Why NTR Must Be
Permanent
A Pop Quiz
|
Part of a Continuing Series from the Business Coalition for U.S.-China Trade |
|
Multiple Choice: A) Approve Permanent Normal Trade Relations and gain new access to China's markets. B) Hand over China's market to foreign competitors. C) Sorry, there is no choice C). Opponents of Permanent
Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China have argued that the U.S. is not
required to adopt PNTR in order to benefit from China's WTO entry.
|
"In order to make U.S. law consistent with WTO obligations, Congress would need to remove the PRC from the Title IV [Jackson-Vanik] regime... The Title IV regime is inconsistent with MFN obligations when applied to a WTO member... because of the conditions that [it] attaches to the grant of nondiscriminatory treatment to that country's goods1." ---Congressional Research Service
"The Jackson-Vanik amendment is a legal obstacle to a full WTO relationship between the People's Republic of China and the United States. If the PRC becomes a member of the WTO, the United States must extend permanent, unconditional MFN treatment to the PRC for the U.S. to comply with U.S. WTO obligations, unless the U.S. invokes the 'opt-out' provision [of the WTO]2." ---Noted GATT scholar John Jackson, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
1"China's Accession to the WTO: Legal Issues",
CRS Report to Congress, Congressional Research Service, May 17, 1999. pp.
10-11.
2 Journal of International Economic Law (1999), pp.497-510.
It's up to
Congress:
Pass PNTR, or pass the benefits to foreign
competitors.
Last Updated: 15-Feb-00