The problems with China on such issues as trade, human rights, and religious persecution are well documented. And I won't take the time to repeat them here. But I'll just say that we are all concerned with China's poor record of promoting democracy, free enterprise and human rights. I'm especially concerned with the persecution of Christians in China.
But I think the question comes down to what is the best way to influence policy within China. Is it more effective to have a policy of isolationism, where we have virtually no trading relationship with China? This is what would happen if Normal Trade Relations is revoked.
Or is it more effective to build a closer relationship with China through our trade policy? Trade serves to promote free enterprise and raise the standard of living of the Chinese people. It allows us to "export" our principles of liberty and democracy. I believe that the United States, and the Chinese people, are clearly better off by strengthening our relationship through trade.
Integrating China into the world community has already paid dividends. Recognizing that China still has many problems, most people would agree that significant progress has been made just in the last 10 years. I believe our economic and diplomatic relations with China have helped push this progress along.
This is not to say that we shouldn't be tough with China. Retaliatory measures can be very effective in encouraging further reforms in China. But retaliation should be targeted and specific.
For example, I recall that two years ago we placed $2 billion in sanctions on China for breaching its commitment on intellectual property rights. Now it's clear that China has taken significant strides in cracking down on the pirating of intellectual property. Firm sanctions targeted at specific behavior can force change in China.
Revoking Normal Trade Relations is a blunt, ineffective tool. It would also hurt American workers, businesses and consumers. Our almost $13 billion in annual exports to China would be put at risk, jeopardizing over 200,000 American jobs. And the increase in tariffs on China's exports into this county would amount to a severe tax on American consumers..
The costs of revoking Normal Trade Relations with China — to American workers and consumers and in terms of our inability to effectuate change in China — clearly outweigh any perceived benefits. I'm very skeptical that Beijing will suddenly promote democracy and human rights because the United States ends its trading relationship with China.
Engagement is the right policy for encouraging change in China.
Some opponents of Normal Trade Relations with China are concerned, not with these other important issues, but with the trading relationship itself. They point to the United States' expanding trade deficit with China. Which last year amounted to just under $50 billion. This trade imbalance is a serious concern to me, as well.
But the answer is not to stop trading with China. The answer is to open the Chinese market to U.S. exports. The current negotiations with China on its accession to the World Trade Organization is an opportunity to do this. We must get meaningful market access concessions from the Chinese before they are allowed in to the WTO. American products deserve the same access to the Chinese market as their products enjoy in the United States.
The stakes are very high. In the agriculture sector, these negotiations will determine whether China becomes our largest export market or our biggest competitor. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes made when Japan entered the GATT in 1954. The U.S. is still shut out of that market in many respects. We need a tough, fair agreement with China.
It's time to move forward in our trading relationship with China. Let's get beyond this annual debate over trading status. And focus on how we can best expand access to China's market for American workers and businesses. The way to do this is to continue to strengthen our trading relationship by supporting the president's decision to extend NTR to China.
