[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 82 (Thursday, June 12, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1212-E1213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INFORMATION ON MOST-FAVORED-NATION STATUS
______
HON. RON PAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, June 12, 1997
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the insight added to the
policy debate on most-favored-nation [MFN] status for China by Rev.
Robert A. Sirico in an article he authored in yesterday's Wall Street
Journal. Reverend Sirico succinctly highlights the danger which occurs
when ``labor unions and other left-liberal protectionists'' align
themselves with those factions of the religious right who, at times,
are ``insensitive to the difference between urging certain moral ends
and using government coercion to bring them about.''
Reverend Sirico, a Paulist priest, explains that pleas from
evangelical missionaries currently working in China have passionately
urged United States policymakers not to cut off trade with China as
this would endanger Christian's status in China as well as possibly
lead to the Chinese Government revoking Christian's visas.
``Economic prosperity through free trade is the most effective
distributor of wealth and power, and trade with China is the surest way
to break the grip of centralized political power'' according to
Reverend Sirico who also finds the Chinese Government's treatment of
Christians morally objectionable.
It is important, in evaluating United States policy toward the
government of China, or any other sovereign foreign government, to
differentiate between lowering trade barriers, as MFN status simply
does, and United States taxpayer financing of foreign governments
through various forms of foreign aid as well as engaging in corporate
welfare through such agencies as the World Bank, OPIC, and the IMF.
While lowering trade barriers necessarily results in greater economic
well-being, foreign aid, and international corporate welfare programs
are neither economically prudent nor constitutional. Additionally,
misnamed multilateral agreements like NAFTA, or more honestly,
government-regulated international trade does not constitute free trade
and should be opposed on the same grounds of unconstitutionality and
economical ineptness.
I commend the research of Reverend Sirico and thank him for his
important contribution to the policy debate regarding most-favored-
nation status and recommend a careful reading of his article by
everyone genuinely interested in both the proper moral and economic
resolution of this issue.
[From the Wall Street Journal, June 11, 1997]
China and the Trade Warriors
(By Robert A. Sirico)
Despite occasional tensions between social conservatives
and economic conservatives,
[[Page E1213]]
most social and cultural goals have an economic dimension
about which the two camps are generally in agreement. But now
a leader of the socially conservative camp has proposed that
there is an issue that pits morality and prosperity
irreconcilably against one another--U.S. trade with China, a
nation known for human-rights violations, and particularly
for religious persecution.
Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council is demanding that
the U.S. government wage economic war against China with
sanctions, boycotts and embargoes. In his campaign for trade
restrictions with China, Mr. Bauer and a few other
conservative leaders are working hand in glove with labor
unions and other left-liberal protectionists, normally
diehard opponents of the religious right.
Barricades Have Collapsed
The usual political barricades have collapsed as Mr.
Bauer's comrades join forces to oppose congressional attempts
to continue normal trading relations with China. In a recent
letter, Mr. Bauer compares the urgency of imposing sanctions
to issues such as ending slavery and defeating Hitler.
How restricting trade with China will help strengthen
American families, faith and morality is unclear. What is
clear is that Mr. Bauer finds China's treatment of Christians
morally objectionable. I do, too. And he is to be commended
for his efforts at raising the public's awareness of Chinese
persecution. Christians are threatened, jailed, expelled and
even killed in China. Whether this occurs more or less today
than in decades past is in dispute. But one human-rights
violation is one too many.
That's why I, along with many others, signed an open letter
from the Family Research Council to Vice President Al Gore
that appeared in major newspapers. It objected to Mr. Gore's
failure to emphasize China's poor human-rights record during
his March visit. The letter particularly highlighted China's
vicious suppression of the rights of Roman Catholics to
worship in freedom. The letter said nothing about a broader
trade agenda.
I would have signed a similar letter about the appalling
treatment of Christians in Egypt (which receives U.S. aid),
Saudi Arabia (which the U.S. has defended militarily) and
Iraq (where a Kurdish convert to Christianity, Mansour
Hussein Sifer, was recently martyred). Friends of freedom
should oppose restrictions on worship and religious speech
anywhere they may appear, including the U.S.
When I signed the letter on China, however, I did not know
that it was a prologue to a full-blown political campaign
that would seek to curtail commercial ties between China and
the rest of the world. Mr. Bauer's position has evolved from
a strong moral stand in favor of religious freedom to waging
total trade war.
A charge often leveled against the Christian right is that
it is not sensitive to the difference between urging certain
moral ends and using government coercion to bring them about.
It's usually a canard: In the case of the arts, for example,
the religious right seeks not censorship but an end to
taxpayer subsidies for blasphemy and obscenity. I regret
having to say that this time, however, the Family Research
Council has lived up to the stereotype. It is attempting to
enlist government power, at the expense of everyone who
benefits from U.S.-Chinese commercial relations, thus
choosing an inappropriate means to achieve a moral end.
What's more, trade sanctions would be counterproductive.
Sanctions won't bring freedom for religious expression in
China. They won't end China's cruel policies limiting family
size. They won't stop the horrific policy of forced
abortions. They won't bring democracy. They can only further
isolate China and close off avenues for greater Western
influence.
The growth of Western businesses in China, however, would
dilute the power of China's communist rulers. As commercial
networks develop, Chinese businesspeople are able to travel
more freely, and Chinese believers have more disposable
income with which to support evangelistic endeavors.
No one understands this better than evangelical
missionaries currently working in China. Mr. Bauer's
passionate campaign has elicited pleas from many of them for
Congress not to cut off trade. Such an action would endanger
their status there, and possibly lead China to revoke their
visas. It would severely limit opportunities to bring in
Bibles and other religious materials. These missionaries
understand that commercial relations are a wonderfully
liberating force that allow not only mutually beneficial
trade but also cultural and religious changes. Why doesn't
Mr. Bauer listen to those who know far more about China than
Washington think tanks and labor unions do? ``They may be too
close to the situation,'' he answers, somewhat flippantly.
Until recently, trade warriors have cited the case of the
U.S. Catholic bishops, who have opposed renewing normal trade
status with China. At the same time, however, Hong Kong's
official Catholic newspaper, the Sunday Examiner, reports new
contacts between Beijing and Hong Kong's Catholic hierarchy.
These contacts are a major step toward an official
recognition of the Catholic Church on the mainland.
To the Good
This would all be to the good. Diplomacy and international
trade strengthen people's loyalties to each other and weaken
government power. Beijing has shown itself to be supremely
interested in fostering prosperity at home. Christians must
take advantage of this impulse, rather than recklessly
treating China as a monster that must be slain.
This need not be an issue that divides social conservatives
from economic conservatives. Economic prosperity through free
trade is the most effective distributor of wealth and power,
and trade with China is the surest way to break the grip of
centralized political power. Religious conservatives should
broaden their focus beyond purely social and cultural issues.
Mr. Bauer and his supporters are right to decry the immoral
treatment of believers in China. But allowing themselves to
be used by protectionist and labor lobbies is an imprudent
approach. Just as religious freedom offers the best hope for
Christian social influence, economic freedom is the best hope
for spreading that influence around the world.