-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/43c33522fc2ac909a6291813583e67c2.pdf
8792929a3476547d46b05b02516dea4d
PDF Text
Text
Case Number: 2008-0702-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the ·Clinton Presidential
Library Staff.
. Folder Title:
China II [1]
Staff Office-Individual:
Speechwriting-Orzulak, Paul
Original OA/ID Number:
·4022
Row:
Section:
48
~-
Shelf:
' 9
Position:
Stack:
2
v
�Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
DATE
SUBJECTrfiTLE
. RESTRICTION
001. email
To Donald A. Mitchell from Miles M. Lackey. Subject: Talking points
for Samuel R. Berger (3 pages)
02/19/2000
Pllb(l)
002. notes
re: Internal meeting concerning China speech (3 pages)
n.d.
P5
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
National Security Council
Speechwriting (Paul Orzulak)
ONBox Number: 4022
FOLDER TITLE:
China II [1]
2008-0702-F
'm202
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- 144 U.S.C. 2204(a)l
Freedom of Information Act- 15 U.S.C. 552(b)J
PI
P2
P3
P4
b(I) National security classified information l(b)(l) of the FOIA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency l(b)(2) of the FOIA]
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute l(b)(3) of the FOIA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information l(b)(4) of the FOIA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy l(b)(6) of the FOIA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes l(b)(7) of the FOIA]
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions ](b)(8) of the FOIA]
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning wells l(b)(9) of the FOIA]
National Security Classified Information l(a)(I) of the PRA]
Relating to the appointment to Federal office J(a)(2) of the PRA]
Release would violate a Federal statute l(a)(3) of the PRA]
Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information l(a)(4) of the PRA]
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors ]a)(S) of the PRAJ
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy l(a)(6) of the PRA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
220I(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
�/
··. ...
l:~.
TALKING POINTS ON CHINNWTO
•
•
As I have said before, we need to have a vote on this soon so that we will have the best
chance of passage.
•
You all have been terrific leaders of this effort in your respective caucuses.
•
In particular I want to thank Bob Matsui and Cal Dooley and David Dreier for working with
us and the outside community and really runningthe operation to see this legislation passed.
•
·r
You know that passage of PNTR is very important to me. It is one of the most import~nt
things we can get done together.
I also want to thank my cabinet, particularly the members here today, Trade Representative
Barshefsky, Secretary Glickman, .and Secretary Daley as well as my National Security
Advisor, Sandy Berger and the Chairman ofthe National Economic Council, Gene Sperling.
They have also been tireless in their efforts'to make sure as many people as humanly possible
are aware of the benefits that this agreement will bring to the United States.
•
·•
•
•},
·•
You all know by now that my chief of staff, John Podesta and his deputy Steve Richetti are
working with Secretary Daley and Chuck Brain and the entire administration to focus our
efforts and ensure a good vote in the Congress.
I plan to do my part.
I know that most of you heard me talk about this in the State of the Union, I have also talked
about it in Davos, and last Monday I even talked about it at the Democratic Caucus retreat.
As you know not everyone in the Democratic Caucus agrees with me -- with us _:.. that PNTR
for China is such a good deal, but this is so important that I do not feel I can miss any
opportunity to stress it.
I will continue to talk about China/WTO, and my cabinet wilr continue to talk about this
every opportunity we get or can make.
• . We had a very good event last week that John Pod~sta with representatives from the
agriculture community and I know that votes prevented a number of you from joining us in
that effort. We will continue to have opportunities to work together like that and I hope we
will take advanfage ofthem.
' ··
•
I plan to deliver a speech on China this month to highlight the benefits that will flow to the
American people if we grant PNTR status to China. I want people to understand that China
is opening its market, that China is making the concessions in this deal. And I :want to
..
underline the national security stakes in. our relationship with the Chinese.
(
i
�2
•
We will also arrange in the next month an event to shine the spotlight on high-tech
opportunities to expand trade and open new channels for American ideas and values to filter
into China.
•
Finally we'll be organizing a Congressional Delegation visit to China, possibly in April. I
encourage you to think about how we can use this to best effect.
•
I know that you are familiar with the agreement and share my view that it is good for
America
•
I don't believe there can be a serious question that this agreement is in America's interest.
This agreement requires that China open its market on everything from· agriculture to
manufacturing- while we agree only to maintain the market access we already offer to
China. It will create jobs and exports for Americans by allowing our companies, for the first
time, to competitively sell products in China without having to open factories in China
itself. And it responds to unfair trade practices in China, including import surges.
•
The importance of this agreement goes far beyond its economic benefits, and so does the
debate that surrounds it. In our talks with Members of Congress; most do not challenge the
agreement on economic grounds. Critics say: China is a growing threat to Taiwan and its
neighbors, and we shouldn't strengthen it. China is a drag on labor and environmental
standards, and we shouldn't engage it. China is an offender of human rights, and we
shouldn't reward it. But we cannot let this be defined as economic rights versus human
rights- or economic security versus national security. It's a trap, a false choice.
•
This agreement is just as vital- if not more vital -to our national security as it is to our
economic security. 'To understand how, we need to understand the dilemma China finds
itself in today. Over the last 20 years, China has lifted more than 200 million people out of
·absolute poverty. But its workforce is increasing by 12 million each year. Millions are
migrating from the countryside, where they see no future, to cities, where only some find
work. And economic growth has slowed justwhen it needs to be rising to create new jobs.
•
China's leaders face a dilemma: opening China's antiquated markets to global competition
risks unleashing forces beyond their control -- unemployment, social unrest, increasing
domestic pressure for political change. Yet, if they don't open their economy to outside.
competition, China will not build world-class industries that can surV'ive in the global
economy. With this WTO agreement, China has chosen to speed the opening of its economy,
despite the political risks. Do we really want to reject that choice? On the contrary. Our
interests lie in embracing it.
•
Bringing China into the WTO will promote the change we seek in three ways.
•
First, It will obligate China to deepen its market reforms. With lower tariffs, and greater
competition, China's private sector will expand; its state sector will shrink. Chinese firms
will learn that unless they treat employees with greater respect, they will lose the top talent to
�Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001. email
SUBJECT(fiTLE
DATE
To Donald A. Mitchell from Miles M. Lackey. Subject: Talking points
for Samuel R. Berger (3 pages)
02/19/2000
RESTRICTION
Pl/b(l)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
National Security Council
Speechwriting (Paul Orzulak)
ONBox Number: 4022
FOLDER TITLE:
China II [I]
2008-0702-F
"m202
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- 144 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act -IS U.S.C. 552(b)l
Pl
P2
P3
P4
b(l) National security classified information l(b)(l) of the FOIA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency l(b)(2) of the FOIA]
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute l(b)(3) of the FOIA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information l(b)(4) of the FOIA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy l(b)(6) of the FOIA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes l(b)(7) of the FOIA]
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions l(b)(8) of the FOIA]
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning wells l(b)(9) of the FOIA]
National Security Classified Information l(a)(l) of the PRA]
Relating to the appointment to Federal office l(a)(2) of the PRA]
Release would violate a Federal statute l(a)(3) of the PRA]
Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information l(a)(4) of the PRA]
PS Release wonld disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors la)(S) of the PRA]
P6 Release wonld constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy l(a)(6) of the PRA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
�, Orzulak, Paul K. (SPCHW) .
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lackey, Miles M. (LEGIS)
Saturday, February 19, 2000 2:38PM
Orzulak, Paul K. (SPCHW)
FW: February 18 David Lane meeting [UNCLASSIFIED]
here's the lane group readout
-----Original Message----From:
Sutphen, Mona K. (NSA)
Sent:
Saturday, February 19,2000 2:16PM
To:
Lackey, Miles M. (LEGIS); @NSA- Natl Security Advisor
Cc:
@CHINAPNTR- China PNTR; @LEGISLAT- Legislative Affairs
RE: February 18 David Lane meeting [UNCLASSIFIED]
Subject:
miles/tom/jim/leavy on the 2/24 speech srb commented that the speech is ours and is 15 minutes; we need 3
minutes on economics (w/5-10 "auto" examples in our pocket); 5-7 minutes on nat'l interest; 2
minutes on 'all out effort'.
re: march 1 event, he said he understood this event would' be done by the domestic side and
should make the econ case.
re: 3/9 "framing speech", he said this one should be ours.
-----Original Message----From:
Lackey, Miles M.. (LEGIS)
Sent:
Saturday, February 19, 2000 12:18 PM
To:
@NSA - Natl Security Advisor
Cc:
@CHINAPNTR- China PNTR; @LEGISLAT- Legislative Affairs
Subject:
FW: February 18 David Lane meeting [UNCLASSIFIED]
PLEASE PASS TO SANDY
From: Dan
February 18 David Lane Meeting
Upcoming POTUS Events
• . February 24 -- POTUS speech to the Business Council; will spell out
.
Administration effort; urge them to help educate the public on the benefits
ofPNTR
.
•
February 28 -- National Governors Association -- POTUS will meet with
them and make pitch on PNTR; after the meeting, co-chairs· Glendening and
Leavitt will speak to press and report that the Governors are with the
President on th.is; (although some 45 of 50 Governors support PNTR, the
formal way of expressing support-- through a resolution -- is held up in the
Economic Development committee by its chairman, Gov. Hodges of South
Carolina, who opposes PNTR over fears of losing textile jobs).
1
�• March 1 -- Hi-tech event; details TBD; would involve POTUS speaking to
workers at a hi-tech company that exports to China, focusing on tangible
benefits of WTO and PNTR. ·
• March 9 -- POTUS to make a big, framing speech, similar in scope as SRB
speech --focused on economic, strategic, human rights benefits of PNTR;
could be out of town; couldl be before an opinion leaders group like Council
on Foreign Relations.
,
Thematic Overview
Lane sketched out the following notional strategy of when the primary focus
should be on various arguments: .
• Now to Mid-March: Make the case on the economic benefits of the
agreement and PNTR
• Mid-March to Mid-April: Make the case on how WTO and PNTR help other
areas -~ human rights, Taiwan, etc.
·
• Mid April-onward: Begin focus on how .this. vote will be one of those rare
votes of truly historic significance --one of the most important most
Members will ever cast.
Other Developments
• Business community leaders are very upset about the news reports of the
VP's meetings with labor leaders in New Orleans -- fear it will give cover to
· wavering Democrats to seek a delay in the vote or vote no. Lane, Daley,
and others are meeting with them.
• POTUS and others are enthusiastic about an idea that emerged irt the
Members meetings --sending various cabinet officials out to _meet with
editorial board of local newspapers and doing local talk radio and other
media. Lane group will coordinate assignements.
• State Department rolls out its annual human rights report Feb. 25. It will be
hard-hitting on China. Principals will want to discuss how aggressive to be
in including the "PNTR will help human rights" argument in the roll-out.
• Barshefsky will testify before Senate Finance Committee Wednesday. From
her Ways and Means hearing, she owes Rangel a response to his question
of why the 1979 U.S.-China agreement doesn't grant China all the benefits
of PNTR.
• USTR should have the PNTR website up and running in a few days.
Interagency-cleared documents will be placed on it, unless USTR believes
they would significantly alter China's negotiating posture in its EU and
2
�other talks.
• State has drawn up a notional itinerary for two CODELs to China during the
April·recesses. Stops would include Beijing, Shanghai~ and Hong Kong.
Meetings with Chinese officials, human rights activists, U.S. business
community. Chuck Brain group will develop invite list from among target
Members.
3
�-~02107/00
·--
MON 22:13 FAX
APNSA
141 001
Sutphen, Mona K.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Malinowski, Tomasz P. {SPCHW) · ·
· Monday, February 07, 2000 8:09PM
@NSA- Natl Security Advisor
· @LEGAL - Legal Advisor, @SPEECH - NSC Speechwriters
china speech [UNCLASSIFTED]
·
For SRB:
This version of the speech reflects the conversation J just had with Jamie and Caroline
Krass. It still emphasizes that this is going to be a hard fight and that there is a broad
coalition arrayed against us, but does not specifically ask your audience to do anything.
They feel strongly you can't go further, and Jamie is standing by to explain.
-Tom
70 tJL Ir~JL-
~'~J~~
'ttl~~
-~urt
BoL.
t l(A·, l ~~V' of 1~
. C\r...;, r of fMC Corp •'~ hoA
1
�02/07/00 MON 22: 13 FAX
_____ _______ - ··- __
,
,
--
i4Joo2
_ _ A.PNS~
2/7/00 3:30p.m.
Orzulak.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR SAMUEL R~ BERGER
REMARKS TO
THE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
ON CHINA
WASHINGTON, D.C.
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
l1 lifer~hard to believe that it was six years ago when I
North American Free Trade Agreement. That
-~
with some of you to discuss th
. one of the toughest fights that we have had
see that America now has th~~ longest
since 1993. But when I
o~A-'l. 'ti\.4 tiA "W\.~ .,
~
v~>
economic.expansion in our · ory --and I see both~exico and ~ada eRj9~'it:l@..gpp9r:tlri!Hties
K·
~~-
-Hl4iPIH1t81f~Aw;~~- e -- I know that NAFT A and our commitment to open trade had something
like a walk in the par
mdividually and together- make up the thir
_The fight over China's entry into
.
1/.b
~tJ.._
ail of American politics today: trade and China
.-
/4_~ """--
There is no question that this agreement
.• . l-~,
}
.
~iJ'~,;~;::Cili.~- ~'<>'-"•~ For years,
China has had open access to our markets, while its markets have been.~ many ways closed to
Amencan products and Amencan ser_v1c. es, This agreement reqwres ChnJa to open tis market
everything from agriculture to manUfacturing to high tech- while we have agreed only to
maintain the market access we already Offer to China. It directly responds to concerns about
unfair trade practices in China. For the-first time, U.S. companies will be able to
sell and distribute in China products made by
erican workers here at
. A•
forced to open factories there.
~~
orld Trade Organization is going to be unlike anything
go all-out to get this passed we are not going to win.
, tJ£V-l I VfTZ.o -
"
,T_
,_
~(jl._( J;;;.-r.
0
-
~
:;;.?)
:9
~
on~
~~
J'?
competitively~
e, rather than
.
11-, '
bei~ ...J'~v~
cP ./~ .d
~ a \Y
j&Y
I\.~~ D
�02/07/00
~ION 22:13 FAX
.------- - - - -- - · -
--
141 003
2
For an industry like autos, for example, the agreement would cut tariffs by
ly 75 percent.
American auto makers will no longer have to find a Chinese m·
American manufacturers, for the first
transfer technology to their Chinese competitors.
time, will be free to use parts made in
nca for assembly ~n China, to set up thc~ir o~
· mvn service shops, and to provide their own financing. Take
tiply it across our other industries ~ from manufa~turing to agriculture gin to get an idea of what this agreement would mean to both of our economies.
~I.Ct't1a.iA~ ~~L ~~~~
~~f-1~
'
All of you already 'kn;...l that./\IMtt when wt.:alk t
11'-1.
embers of Congress, most are not going to.
challenge~ economic grounds. Critics ~ ~;:;ly to say that:
China is
a~ ·
Taiwan and its neighbors, and we shouldn't strengthen it. Or China is a b ght on labor ri
and environmental standards, and we shouldn't engage it. Or China is a dangerous
.
~
·10
~4.,
s
proliferator~:;,
~~~
and we shouldn't empower it And many, if not most, of the concerns they will raise on these
issues will be absolutely legitimate.
•
B~~
But this debate should not be defined in terms of economic rights versus human :rights- or
economic security versus national security - because that is a trap, it's a false choice. Bringing
China into the WTO is about so much more than trade. This agreement is just as vital- if not
.
more vital - to
thJ.tib.t
~t,
~JJ
~lA'!J.e ~,()~~
w
o~mltiiiiiilrs~as 1t 1s to our econorfuCI\¥2'\iriV: ·· e are/g11fo[ro~utfs~
we a=e geia~ tg haue
~~-
.
'9farry the argument that it promotes both.
few minutes tonight about how this agreement will
So I Wl:!lllt to talk for a
~7
Olt-
advanc~~ interests by encouraging ~
the right kind of change-in China.
~
~.
To understand how, we need to lmderstand the dilemma China finds itself in today. Over the last
20 years, China has made remarkable progress in building a new economy, lifting more than 200
million people out of absolute poverty. But it still faces daunting economic pr<~blems. Its system
is plagued by corruption. Private enterprise still accounts for less than one-third of China's
economy.
China~s
workforce is increasing by 12 million each year: Millions are migrating from
�02/07/00
_,______
MON 22:14 FAX
- - - - - - · - - --· · - -
APNSA_
141 004
3
the countryside, where they see no future, to the cities, where only some find work. And
economic growth has slowed just when it needs to be rising to create new jobs.
' cannot maintain stability or ensure prosperity· by maintaining the status quo.
Hence the dilemma:
competition risks unleashi~g forces beyond their COlltrOl-- unemployment, social unrest,
increasing domestic pressure for political change. Yet, if they don't move forward, China c
make the next critical leap in development, because without competition from the outside, i
not build world-class industries that can survive in the global economy.
!Z~
~b4
With this agreement, China has chosen to speed the qpening of its economy, despite the p
litic~ .
risks that entails. Opponents Of this agreement need to answer the question: do they real!
want~ ~~
us to reject that choice? The fact is, our interest liesin encouraging both stability andc
ge
in~
CfL
China by encouraging it to meet, not stifle, the growing demands of its people for openne s,
.~
accountability, freedom, and reform. And bringing China into the WTO will help in thre ways.
First, it will obligate China to deepen its market refonns. With lower tariffs, and greater
competition, its private sector will expand; its state. sector will shrink
The introduction of competition results in natural pressure for progress. A decade ago, China's
best and brightest college students sought jobs in the government, in large stite .. owned firms or
state-run research institutions or universities. More and more, the best and brightest either are
starting their own companies or choosing to work for foreign-invested companies - where they
generally get higher pay, a better work environment, and a chance to get ahead based on merit,
not political connections.
U.S. companies are the leaders in China i:h developing human resources- by emphasizing
. teamwork and respect for individual rights. In turn, Chinese finns are increasingly learning that
~
�02/07/00
-
.
MON 22:14 FAX
---·
--·--· --.--
--
---
__ AJ:>NSA
--
141 005
4
unless they change their working style and treat employees with respect, they will lose the top
talent. This process will only accelerate as China joins the WTO, and we should do all we can to
encourage it, because it will lift the. stanciards for Chinese workers - and their expectations.
Second, by speeding economic change, the agreement we reached has the potential to encourage
China to evolve into a more open society.
In the past, the Chinese state was every citizens' employer, landlord, shopkeeper, and news
provider all rolled into one. By advancing the flow of infonnation~ the pace
of p1ivatization, and
the forces of competition, this agreement will accelerate a process that is removing government
from vast areas of people's lives.
By giving investors and property owners predictability an~
protection against arbitrary government action, it reinforces the idea that individuaishave rights.
~~ opening China's telecommWiications market to cutting-edge American technology
and international firms, the WTO agreement will help bring the information revolution to cities·
and towns across China. A year ago, China had two million· Internet addresses. Today, it has
nine million. Soon, people in some of the most remote villages in interior 'China will have access
c
to CNN. And as they become more mobile, more prosperous, and more aware of alternative
ways of life, I believe they will seek a strange~ voice in shaping their destiny.
Of course, just two weeks ago, Beijing announced that it was cracking down on the Internet. It's
outrageous-- but it's also futile. In this information age, cracking down on the Internet is like
King Canute trying to still the waters. Indeed, that the Chinese government is pushing back
against the increasing flow of information to the Chinese people only proves that the changes
China is undergoing are real and threatening to the status quo. This kind of repression is not an
argument for .slowing down the effort to bring China into the world; it's an argument for
· accelerating it.
1.
�02/07/00 MON
FAX
- - - · ---·-- 22:15 ___ ..
---
.
___ · - .
·--· APNSA
141 006
I
5
In the end, as China opens to the infonnation economy, it can succeed orily as it liberates the
minds of its people and empowers the individual. You know all too well: in this age, you cannot
..
expect people to be creative economically and stifled politically. Bringing China into the WTO
.
'
'
'
doesn't guarantee it will choose political reform. But by accelerating the'process ·of economic
change, it will force China to confront that choice sooner, and mak.~ the imperative for the right
choice far more powerfuL
Tbis agreement will advance our national interests in a third way: it increases the~ chance that in
the new century China will be on the inside of the international system, playing by the rules,
instead of on the outside, denying them.
Under the terms of this agreements, some of China's most important decisions will be subject,
for the first time, to the review of an international body. Why does that matter? Quite simply, it
applies to China the basic principle at the heart of the concept of the rule of law: that
governments cannot behave arbitrarily at home or abroad, that their actions are subject to rules
:consistently applied. Remember, China is choosing to embrace these obligations. As China
becomes
astakeholder in the WTO and other international regimes, it will be more likely to
accept the legitimacy of international norms, and define its future within the global community,
.. not outside of it_ ·
Opponents of this agreement will counter these arguments by saying it doesn't matter what we
.
(
agree to because China will just break its promises. Of course, we ca.rlnot know for sure. But we
do have reasons to believe that it will comply, and mechanisms to reinforce tha~t. First, China is
pledging to open its economy and its markets not just as a means of getting in the WTO, but
because most of China's leaders believe reform is in Chlna' s interest. Second, 'if China violates
its commitments, we're still in a better position, because it will confront judgments backed by a
135-member body, rather than being able to chalk it up to supposed
u.s. bullyl.ri.g.
�0,2/07/00
MON 22:15 FAX
~007
____APN:$A
--=--- . - - - - - - - -
-6
Some will say that if we let China ~nto the WTO, it will give C ·
on labor rights and environmental standards. But the fa
arc developing countries, with the same conce
restrict their giowth. China's members ·
a platform to weaken norms
1s, most members
ofth€~ WTO already
t trading rules not become an instrument to
~()..
,
on't change that equation. And considering the fact &..r
that China is home to one-fifth of e world's people and the source ofa risin!i share of
~
. greenhouse gas emissions,· shard to imagine an effective global effort to meet those
environmental challe
~will argue th~t granting China permanent normal trade relations status is granting a favor
· that China hasn't earned. But it's important to understand what PNTR means: .simply that we
.·will give China the same tariff schedule we have given to 132 of the 134 countries in the WTO,
and China will do likewise for us. It would eliminate the annual vote on China's trade status,
which we do not apply
t~ any other WTO member.
Some
.
hfl~~ th€: annual vote to.
1
address other concerns we have with China, on human rights, proliferation, or religious freedom.
But Congress always lias the authority to address any part of our relationship with any nation,
including China. And the arUlual China trade vote has not been an effective ins1rwnent .. It
simply has affirmed our trading relationship with China for 20 years in a row.
Finally, oth~rs will argue that we are sacrificing human rights on the altar of trade. ln fact,
locking China out of the WTO would be a blow to the very cause they and we support. It would
1eave the Chinese people with ]ess access to information, less contact with the democratic world,
an4 rnore resistance from their governnient to outside influence and ideas. And no one could
possibly benefit fl'Om that except the most rigid, anti-democratic elements in China itself. That's
one reason reformers like Martin Lee and dissidents like Ren Wanding suppott this agreement.
~~~~make clear
!>ringing China into the WTO is not, by itself, a human rights
the~~
those who challenge the rule of the Communist Party, It will change only by a combination of ~
policy for the United
The reality is that China continues today to suppress
�__
_ 02/07/~0
__
,
MON 22: 1~ FAX
...... ----· - · - ·
- - - · - --
APNSA
141008
·--- -·
7
internal pressures for change and external validation of its human rights struggle. And we must
maintain our leadership in the latter, even as the WTO agreement contributes to the former.
That's why we named China as a "country of particular concern" under the lntei'Illationa~
Religious Freedom Act last year. It is why we are once again sponsoring a resolution in the UN
Human Rights Commission. condemning China's human rights record. We will continue to press
China to respect global nonns on non-proliferation; to encourage a peaceful resolution of issues
with Taiwan; to urge China to be part of the solution to the problem of global climate change.
In olher words, we must not and we are not relying on !he i<wioih!e hoR8
ef~t
'our heavy lifting wilh China, and neither should the private sector
does that mean for
Et
to
do all
American companies doing business in Cl!ina? It means recommitting yourselves to upholding
high environmental standards and labor rights in.China.
I~ means pressing Chinese authorities to
move further and faster toward economic reform; the rule of law, and respect for human rights,
for that is the only way China can avoid instability and realize its growth potentiaL It also means
I
. working with some of the one million nonprofit and social organizations that have emerged in
China to reform the system from within; like . U.S.-China Business Couricil's Legal
the
'
�.02/07/00
MON 22: 16 FAX
APNSA
·-·------
-~--..-:-·
141009
1MB di~P"A'
8
"tk~utL~Aer ~H. {1u. ~ .~..
.
P~ .·
the United States risks losing the full market access benefits of the agreement. I don't need t;:__,':"Uf
I'll promise you
this:~ ~io" io.tJoiRg •olio ~~.
Qllf
For ifwe fail to obtain
disadvantage~~~
Pu~
essentiaily shut off from one fifth of the world- while our European, Japanese, and other ~}i
tell you that in a global economy, American business would be put at an enormous
.·
competitors would be more than 'Willing to fill the void. But let me tell you what that failure
("~( ...uJ,erJ-,~~'~111~
'
.
would mean for our country- On the~i!t y~lf'o Elefee.t eftl)\~omprebenstve Test Ban
Treaty, it would send a signal to the rest of the world tba.t America truly has tum•ed inwardwhich would be devastating_ It would mean to all of our allies and partners that in today's
global economy, America's word is not its bond.
We can't afford that. Since President Nixon went to China in 1972, the United States has
worked for the emergence of a China that contributes to peace in Asia. A China. with an
economy that is open to American products, fanners, and businesses_ A China whose people
have access to ideas and information, that upholds the rule of law at home and adheres to global
rules on everything from non-proliferation to human rights to tiade. This agreement is an
unprecedented opportunity to advance all of those goals. We are working hard to avoid letting
this opporttmity slip through our fingers. Thank you.
I
.
,
···
.
�THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 4, 2000
STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
1999 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY REPORT
Today President Clinton transmitted the 1999 National Security
Strategy Report to Congress, as required annually by the
Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986. The report, entitled ~A National
Security Strategy for a New Century,H outlines the President's
vision for America's role in the world and discusses the
Administration's international priorities.
The three core objectives of U.S. national security strategy are
to enhance America's security, to bolster America's economic
prosperity, and to promote democracy abroad.
Central to the
President's strategy for achieving these aims is U.S. engagement
and leadership in world affairs.
America has done much over the past seven years to build a
better world: aiding the remarkable transitions to free~market
democracy in Eastern Europe; adapting and enlarging NATO to
strengthen Europe's security; stopping ethnic wars in Bosnia and
Kosovo; working with Russia to deactivate thousands of nuclear
weapons from the former Soviet Union; ratifying START II and the
Chemical Weapons Convention; negotiating the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and strengthening the Conventional Armed
Forces in Europe Treaty; freezing North Korean fissile material
production; facilitating milestone agreements in the Middle East
peace process; standing up to the threat from Saddam Hussein;
helping broker peace accords from Northern Ireland to Sierra
Leone to the Peru-Ecuador border; fostering unprecedented unity,
democracy and progress in the Western Hemisphere; benefiting our
economy by reaching over 270 trade agreements, including the
landmark accord to bring China into the World Trade
Organization; reducing Africa's debt through the Cologne
Initiative and the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative;
exercising .global leadership to help save Mexico from economic
disaster and to reverse the Asian financial crisis.
Our military is -- and will continue to be -- capable of
carrying out our national strategy by meeting America's defense
commitments around the world.
The report describes the
�Orzulak, Paul K. (SPCHW)
Subject:
Keith, James R. (ASIA)
Wednesday, January 26, 2000 11:03 AM
Orzulak, PaulK. (SPCHW); @SPEECH- NSC Speechwriters
@ASIA - Asian Affairs
More background/context for SRB speech [UNCLASSIFIED]
Importance:
High
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Paul: some addtiional facts on Shanghai then and now.
--HOME OWNERSHIP. TODAY APPROXIMATELY 25 PERCENT OF SHANGHAI
HOUSEHOLDS OWN THEIR OWN HOMES. ALMOST ALL OF THIS HAS HAPPENED
IN THE PAST THREE YEARS. TEN YEARS AGO, PEOPLE IN CHINA COULD
NOT OWN THEIR OWN HOMES.
--AVAILABILITY OF FOOD. TEN YEARS AGO, THERE WERE NO
"SUPERMARKETS" IN SHANGHAI. THE CITIZENS OF SHANGHAI WOULD BUY
FOOD FROM STATE-RUN OUTLETS WITH NO CUSTOMER CHOICE. MANY
STAPLES REQUIRED FOOD COUPONS ISSUED BY WORK UNITS FOR PURCHASE.
BY 1998, THERE WERE 1000 SUPERMARKETS IN SHANGHAI (MOST STILL
STATE-RUN) WHERE CONSUMERS WALK AISLES AND CHOOSE FROM A VARIETY
OF FOOD ITEMS. THERE IS NO MORE RATIONING OF ANY FOOD ITEMS.
--TRAVEL/TOURISM. A DECADE AGO, DOMESTIC TOURISM WAS LIMITED
AND THERE WAS VIRTUALLY NO PRIVATELY-ARRANGED INTERNATIONAL
TOURISM. TODAY, RESTRICTIONS ON INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL BY CHINESE
CITIZENS HAVE ALL BUT BEEN ELIMINATED. FOR CHINESE NEW YEAR
1999, AIRLINES ADDED 256 CHARTER FLIGHTS TO INTERNATIONAL
DESTINATIONS FROM SHANGHAI ALONE.
--SPORTS PARTICIPATION. TEN YEARS AGO, THERE WERE FEW
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PRIVATE CITIZENS TO RECREATE, BEYOND A CHESS
GAME IN THE PARK. TODAY, THERE IS A PROLIFERATION OF
RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. SHANGHAI NOW SPORTS 182 BOWLING
ALLEYS--AND THEY ARE PACKED.
'·--PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. MAYOR XU KUANGDI SAYS THAT PRIVATE
ENTERPRISE NOW ACCOUNTS FOR 10 PERCENT OF SHANGHAI'S ECONOMIC
OUTPUT, AND IF FOREIGN INVESTED ENTERPRISES ARE INCLUDED, THE
FIGURE IS NEARLY 40 PERCENT.
-- PRIVATE SCHOOLS. ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT HAVE DATA ON THE
NUMBERS, THERE ARE MANY PRIVATE SCHOOLS OPERATING IN SHANGHAI-INCLUDING ONE PRIVATE UNIVERSITY. AGAIN, PRIVATE SCHOOLS WERE
VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT TEN YEARS AGO.
SINCE 1992, SHANGHAI HAS BEEN THE CHINESE CITY MOST OPEN
TO INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC INFLUENCE. AS SUCH, IT STANDS AS A
MODEL FOR WHAT THE REST OF CHINA WILL INCREASINGLY LOOK LIKE
WHEN PNTRIWTO WORKS TO PRY OPEN CHINA'S OTHER CITIES AND
PROVINCES.
1
�1
1/29/00 9:00 a.m.
Orzulak
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR SAMUEL R. BERGER ·
REMARKS TO
THE WOODROW WILSON CENTER
ON CHINA
WASHINGTON, D.C.
FEBRUARY 4, 2000
Speaking to the Wilson Center is always a daunting prospect. It brings to mind the story of the
man who survived the famous John.stown flood. All his life, this man would stop and tell
everybody he met the story of how he survived the Johnstown flood. When he died, he went to
heaven, and immediately asked St. Peter to convene a crowd so he could tell them about his
experiences in the great flood. St. Peter said, "I'd be happy to. But you haye to remember one
thing- Noah will be in the audience."
That's a little bit how it feels to address the Wilson Center. For more than 50 years, this body
has helped America think through the most challenging foreign policy issues of the day. On
behalf of the President, I want to thank you for all you have done to help our Administration and
the American people build a safer, better, more prosperous world.
Last week, we heard the President give a powerful summary of America's place in the world. It's
n,ot hard to feel optimistic about the future. America today is enjoying the longest economic
expansion in its history. Our military strength is unchallenged. Our alliances are strong. Our
values are ascendant. Eighty years after Woodrow Wilson hoped that American leadership
would make the world safe for democracy - today, for the first time in history, more than half the
world's population live under governments of their own choosing.
But as the President said last Thursday, this is not a world without dangers to us. There is a
chance that our security could be threatened by regional conflicts that pose the risk of a wider
war, especially those rooted in ethnic and religious tensions. There is a danger that the
inexorable march of technology will give terrorists and hostile nations the means to undermine
our defenses, and force us to live again in fear. There is a chance that the stability of the 21st
Century will be threatened by an ever-widening gap between rich and poor. And of course, there
is the possibility that our former adversaries Russia and China will fail in their effort to emerge
as stable, prosperous, democratic partners of the United States.
Today, I want to talk about China. For three decades, America has labored to help shape a China
with an economy that is open to Americari products, farmers, and businesses. ·A China whose
people have access to ideas and information. A China that upholds the rule oflaw and plays by
global rules on everything from nuclear non-proliferation to human rights to trade. This year, we
have the best opportunity we have ever had to begin to tum those goals into a reality. The issue,
�_)
2
of course, is China's entry into the World Trade 9rganization.
Last fall, we negotiated an agreement to bring China into the WTO in a way that will advance all
of those goals, while benefiting America in unprecedented new ways. But to realize those
benefits, we have a decision to make: will Congress support granting China permanent Normal
Trade Relations status, which is our part of the deal, and the same exact arrangement we have
given to every one of our partners in the WTO? Or will Congress tum its back on the most
sweeping democratic changes China has agreed to·make in its history, settle for the status quo,
and risk even more lost ground on the issues we care about?
We know that this is going to be a difficult debate, because there are a lot of honest people on
both sides of the aisle who have real questions about China. But let me take a few minutes today
to talk about why supporting this agreement - and voting yes on permanent NTR for China -- is
the right thing to do.
Every trade debate begins with the simple question: will our nation be better off with this
agreement, or without it? Will our economy and our workforce benefit from the terms we've
negotiated, or will they suffer? From an economic perspective, there is no denying that this
agreement is an absolute home run for America.
For more than a decade, critics have complained that China has had significant access to our
market~, while their markets have been virtually closed to American products and services. That
has been largely true. The incredible thing about this agreement is that China makes huge new
concessions to open its market to America- but America doesn't have to give China any new
access to our markets. It's the trade equivalent of a one-way street. China values the promise of
WTO membership so highly that it is willing to open a gaping hole in its markets to us. But we
promise only to maintain the market access policies we already apply to China. So rejecting this
agreement will in no way affect China's access to our markets. It will only continue to limit our
access to theirs, and continue to ensure that our trade deficit remains high.
On the numbers alone, this· agreement will dramatically exp3;nd our access to a market of more
than 1.3 billion people. China's economy is already among the world's largest. Over the past 20
years, it has expanded at an extraordinary rate. During this period, U.S. exports to China have ,
grown from negligible levels to more than $14 billion in goods and services each year and now
supports 400,000 Amedcanjobs. These figures will grow substantially with the new access that
the WTO agreement creates.
On key agricultural products, China's tariffs will drop by 60 percent by January 2004- and
dramatically expand export opportunities for our farmers who grow bulk commodities like
wheat, rice, and com. Tariffs on industrial products will drop by nearly two-thirds, from 25
percent in 1997 to an average of9.4 percent by 2005. Both our martufacturers and our farmers
will gain the right to distribute freely inside China, without going through state trading
companies or middle men. And on products such as computers, semiconductors, and Internetrelated equipment, tariffs will shrink to zero by the year 2005. Our information technology firms
lead the world and stand to do very well in China's huge, information-hungry market.
�3
The agreement also opens China's market for services, including distribution, insurance,
telecommunications, banking, professional and environmental services. Here, too, American
firms are world leaders and will find tremendous opportunities in China.
And it' directly responds to concerns raised by Republicans and Democrats alike about unfair
frade practices in China. The agreement provides safeguards to prevent unfair competition that
would harm American workers. It includes a "product-specific" safeguard that allows us to take
trade measures focused on China in case of an import surge that threatens a particul~r U.S.
industry. It provides strong protections against "dumping" the sale of goods in our market below
the producer's costs. And under the agreement, we will have, for the first time, effective means
to combat Chinese practices - such as forced technology transfers and local content requirements
-that drain jobs, investment and technology from the United States. Most importantly, our
businesses will be able to export to China from home, rather than being forced to set up factories
in China to sell products there.
That is what this agreement means in principle. But just think about wha~ it means in practice.
Look at the auto industry. Right now, a car made in Dearborn faces an 80 to 100 percent tariff
before it can be sold in Shanghai --which prices us right out of the market. So if you want to sell
cars in China, you actually have to go to China. And what you do is, you find a Chinese middleman, either a state-run or private-run firm- because American firms aren't allowed to directly
own anything in China- and you contract to have an equity stake in the company. But then, to
sell your cars, the law says you have to t~ach the Chinese how to make them. So you have to
transfer a huge amount of your technology to China, teach them how to use it, and then you leave
it to them to make your cars -- which essentially ~eans you are transferring both your product ·
and your training to your eventual competitors .. Of course, it's also against the law to import
American car parts, so you have to work with Chinese vendors to set up components processors,
·and train them how to make those, too.
·
And of course, Americans are not allowed to run distribution centers, so once your parts are ·
made, it is in the hands of the Chinese to sell those, too. On top of that, Americans, are not
allowed to set up service centers, either. Since there is no real service industry, most Chinese
buy cars with the understanding that they have to learn how to fix them too - if they can get the
parts. Of course, all that assumes that ·the Chinese can buy the cars in the first place, because the·
only financing that is allowed in China is through state-run banks- but they don't make loans for
cars. Little wonder that thete are more bicycles in Beijing than automobiles.
That's how it works now. Under the new agreement, it's completely different. Tariffs on
American cars fall by 75 percent, so we can compete in Beijing. The requirement that we have
to produce the cars in China is eliminated. So is the requirement that we have to transfer our
own technology. What's more, American manufacturers will now be free to ship parts made in
America into China, to set up their own distribution centers, and to run their own service shops which means, for the first time,' Chinese who buy cars will actually be able to get them fixed by
the manufacturer.· On top of all that, China also <;tgreed to let our car companies like GM and·
Ford set up financing operations in China itself, to help the Chinese buy our cars.
�4
From our perspective, it means that we're going to sell a lot more American-made and
American-assembled cars in China, which means a lot more American jobs. In return, the
Chinese end up with much better products 'at lower prices.
Take that example and multiply it out across all of our other industries - from manufacturing to
high-tech to insurance to agriculture- and you begin to get an idea of how much prosperity this
deal could bring to both the American and Chinese economies. You also realize it won't take
long to see the balance on that trade deficit shift dramatically.
That is what America gets under the trade agreement we negotiated last fall. All we are required
to do in return is to grant China permanent normal trade relations status, to bring China into the
WTO. It's important to understand what that means: permanent NTR is not a favor to China, it
is the best way to level the playing field. It is the same arrangement we have with the other 135
nations who are our partners in the WTO. It is the entry fee that nations pay to join the world
trading system. It simply means that we will give you the same tariff schedule we apply to every
other nation in the world, and you will give us yours. In other words, for WTO rules to apply to
trade between the U.S. and China, each country m~st grant tl;le other unconditional NTR and
must treat the country in the same way it treats all other WTO members.
·Of course, passing permanent NTR with China does not mean that Congress is permanently
barred from ever revisiting the issue of Chinese trade. Congress always has the authority to visit
· our trading relationships with any nation, as well as any other part of our relationship with China,
and that's the way it should be. What it will do is get us out of the cycle we are now in, where
the future of Chinese trade comes up for a vote every single year in Congress. Annual renewal of
NTR does not meet the test for membership in the WTO. As a nation, it is in our interest to
encourage American companies to help us build a more open, democratic China. It is difficult to
build the long-term relationships that make those efforts possible ifthere is a new threat every
single year that they will be disrupted. ·
It's also fair to ask: how do we know that .China won't cheat? With any trade agreement we
sigri, there is always the possibility that there will be violations. Right now, if China violates our
trade agreement, we have no recourse, short of pulling the plug on trade. This agreement
increases our leverage with China in the event of a future trade dispute on everything from
intellectual property to dumping. Most importantly, as a member of the WTO, China must also
agree to submit disputes to that body for adjudication. China could ignore these decisions by
thwarting the collective will of the WTO's 135 members- an unwise course if it wants to reap
the benefits of global trade. In the end, this agreement gives America much better protections
and mechanisms to handle disputes, while making no new demands upon our markets.
If Congress votes yes on PNTR, we will get open markets and more American jobs. If Congress
I
.
votes no, it would deny American firms the ability to enter the Chinese market under WTO rules,
and cancel the special import protections and vastly expanded trading rights that we negotiated.
As a result, American farmers and firms will almost certainly be put at a tremendous competitive
disadvantage against European and Japanese competitors as they stake out privileged positions in
one ofthe 21st Century's biggest markets. Without permanent NTR, America would become the
�5
only major country that gets left behind.
The economic benefits of this deal to America are clear. But that is not the end of the argument.
This agreement is just as vital to our national security interests. As a nation, we have a
tremendous stake in how China evolves. A large part of our future i~ tied to Asia. The stability
of Asia- both economically and militarily- is tied directly to the stability of China, the largest
nation in the world. As China develops, the light it shines or the shadow it casts will be felt very
far from its own borders in the 2P1 Century.
Today, we face some fundamental questions: will China become an open, democratic society
that respects the human rights and freedoms of all its people- or will it continue to operate
behind a great wall of secrecy, repression, and fear? Will it come to grips with the need for
economic reform to ensure its own viability in this increasingly globalized world- or will it be a
nation unable to deal with its own problems, and collapse from within? Will it develop in a way
that pulls it into the international community and sees it play by international rules- or will it .
stay outside the system and be the world's next great threat to freedom and security? How
China answers those questions will have a profound effect on our own security in the 21st
Century. There are no magic solutions to any one of these questions. But one thing we do know:
bringing China into the WTO will help move it in the right direction on each of these issues.
To understand why, we need to see China clearly- its progress and its problems, its system and
its strains, its policies and its perceptions of us, of itself, and the world.
In
a
the last 20 years, China has made incredible progress in building new economy, lifting more
than 200 million people out of absolute poverty. But China's working age population is
increasing by more than 12 million people- equal to the population ofNew England- every
year. Tens of millions of peasants are migrating from the countryside, where they see no future,
to the city, where only some find work. China's economic growth has slowed just when it needs
to be rising to create jobs for the unemployed and maintain support for economic reform.
For all the progress of China's reforms, private enterprise still accounts for less than 20 percent
of the non-farm economy. State-held stock still accounts for 62 percent of all the equity issued
by companies listed on China's stock exchange. Much of China's landscape is still dominated
by unprofitable polluting state industries. China state banks are still making massive loans to
struggling state firms, the sector of the economy least li~ely to succeed.
Last year, I met with Premier Zhu. I know that he is committed to making far-reaching changes.
They also know that in the short run, reform will cause more unemployment, and more unrest.
Last year: alone, the State Economic and Trade Commission ordered the closing of25,000 small
coal mines. That came on top of a government reorganization that cut the formal employment in
the central government in half. While they cut the government, so far they have been unwilling
to open China's political system because they see that as contributing to instability when, in fact,
giving people a say in their decisions actually provides a peaceful outlet for venting frustration.
China's biggest challenge through all this will be to maintain stability and growth at home by
�6
meeting, not stifling, the growing demands of its people for openness and accountability. It is
easy for us to say; for them, it is a daunting task.
What does this mean for us? As the President has said, if we've learned.anything in the last few
years from Japan's long recession and Russia's current economic troubles, it is that the.·
weaknesses of great nations can pose as big challenge to America as their strengths. So as we
focus on the potential challenge that a strong China could present to the United States in the
future, let us not forget the risk of a weak China, beset by internal conflicts, social dislocation
and criminal activity, becoming a vast zone of instability in Asia..
a
'
The solutions fundamentally lie in the choices China makes. We have an interest in seeking to
make a difference to help shape a China that is stable, democratic, and prosperous. We should
not pretend that the outcome is foreordained. China's entry into the WTO will help meet these ·
challenges in three fundamental ways. ·
.
'
First, it will obligate China to deepen its market reforms, and empower leaders who want their
country to move further and faster toward economic freedom. One thing we have learn~d in the
global economy is thatnations can move from an agrarian society to a low-tech society fairly
easily. But it's a much harder step to move from making textiles in a closed system to making
cars and hi~h-tech consumer products that people want to purcpase .. One example is South
Korea, who tried to grow behind the walls of protection. When it opened its market, it collapsed,
because it was making things that nobody wanted to buy.
Premier Zhu and reform-minded leaders in China know the South Korea example well. They
understand that opening their markets by lowering tariffs exposes China's state-run industries to
competition, many of which will not be able to compete if they don't privatize. But they also
understand that this is something they have to do.
Let's go back to that auto industry example I gave a few minutes ago. The auto industry in
China vehemently opposes this agreement. Why? Because it knows that when Ford and GM
and Chrysler start to sell cars at competitive prices in the Chinese market, many state-run firms
will be forced to go belly-up. They just can't compete with the technology that we have in our
car~. But reformers in China are also betting that those firms that do adapt and survive -- like
Honda did in Japan-- will become global players. At the same time, they also know that if they
are going to develop into a 21st Century economy and compete in a globalized world, the
Chinese need more than bicycles and unreliable trains, which they have now. As a society, they
will need the mobility that automobiles afford.
In some places, they have already seen the positive effects of competition. Six years ago, the
American insurance giant AIG won the right to sell insurance in Shanghai. Almost immediately,
they captured 30 percent of the market, because they offered services like life insurance and risk
insurance that Shanghai had never seen before. But it didn't take long for the Chinese to learn
what kinds of insurance products you need in a marketing economy, and they diversified. Today,
AIG has just 11 percent of the market, but it's a much bigger market, because there is so much
more competition. Meanwhile, tens ofthousands of people in Shanghai have the benefit of
�.
7
:,
things like life insurance that they never had before .
. The introduction of competition results in natural pressure for progress. A decade ago, C~ina's
best and brightest college graduates would seek jobs in the government, in large state-owned
firms or state-run research institutions or universities. More and more, the best and brightest are
either starting their own companies or choosing to work for foreign-invested companies -- where
they generally get higher pay and a better work environment They find that foreign-owned
firms are more likely to reward employees for their achievement, and not their political
connections.
Industry surveys show that U.S. companies are the leaders in the Chinese market in developing
human resources -- by placing an emphasis on teamwork and respect for invidividual rights. If
we have learned anything in this country the past twenty years, we have learned that talent will
flow to the places and companies where employees feel most valued. More and more, Chinese
firms are learning that unless 'they change their working style and treat employees with respect,
they will lose out on the critical war for talent. That process will only accelerate as China joins
the WTO, and we should do all we can to encourage it.
Second, this agreement will accelerate a process that is removing the government from vast areas
of people's lives, and move China toward a more open and free society.
Let's not forget what communism is. In the past, the Chinese state was employer, landlord,
shopkeeper and news-provider all rolled into one. This agreement will.acclerate a process that is
already beginning to remove government from vast areas of people's lives.
[Shanghai examples]
But we shouldn't overstate the freedoms being won in China today. Just last week,
�Orzulak, Paul K. (SPCHW)
Malinowski, Tomasz P. (SPCHW)
Friday, January 28, 2000 4:36 PM
Orzulak, Paul K. (SPCHW)
FW: POTUS Q&A On Internet [UNCLASSIFIED]
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
They like it! They like it!
Can you use in the speech?
-----Original Message----From:
Lieberthal, Kenneth G. (ASIA)
Sent:
Friday, January 28, 2000 4:26PM
To:
Lee, Malcolm R. (NEC); Malinowski, Tomasz P. (SPCHW); @PRESS- Public Affairs; @SPEECH- NSC Speechwriters; @ASIAAsian Affairs; @INTECON- Economic Affairs; Rudman, Mara E. (NSA); Shapiro, Daniel B. (LEGIS)
Subject:
RE: POTUS Q&A On Internet [UNCLASSIFIED]
I like it, too. Go ahead.
-----Original Message----From:
Lee, Malcolm R. (NEC)
Sent:
Friday, January 28, 2000 4:10 PM
To:
Malinowski, Tomasz P. (SPCHW); Lieberthal, Kenneth G. (ASIA); @PRESS- Public Affairs; @SPEECH- NSC Speechwriters;
@ASIA- Asian Affairs; @INTECON- Economic Affairs; Rudman, Mara E. (NSA); Shapiro, Daniel B. (LEGIS)
RE: POTUS Q&A On Internet [UNCLASSIFIED]
Subject:
I like it.
-----Original Message----From:
Malinowski, Tomasz P. (SPCHW)
.Sent:
Friday, January 28, 2000 3:48PM
To:
Lee, Malcolm R. (NEC); Lieberthal, Kenneth G. (ASIA); @PRESS- Public Affairs; @SPEECH - NSC Speechwriters; @ASIA- Asian
.
Affairs; @INTECON -Economic Affairs; Rudman, Mara E. (NSA); Shapiro, Daniel B. (LEGIS)
Subject: RE: POTUS Q&A On Internet [UNCLASSIFIED]
It's OK
I would add:
The fact that the Chinese government is pushing back against these changes proves that the changes are real -and deeply threatening to the status quo. It's not an argument for slowing down the effort to bring China into the
world; it's an argument for accelerating it.
·
-----Original Message----Lee, Malcolm R. (NEC)
From:
Sent:
Friday, January 28, 2000 3:35PM
To: Lieberthal, Kenneth G. (ASIA); @PRESS- Public Affairs; @SPEECH- NSC Speechwriters; @ASIA- Asian Affairs; @INTECONEconomic Affairs; Rudman, Mara E. (NSA); Shapiro, Daniel B. (LEGIS)
POTUS Q&A On Internet [UNCLASSIFIED]
Subject:
Ken; Prince in the chief of staff's office has suggested an edit
to the last tick in the internet Q&A, tracking the general point
the President made in his SOTU speech last night on China WTO.
I
think it is a good one. ML
Q:
How do you square China's WTO commitment to allow
international internet access with their recently announced
efforts to control content, including "state secrets"?
•
I believe China understands that it needs the Internet to
succeed in its economic development and reform, but is
struggling, with the Internet as it has in other areas, with
consequences of greater openness.
1
�•
Obviously, the U.S. and other WTO members have their own rules
about protection of classified information.
Our concern is
that such protections not be used to chill legitimate
commercial and public discourse on the Internet.
•
I would expect China once it enters the WTO to live up to its
commitment to all9w access to commercial and public
information from other WTO members.
•
The key fact is that China, in committing to international
internet access, is beginning a process of opening whose
consequences noone can foresee.
China's membership in the WTO
will bring more ideas and information to the Chinese people.
That is good for China and good for the world.
2
�accelerate its progress toward joining the rules-based community of
nations.
•
US-China Accession Agreement has very strong terms.
We look
forward to China's completing its agreements with other WTO members
and remaining work in Geneva so that it can enter the WTO as soon
as possible.
•
At home, we are working very hard to obtain necessary Congressional
support for PNTR for China.
This is one of my highest priorities
this year.
•
Granting China PNTR will guarantee that US business,can benefit
fully from the provisions of China's WTO accession.
This is in the
interest of American business, labor, and agriculture.
(If asked)
Q:
Why is PNTR necessary? Can't the U.S. get the benefits of the
agreement without PNTR, as some have sugges~ed?
•
No.
The United States must grant China permanent Normal Trade
Relations status or risk losing the full benefits of the agreement
we negotiated, including special import protections, vastly
expanded trading rights, and rights to enforce China's commitments
through WTO dispute settlement.
•
If Congress were to refuse to allow the United States to grant
China permanent NTR, our Asian, Latin American and European
competitors would reap these benefits but 'American farmers and
businesses could well be left behind.
Q:
Won't China thwart your reform agenda on labor, the environment
and greater openness of the WTO?
•
I do not believe so.
A·s we made clear in Seattle, the United
believes there i~ a need for greater discussion and progress
on these issues in the WTO.
State~
•
The developing and industrialized world have not reached a
consensus on how to move forward.
These are difficult but
important issues. But I believe that if we are able to form a
positive consensus with developing nations on how to move forward,
that China would join that consensus.
Q:
How do you sqtiare China's WTO commitment to allow international
internet access with the~r recently announced efforts to control
content, including "state secrets"?
•
I believe China understands that it needs the Internet to succeed
in its economic development and reform, but is struggling, with the
Internet as it has in other areas, with consequences of greater
2
�openness.
'
•
Obviously, the U.S. and other WTO members have their own rules
about protection of classified information. Our concern i; that
such protections not be used to chill legitimate commercial and
public discourse on the Internet.
•
I would expect China once it enters the WTO to live up to its
commitment to allow access to commercial and public information
from other WTO members.
•
Increased access to the Internet, and the greater commercial
openness that that China's membership in the WTO would bring, will
invariably bring more ideas and information to the Chinese people.
That is good for China and good for the world.
3
�'j
Sino-:-US Relations OverComing Ten years
Memorial for A. Doak Barnett
October 6, 1999
SAIS
I.
Can never be certain about what will shape
relations over a period of a decade. But count.ries
generally act in their fundamental interests, .even
if passions occas·ionally intrude, too.
If U.S. and
China act in their fundamental interests, then we
have reason to expect a relationship that remains
viable, cooperative in many respects, and also has
continuing elements of. friction.
~
,.
.
.
.
I ,j
-"--····! ~·~·~,1-?t~dr
II. Key interests involved,/11 tn(/f/iLn-1,_
·A. China:
1. Economic
continue to require access to US
market and technologies and to avoid sanctions
that would limit US investment.
4
2 .( Diplomatic/Strat~gic.- reduce US regional·
tj(f1~~
dominance, cooperate with US to maintain
' l.y1u ttl vi tl
peace, develop military capabilities to impose
co.~ts on US if necessary.
.,
~. .
.
_;- )vtf$. ;J/-4~~ ,j-· j-tttf#i4 Cl4tr$itfi~
3. Environmental - Access US technology,
·organizational know-how, and capital to
mitigate pressing environmental problems.
B. US:
1. Diplomatic/Strategic - Strengthen ~hinese
cooperation in nonproliferation, regional
tension reduction and peacekeeping.
2 .. Economic -·constructive Chinese participation
in global trading, IPR, and other regim~.~,
�2
access Chinese market and production
resources.
3. Environmental - encourage· "clean''
technologies, strengthen Chin~se cooperation
in global environmental efforts.
.
· 4.
j~n:'' y/tJ,(,k j/.J-~~afl,/ - ~~<d-!f /It ~"fo<:IIU<WV;/ /.. m<-4/-;,f,;
- __ ility~nd prggress tha~ as f-will expla±n /lL~
below, eatai] making prograss oR what is ,_~(IUJf/J¢~ .
-~ically clubbed a "human tights" agenda.
Jl;·/u?/t(
g/
C. Note:
1. Most of above items are reasonably compatible;
our interests do not fundamentally clash.
2. We do differ to some extent in the degree of
American political and military strength with
which we are comfortable in'the region.
But
both countries have an ongoing interest in
keeping this difference well short of
producing apned conflict.
D. To re-phrase and summarize:
1. China has an interest in an America that is
receptive to cooperation with the PRC and that
does not.seek to constrain China's economic
growth and international weight.
2. The US has an interest in a China that is
successful in·meeting the needs of its people
domestically and is .motivated to participate
constructively in the international arena.
3.
III.
~he
'·
s
above is what both side have in mind when.
II
they have .used the phrase "constructive·
strategic partnership."
What could go wrong?
Fundamentally, five things ..
�3
A. China fails to meet the basic requirements of
s.
its population and become highly unstable. .
.
~
1. Note: This is a danger too little considered.
It would pose problems - potentially including
loose nukes, transnational crime, outmigration, and environmental disasters, among·
others - that we do not know how to handle.
_:::::::.-
2.,ostensibly, the major issue here is economic.
But need to consider the nature of the
international economy in the coming years in
order to appreciate the changes China will
have to make to do well.
3. Increasingly, the international economy will
be globally interdependent, market driven,
high information, technologically dynamic,
competing for global pools of capital based on
concentrations of skills, technology, property
rights protection, and efficiency.
.
,.r~utf.
4. For success, will need a society that.is.AhJ..gh
information, permits creative thinking and
risk taking, ruled by law, with protection of
intellectual and physical property rights,
high mobility, and high levels of education.
Its government will have to enjoy substantial
legftimacy to absorb the shocks of gl.obal
interdependence. And it will also have to be
highly competitive.
5. Three things to note about the above
characterization.
a.
s·
.
Much.of this list of attribut~ overlaps
heavily with. the "human right~'' agenda the
~S promotes.
/~ /~
,~ri ~~
f{u»Ljd'/J
t1h~ ..~AI# 11J;J-
~:;:;:;:~
.~/ )v
--(jJ·<A--.
~dcik~ J
V/1-r{~ It ~
'
.
. .. . ;
11/.
'('11;!t•I.U fl.!, ~1'/}JW£/r#?t-IPL >
J
,-h
.
�/A-tA ~ j u1 JUttdi~ ~~'f;j tJI!Ii;;;;;;;··y
·Nv.. ~~tif- ?
t
b.
China, despite 20 years of enormously
impressive reforms, does not yet have
wholly indigenous manufacturing or service
enterprises that are internationally
competitive on any basis other than cheap
labor. China must open up in a
fundamentally new way, in short,.In order
.to produce Chinese enterprises that are
dynamically efficient at internationa~~.·
· levels. ·71tt1~ (;~,;! ~ ~~~u~2.--·
Jr-::0-.:;;v,.1
c.
v-
·
The Chinese population, because of the
global communications revolution, will be·
keenly aware of the.extent to which the
country falls short - and this can, thus,
impact on stability.
B. Conflict across the Taiwan Strait
1. Perhaps over the coming decade. the most
dangerous issue in Asia.
~-
··2. Iri the worst cas~, conflict across the Strait
could end up ~1~ting ehe US and Chiaa ia a
,conflict that would affect~he future of the
entire region for years t~come, with everyone
a major loser.
·' 1
·.
. A
NMD/TMD
Deploymenf~~14!fJ..;;t-iJ.:;;;;;~~d, could
potentially accelerate arms races, incre~se
threat perceptions, and decrease stability
throughout the region.
Conflict on the Korean peninsula could produce
wide-ranging horrendous consequences, especially
in terms of ensuing developments involving the
US, Japan~ and China.
�/''
.
..
.
.
A central challenge we will face in the new century is to help
community
a~
~~ I
I
.
,
,: /
brin~)China into the glob:}'·~
an open, prosperous and stable nation. The way the world's largest nation
develops will have a profound impact on the future of the world. And China's destiny is far
from foreordained.
If China is isolated and its people are denied the chance to pursue their legitimate aspirations,
this emerging power could one day emerge as a military threat. If China stumbles on the path to
economic and political reform, it could threaten us in a different way, by becoming a weaker
country, beset by internal conflicts and social dislocation.
It is in our interest to see the emergence of a prosperous China with an economy that is open to
American exports. A China whose people have access to ideas and information. A China that
upholds the rule of law at home and that plays by global rules of the road on everything from
nuclear non-proliferation to human rights to trade.
Bringing China into the WTO on the terms we have negotiated will advance all these goals. It
will open a growing market to American workers, farmers, and businesses. And more than any
other step we can take right now, it will encourage China to choose reform, openness, and
integration with the world. For these reasons, I will make it a top priority in the new year to seek
Congressional support for Permanent Normal Trade Relations [NTR]with China, so that we can
benefit when China joins the WTO.
A Good Deal for America
In terms of creating economic opportunities, the China WTO agreement is a "win-win" for both
the United States and China. But when it comes to tariffs, it is China that makes one-way
concessions to open its market to American goods and services. That's right. The United States
�2
makes no new market access commitments. We promise only to maintain the mru:ket access
policies we already apply to China. China values its current access to our market and the
promise ofWTO membership so highly that it is willing to make significant market-opening
concessions to us. And these commitments are enforceable in the WTO. If China is found to
have violated them, we will have the right to take retaliatory trade steps against China.
This agreement will dramatically expand our access to a market of over 1.3 billion people.
China's economy is already among the world's largest. Over the past 20 years, if has expanded
at an extraordinary rate. During this period, U.S. exports to China have grown from negligible
levels to over $14 billion in goods and services each .year and now support nearly 400,000
American jobs. These figures can grow substantially with the new access that the WTO
agreement creates.
On key U.S. agricultural prod:ucts, China's tariffs will drop from an average of31.5% to 14.4%
by January 2004.
The deal will significantly expand export opportunities for bulk commodities
such as wheat, corn and rice. Sales in the Chinese market will be a boon to American farmers,
many of whom have struggled through tough times recently.
Tariffs on U.S. industrial products will fall from an average of24.6% in 1997 to an average of
9.4% by 2005. Our manufacturers, as well as our farmers, will gain the right to trade and
distribute freely inside China, without going through state trading enterprises or middle men.
Tariffs on products such as computers, semiconductors, and all Internet-related equipment will
shrink from an average of 13.3% to zero by 2005. Our information technology firms lead the
world and stand to do very well in China's huge, expanding and information-hungry market.
�3
The agreement also opens China's market for services, including distribution, insurance,
telecommunications, banking and professional services. Here, too, American firms are world
leaders and will find tremendous opportunity in China.
The agreement provides safeguards to prevent unfair competition that would harm American
workers. It includes a "product-specific" safeguard that allows us to take trade measures
focused on China in case of an import surge that threatens a particular U.S. industry. This
protection remains in effect a fulll2 years after China enters the WTO and is stronger and more
targeted relief than is provided under current U.S. law.
The agreement also provides strong protections against "dumping," the sale of goods in our
market below the producer's costs. We fought hard in negotiations and got China to agree that
for fifteen years after its accession to the WTO, the United States may employ special methods,
designed for non-market economies, to counteract dumping.
I
And under the agreement, we will have, for the first time, effective means to combat Chinese
practices -- such as forced technology transfer and local content requirements -- that drain jobs,
investment and technology from the U.S. Our businesses will be able to export to China from
,
home, rather than being forced to set up factories in China in order to sell products there.
The agreement also increases our leverage with China in the event o(a future trade dispute. As a
member of the WTO, China must agree to submit disputes to that body for adjudication. China
.could ignore these decisions only by thwarting the collective will of the WTO's 135 members;
an unwise course if wants to reap the benefits of global trade.
Under WTO rules, we can and we will- even when dealing with a country that has NTR status -continue to block imports of goods made with prison labor, maintain our export control policies,
�4
enforce our trade laws, and, in a national security emergency, withdraw benefits, including NTR
itself.
These measures take account of, and in many cases are based upon, concerns raised by American
workers before and during the negotiations. As a result, no agreement on any nation's accession
to the WTO has ever contained tougher measures to strengthen guarantees of fair trade.
A negative vote by the Congress would deny American firms the ability to enter the Chinese
market under WTO rules. It might force American farmers and businesses to look on helplessly
as European and Japanese competitors stake out privileged positions in one of the 21st century's
biggest markets.
Promoting the Rule of Law, Economic Freedom, and Human Rights in China
The economic benefits of this deal to America are clear. But that is not the end of the argument.
For there is no contradiction here between expanding trade, projecting our values, and protecting
our security. On the contrary; bringing China into the WTO advances all three goals.
To understand why, we need to see China clearly- its progress and its problems, its system and
its strains, its policies and its perceptions of us, of itself and the world.
In the last 20 years, China has made incredible progress in building a new economy, lifting more
than 200 million people out of absolute poverty. But .China's working age population is
increasing by more than 12 million people- equal to the population of New England- every
year. Tens of millions of peasants are migrating from the countryside, where they see no future,
�5
to the city, where only some find work. China's economic growth has slowed just when it needs
to be rising to create jobs for the unemployed and to maintain support for economic reform.
I have met a number of times with Chinese Pre~ident Jiang and with Prime Minister Zhu, and I
know they are working hard to reform China's banks and state enterprises and to fight
corruption. But China's progress is still held back by resistance to political reforms vital to its
long term stability. As I have argued to China's leaders many times, China will be less likely to
succeed if its people cannot exchange information freely; if it does not build the legal and
political foundation to compete for global capital; if its political system doesn't gain the
legitimacy that comes from democratic choice.
That is another reason why bringing China into the WTO is so important.
The agreement obligates China to deepen its market reforms, empowering leaders who want their
country to move further and faster toward economic freedom. It will give Chinese as well as
foreign businesses freedom to import and export on their own, and to sell their products without
going through government middle-men. It will open China's telecommunications market, giving
its people greater access to uncensored information through satellites and the Internet.
In the past, the Chinese state was employer, landlord, shopkeeper and news-provider all rolled
into one. This agreement will accelerate a process that is removing the government from vast
areas of China's economic life. China's people will have greater scope to live their lives as they
see fit. And as they become more mobile, more prosperous, more aware of alternative ways of
life, they will seek greater say in the decisions that affect their lives.
The agreement also obliges the Chinese government to publish laws and regulations and subjects
pertinent decisions to the review of an international body. That will strengthen the rule of law in
�6
China, and increase the likelihood that it will play by global rules as well. It will advance our
larger interest in bringing China into international agreements and institutions that can make it a
more constructive player in the world, with a stake in preserving peace and stability, instead of
reverting to the status of a brooding giant at the edge of the community of nations.
Many courageous proponents of change in China agree. Martin Lee, the leader of Hong Kong's
Democratic party, says that without entry to the WTO, "any hope for the political and reform
process would also recede." Chinese dissident Ren Wanding said upon the deal's completion:
"Before, the sky was black; now it is light. This can be a new beginning."
wo~f_r~(ve
o.. tl f':o/;fetwt/
Of course, this trade agreement alone cannot bring the change we all seek. We must and will
continue to speak out on behalf of people in China who are persecuted for their political and
religious beliefs; to press China to respect global norms on non-proliferation; to encourage Qhina
to be part of the solution to the problem of global climate change. And we will hold China to the
obligations it is accepting by joining the WTO.
In short, we will protect our interests with firmness and candor. But we must do so without
isolating China from the global forces empowering its people to build a better .future. For that
would leave the Chinese people with less access to information, less contact with the democratic
world, and more resistance from their government to outside influence and ideas. No one could
possibly benefit from that except for the most rigid, anti-democratic elements in China itself.
Let's not give them a victory by locking China out of the WTO.·
In sum, bringing China into the WTO will boost American exports and strengthen the American
economy. And it is simply the most effective means we have to encourage China to choose
deeper economic reform and respect for the rule of law; to choose to play by international rules
instead of defying them; to choose integration with the world instead of self-isolation.
�7
This deal advances our interests and our values. I am confident that after a vigorous debate, it
will have the support of the Congress and the American people.
�Draft 01/07/00 7:00pm
Heather Hurlburt
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
DEPARTURE STATEMENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, DC
January 10, 2000
Good afternoon. I am very proud to introduce the people who will be leading our all-out
effort to secure Permanent Normal Trade Relations status for China, to make sure the United
States benefits when China enters the World Trade Organization.
This is vital for America's economy, and America's future; and it is important for the
kind of China we want to see. That is why I have asked Secretary of Commerce Bill Daley and
my deputy chief of staff Steve Ricchetti to lead the team, and w~y we have such broad
participation from my Cabinet here today: Secretary of State Albright, Treasury Secretary
Summers, Agriculture Secretary Glickman, USTR Barshefsky, my chief of staff John Podesta,
National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, and head of the National Economic Council Gene
Sperling.
They are meeting today to discuss the strategy for making our case to the American
people. We are meeting with members of Congress, business and labor and others across this
country, to talk about why this is the right thing for the United States, the right thing for workers
and investors, and ultimately the right way to encourage more openness and reform in 21st
century China.
This agreement is a home run for America. China gains no new market access to the
United States, nothing beyond what they already have. In fact, we will gain tough new
safeguards against the dumping of products and surges of imports that have hurt Americans in
the past.
American products will gain better access to China's market in every sector from
agriculture to telecommunications to automobiles. China's tariffs on U.S. goods will fall by half
or more over the next five years. And by joining the WTO, China agrees to play by the same
trade rules we do. To provide fair conditions for businesses and investors. To enforce contracts,
open up to outside information, and ensure greater respect for the rule of law.
This agreement is also a good deal for the people of China. They gain access to new
goods and services. They gain more access to the outside world, from books and movies to
computers and the Internet. And they gain access to new ideas and debates - about personal
freedom and opportunity. About democracy and the role of the state. And about how China can
look to the world not as an enemy but a partner for the century ahead.
�~
4)
...
Bringing China into the WTO will protect our prosperity and promote the right kind of
·. change. It is good for our farmers, our manufacturers, our workers and our investors. And by
encouraging China to play by international rules it is an important step toward a safer, saner
world. We will be working hard over the coming weeks and months to make sure we don't let
this opportunity pass America by. Thank you very much.
,.;
r
�Keith, James R. (ASIA)
China has 8.9 million Internet users in winter 2000, versus 2 million a year ago, according to Chinese govt stats.
1
�01/24/00
MON 19:45 FAX 201._!56 925_0
ASIAN AFFAIRS
.;----:=.-·----··----V...L,-
_._,.
141 002
.,.._
~-·.
THE INTRODUCTION OF COMPETITION RaSULTS •IN N.II.T~;JRAL E'RESSUR:Il:
FOR PROGRESS, A. DECADE AGO, CHINA'S BES':I' AND BRIG·HTSST COLLEGE
GRADUATES WOULD SEEX JOBS IN THE GOVERNMBN'l', '!If ~RGJ:: STAT'B
OWNBO FIRMS, OR J:N STAT&:·RUN VHIVER.SITI!i!S OR isCIENTIFIC
INSTITUTES. NOW THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST ARB CHOOSING TO WORX FOR
FOREIGN INVESt'ED ENTERPRISES OR START INa TJIEIR OWN COMI'ANIES _ ·
IN PORSIGN INViSTED ENTiRPRISES NOT ONLY DO ~HEY GBT HIGHER PAY.
BUT ALSO A BE'f!ER WORK ENVIRONMENT WHERE THiil'i ARB RE:WARDBD FOR
THBia ACHI!VEM!NTS AND NOT FOR POLITICAL CONNECTIONS.
IN SUCH
AN SNVIRONMENT, CHINii:SB WCRXBRS ENJOY A SAFE •AND C:t.EAN WORJ(1'LA.CE
WRBRE tHiilY ARE RESPECTED AND HHERE THEIR UlPtJT IS 'VAl.OED.
IHSUBD WITH THE VALUES OF TEANWOltK, USPEcr ~R IN.DlVIDWU:.
RIGHTS, AND lilNVIRONMENTAL RESPO!fSIBILIT't, THI'S RISING GENERATION
WILL HAVE AN INCALCtJLABL£ IMPACT ON CHINA 1 S Fb:roR.E.
INDUSTRY
SOR.VEYS SkOW THAT U-S- COMPANIES ARE THE LEAD~ IN TH.S: CHINESE
Ml\R.XE:T IN DJ:l'VE:t.OPING HUMAN RESOURCES_ C:HIN.ES£ FIRII4S ARr;;
LBARNING 7HAT IF THEY CANNOT ~GE THEIR WORkiNG :iTYLE TO HEET
THE STANDARDS OF FOREIGN PIRMS, THeY WIL~ ~OSE OUT ON THE
CRITICAL WAR FOR TALENT.
.>
THE STOR.ll' OP A FEW IN!li\IIDUALS ALSO HlG!•ILIGHT$ THE
POTENTIAL BEN£FITS OF WTO:
ONE. YOUNG MAN G~UATED AT TlU3 TOP OF HIS CLASS FROM om: OF
SHANGHA:t I s BEST tiNIVER.SITIBS SB'mRAL YHAAS . AG9. Hl~ Dlill:lD!llP TO
TAKS A JOB WITH A FOREIGN FINANCIAL SERVICES fiRM J~ QUICKLY
CLIMBED Tlilil RAN1CS TO BECOME VICB PRESIDiiiNT, TODAY,. .JUST SHY OF
THIRTY YEARS OLD, HE OwNS HIS OWN HOMB AND HAS HIS OWN MEDICAL
INSORJ\NCE ANti PENSION PLAN- HIS Wn'K WORICS FOR TH" EQUIVAL:eNT
OF A LOCAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICJll. WHAT IS PiR.lt:AI?S MOST
STRIKING, IS THAT Hlii IS PlANNING TO HAVE TWO CHILDRBN. HE
AOMITS THAT HE KAY HAVE TO PAY A FINE AND THAt HIS WIPE MAY HAVE
TO .FIND A NEW JOB, BUT WITH HIS J08 AT A FOREIGN Fl:RM, I'l' IS
THEIR CHOICE TO MAKE_
WTO BNTRY WILL PR.OVIOE: MOU SUCH
OPPORTONITIES FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE CHOICES ABOUT kEY LIFE
DECISIONS.
ABOUT TEN YBARS A.GC, ANOTHSR HAN GRADUATED WI1~ AN ENG~ISH
DEGREE FROM A SMALL COt.LBGB AND WENT TO WORK AT A JrOINT VENTURI::
-HOTEL IN A SMAI.I. GR.OC!liRY STORB. AFTER A FEW YBARS, WITH AN
INVESTM!ilNT 011' 2000 RHB (APPROXIMATELY 240 C'SO{ TO RENT A SMALL
ROOM, A DilSK. ANil A BIC\'CLE, HE STARTKD, A GRDqERY J:•lilLIViiiRY ·
SERVICE CATERING TO lilXPATRIATES IN SHANGHAI. iUSINCli HIS
.. ·
PROCEEDS, A FBW YEARS ~TBR HB STARTiD A GROCBRY S1QR2, STOCKBD
ALMOST. iilNTIRii11oY WITH IMPORT!i!D GOODS. NOW Hlil HAs E~t::PANDED TO T'BN
· GROCERY S'l'ORiilS IN THE SHANGHAI AREA AND HAS A !DELIVERY SERVICE
THAT COVERS SJMilRAL PROVINCBS. IN lilASTDRN CliiNli.. S'I'ILL, HOWEVER,
HE CANNOT GET A BANK ~OAN AND IS TOO SMALL TO!QCALIFY FOR A
FOREIGN PARTNER UNDER CURRENT ·ROLES TO FURTHE~ EXPAND HIS
BUSINESS • WTO ENTRY MSANS FOR EASIER ACCESS TO CREDIT 1\ND THE
POSSIBILITY OF PARTN&RING WITH A FOREIGN GROCER TO GAIN MORE
EXPER~ISE AND LOWER IMPORTATI~ COSTS. ,FOR ENTREPRENEURS LIXE
t!IM. WTO ENTRY HBANS GRiilATER OPPORTUNITIES FOR PRIVATE .
ENTERPRISE AND THE CHANCE TO BUILD THEIR DREAMS.
.
i
IN THE HOT J:N'l'ERHiT Sli:C:TDR, A MAN FROM lil~Tii!RN CHINA J'UMPED
ON THB: BANDWAGON I!:ARLY IN 1995 BEIFORE MOST CH~NBSE HAI:I EVEN
HEARD OF THE UITEIRNI!lT- AFTER FAILING IN HIS CREAM TO STUDY
ABROAD, HE STARTED HIS FIRST COMPANY, WHICH WAs A MODERATE
SUCCESS. }m THEN SPENT FIFTEEN MONTHS IN A ~INSSE MINISTRY
HELPING IT TO GET ONLINE. NOW KE ;ms STARTED
COMPANY THE
SPECIALIZES iN BUSINESS TO BUSINESS COMMERCE, ~OTAni..Y ONE OF THE
SECTORS IN CHINA THAT IS MOST RIPE WITH CORRg~ION, ALTHOUGH
THiil COMPANY Is ACTUALLY BASED' IN cHINA. u HAD: To oFFICIALLY
REGISTBR IN HONG KONG TO BE ABL2 TO R8CJU:VB FOR!i!IGN lNVEStMBNT, .
THE COMPANY HAS NON RECEIV2D OVER 20 MILLION D~LLAR.S FROM A
VENTC'R.E CAPITAI. GROOP. IF SUCCBSSF'OL, HIS CoMrANY llifiLL
REVOLUTIONIZE THE WAY BUSINESSES RUN THEIR PURCHASI~G AND
PROCUREMENT OPERATIONS IN CHINA MAKING THBM TRANSP~RENT AND LESS
PRONE TO KICKBACKS AND BRIBES. WTO BNTRY FOR CHINA WILL
ELIMINATE THE RESTRICTIONS ON FOREIGN INVESTH~T IN THE INTBRNET
SECTOR AND. GO A LONG WAY TOWARD MAKING CHINA A! KEY IJNRAMP ON THE
A
INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY.
\
�Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
002. notes
SUBJECTrfiTLE
DATE
re: Internal meeting concerning China speech (3 pages)
RESTRICTION
n.d.
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
National Security Council
Speechwriting (Paul Orzulak)
OA/Box Number: 4022
FOLDER TITLE:
Chinall[l]
2008-0702-F
'm202
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- 144 U.S.C. 2204(a)l
Freedom of Information Act- 15 U.S.C. 552(b)l
PI
P2
PJ
P4
b(l) National security classified information l(b)(l) of the FOIAI
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency l(b)(2) of the FOIAI
b(J) Release would violate a Federal statute l(b)(J) of the FOIAI
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information l(b)(4) of the FOIAI
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy l(b)(6) of the FOIAI
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes l(b)(7) of the FOIAI
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions l(b)(8) of the FOIAI
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning wells l(b)(9) of the FOIAI
National Security Classified Information l(a)(l) of the PRAI
Relating to the appointment to Federal office l(a)(2) of the PRAI
Release would violate a Federal statute l(a)(J) of the PRAI
Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information l(a)(4) of the PRAI
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors la)(S) of the PRAI
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy l(a)(6) of the PRAI
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
�Orzulak, Paul K. (SPCHW)
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Lieberthal, Kenneth G. (ASIA)
Friday, January 28, 2000 6:44 PM
@CHINAPNTR - China PNTR
@ASIA - Asian Affairs
PNTR vs. Annual Renewal [UNCLASSIFIED]
The argument we make to explain why retaining annual renewal of NTR will
not suffice - and therefore PNTR is necessary - is probably the most
important single item in the materials we are putting out.
I have talked
extensively with John Jackson, who is one of the world's leading legal
experts on the WTO.
He makes a compelling case that annual renewal will
not meet the WTO test.
I can lay out that case in detail if you wish.
For
now, though, · I want to see whether we can get agreement on the £allowing
language.
I am circulating this simply to put it on the PNTR Group's
agenda.
Thanks.
~For WTO rules to apply to trade between the US and China, each country
must grant the other unconditional NTR 9nd must treat the country in the
same way it treats ·all other WTO members. US provision for annual renewal
of NTR does not meet <these tests. Without granting China permanent NTR, in
short, Americ~n firms will almost certainly be put at a tremendous
competitive disadvantage against firms from all other countries in the
China market.
Our WTO agreement with China vastly improves our access to
the Chinese market over current arrangements.
We must grant permanent NTR
to avoid being the only country that does not enjoy these enhanced
provisions."
Ken
�1/29/00 9:00a.m.
Orzulak
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR SAMUEL R. BERGER
REMARKS TO
THE WILSON CENTER
ON CHINA
WASHINGTON, D.C.
FEBRUARY 4, 2000
Speaking to the Wilson Center is always a daunting prospect. It brings to mind the story of the
man who survived the famous Johnstown flood. All his life, this man would stop and tell
everybody he met the story of how he survived the Johnstown flood. When he died, he went to
heaven, and immediately asked St. Peter to convene a crowd so he could tell them about his
experiences in the great flood. St. Peter said; "I'd be happy to .. But you have to remember one
thing- Noah will be in the audience."
That's a little bit how it feels to address the Wilson Center. For more than 50 years, this body
has helped America think through the most challenging foreign policy issues of the day. On
behalf of the President, I want to thank you for all you have done to help our Administration and
the American people build a safer, better, more prosperous world.
Last week, we heard the President give a powerful summary of America's place in the world at
the beginning of a new century. It's not hard to feel optimistic about the future. America today is
enjoying the longest economic expansion in its history. Our military strength is unchallenged .
. Our alliances are strong. Our values are ascendant. Eighty years after Woodrow Wilson hoped
that American leadership would make the world safe for democracy- today, for the first time in
history, more than half the world's population live under governments of their own choosing.
But as the President said last Thursday, this is not a world without dangers to us. There is a
chance that our security could be threatened by 'regi9nal conflicts that pose the risk of a wider
war, especially those rooted in ethnic and religious tensions. There is a danger that the
inexorable march of technology will give terrorists and hostile nations the means to undermine
our defenses, and force us to live again in fear. There is a chance that the stability of the 21st
Century will be threatened by an ever-widening gap between rich and poor. And of course, there
is the possibility that our former adversaries Russia and China will fail in their effort to emerge
as stable, prosperous, democratic partners ofthe United States.
,!:
Today, I want to talk about China. For three decades, America has labored to help shape a China
with an economy that is open to American products, farmers, and businesses. A China whose
people have access to ideas and information. A China that upholds the rule of law and plays by
global rules on everything from nuclear non-proliferation to human rights to trade. This year, we
have the best opportunity we have ever had to begin to turn those goals into a reality. The issue,
of course, is China's entry into the World Trade Organization.
Last fall, we negotiated an agreement to bring China into the WTO in a way that will advance all
of those goals, while benefiting America in unprecedented new ways. But to realize those
benefits, we have a decision to make: will Congress support granting China permanent Normal
�2
Trade Relations status, which is our part of the deal, and the same exact carrot we have given to
every one of our partners in the WTO? Or will Congress turn its back on the most sweeping
democratic changes China has agreed to make in its history, settle for the status quo, and risk
even more lost ground on the issues we care about?
We know that this is going to be a difficult debate, because there are a lot of honest people on
both sides of the aisle who have real questions about China. But let me take a few minutes today
to talk about why supporting this agreement - and voting yes on permanent NTR for China -- is
the right thing to do.
Every trade debate begins with the simple question: will our nation be better off with this
agreement, or without it? Will our economy and our workforce benefit from the terms we've
negotiated, or will they suffer? From an economic perspective, there is no denying that this
agreement is an absolute home run for America.·
For more than a decade, critics have complained that China has had significant ·access to our
markets, while their markets have been virtually closed to American products and services. And
that has been largely true. The incredible thing about this agreement is that China makes huge
new concessions to open its market to America- but America doesn't have to give China any
new access to our markets.· It's the trade equivalent of a one-way street. China values the
promise ofWTO membership so highly that it is willing to open a gaping hole in its markets to
us. But we promise only to maintain the market access policies we already apply to China. So
rejecting this agreement will in no way affect China's access to our markets. It will only
continue to limit our access to theirs, and continue to ensure that our trade deficit remains high.
On the numbers alone, this agreement will dramatically expand our access to a market of more
than 1.3 billion people. China's economy is already among the world's largest. Over the past 20
years, it has expanded at an extraordinary·rate. During this period, U.S. exports to China have
grown from negligible levels to more than $14 billion in goods and services each year and now
supports 400,000 American jobs.· These figures will grow substantially with the new access that
the WTO agreement creates.
On key agricultural products, China's tariffs will drop by 60 percent by January 2004 - and
dramatically expand export opportunities for our farmers who grow bulk commodities like
wheat, rice, and corn. Tariffs on industrial products will drop by nearly two-thirds, from '25
percent in 1997 to an average of 9.4 percent by 2005. Both our manufacturers and our farmers
will gain the right to trade and distribute freely inside China, without going through state trading
companies or middle men. And on products such as computers, semiconductors, and all
Internet-related equipment, tariffs will shrink to zero' by the year 2005. Our information
technology firms lead the world and stand to do very well in China's huge, expanding, and
information-hungry market.
The agreement also opens China's market for services, including distribution, insurance,
telecommunications, banking, professional and environmental services. Here, too, American
firms are world leaders and will find tremendous opportunities in China.
And it directly responds to concerns raised by Republicans and Democrats alike about unfair
trade practices in China. The agreement provides safeguards to prevent unfair competition that
�3
would harm American workers. It includes a "product-specific" safeguard that allows us to take
trade measures focused on China in case of an import surge that threatens a particular U.S.
industry. It provides strong protections against "dumping" th~ sale of goods in our market below
the producer's costs. And under the agreement; we will have, for the first time, effective means
to combat Chinese practices - such as forced technology transfers and local content requirements
-that drain jobs, investment and technology from the United States. Most importantly, our
businesses will be able to export to China from home, rather than being forced to set up factories
in China to sell products there.
That is what this agreement means in principle. But just think about what it means in practice.
Look at the auto industry. Right now, a car made in Dearborn faces an 80 to 100 percent tariff
before it can be sold in Shanghai --which prices us right out of the market. So if you want to sell
cars in China, you actually have to go to China. And what you do is, you find a Chinese middleman, either a state-run or private-run firm- because American firms aren't allowed to directly
own anything in China - and you contract to have an equity stake in the company. But then, to
sell your cars, the law says you have to teach the Chinese how to make them. So you have to
transfer a huge amount of your technology to China, teach them how to use it, and then you leave
it to them to make your cars -- which essentially means you are transferring both your product
and your training to your eventual competitors. Of course, it's also against the law to import
American car parts, so you have to work with Chinese vendors to set up components processors,
and train them how to make those, too.
And of course, Americans are not allowed to run distribution centers, so once your parts are
made, it is in the hands of the Chinese to sell those, too. On top of that, Americans are not
allowed to set up service centers, either. Since there is no real service industry, most Chinese
buy cars with the understanding that they have to learn how to fix them too - if they can get the ·
parts. Of course, all that assumes that the Chinese can buy the cars in the first place, because the
only financing that is allowed in China is through state-run banks - and they don't make loans
for cars. Little wonder that there are more bicycles in Shanghai than automobiles.
That's how it works now. Under the new agreement, it's completely different. Tariffs on
American cars fall by 75 percent, so we can compete in Shanghai. The requirement that we have
to produce the cars in China is eliminated. So is the requirement that we have to transfer our
own technology. :what's more, American manufacturers will now be free to ship parts made in
America into China, to set up their own distribution centers, and to run their own service shops which means, for the first time, Chinese who buy cars will actually be able to get them fixed by
the manufacturer. On top of all that, China also agreed to let our car companies like GM and
Ford set up financing operations in China itself, to help the Chinese buy our cars.
From our perspective, it means that we're going to sell a lot more American-made and
American-assembled cars in China, which means a lot more American jobs. In return, the
Chinese end up with much better products at lower prices. Think about what this means for
competition in China. It means that a lot of Chinese fimis that can't compete will go belly-up, ·
but those that do survive -like Honda did in Japan- will become global players. Why is China
willing to make this deal? Mter all, their automotive industry vehemently opposes it. Because it
knows that if it is going to develop into a modem economy, its people must be mobile. They
must be able to get to the jobs. They're not going to get there by relying on old bicycles.
�4
Take that example and multiply it out across all of our other industries -from manufacturing to
high-tech to insurance to agriculture - and you begin to get an idea of how much prosperity this
deal could bring to both the American and Chinese economies. You also realize it won't take
long to see the balance on that trade deficit shift dramatically.
That is what America gets under the trade agreement we negotiated last fall. All we are required
to do in return is to grant China permanent normal trade relations status, to bring China into the
WTO. It's important to understand what that means: permanent NTR is not a favor to China. It
is the same arrangement we have with the other 135 nations who are our partners in the WTO. It
is the entry fee that nations pay to join the world trading system. It simply means that we will
give you the same tariff schedule we apply to every other nation in the world, and you will give
us yours.
Passing permanent NTR with China does not mean that Congress is permanently barred from
ever revisiting the issue of Chinese trade. Congress always has the authority to visit our trading
relationships with any nation, as well as any other part of our relationship with China; and that's
the way it should be. What it will do is get us out of the cycle we are now in, where the future of
Chinese trade comes up for a vote every single year in Congress. As a nation, it is in our interest
to encourage American companies to help us build a more open, democratic China. It is difficult
to build the long-term relationships that make those efforts possible if there is a new threat every
single year that they will be disrupted.
It's also fair to ask: how do we know that China won't cheat? With any trade agreement we
sign, there is always the possibility that there will be violations. Right now, if China violates our
trade agreement, we have no recourse, short of pulling the plug on trade. This agreement ,
increases our leverage with China in the event of a future trade dispute on everything from
intellectual property to dumping. Most importantly, as a member of the WTO, China must also
agree to submit disputes to that body for adjudication. China could ignore these decisions by
thwarting the collective will of the WTO' s 13 5 members - an unwise course if it wants to reap
the benefits of global trade. In the end, this agreement gives America much better pr:otections
and mechanisms to handle disputes, while making no new demands upon our markets.
If Congress votes yes on PNTR, we will get open markets and more American jobs. If Congress
votes no, it would deny American firms the ability to enter the Chinese market under- WTO rules,
and risk losing the special import protections and vastly expanded trading rights that we
negotiated. It might force American farmers and businesses to look on helplessly as European
and Japanese competitors stake out privileged positions in one ofthe 21st Century's biggest
markets.
·
The economic benefits of this deal to America are clear. But that is not the end of the argument.
. This agreement is just as vital to our national security interests as it is to our economic interests.
As a nation, we have a tremendous stake in how China evolves. A large part of our future is tied
to Asia. The stability of Asia- both economically and militarily- is tied directly to the stability
of China, the largest nation in the world. As China develops, the light it shines or the shadow it
casts will be felt very far from its own borders in the 21st Century.
�---------------------------------------
5
Today, we have more questions than answers: will China become an open, democratic society
that respects the human rights and freedoms of all its people- or will it continue to operate
behind a great wall of secrecy, repression, and fear? Will it come to grips with the need for
economic reform to ensure its own viability in this increasingly globalized world- or will it be a
nation unable to deal with its own problems, and collapse from within? Will it develop in a way
that pulls it into the international community and ·sees it play by international rules - or will it
stay outside the system and be the world's next great threat to freedom and security? There is
no magic solution to any one of these questions. But one thing we do know: bringing China into
the WTO will help move it in the right direction on each of these issues.
To understand why, we need to see China clearly- its progress and its problems, its system and
its strains, its policies and its perceptions of us, of itself, and the world.
·
In the last 20 years, China has made incredible progress in building a new economy, lifting more
than 200 million people out of absolute poverty. But China's working age population is
increasing by more than 12 million people- equal to the population of New England- every
year.· Tens of millions of peasants are migrating from the countryside, where they see no future,
to the city, where only some find work. China's economic growth has slowed just when it needs
to be rising to create jobs for the unemployed and maintain support for economic reform.
For all the progress of China's reforms, private enterprise still accounts for less than 20 percent
of the non-farm economy. State-held stock.st1ll accounts for 62 percent of all the equity issued
by companies listed on China's stock exchange. Much of China's landscape is still dominated
by the unprofitable polluting state industries. China state banks are still making massive loans to
struggling state firms, the sector of the economy least likely to succeed.
Last year, 1 met with Premier Zhu. I know that he is committed to making far-reaching changes.
They also know that in the short run, reform will cause more unemployment, and more unrest.
Last year alone, the State Economic and Trade Commission ordered the closing of25,000 small
coal mines. That came on top of a government reorganization that cut the formal employment in
the central government in half. While they cut the government, so far they have been unwilling
to open China's political system because they see that as contributing to instability when, in fact,
giving people a say in their decisions actually provides a peaceful outlet for venting frustration.
China's biggest challenge through all this will be to maintain stability and growth at home by
meeting, not stifling, the growing demands of its people for openness and accountability. It is
easy for us to say; for them, it is a daunting task.
What does this mean for us? As the President has said, if we've learned anything in the last few
years from Japan's long recession and Russia's current economic troubles, it is that the
weaknesses of great nations can pose as big a challenge to America as their strengths. So as we
focus on the potential challenge that a strong China could present to the United States in the
future, let us not forget the risk of a weak China, beset by internal conflicts, social dislocation
and criminal activity, becoming· a vast zone of instability in Asia.
The solutions fundamentally lie in the choices China makes. We have an interest in seeking to
make a difference and in not pretending that the outcome is foreordained. China's entry into the
WTO will help meet these challenges in three fundamental ways.
�6
First,
To understand why, we should not look at China through rose-colored glasses, nor whould we
look through a glass darkly to see an image that distorts China's strength and ignores its
complexities. We need to step back and see China clearly- its progress and its problems, its
system and its strains, its policies and perceptions of us, of itself, and the world.
As a nation, we have a tremendous interest in how China evolves.
�7
�·1/29/00 9:00 a.m.
Orzulak
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR SAMUEL R. BERGER
REMARKS TO
THE WILSON CENTER
ON CHINA
WASHINGTON, D.C.
FEBRUARY 4, 2000
Speaking to the Wilson Center is always a daunting prospect. It brings to mind the story of the
man who survived the famous Johnstown flood. All his life, this man would stop and tell
everybody he met the story of how he survived the Johnstown flood. When he died, he went to
heaven, and immediately asked St. Peter to convene a crowd so he could tell them about his
experiences in the great flood. St. Peter said, "I'd be happy to. But you have to remember one
thing -Noah will be in the audience."
·
That's a little bit how it feels to address the Wilson.Center. For more than 50 years, this body
has helped America think through the most challenging foreign policy issues of the· day. On
behalf of the President, I want to thank you for all you have done to help our Administration and
the American people build a safer, better, more prosperous world.
Last week, we heard the President give a powerful summary of America's place in the world at
the beginning of a new century. It's not hard to feel optimistic about the future. America today is
enjoying the"longest economic expansion in its history. Our military strength is unchallenged.
Our alliances are strong. Our values are ascendant. Eighty years after Woodrow Wilson hoped
that American leadership would make the world safe for democracy- today, for the first time in
history, more than half the world's population live under governments of_their own choosing.
But as the President said last Thursday, this is not a world without dangers to us. There is a
chance that our security could be threatened by regional conflicts that pose the risk of a wider
war, especially those rooted in ethnic and religious tensions. There is a dangerthat the
inexorable march of technology will give terrorists and hostile nations the means to undermine
our defenses, and force us to live again in fear. There is a chance that the stability of the 21st
Century will be threatened by an ever-widening gap between rich and poor. And of course, there
is the possibility that our former adversaries Russia and China will fail in their effort to emerge
as stable, prosperous, democratic partners of the United States.
Today, I want to talk about China. For three decades, America has labored to help shape a China
with an economy that is open to American products, farmers, and businesses. A China whose ·
people have access to ideas and information. A China that upholds the rule of law and plays by
global rules on everything from nuclear non-proliferation to human rights to trade. This year, we
have the best opportunity we have ever had to begin to turn those goals into a reality. The issue,
of course, is China's entry into the World Trade Organization.
Last fall, we negotiated an agreement to bring China into the WTO in a way that will advance all
of those goals, while benefiting America in unprecedented new ways. But to realize those
benefits, we have a decision to make: will Congress support granting China permanent Normal
�2
Trade Relations status, which is our part of the deal, and the same exact carrot we have given to
every one of our partners in the WTO? Or will Congress turn its back on the most sweeping
democratic changes China has agreed to make in its history, settle for the status quo, and risk
even more lost ground on the issues we care about? :
We know that this is going to be a difficult debate, because there are a lot of honest people on
both sides of the aisle who have real questions about China. But let me take a few minutes today
to talk about why supporting this agreement - and voting yes on permanent NTR for China -- is
the right thing to do.
Every trade debate begins with the simple question: will our nation be better off with this
agreement, or without it? Will our economy and our workforce benefit from the terms we've
negotiated, or will they suffer? From an economic perspective, there is no denying that this
agreement is an absolute home run for America.
For more than a decade, critics have complained that China has had significant access to our
markets, while their markets have been virtually closed to American products and services. And
that has been largely true: The incredible thing about this agreement is that China makes huge
new concessions to open its market to America- but America doesn't have to give China any ·
new access to our markets. It's the trade equivalent of a one-way street. China values the
promise ofWTO membership so highly that it is willing to open a gaping hole in its markets to
us. But we promise only to maintain the market access policies we already apply to China. So
rejecting this agreement will in no way affect China's access to our markets. It will only
continue to limit our access to theirs, and continue to ensure that our trade deficit remains high.
On the numbers alone, this agreement will dramatically expand our access to a market of more
than 1.3 billion people. China's economy is already among the world's largest. Over the past 20
years, it has expanded at an extraordinary rate. During this period, U.S. exports to China have
grown from negligible levels to more than $14 billion in goods and services each year and now
supports 400,000 American jobs. These figures will grow substantially with the new access that
the WTO agreement creates.
On key agricultural products, China's tariffs will drop by 60 percent by January 2004 - and
dramatically expand export opportunities for our farmers who grow bulk commodities like
wheat, rice, and corn. Tariffs on industrial products will drop by nearly two-thirds, from 25
percent in 1997 to an average of9.4 percent by 2005. Both our manufacturers and our farmers
will gain the right to trade and distribute freely inside China, without going through state trading
companies or middle men. And on products such as computers, semiconductors, and all
Internet-related equipment, tariffs will shrink to zero by the year 2005. Our information
technology firms lead the world and stand to do very well in China's huge, expanding, and
information-hungry market.
The agreement also.opens China's market for services, including distribution, insurance,
telecommunications, banking, professional and environmental services. Here, too, American
firms are world leaders and will find tremendous opportunities in China.
And it directly responds to concerns raised by Republicans and Democrats alike about unfair
trade practices in China. The agreement provides safeguards to prevent unfair competition that
�3
would harm American workers. It includes a "product-specific" safeguard that allows us to take
trade measures focused on China in case of an import surge that threatens a particular U.S.
industry. It provides strong protections against "dumping" the sale of goods in our market below
the producer's costs. And under the agreement, we will have, for the first time, effective means
to combat Chinese practices - such as forced technology transfers and local content requirements
-that drain jobs, investment and technology from the United States. Most importantly, our
businesses will be able to export to China from home, rather than being forced to set up factories
in China to sell products there.·
That is what this agreement means in principle. But just think about what it means in practice.
Look at the auto industry. Right now, a car made in Dearborn faces an 80 to 100 percent tariff
before it can be sold in Shanghai --which prices us right out of the market. So if you want to sell
cars in China, you actually have to go to China. And what you do is, you find a Chinese middleman, either a state-run or private-run firm- because American firms aren't allowed to directly
own. anything in China- and you contract to have an equity stake in the company. But then, to
sell your cars, the law says you have to teach the Chinese how to make them. So you have to
transfer a huge amount of your technology to China, teach them how to use it, and then you leave
it to them to make your cars --which essentially means you are transferring both your product
and your training to your eventual competitors. Of course, it's also against the law to import
American car parts, so you have to work with Chinese vendors to set up components processors,
and train them how to make those, too.
And of course, Americans are not allowed to run distribution centers, so once your parts are
made, it is in the hands of the Chinese to sell those, too. On top of that, Americans are not
allowed to set up service centers, either. Since there is no real service industry, most Chinese
buy cars with the understanding that they have to learn how to fix them too - if they can get the
parts. Of course, all that assumes that the Chinese can buy the cars in the first place, because the
only financing that is allowed in China is through state-run banks - and they don't make loans
for cars. Little wonder that there are more bicycles in Shanghai than automobiles.
That's how it works now. Under the new agreement, it's completely different. Tariffs on
American cars fall by75 percent, so we can compete in Shanghai. The requirementthat we have
to produce the cars in China is eliminated. So is the requirement that we have to transfer our
own technology. What's more, American manufacturers will now be free to ship parts made in
America into China, to set up their own distribution centers, and to run their own service shops which means, for the first time, Chinese who buy cars will actually be able to get them fixed by
the manufacturer. On top of all that, China also agreed to let our car companies like GM and
Ford set up financing operations in China itself, to help the Chinese buy our cars.
From our perspective, it means that we're going to.sell a lot more American-made and
American-assembled cars in China, which means a lot more· American jobs. In return, the
Chinese end up with much better products at lower prices. Think about what this means for
competition in China. It means that a lot of Chinese firms that can't compete will go belly-up,
but those that do survive, like Honda did in Japan- will become global players. Why is China
willing to make this deal? After all, their automotive industry vehemently opposes it. Because it
~nows that if it is going to develop into a modem economy, its people must be mobile. They
must be able to get to the jobs. They're not going to get there by relying on old bicycles.
�4
Take that example and multiply it out across all of our other industries -from manufacturing to
high-tech to insurance to agriculture - and you begin to get an idea of how much prosperity this
deal could bring to both the American and Chinese economies. You also realize it won't take
long to see the balance on that trade deficit shift dramatically.
That is what America gets under the trade agreement we negotiated last fall. All we are required
to do in return is to grant China permanent normal trade relations status, to bring China into the
WTO. It's important to understand what that means: permanent NTR is not a favor to China. It
is the same arrangement we have with the other 135 nations who are our partners in the WTO. It
is the entry fee that nations pay to join the world trading system. It simply means that we will
give you the same tariff schedule we apply to every other nation in the world, and you will give
us yours.
Passing permanent NTR with China does not mean that Congress is permanently barred from
ever revisiting the issue of Chinese trade. Congress always has the authority to visit our trading
relationships with any nation, as well as any other part of our relationship with China, and that's
the way it should be. What it will do is get us out of the cycle we are now in, where the future of
Chinese trade comes up for a vote every single year in Congress. As a nation, it is in our interest
to encourage American companies to help us build a more open, democratic China. It is difficult
to build the long-term relationships that make those efforts possible if there is a new threat every
single year that they will be disrupted.
It's also fair to ask: how do we know that China won't cheat? With any trade agreement we
sign, there is always the possibility that there will be violations. Right now, if China violates our
trade agreement, we have no recourse, short of pulling the plug on trade. This agreement
increases our leverage with China in the event of a future trade dispute on everything from
intellectual property to dumping. Most importantly, as a member of the WTO, China must also ·
agree to submit disputes to that body for adjudication. China could ignore these decisions by
thwarting the collective will of the WTO's 135 members- an unwise course if it wants to reap
the benefits of global trade. In the end, this agreement gives America much better protections
and mechanisms to handle disputes, while making no new demands upon our markets.
If Congress votes yes on PNTR, we will get open markets and more American jobs. If Congress
votes no, it would deny American firms the ability to enter the Chinese market under WTO rules,
and risk losing the special import protections and vastly expanded trading rights that we
negotiated. It might force American farmers and businesses to look on helplessly as European
and Japanese competitors stake out privileged positions in one ofthe 21st Century's biggest
markets.
The economic benefits of this deal to America are clear.· But that is not the end of the argument.
This agreement is just as vital to our national security interests as it is to our economic interests.
As a nation, we have a tremendous stake in how China evolves. A large part of our future is tied
to Asia. The stability of Asia- both economically and militarily- is tied directly to the stability
of China, the largest nation in the world. As China develops, the light it shines or the shadow it
casts will be felt very far from its own borders in the 21st Century.
�5
Today, we have more questions than answers: will China become an open, democratic society
that respects the human rights and freedoms of all its people- or will it continue to operate
behind a great wall of secrecy, repression, and fear? Will it come to grips with the need for
eco~omic reform to ensure its own viability in this increasingly globalized world- or will it be a
nation unable to deal with its own problems, and collapse from within? Will it develop in a way
that pulls it into the international community and sees it play by internation~l rules -or will it
stay outside the system and be the world's next great threat to freedom and security? There is
no magic solution to any one of these questions. But one thing we do know: bringing China into
the WTO will help move it in the right direction on each of these issues.
To understand why, we need to see China clearly- its progress and its problems, its system and
its strains, its policies and its perceptions of us, of itself, and the world. ·
In the last 20 years, China has made incredible progress in building a new economy, lifting more
than 200 million people out of absolute poverty. But China's working age population is
increasing by more than 12 million people- equal to the population of New England- every
year. Tens of millions of peasants are migrating from the countryside, where they see no future,
to the city, where only some find work. China's economic growth has slowed just when it needs
to be rising to create jobs for the unemployed and maintain support for economic reform.
For all the progress of China's reforms, private enterprise still accounts for less than 20 percent
of the non-farm economy. State-held stock still accounts for 62 percent of all the equity issued
by companies listed on China's stock exchange. Much of China's landscape is still dominated
by the unprofitable polluting state industries. China state banks are still making massive loans to
struggling state firms, the sector of the economy least likely to succeed.
Last year, I met with Premier Zhu. I know that he is committed to making far-reaching changes.
They also know that in the short run, reform will cause more unemployment, and more unrest.
Last year alone, the State Economic and Trade Commission ordered the closing of25,000 small
coal mines. That came on top of a government reorganization that cut the formal employment in
the central government in half. While they cut the government, so far they have been unwilling
to open China's political system because they see that as contributing to instability when, in fact,
giving people a say in their decisions actually provides a peaceful outlet for venting frustration.
China's biggest challenge through all this will be to maintain stability and growth at home by
meeting, not stifling, the growing demands of its people for openness and accountability. It is
easy for us to say; for them, it is a daunting task. ,
What does this mean for us? As the President has said, if we've learned anything in the last few
years from Japan's long recession and Russia's current economic troubles, it is that the
weaknesses of great nations can pose as big a challenge to America as their strengths. So as we
focus on the potential challenge that a strong China could present to the United States in the
future, let us not forget the risk of a weak China, beset by internal conflicts, social dislocation
and criminal activity, becoming a vast zone of instability in Asia.
The solutions fundamentally lie in the choices China makes. We have an interest in seeking to
make a difference and in not pretending that the outcome is foreordained. China's entry into the
WTO will help meet these challenges in three fundamental ways.
�6
First,
To understand why, we should not look at China through rose-colored glasses, nor whould we
look through a glass darkly to see an image that distorts China's strength and ignores its
complexities. We need to step back and see China clearly- its progress and its problems, its
system and its strains, its policies and perceptions of us, of itself, and the world.
As a nation, we have a tremendous interest in how China evolves.
�,.
7
�,-'
Page 1 of7
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
For Immediate Release
July 3, 1998
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERS OF HONG KONG
Hong Kong Convention Center
J:Iong Kong Special Administrative Region
10:42 A.M.
(L)
THE PRESIDENT:
Thank you very much.
To Jeff Muir, and Victor
Fang, thank you both for your fine remarks and fpr hosting me.
I thank
all the members of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council and the
American Chamber of Commerce for making this forum available, and so
many of you for coming out on this morning for what will be my last
public speech, except for my press conference, which the members of the
press won't permit to become a speech, before I go home.
It has been a remarkable trip for my wife and family and for the
Senate delegation and members of 'our Cabinet and White House. And we
are pleased to be ending it here.
I want to say a special word of appreciation to Secretary Albright
and Secretary Daley, to Senator Rockefeller, Senatqr Baucus, Senator
Akaka, Congressman Dingell, Congressman Hamilton, Congressman Markey;
and the other members of the administration and citizens who have
accompanied me on this very long and sometimes exhausting, but
ultimately I believe very productive trip for the people of the United
States and the people of China.
I'm glad to be back in Hong Kong. As I told Chief Executive Tung
and the members of the dinner party last night, I actually -- I may be
the first sitting President to come to Hong Kong, but this is my fourth
trip here.
I was able to come three times before -- once with Hillary
-- in the period we now refer to· as back when we had a life.
(Laughter.)
Before I became President. And I look forward to coming
again in the future.
I think it's quite appropriate for our trip to end in Hong Kong,
because, for us Americans, Hong Kong is China's window on the world.
I
have seen remarkable chariges taking place in China, and since the
possibilities of its future -- much of which clearly is and for some
time has been visible here in Hong Kong, with'its free and open markets
and its vibrant entrepreneurial atmosphere.
Devoid of natural resources Hong Kong always has had to fall back
on the most important resource of all -- its people.
The entrepreneurs,
the artists, the visionaries, the hardworking, everyday people have
accomplished things that'have made the whole world marvel.
Hong Kong
people have dreamed, designed and built some of the world's tallest
buildings and longest bridges.
When Hong Kong ran out of land, the
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res!I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/199.8/7/7/12.text.1
01/12/2000
�Page 2 of7
people simply w·ent to the sea and got more.. To the. average person. from
a land-locked place, that seems quite stunning.
I thank you for giving me a cihance to come here today to talk
about .the· relationship between the United States and all of Asia.
I
have had
great deal of.time'to emphasize the importance of our future
ties with Chin~ and I would like to reiterate them today and mention
some of the points that the two previous speakers made.
But I would
like to put it in the context of the entire region ... And, after all, it
is the entire region that has been c~itical to the success of Hong Kong.
a
We have a fundamental interest in promoting stability and
prosperity in Asia.
Our future is tted to Asia's: A large and growing
percentage of our exports, our. imports and our investments involve Asian
nations. As President, besides this trip to China, I have been to
Japan, Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia and. Thailand, with
more to come.
I have worked with the region's leaders on economic,
politidal, and security issu~s.
The recent events in South Asia, in
Indonesia, in financial markets all across the region remind the
American people just how very. clos.ely our future. is tied to Asia's.
Over the course of two centuries, the· United States .and Asian
nations have built·a vast, rich, complex, dynamic relationship-- forged
in the beginning by trade, strained on occasion by misunderstanding,
tempered by three wars in living memory, enriched by the free flow of
ideas, ideals, and culture. Now, clearly, at the dawn of the 21st
century, our futures are inextricably· bound together -- bound by a
mutual interest in seeking to free future generations from the specter
of war. As I said, America can remember three wars we have fought in
Asia. We must make it our mission to avoid another.
The cornerstone of our security in Asia remains our relationship
of longstanding with five key 'democratic allies -- Japan, South Korea,
Australia, Thailand, the Philippines. Our military presence in Asia is
essential to that stability, in no small measure because everyone knows
we have no territorial ambitions of any kind.
Nowhere is.this more e~ident than on the ~orean'Peninsula, where
still, every day, after 40 years, 40,000 American .troops patrol a border
that has known war and could know war again. We clearly have an
interest in trying to get a peace on the Korean Peninsula. We will
continue to work with China to advance our efforts in the four-party
talks, to encourage direct and opeh dialogue between North and South
Korea, to faithfully implement the agreement with North Korea to end
their nuclear weapons prOgrams and to insist that North Korea do the
same.
I am encouraged by the openness and the energy of South Korea's
new leader, Kim Dae Jung.
Last month, iri an address to our Congress, he
said, "It is easier to get a passerby to take off his coat with sunshine
than with a strong wind."
Of course, our security is ~lso enormously enhanced by a positive
partnership with a prosperous~ stable, increasingly open China, working
with us, as we are, on.the challenges of South Asian nuclear issues, the
financial crisis in the region, the Korean peace effort! and, others.
Our oldest ties to Asia are those of trade and commerce, and now
they've evolved into some of our s~rongest. ·The fur pelts and cottons
our first traders bought here more than 200 years ag'o have given way to
software and medical instruments.
Hong Kong is now America's top
consumer for cell phones.
Today, roughly a third of our exports and
4 million jobs depend on our trade to Asia. As was earlier said, ov~r
1,000 American companies have operations in Hong Kong alone. And as
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res!I2R?um:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1998/7/7/12.text.l
01112/2000
�Page 3 of7
we've seen in recent months, when markets tremble in Tokyo or Hong Kong
they cause tremors around the world.
That is why I have not only sought to ease the Asian economic
difficulties, but to institutionalize a regional economic partnership
through the.Asian Pacific Economic Council leaders meetings that we've
started ~n Seattle, Washington in 1993, and which in every year since
has advanced the cause of economic integration and growth in the region.
That is why I'm also working to broaden ind deepen our economic
partnership with China and China's integration into the world economic
framework.
It clearly is evident to anyone who knows about our relationship
that the United States supports China's economic growth through trade.
We, after all, purchase 30 percent of the exports of China -- far more
than any other country in the world, far more than our percentage of the
world's GOP.
We very·much want China to be a member of the World Trade
Organization.
W~ understand the enormous challenges that the Chines~
government faces in privatizing the state industries and doing so at a
rate and in a way which will permit people who lose. their jobs in the
state industries to be reintegrated into a changing economy and have
jobs and be able to education their children, find a place to live and
succeed in a stable society.
So the real question with this WTO accession is not whether the
United States wants-China in the WTO --of course, we do. And the real
question, in fairness to China, is not whether China is willing to be a
responsible international partner in the international financial system.
I believe they are.
The question is, how do you resolve:the tension
between the openness requirements for investment and for trade through
market access of the WTO with the strains that are going to be imposed
on China anyway as it undertakes to speed up the economic transition and
the change of employme.nt base within. its own country. \ .
We are trying to work these things out. We believe that there
must be an end agreement that contains strong terms that are
commercially ·reasonable. We understand that China has to have some
transitional consideration becaus~ of the challenges at home.
I think
we'll work this out.
But I want you to understand tpat we in the United
States very much want China to be a·member of the WTO. We would like it
to happen sooner, rather than later, but we understand that we have not
only American but global interests to consider in making sure that when
the whole process is over that the terms are fair and open and further
the objectives of more open trade and investment across the world.
I also would say in that connection I am strongly supporting the
extension of normal trading status, or MFN to China.
I was encouraged
by the vote in the House Ways and Means Committee shortly before we
left .. I hope we will be successful there.
I think anything any of you
can do to support the integrity .of the existing obligations that all of
us have including, and especially in the area of intellectual property,
will be very helpful in that regard i~ helping us to move f~rward.
In addition to trade and security ties, the United States and Asia
are bound by family ties, perhaps our most vital ones.
Seven million
Americans today trace their roots to Asia, and the percentage of our
citizens who are Asian Americans is growing quite rapidly.
These roots
are roots they are eager to renew or rebuild or to keep.
Just last year
3.4 million Americans traveled to Asia; 7.8 million Asian traveled to
the United States.
Thousands of young people are crossing the Pacific
to study, and in so doing, building friendships that will form the
foundatioris of cooperation and peace for th~ 21st century .
. http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/12R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1998/7/7/12.text.1
01/12/2000
�Page 4 of7
All across the region we see evidence that the values of freedom
and democracy are also burning in the hearts of the people in the East
as well as the West.
From Japan to the Philippines, South Korea to
Mongolia, democracy has found a per~,anent home in. Asia.
As the world becomes smaller, the ties between Asia and the United
States -- the political ties, the family ties, the trade ties, the
security ties -- they will only become stronger. Consider this one
little statistic:
In 1975 there were 33 million minutes of telephone
traffic between the U.S~ and Asia; in 1996 there were.4.2 billion
minutes of such traffic, a 127-fold increase.
That doesn't count the
Internet growth that is about to occur that will be truly staggering.
Now, the result of all this is-that you and I in our time have
been given a remarkable opportunity to expand and share the storehouse
of human knowledge, to share the build~ng of wealth, to share'the fights
agains't disease and poverty, to share efforts to protect the environment
and bridge age-old gaps of history and culture that have caused too much
friction and misunderstanding.
This may be the greatest moment of actual possibility in human
history. Ai the same time, the greater openness, the pace of change,
the nature of the global economy, all these things have brought with
them disruption.
They create the. risk of greater gaps between rich and
poor, between those.equipped for the Information Age and ·those who
aren't.
It means that problems, whether they are economic problems or
environmental problems, that begin in one country can quickly spread
beyond that country's borders.
It.means that we're all more vulnerable
in a more open atmosphere to security threats that cross national
borders, to terrorism, to drug smuggling, to organized crime, to people
who would use weapons of mass destruction.
Now, how are we going to deepen this relationship between the U.S.
and Asia, since all of us recognize that it is in our interest and it
wili further our values? I believe there·are three basic lessons that
we can learn from the immediate past that should guide our path.to the
future.
First, building economies and people, not weapons of mass
destruction, is every nation's best path to greatness.
The vast
majority of nations are moving away from, not toward, nuclear.weapons,
and away from the notion that their influence in the future will be
defined by the size of their military rather than the size of their GOP
and the percentage of their citiiens who know a great deal about the
world.
India and Pakistan~s recent nuclear test, therefore, buck the tide
of history.
This is all the more regrettable because of the enormous
potential of· both countries.
The United States has been deeply enriched
by citizens from both India and Pakistan who have done so very well in
America.
They and their relatives could be doing very well at home, and
therefore, could be advancing their nation's cause around the world.
Both these countries could achieve real, different, fundamental
greatness in the 21st century, but it will never happen if they divert
precious resources from their people to develop nuclear and huge
military arsenals.
We have worked hard with China ~nd other leading nations to forge
an international consensus to prevent an intensifying arms race on the
Indian subcontinent. We don't seek to isolate India and Pakistan, but
we do seek to divert them from a self-defeating dangerous and costly
course.
We encourage both nations to stop testing, to sign the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, to settle their differences through
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/12R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov. us/1998/7/7/12.text 1
01112/2000
�Page 5 of7
peaceful dialogue.
The·second lesson that we should take into the future is that
nations will only enjoy true and lasting prosperity when governments are
open, honest, and fair in their practices, and when they regulate and
supervise financial markets rather than direct them:
Too many bboming economies, too many new skyscrapers now vacant
and in default were built on shaky foundations of cronyism, corruption,.
and overextended credit, undermining the confidence of investors with
sudden, swift, and severe consequen~es.
The financial crisis, as all of
you know far better than I; has touched nearly all the nations and
households of Asia.
Restoring 'econo~ic stability and growth will not be
easy.
The steps required will be politically unpopular and will take
courage.
But the United States will do all we can to help any Asian
government willing to work itself back to financial health. We have a
big interest in the restoration of growth, ;starting the flows of
investment back into Asia.
There is a very limited time period in which. we can absorb all the
exports to try to do our part to keep the Asian economy going. And
while we may·enjoy a brief period of surging extra investment, over the
long .run· stable growth everywhere in the world is the best prescription
for .stable growth ip America.
We are seeing some positive steps.
Yesterday Japan announced the
details of its new and potentially quite significant banking reform
proposals.
We welcome the~.
Thailand and Korea are taking decisive
action to implement the IMF-s~pported economic reform programs of their
countries.
Indonesia has a fresh opportunity to deepen democratic roots
and to address the economic challenges before. it.
Thanks to the
leadership of President Jiang and Premier Zhu, China has follqwed a
disciplined, wise policy of resisting competitive devaluations that
could threaten the Chinese economy, the region's, and the world's.
Even as your own economy, so closely tied to those of Asia,
inevitably feels·the impact of these times, Hong Kong continues to serve
as a force for stability. With strong policies to address the crisis, a
healthy respect for. the rule of law, a strong system of financial
regulation and supervision, a commitment to working with all nations,
Hong Kong can help to lead Asia out of turbulent times as it c'ontributes
to China's astonishing transformation by providing investment capital
and expertise in privatizing state enterprises and sharing legal and
regulatory expe~ience.
The final lesson I believe is this:
Political freedom, respect
for human right and support for representative governments are both
morally right and ultimately the best guarantors of stability in the
world of the 21st century. ·This spring the whole world looked on with
deep interest as courageoui citizens in Indonesia raised their voices in
protest against corruption and government practices that have brought
their .nation's economy to its knees.
They demonstrated for change, for
the right to elect leaders fully accountable to them. And in·just two
weeks the universal longing for democratic, responsive, accountable
government succeeded in altering their political future.,
America will stand by th.e people of Indonesia and others. as they
strive to become part of the rising tide of 'freedom around the .. world.
Some worry that widespiead political participation and loud voices of
dissent can pull a nation apart.
Some nations have a right to worry
about instability because of the pain of their own past.
But
nonetheless, I fundamentally disagree, especially given the dynamics of
the 21st century global society.
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/12R?urn:pdi://oma:eop.gov.us/1998/7/7/12.text.l
01/12/2000
�Page 6 of7
Why? Democracy is rooted in th~ propositions that all people are
entitled to equal treatment and an equal ~oice in ch6osing their
leaders, and that no individual or group is so wise or so all knowing to
make all the decisions that involve unfettered power over other people.
The Information Age has brought us yet another argument for democracy.
It has given us a global economy that is based on, more than anything
else, ideas. A torrent of new ideas are generating untold growth and
opportunity, not only for individuals and firms, but for nations. As, I
saw again in Shanghai when I met with a dozen incredibly impressive
Chinese entrepreneurs, ideas are creating wealth in this economy.
Now, it seems to me, therefore, inevitable that societies with the
freest flow of ideas are most likely to be both successful and stable in
the new century. When difficulties come, as they do to every country
and in all ages 7 - there is never a time that is free of difficulties
it seems to me that open debate and unconventional view~ are most likely
to help countries most quickly overcome the difficulties of unforeseen
developments. ·
Let me ask you this: A year ago, when you celebrated the turnover
from Great Britain to China of Hong Kong, what was everybody buzzing
about after the speeches were over? Will this really work? Will this
two-system thing work? Will we be able to keep elections? Will this
work? How many people were off in a corner saying, you know, this is a
pretty tough time to be doing this~ because a year from now the whole
Asian economy is going to be in collapse, and how in the world will we
deal with this? When. you cannot foresee the future, and when problems
coming on you have to bring £orth totally new thinking, the more open
the environment, the quicker countries will respond.
I believe this is
profoundly important.
I also believe that by providing a constructive outlet for the
discontent that will always exist in every society -- because there is
no perfect place, and because people have different views and experience
reality differently -- and by finding a way to give everybody some sense
of empowerment and role in a society, that freedom breeds the
responsibility without which the open, highly changing societies of the
21st century simply cannot succeed.
·
For all these rea~ons, I think the forces of history will move all
visionary people, including Asians, with their legendary assets.of hard
work, intelligence, and education, toward freer, more democratic
societies and ways of ordering their affairs.
For me, these lessons we must carry forward into the new century,
and in this time of transition and change, as we deepen America's
partnership with Asia.
Success will come to those who invest in the
positive potential of their people, not weapons to destroy others.
Open
governments· and the rule of law are essential to lastin'g prosperity.
Freedom and democracy are the birthrights of all people and the best
guarantors of national stability and progress.
Now, as I said, a little over a year ago, no one could have
predicted what you would have to endure today in the form of this
crisis.
But I am confident Hong Korig will get through this and will
help to lead the region out of it, because of the lessons that I have
just mentioned, and because they have been a part of the fabric of your
life here for a very long time.
For years, Hong Kong people have enjoyed the right to organize.
public demonstrations, due process under law, 43 newspapers and 700
periodicals, giving life to the ·p'rinciple of government accountability,
debate, free and open. All this must continue. · The world was impressed
by the record turnout for your May elections. The results were a ·
http://wwW.plib.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1998/7/7/12.text.1
01/12/2000
�Page 7 of7
mandate for more democracy, not less, and faster, not slower, ·strides
toward political freedom.
I look forward to.the day when all of the
peo~le of Hong Kong realize the rights and responsibilities of full
democracy.
I ~hink we should all pledge, ea~h in our own
kind of future -- a future where we build peo~le up,
neighbors down; a future where we order our affairs
predictable, open way; a future where we try to tap
recognize the authority of each individual.
way, to build that·
hot tear our
in a legal,
the potential and
I'm told that this magnificent convention center was built. in the
shape of a soaring bird on a patch of land reclaimed from the ~ea.
It's
an inspiring symbol of the possibilities of Hong Kong, of all of Asia,·
and of our relationship with Asia.
Just a couple. of days ago; Hong Kong
celebrated its first anniversary of reversion to China.
I am going home
for America's 222nd anniversary tomorrow.
May the.
futur~
of this special place -- of China, of the
rei~tionship between the United State~ and China and Asia, soar like the
bird that gave life to this building.
Thank you very much.
END
(Applause. )
11:10 A~M .. (L)
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I7R?urn:pdi://~ma.eop.gov.us/1998/7/7/12.text.l
01112/2000
�'.
·-
Page 1 of3
--··
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 10, 2000
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON ADMINISTRATION EFFORTS TO GRANT CHINA
PERMANENT TRADE RELATIONS STATUS
The Roosevelt Room
12:45 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: ~ood afternooh.
This year we.face major
challenges and opportunities in our relationship with China -- in foreign
and security policy, economic policy and trade. All those issues come
together in one opportunity for the American people, what we stand to gain
when China enters the World Trade Organization.
But to lock in our benefits, we first must grant China permanent
normal trade relations status.
To get this done, I am directing John
Podesta, my Chief of Staff; my international economic Cabinet members, my
Policy Council coordinators, to launch an all-out effort.
Each member of
this team has a distinctive role to play.
I'm asking them to do everything
they can to accomplish the task.
To ensure that we have as strong and responsive an effort as
possible in both parties in Congress, I'm asking Secretary of Commerce Bill
Daley, and my Deputy Chief of Staff, Steve Ricchetti, to lead our
congressional effort.
This agreement is a good deal for America.
Our products will
gain better access to China's market in every sector from agriculture to
telecommunications to automobiles.
But China gains no new market access to
the United States -- nothing beyond what i~ already has.
In fact, we'l~
gain tough new safeguards against surges of imports, and maintain the
strongest possible rules against dumping products that have hurt Americans
in the past.
China's tariffs on United States goods, on the other hand, will
fall by half or more over the next five years. And by joining the WTO,
China agrees to play by the same trade rules that we do.
We continue to have· serious disagreements with China on human
rights, on proliferation and other issues. We'll continue to press our
views and protect our interests.
This deal will not change China, or our
relationship with China, overnight, but it is clearly a step in the right
direction, and it is clearly in the short- and long-term best economic
interests of the American working people.
It encourages China also to take further steps in the direction
of both economic reform and respect for the rule of law.~ We want to see a
China that is moving toward democracy at home and stability around the
world.
This agreement gives China's people access to goods and services,
to ideas and innovations, that will help to promote those goals.
It also
gives China access to the·worldTrade Organization membership, and that
will help to promote those goals.
Bringing China into the WTO is a win-win decision.
It will
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/12R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov. us/2000/1/1 0/~ 2.text.1
01/24/2000
�Page 2 of3
protect our prosperity, and it will promote the right kind of change in
China.
It is good for our farmers, ·for our manufacturers, and for our
investors.
Encouraging China to play by international rules, I say again,'
is an important step toward a safer, saner world.
I will be working hard over the coming weeks and over the coming
months to make sure we do not let this opportunity slip away.
I want to
thank Secretary Daley and Mr. Ricchetti for agreeing to take on this
important task. And we will do everything we can to succeed.
Thank you.
Q
What are the chances?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, i think they're quite good if we can get a
vote early in the year.
I think this is something that is in the national
interest.
I have made it clear to the leaders of Congress that I strongly
support it and that I think it should be scheduled for ~ vote at. the
earliest possible time. And if we do that, I think we've got an excellent
chance to pass it.
Q
Mr. President, do you think that Congressman Burton is
improperly interfering in the Elian Gonzalez case by issuing that subpoena?
And are you troubled that Vice President Gore also thinks that the INS is
not competent to make the decision and that it ought to be made by a judge
in a court?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I· believe that the INS made the decision it
was charged to make according to the rules and laws that govern the INS.
And if anyone wants to challenge that, the appropriate thing to do is to
challenge it in a legal way.
I don't have any comment about what Mr.
Burton does or any judgment about it.
I mean, it's always interesting .
.Q
What about the Vice President?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, anybody is free to express their opinion
about this and whether they think they did right or wrong. What I have
successfully done, I think, is to make sure we got through the decision
without it becoming overly politicized. We allowed the INS to review the
facts, to interview the relevant parties, and to make a decision based on
the law and regulations governing the INS.
I think they did that to the
best of their ability.
And as I said, if this were an American case, it would be handled
in a family court, according to the best interests of the child.
I think
the INS tried to do what was right by the child, and I think that they did ·
the best they could with a difficult and controversial situation.
So I
want to stand by them. And if anyone disagrees with them and they have
some
legal recourse, they ought to pur~ue the legal recourse.
But,
again, I -- and, of course, they can say they don't agree, but I think they
did the best they could on the facts.
Q
Mr. President, how far do you think that they got in
Shepherdstown; and when do you expect the two sides to get back together
again?
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I think they'll be back here pretty soon.
We're just trying to work out the precise arrangements. And, you know,
these people really talked about the substance of their differences for the
first time.
They were very open, they were very candid, they covered all
the issues. And I think that they broke a lot of ground.
But it's tough.
I told you it was tough in the beginning.
I still think we can get there,
but they're going to have to come back here determined to do so, and I
believe they will.
Q
You're not disappointed, sir, in the results?
http://www. pub. whitehouse.gov/uri -res!I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov. us/2000/1 /10/12. text.1
01/24/2000
�Page 3 of3
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, no.
I never expected tn the first go-round
that we could have a concluding agreement, It's just -- this is too tough.
These are very difficult issues; But they're not -- the good news is
they're not overwhelmingly complicated. That is, sometimes you have in
these peace negotiations issues that are both politically difficult and
extremely complicated.
I think there is some complexity here, but it's all quite
manageable.
So I think that they know where they are riow, they've talked
through, they have a feeling for each other, they've dealt with all these
issues. We have a working -- a document, if you will, on which we can work
through the differences. And so I feel pretty good about it.
I think our United States team did a good job.
I'm very proud of
Secretary Albright and Mr. Berger and all the rest of them.
They did a
good job. And I think the people who came from Israel and from Syria
really are trying to make a difference.
So if they want to do it bad
enough and they're willing to sort of take a chance on a totally different
future, they can get there. And I certainly hope they will and I'm still ·
quite hopeful.
Q
You said you were hopeful with the Palestinian talks?
THE PRESIDENT:
Q
Oh, very, yes.
For next month?
THE PRESIDENT:
Yes.
I'm quite hopeful there, too.
is coming here in a few days and I'm quite hopeful.
END
Mr. Arafat
12:55 P.M. EST
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/2000/l/10/12.text.l
·ol/24/2000
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Speechwriting Office - Paul Orzulak
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
National Security Council
Speechwriting Office
Paul Orzulak
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1999-2000
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36267" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/7585791" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2008-0702-F
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Orzulak served as speechwriter for President William J. Clinton and National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger in 1999 and 2000.</p>
<p>Orzulak authored speeches for President Clinton concerning permanent normal trade relations with China; the United States Coast Guard Academy commencement; the role of computer technology in India; the defense of American cyberspace; the Eleanor Roosevelt Human Rights Award; the memorial service for Former Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi of Japan; the Charlemagne Prize in Germany; the presentation of the Medal of Freedom to President James E. Carter and Rosalyn Carter in Atlanta; the Millennium Around the World Celebration in Washington, DC; the Cornerstone of Peace Park in Japan; the role of scientific research and the European Union while in Portugal; sustainable development in India; armed forces training on Vieques Island, Puerto Rico; and the funeral services for Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr. in Annapolis. Orzulak’s speechwriting for National Security Advisor Berger concerned Senator Joseph R. Biden, China’s trade status, Kosovo, and challenges facing American foreign policy.</p>
<p>This collection was made available through a <a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/freedom-of-information-act-requests">Freedom of Information Act</a> request. For more information concerning this collection view the complete finding aid.</p>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
82 folders in 7 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
China II [1]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
National Security Council
Speechwriting Office
Paul Orzulak
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2008-0702-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 3
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/2008/2008-0702-F.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/7585791" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
5/19/2014
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
42-t-7585791-20080702f-003-007-2014
7585791