The Next Trade
Policy Battle
by C.
Fred Bergsten
C. Fred Bergsten is Director of the Institute
for International Economics. A slightly edited version of this policy
brief orginally appeared in the January/February 2000 issue of The
New Democrat.
The global trading system underwent two major developments as the
20th century drew to a close. The first was the agreement between the
United States and China in mid-November that will enable the Chinese to
join the World Trade Organization in the near future. The second was the
WTO's failure during its ministerial meeting in Seattle in early
December to launch a new round of negotiations to further reduce trade
barriers and write new international economic rules.
If the Seattle talks had succeeded, the next major trade item on
Congress's agenda might have been a revival of the 1997 and 1998 debates
over restoration of presidential authority to negotiate trade agreements
that Congress would then address on a "fast track." But the collapse of
those talks almost certainly means that Congress instead will first take
up the matter of U.S. trade relations with China--a scenario once
considered quite unlikely, especially after President Clinton made the
huge error of initially rejecting Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji's trade
proposals last April.
The congressional trade agenda has thus been reversed. China will be
the priority issue for the near future, presumably in 2000 if the
Chinese complete the WTO entry process early this year as scheduled.
The Issue for Decision
It is important to understand the precise issue that Congress will
consider. Contrary to popular belief, Congress will not vote on whether
China can join the WTO. The president makes that decision for the United
States. President Clinton presumably will approve, having agreed on the
terms of China's accession. All of the major presidential candidates
have indicated that they would support China's entry into the WTO as
well. The rest of the WTO appears ready to agree, so China's membership
seems assured barring some cataclysmic political development (for
instance, a war with Taiwan.)
China has clearly stated that it
would not reduce its barriers to U.S. imports unless it received
unconditional permanent normal trade relations status from the United
States.
Congress will, however, vote on whether to extend permanent "normal
trade relations" status to China, meaning the same tariffs faced by our
other trading partners. President Clinton promised China's leaders that
he would strive to win congressional support for such status for China.
Indeed, permanent assured access to the U.S. market is the largest
tangible benefit China would gain from joining the WTO. It is virtually
inconceivable that China would have agreed to open its markets so
dramatically without a firm expectation of receiving permanent normal
trade relations status from the United States in exchange.
Congress has been approving presidential extensions of equal
treatment for China on an annual basis for 20 years (through yearly
waivers of the requirements of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade
Act of 1974, which denies permanent normal trade relations status to any
non-market economy that impedes the emigration of its citizens).
Approval of permanent normal trade relations status is necessary to
eliminate the uncertainties that now surround U.S.-China trade, however,
because a failure to renew the waiver could at any time push U.S.
tariffs on Chinese products back to the stratospheric levels of the
1930s.
. . . our failure to act
promptly would result in an immediate loss of high-paying export jobs
for American workers . . .
The United States is not legally bound to extend permanent normal
trade relations status to China even after it joins the WTO. The global
trade body cannot force the United States to change its laws on this or
any other issue.
However, the WTO rules bar member countries from discriminating
against other members. If Congress fails to approve permanent normal
trade relations status, the United States will have to "opt out" of its
WTO obligations to China. China would then be relieved of any reciprocal
obligation to extend its newly liberalized trade regime to the United
States. In conformity with the WTO rules, China has clearly stated that
it would not reduce its barriers to U.S. imports unless it received
unconditional permanent normal trade relations status from the United
States.
Some opponents of permanent normal trade relations status for China
argue that continued annual renewal would meet the WTO requirement,
provided that such renewals were no longer linked to a specific
condition such as freedom of emigration. But the requirement of annual
approval would itself be a condition, and the United States could still
raise trade barriers against China at almost any time. This would
maintain the uncertainties inherent in the current annual-renewal
practice and perhaps even increase them because nonrenewal would not
then be linked to any specific criteria.
A U.S. failure to grant
permanent normal trade relations status would . . . plunge our overall
relationship with China into its deepest crisis since normalization in
the 1970s.
The Economic Stakes
After China joins the WTO, any U.S. trade discrimination against that
country would thus trigger Chinese discrimination against the United
States. Because no other WTO member intends to discriminate against
China, the ironic result would be that the United States--and only the
United States--would fail to benefit from the dramatically increased
access to the Chinese market that American negotiators painstakingly
achieved over the course of 13 years. Japan, Europe, and Asian
developing countries would rapidly take Chinese market share away from
the United States, in sectors ranging from autos to computer software,
in the world's sixth largest and most rapidly growing major market.
Australian, Canadian, and Latin American grain exporters would have a
substantial advantage over American farmers. American firms that managed
to hang on to their Chinese customers would have to service them from
subsidiaries in third countries, just as American firms have been forced
to do in the past by other U.S. export sanctions.
Even a delay in congressional approval of permanent normal trade
relations following China's accession to the WTO would likely trigger
such results, at least temporarily. Although House Minority Leader Dick
Gephardt (in his desire to become House speaker) and Vice President Al
Gore (in his desire to become president) undoubtedly would prefer to
avoid raising divisive trade issues within the Democratic Party during a
crucial election year, the potential costs of not acting are extremely
high. Both Democrats and Republicans should work to avoid delay at all
cost.
American rejection of permanent
normal trade relations status for China . . . would clearly signal
that antiglobalization forces will dominate American foreign economic
policy for the foreseeable future.