that is real. The U.S.-China bilateral
WTO agreement, however, is seriously deficient in implementation, compliance and
enforcement.
GRAPHIC: GRAPHIC, Tim
Brinton/Special to The Chronicle
LOAD-DATE: March 29,
2000 
