Copyright 2000 The Washington Post
The Washington
Post
March 27, 2000, Monday, Final Edition
SECTION: OP-ED; Pg. A27
LENGTH: 747 words
HEADLINE:
Profit Beats Prudence on China
BYLINE: William R.
Hawkins
BODY:
The American business
community, as part of its campaign to grant China "permanent normal
trade relations" with the United States, has come up with a booklet
called "Corporate Responsibility in China." It is published by the Business
Roundtable, an association of CEOs of leading U.S. corporations.
The
report is meant to show that economic ties have a positive effect in China.
"When U.S. companies set up operations in China, they bring with them U.S.
ethical and managerial practices," reads the study, and "through these
practices, U.S. companies set a positive example of corporate citizenship."
The booklet looks much like those put out 20 years ago to show how
business was helping South Africa move away from apartheid so that economic
sanctions would be lifted. That argument was not persuasive then and is less so
now.
China presents a more dangerous problem than South Africa. While
both involve moral affronts to our values, South Africa did not pose a strategic
threat to U.S. national security interests. China does, and it is in this
context that the Business Roundtable's report actually strengthens the argument
against commercial ties with the Beijing regime.
The report is filled
with examples of how business is helping build China's industrial base. For
example, "Rockwell has established industrial automation training laboratories
in 10 of China's better universities" and "was the first foreign company to
install an in-house automation technology training lab in a Chinese state-owned
enterprise."
Honeywell Aerospace proclaims its "unprecedented" agreement
with Aviation Industries of China (AVIC). This Chinese conglomerate is under the
direct control of the state council. It owns 111 enterprises, 36 research
institutes and six universities. It is the core of Beijing's aerospace complex
and is responsible for developing and manufacturing both military and civil
aircraft, missiles, engines and other equipment. It also has extensive research
capabilities in aerodynamics, materials and manufacturing technology.
Honeywell claims it provides extensive training for AVIC's "best
engineers," including bringing them to U.S. plants to learn about our
technology. The results: "In the past there were serious problems with the
quality of Chinese military aircraft. Chinese aircraft manufacturers' quality
control tended to be uneven," says a report on the AVIC by the Federation of
American Scientists. But "in the wake of joint ventures with the United States
and Europe in the area of civilian aircraft . . . Chinese combat aircraft are
now reported to have a much smoother surface than before, suggesting a flow of
personnel and expertise from civilian to military production lines."
In
addition to Honeywell, AVIC has enjoyed the help of Boeing. Boeing is listed in
the BRT report as having "instructed over 9,600 Chinese aviation professionals.
Over 5,600 of those receiving instruction are pilots, maintenance and flight
operations people." Boeing also provides Chinese aircraft factories with
productivity and industrial engineering help.
When the business
community looks at China, it knows that it is not a "big emerging market" for
U.S. exports. The growing trade deficit with China ($ 68.7 billion last year) is
the result of Beijing's strategy of internal development, which discourages
imports. Instead, what corporations want is to share in China's growth. As the
Chamber of Commerce has put it: "Notwithstanding the current large U.S.-China
trade imbalance, China's vast infrastructure needs will mean tremendous business
opportunities for American companies in the power generation,
telecommunications, petroleum and other industries."
That these are also
strategic industries that contribute to Beijing's drive to shift the balance of
power in Asia in its favor is not a concern of the Chamber or the Roundtable. It
should, however, be the primary concern of Congress.
It is clear that
economic resources provided to Beijing will be used to support policies hostile
to long-term U.S. security interests. The cost of meeting these challenges
swamps the private commercial gains to business in scale and meaning. Congress
should be looking at ways to curtail the transfer of technology and production
skills to China's military-industrial complex, not new ways to expedite these
dangerous flows.
The writer is visiting fellow in national
security studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council.
LOAD-DATE: March 27, 2000
