China's opening to the world amidst its economic reform and modernization has brought immeasurable benefits to many of its citizens who are being enriched through growing trade linkages. Trading with the rest of the world and even the lukewarm welcoming of foreign investment capital have improved the material well-being of the Chinese more than all the years they were in the thrall of Marxist-Leninist rule.
Of course, it is no small matter that China's participation in international markets has provided consumers around the world with a greater range of choice and lower prices. China's continued expansion of trade and capital inflows will make even more people even more better off in the future.
However, it is an unsettled matter whether China's entry into the WTO or receiving permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status from the US will assist pro-reform leaders in Beijing. Although it is in the US' national interest that China continues in liberalization and reform towards a more market-oriented direction, there is little reason to believe that WTO membership or PNTR will accelerate those processes.
Benefits to the US and the world trading community and the citizens of China are likely to be considerably less than is claimed. Should China receive PNTR, it is unlikely that US companies will have full advantage from market access provisions in its agreement to adopt in compliance with WTO rules and obligations.
It is chimerical that some advocates ignore so many aspects in China's real politick. On the one hand, it is hard to imagine that an authoritarian government that can arrest thousands of its citizens who seek political reform or engage in breathing exercises must rely upon international agreements to impose economic change. On the other hand, China's crumbling state-owned enterprises place considerable limits on what can realistically be expected from a Leninist regime that use economic progress as its only source of legitimacy.
In all events, Beijing has a poor record of honoring its international obligations. Although a signa-tory member of the International Human Rights Charter, China's leadership tries to use claim that cultural differences justify reneging on its obligations. Another case of dodging obligations relates to Hong Kong. Although it is true that the former Crown Colony has not become a Leninist state since its return to Chinese rule, Beijing continues to flout the Basic Law that was to serve as the blueprint for keeping its pledge of "one country; two systems."
And then there is the case of an insistence of using a modern form of gunboat diplomacy to try to force Taiwan back into the fold and Tibet that remains under Beijing's unrelenting control. In all instances that it considers "internal matters", China will brook no outside interference. This provides them with a convenient dodge that can be applied on any matter they choose.
This sort of behavior makes it almost certain that there will be no sweeping economic reforms in return for accession to the WTO. Interest groups there have few of the democratic fetters that exist in countries where citizens actively engage in civil society. For example, the PLA and the more conservative cadres of the Communist Party have considerable influence over trade relations. Not even the most ardent advocates of accommodating China believe that its reformist leadership could or would act against the interests of these two powerful interest groups.
So, there are few guarantees that tariff rates will continue to be lowered. China's disregard for the WTO's multilateral dispute settlement process is not likely to be better than the US, itself embroiled in constant niggling over details opposed by special interest groups.
In the end, the vote in the US Congress over extending PNTR to China is not terribly important. Supporters of open markets surely understand that free trade occurs between companies, not countries. Perhaps it is necessary to offer a reminder that political agreements are less important as a motivating force than are economic realities. China's own urgent needs to maintain high growth are a better inspiration for its leaders to choose to do the right thing by their citizens.
The basic premises in the arguments in favor of PNTR or China's WTO memberships are flawed. In the limit, international trade does not require the approval of politicians or bureaucrats in the US Department of Commerce or WTO. However, it is in their interest that the rest of us believe this. It gives them power and justifies their large budgets, including expensive junkets to far-off capitals.
There may be no great disadvantages to the US economy if German and French companies succeed in gaining market share in China. Producers that offer the best product or service at the most competitive prices will win the deal. If the deal were done on this basis, then PNTR would make no difference. If the deal required cutting a deal between European trade officials and corrupt Chinese cadres, then some of the costs will be shifted to European taxpayers or the costs might be shifted to consumers.
It is not surprising that government officials are indulging in well-crafted propaganda to impose their preferences onto an unwitting public.
What is surprising is that advocates of free markets and small government seem to have been suckered into lending their support.
Christopher Lingle is an independent corporate consultant and adjunct scholar of the Center for Independent Studies in Sydney. His E-mail address is: CLINGLE@ufm.edu.gt.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS