May 20, 1997
Here are excerpts from a speech by Secretary of State Albright on why the
United States is deciding to extend MFN for China.
Bhuchung
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Luncheon Remarks
Wilmington, Delaware
May 19, 1997
I can say today that President Clinton has decided to renew China's MFN
status for the coming year. I understand that the White House will be
making the announcement shortly.
Some in Congress will not agree with this approach, arguing instead that
a confrontational approach is more likely to alter China's policies in
areas where we have differences, such as human rights and military
exports. The Administration's view is that our long term interests are
best served by a strategic dialogue with Chinese leaders on a full range
of issues. Let me explain why.
First, it is important to remember that MFN is a powerful symbol of
America's global commitment to open markets. Despite its name, MFN is
not a privileged status accorded only to close friends; it is the
ordinary tariff treatment we extend to most nations.
More generally, we have to think carefully about what our long term
approach to China should be. There is no questioning the significance
of China's emergence as a major, modern economic and military power.
And there should be no doubt that China will play a major role in the
future of Asia, where the United States has a panoply of vital
interests.
The evolution of our relations with China will depend primarily on how
China defines its own national interests during the remaining years of
this century and into the next. Through our strategic dialogue, we are
encouraging the Chinese to accept what we believe is true--that China
will be able to find greater security, prosperity and well-being inside
a rule-based international system than outside.
Currently, China is constructively engaged with the international
community in some areas; in some, it is not. Given the undemocratic
nature of China's government, we can expect that further movement in the
direction of inclusion will be gradual. But we also believe continued
U.S. engagement is the best way to encourage that movement.
The opponents of maintaining normal trading relations with China have
legitimate concerns--which the Administration shares--but the tool they
have chosen is less scalpel than wrecking ball.
They proceed from the fragile hope that denying MFN would have a
salutary effect on China's human rights or arms export practices.
The Administration, however, proceeds from the realistic conviction that
revoking MFN would de-rail prospects for U.S.-China cooperation both on
these and other important issues such as preserving peace on the Korean
Peninsula, encouraging dialogue with Taiwan, controlling nuclear
proliferation, safeguarding the global environment, cracking down on
international terror, fighting the narcotics trade and further opening
China's markets to meet World Trade Organization standards.
In recent weeks, some have advocated using China MFN as leverage to
protect democratic rights in Hong Kong following its reversion to
Chinese authority on July 1. However, as Senator Roth pointed out in
last Friday's Wall Street Journal, this idea is strongly opposed by Hong
Kong's democratic leaders, because of the damage it would do to Hong
Kong's free market economy.
A further objection to ending normal trading relations is that it would
do more to isolate the United States than China. We could expect
virtually no support from our friends and allies in Europe and Asia, all
of whom support our policy of seeking China's integration into regional
and global institutions.
Critics say that denying MFN is essential to uphold U.S. principles.
The Administration believes our strategic dialogue can both protect
American interests and uphold our principles provided we are honest and
frank about our differences on human rights and other issues--which we
have been and will continue to be.
Whether or not we revoke MFN, China will be a rising force in Asian and
world affairs.
History teaches us the value of encouraging emerging powers to become
part of international arrangements for settling disputes, facilitating
shared economic growth and establishing standards of international
behavior.
Here at home, we should not let the MFN debate obscure the fact that
those on both sides share common goals. Whether our own particular
interests in China are focused on diplomatic, security, commercial or
humanitarian concerns, our overriding objective is to encourage in China
full respect for the rule of law.
If you are a business person, you will care whether China's legal
structure respects individual rights, and whether the political and
security environment is stable. If you are a military planner, you will
want to see China moving ahead with economic and political reform
because you know that an open society contributes to peace. If you are
a human rights activist, you will welcome the long-term liberalizing
effects created by expanded commerce, creation of a strong private
sector, and a broad dialogue between China and the world's democracies.
And if you are Secretary of State, you will be determined to move ahead
on all fronts, encouraging the full integration of China into the
international system.
A half century ago, a generation of American leaders led by President
Truman and Secretary of State Marshall offered a plan for re-building a
Europe decimated by war. Their goals then were similar to our goals
today. They understood that nations working together as trading
partners and partners in peace would be less likely to fall into the
abyss of war.
They believed that gaining the commitment of nations to high standards
of law and human rights would make the world less brutal and less
unjust.
And they believed in human progress--for they had just defeated the
greatest enemies of progress ever to walk the earth.
Their task, then, was concentrated on the former battlegrounds of the
second world war.
History enables us now to cast the net more broadly. Today, there is no
region--and no nation--that need remain outside the international
system.
Broadening and strengthening that system cannot be done by governments
alone. It is a joint opportunity, in which educators, community leaders
and the private sector--that's you--must play a strong partnership role.
As one whose job it is to protect American interests, I hope and believe
that, together, we will seize that opportunity. And by so doing, arrive
at the end of this century well prepared for the next. Thank you very
much.
(###)
