Let's make a deal

International | When U.S. officials signed a historic trade accord with China, was it a new frontier or another paper chase?

Issue: "Top 100 Books 1999," Dec. 4, 1999

Just because China and the United States have been negotiating a bilateral trade agreement since 1986 does not mean most people necessarily understand why. With container ships plying the Pacific-full to the brim as they arrive in West Coast ports, half-packed on the way back-what's to negotiate? Americans want and have an abundance of cheaply made Chinese products. China, on the other hand, has kept the balance-of-trade lead by restricting U.S. imports, controlling its own labor force, and still managing to buy most of what it needs-computers, nuclear technology, and other Americana-whenever it wants.

Both sides of the Pacific have envisioned big gains, however, from expanding trade. Fortune 500 companies, ever in search of greater profit margins, see China, with its 1.5 billion purchasers and its millions of low-wage earners, as the next commercial frontier. Smaller companies, as well as educational institutions and non-profit organizations, see coattails in the Fortune 500s that will give them entry to China's own cultural institutions, and greater political freedoms for the Chinese themselves.

For China, the agreement has always been a predicate for entry to the World Trade Organization. China has sought WTO membership ever since the world body was formed in 1995, largely because it would bring both political and market clout overseas. Under WTO accession rules, any WTO member can request "bilaterals" with a proposed member, meaning the proposed member must negotiate a one-on-one trade agreement with the member country before joining. Member countries can effectively block a non-member's entry until bilateral trade differences are resolved. With the U.S. bilateral now in its pocket, China has only two bilaterals remaining to be settled-with the European Union and Canada. They were awaiting the outcome of U.S.-China negotiations.

We see you’ve been enjoying the content on our exclusive member website. Ready to get unlimited access to all of WORLD’s member content?
Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.
(Don’t worry. It only takes a sec—and you don’t have to give us payment information right now.)

Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.

The signing of the pact came in Beijing Nov. 15, following six days of talks between U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky and her Chinese counterparts. Ms. Barshefsky delayed her departure by three days in order to reach the agreement ahead of a WTO meeting, set to begin in Seattle Nov. 30.

Chiefly, the agreement requires China to drop trade barriers. It will lower government restrictions on key industries, telecommunications, entertainment, and agriculture, which kept foreign investors out.

By doing so, the U.S. government estimates that the pact will increase China's gross domestic product by 4 percent.

Will easing trade barriers end trade wars? That is harder to say. Just a week ago, China slapped new restrictions on American packing material, apparently for spite. One year ago, the U.S. government began requiring wooden crates and pallets from China to be heat-treated. It was an attempt to prevent the spread of the Asian wood-boring beetle, a Chinese-born pest that has been devouring trees in Central Park and along streets of New York City. In retaliation, Chinese officials announced last month [Nov. 1] that pinewood packing materials from the United States must also be heat treated, to ward off an infestation of pinewood nematodes in China. That American pest was discovered in China nearly 20 years ago, but was never regulated because it showed little sign of spreading.

Critics of free trade with China say the latest agreement may hold less than meets the eye. They say China may look toward exercising the loopholes in the pact more than its provisions. China's questionable adherence to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which it signed in October 1998, is a case in point. After signing the human-rights agreement with much fanfare, China attached exceptions to key provisions, such as the guarantee to the right of free expression. And it has failed to produce in key areas, as in allowing International Red Cross workers access to political prisoners.

Just as important as how well the new agreement works will be how it sells. Reaction from leadership on Capitol Hill was cautious. Lawmakers do not have to vote directly on the agreement, but they are required to grant China guaranteed access to U.S. markets. This, in effect, ends the annual review of China's trade status, which has been a platform for voicing disapproval with its political policies for both human-rights groups and labor unions.

Public support is no more assured. A Reuters poll conducted just ahead of the final negotiations found that 67 percent of Americans opposed expanding trade with China, until it improves both human rights and religious liberties. Public distrust of China, according to the poll, stems from allegations that China stole U.S. nuclear secrets and from Beijing's crackdown on the outlawed Falun Gong spiritual movement. Respondents also indicated doubts about China's long-term commitment to the pact, and to reducing the trade deficit.


You must be a WORLD member to post comments.

    Keep Reading


    Troubling ties

    Under the Clinton State Department, influence from big money…