Thread: THE NAU: IT'S THE ELEVENTH HOUR - GET BUSY

Okay.....it's Thanksgiving 2006 and our country is going through a hard time.



The only one who should be upset is him.



Nothing has ever been easy for the USA, unlike what many people think. But we've always pulled through and we will this time too.










Today is November 22.

Let's be thankful for what we have, especially each other and have a Happy Thanksgiving.

CrocketsGhost writes:

As for the Dubai Ports deal, yeah, that's an abomination. But Judy seems to forget (conveniently) that under Clinton we already had some of our West Coast ports being operated by Communist China and that the ports being taken over by Dubai were already being operated by another foreign country (Britain). So it's nothing new, it just gets more press because of the media slant. I was involved in protests over Chinese operation of the Panama Canal and some of our ports ten years ago. I wonder what Judy was doing then? Amybe she wasn't also aware that at least nine of our ports are controlled by the Saudis. THIS CRAP IS NOT NEW TO THIS ADMINISTRATION. Some people need to wrap their heads around that fact and stop looking for bogeymen. A more prudent approach is to consider EVERYONE in office to be a villain until he or she proves otherwise.

Crock asks "I wonder what Judy was doing then?"

Trying to impeach Bill Clinton. Well, in fact, we DID impeach Bill Clinton.



I don't really know and can't tell from your posts Crock just exactly what you are proposing or what your "plan" is except to harp against posters you don't agree with and discourage the very civil action that's so desperately needed to get things back on track.

Keeping bogeymen in office with their reign of power and terror against the American People seems to be your alleyway to some end that I for one just don't understand. Some Democrats have told me they don't want to impeach Bush so they can let him continue to rack up the bad deeds so they can use them all against Republicans in 2008 to take the White House. Some Republicans have told me they don't want to impeach Bush because they like him personally; think he's a good husband and family man; and that he's not really a Traitor or evil man because he's just stupid and being poorly advised. In fact, some think Cheney is actually running everything because Bush is too stupid to have done all this on his own.

So ... we'll just sit back Crock Style and let millions more illegal immigrants pour in because no one in this administration is going to stop them; we'll just sit back Crock Style and let Bush finish all his free trade agreements linking our economy to the sump pump of the world until we run dry because no one in this adminstration is going to stop him; and we'll just let everyone keep their jobs, power, pensions, expense accounts and ink pens to complete signing US over to the World.

Okey, Dokey.

Shazaam, Andy, that's a briliant plan.

Golly Andy, I sure wish I was as smart as Crock.

Originally Posted by Judy

CrocketsGhost writes:

As for the Dubai Ports deal, yeah, that's an abomination. But Judy seems to forget (conveniently) that under Clinton we already had some of our West Coast ports being operated by Communist China and that the ports being taken over by Dubai were already being operated by another foreign country (Britain). So it's nothing new, it just gets more press because of the media slant. I was involved in protests over Chinese operation of the Panama Canal and some of our ports ten years ago. I wonder what Judy was doing then? Amybe she wasn't also aware that at least nine of our ports are controlled by the Saudis. THIS CRAP IS NOT NEW TO THIS ADMINISTRATION. Some people need to wrap their heads around that fact and stop looking for bogeymen. A more prudent approach is to consider EVERYONE in office to be a villain until he or she proves otherwise.

Crock asks "I wonder what Judy was doing then?"

Trying to impeach Bill Clinton. Well, in fact, we DID impeach Bill Clinton.



I don't really know and can't tell from your posts Crock just exactly what you are proposing or what your "plan" is except to harp against posters you don't agree with and discourage the very civil action that's so desperately needed to get things back on track.

Keeping bogeymen in office with their reign of power and terror against the American People seems to be your alleyway to some end that I for one just don't understand. Some Democrats have told me they don't want to impeach Bush so they can let him continue to rack up the bad deeds so they can use them all against Republicans in 2008 to take the White House. Some Republicans have told me they don't want to impeach Bush because they like him personally; think he's a good husband and family man; and that he's not really a Traitor or evil man because he's just stupid and being poorly advised. In fact, some think Cheney is actually running everything because Bush is too stupid to have done all this on his own.

So ... we'll just sit back Crock Style and let millions more illegal immigrants pour in because no one in this administration is going to stop them; we'll just sit back Crock Style and let Bush finish all his free trade agreements linking our economy to the sump pump of the world until we run dry because no one in this adminstration is going to stop him; and we'll just let everyone keep their jobs, power, pensions, expense accounts and ink pens to complete signing US over to the World.

Okey, Dokey.

Shazaam, Andy, that's a briliant plan.

Golly Andy, I sure wish I was as smart as Crock.

I thought we had agreed to let this drop, but I can see your type.

First off, my plan was posted in another thread, and it doesn't need your nod of approval to be a good plan.

As for impeaching Bill Clinton, good job! What did it get you? Was he convicted? Did we end up with a desirable change of leadership? Did it close the borders or lead to an even worse leader with respect to the border situation? Did it eliminate Clinton's free trade deal s, or did it lead to their expansion?

Taking action is not enough. There has to be a complete plan for the next step and the next, or else your efforts are like trying to dig a hole in water.

From the early 80's to today, Catherine Austin Fitts does a great job connecting all the dots for us. Mena, the Bushes, money laundering by major corporations, Clinton, Iran Contra, RJR, The Carlyle group, the CRF, former members of congress, it's all in there!

Yes, it is a long read but, if you really want to understand how and who is bringing America to her knees, I highly recommend taking the time to do so. I read it this weekend and I was riveted as one by one, the blanks were filled in.

http://www.dunwalke.com/1_Brady_Bush_Bechtel.htm

Crock, you were given warnings ... and still you posted with rudeness and insult.

Tsk. Tsk.

What did impeaching Clinton get us?

Good Illegal Immigration Enforcement.

No Free Trade Agreements.

Good Economy.

Impeached Presidents mind their P's and Q's far better than Bad Boys given the nod to keep going with "impeachment is off the table".

Well, I haven't read your plan. Have no idea what it is. But good luck with it.

Originally Posted by Judy

Crock, you were given warnings ... and still you posted with rudeness and insult.

You're joking, right? What insult has your detector detected? I cannot help but note that it was you, not I, who chose to persist along this line...

Originally Posted by Judy

Tsk. Tsk.

What did impeaching Clinton get us?

Good Illegal Immigration Enforcement.

Absolutely NOT true! As a matter of fact, I would characterize that absurd claim as an untruth. What on Earth do you have by way of fact to substantiate that claim? The loosening of immigration rules and enforcement began in 1996 and was never restored.

Originally Posted by Judy

No Free Trade Agreements.

Hah!!! The Clinton free trade agreements had already been passed. Using Clinton's and his administration's OWN WORDS on the subject, here are some FACTS for you:

We don’t need to build walls, we need to build bridges. We don’t need protection, we need opportunity. But in a world of stiff competition we also need more than free trade. We need fair trade with fair rules.
That’s why I fought for NAFTA, which effectively opened Mexico’s and Canada’s markets to American products, and for GATT, which is helping to level the playing field for American companies abroad.

In all, since 1992 we have negotiated more than 200 trade agreements-21 with Japan alone.

Source: Between Hope and History, by Bill Clinton, p. 34-35 Jan 1, 1996

After 13 years of negotiations, the Administration concluded a landmark agreement for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization. China agreed to grant the U.S. significant new access to its rapidly growing market of over one billion people, while we have agreed simply to maintain the market access policies we already apply to China by granting it permanent Normal Trade Relations. The U.S.-China agreement slashes Chinese tariffs on American goods; opens China’s markets to American services, and contains safeguards against unfair trading practices. China’s membership in the WTO will spur economic reforms in China, open China to information and ideas from around the world, and strengthen the rule of law in China.
The Administration [also] secured commitments from Asian Pacific nations to eliminate barriers to open trade in the region by 2020 for developing countries and 2010 for industrialized countries. Over the next two years, 15 sectors will be identified for tariff reductions.

Source: WhiteHouse.gov web site Jul 2, 2000

Originally Posted by Judy

Good Economy.

FALSE! What we had was a classic bubble, and that bubble had already suffered it's first burst before Bush ever even declared his candidacy.

Originally Posted by Judy

Impeached Presidents mind their P's and Q's far better than Bad Boys given the nod to keep going with "impeachment is off the table".

Yeah, like when he launched those cruise missiles into empty training bases and aspirin factories, gave nuclear technology to the N. Koreans, gave missile tech to the Chinese, etc. PLEASE!

Originally Posted by Judy

Well, I haven't read your plan. Have no idea what it is. But good luck with it.

What a shock. I can see by your tone that you zero interest in looking at what others are doing because you fancy yourself an all-knowing crusader. Your claims of the effects of the Clinton impeachment (which of course you take credit for) tell me that your ego is at the point that it simply fabricates facts when the real ones don't justify your self-congratulatory nonsense.

But yeah, I hope my plan or someone's works, because we can see that impeachment failed with Clinton and is a pipe dream in the present.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104566.html

Business and Finance—Business —Foreign Trade

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

In three separate ceremonies in the three capitals on Dec. 17, 1992, President Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney signed the historic North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The framework agreement proposed to eliminate restrictions on the flow of goods, services, and investment in North America. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA, by a vote of 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993, and the Senate voted 60 to 38 for approval on November 20. It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993, and took effect on January 1, 1994.

Under NAFTA, the United States, Canada, and Mexico become a single, giant, integrated market of almost 400 million people with $6.5 trillion worth of goods and services annually. Mexico is the world's second largest importer of U.S. manufactured goods and the third largest importer of U.S. agricultural products.

Prior to NAFTA, Mexican tariffs averaged about 250% as compared to U.S. duties. After the pact, about half of the tariffs on trade between Mexico and the United States were eliminated, and the remaining tariffs and restrictions on service and investment (as far as it is possible) will be phased out over a 15-year period. The United States and Canada have had a free-trade agreement since 1989.

The treaty provides full protection of intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, and trademarks) and also includes provisions covering trade rules and dispute settlement and establishes trilateral commissions to administer them. NAFTA also marks the first time in the history of U.S. trade policy that environmental concerns have been directly addressed.

___________________

The North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA was already a fait accompli initiated, negotiated and signed by President George Herbert Walker Bush. The US Congress in 1993 overwhelmingly approved it; was already on board to ratify it; and Clinton signed it into law.

http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/i ... tchie.html


November 1990 - VOLUME 11 - NUMBER 11



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G U E S T C O L U M N
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading Away the Family Farm

GATT and Agriculture

by Mark Ritchie

Most of the United States's largest newspapers have spent the first four years of the GATT negotiations simply presenting government news releases. As we enter the final stage of the Uruguay Round, many of these newspapers have turned their editorial pages over to the Bush administration, which is desperately trying to convince the American people to back its attempt to use GATT to impose its deregulation agenda on a global scale.

The most ironic of the editorials argue that we need GATT-imposed global deregulation to "save" the various sectors of our economy which have been ravaged by the last decade of domestic deregulation, including the savings and loans, banks, airlines, insurance companies and the farm economy. Much like the "barbers" of the 18th century who would lance blood repeatedly from sick people in an attempt to heal them, some editorial writers, most notably in the Washington Post, New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal, now recommend a second deregulatory "treatment," this time on a global scale, since the first bloodletting did not seem to work.

Corruption, economic devastation and degradation of the environment have been the three most important results of domestic deregulation. If we allow the multinational corporations to push global deregulation through during this round of GATT talks, we can fully expect the same disruptions and dangers, but on a worldwide and more comprehensive scale.

Anyone who has the nerve to point out the dangers in the current approach of the U.S. government will be viciously attacked. For example, European Community Commission President Jacques Delors was called the "Saddam Hussein" of the GATT talks because he dared to reject the U.S. farm proposal to GATT which he knew would be harmful to family farmers, both in Europe and the United States and in the Third World.

But the strongest criticisms have been reserved for U.S. citizens who challenge the logic or rationale of the U.S. farm proposals. Newspaper columnists close to the Bush administration have termed critics of the U.S. GATT proposals "traitors" and called for their jailing under the infamous Logan Act, which prohibits acts which would "defeat the measures of the United States."

What are these GATT talks really about?

Although its rhetoric about GATT centers on "reforming world trade," the Bush administration's primary goal in these trade talks is to alter the domestic economic policies that are normally controlled by the Congress. The Republican Party-controlled White House sees these GATT talks as a clever way to bypass the Democratic Party-controlled Congress to accomplish two specific goals.

First, it wants to use GATT to "lock in" the kinds of deregulatory changes made over the past decade, before Congress begins to abandon deregulation. As Washington columnist Jonathan Harsch once reported, "Good Republicans acknowledge that what they are doing now in the GATT talks should make it virtually impossible for even Jim Hightower [recently defeated Texas Secretary of Agriculture] to reverse the direction of U.S. farm policy."

Second, it wants to use the GATT talks to achieve further gains in its deregulatory agenda. For years the Reagan/Bush crowd has unsuccessfully tried to convince Congress to dismantle or destroy the cooperative rural electric system, dismantle the Farmers Home Administration and to eliminate all farm programs. They believe that the GATT talks provide a golden opportunity to try one more time to eliminate all farm programs, especially those serving small- and medium-sized family farmers. The original U.S. agricultural proposal made to GATT called for a 10 year phase-out of all farm programs, including those which support moves toward more sustainable agriculture.

Liberal support for Bush's GATT agenda

Some liberals have been lured to support the use of GATT to deregulate agriculture, believing Bush administration and agribusiness rhetoric that eliminating farm programs would somehow be good for the environment or the Third World. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Let's take a look at the farm program most viciously attacked by the multinational food giants and the Bush administration: the sugar program.

Like most government policies, the present U.S. government sugar program is far from perfect, but it is based on the three principles that are necessary for any progressive farm program; 1) market prices set to reflect farmers' costs of production, thereby eliminating the need for taxpayer-funded subsidies; 2) domestic supply management, based on quantitative limits; and 3) import controls. The giant candy companies, like Nestle and Mars, along with Pepsi and Coca-Cola have fought for years to destroy the sugar program, gaining the strong support of both the Reagan and the Bush administrations. The food companies are joined by the grain merchants and cereal giants in this demand, both of whom want to buy farm goods at the lowest possible prices, no matter what it costs the farmers to produce the crops. During the past few years, these food companies and their related PACs have made large cash contributions to hundreds of senators and congressional representatives, but they have not yet been able to convince Congress to destroy the program. GATT seems to be their only hope for success.

Their plan has been to get the U.S. government to include in its GATT agriculture proposal three measures that would make the entire sugar program illegal. First, they call for a phase-out of all farm programs that support internal prices above world prices. But since world sugar trade is only 10 percent of the world's sugar production, prices in the world market are generally "dumping" prices, reflecting the need of Europe and other surplus producers to get rid of their excess sugar at any price.

Lowering internal U.S. prices to these world prices might be good for Nestle and Coca-Cola, but it would be a disaster for the thousands of family farmers in Minnesota, North Dakota and around the country who produce sugar. The argument made by some consumer groups that lowering U.S. sugar prices would somehow lower the prices paid by consumers for a Snickers candy bar or a can of Pepsi-Cola is appealing but absurd. There's only a penny's worth of sugar in either product, much less than the cost of the can or wrapper.

It is clear that although GATT can be used to drive down the price of sugar, this would not reduce the cost of most consumer goods. It could mean, however, that cheaper sugar would become an even more common additive in processed foods. But is this really what most consumers want?

The second goal of the food multinationals in the GATT talks is to make domestic supply management programs illegal or unworkable. The candy companies are joined by the farm chemical giants in making this demand. When farmers reduce their production in order to balance supplies with demand, they end up buying less fertilizer and pesticides. In fact, quantity-based supply management programs advocated by progressive farm groups protect the environment by ensuring that farmers benefit economically not by growing the largest possible crops, but by using the smallest amount of purchased inputs, such as chemicals.

The third element of the GATT-attack on the sugar program is the attempt to make import controls illegal. In the very first GATT negotiations, special provisions for agriculture were included that made it legal for nations to impose import controls, as long as they were operating domestic farm programs that included supply management.

Some Third World governments have complained that import controls in the United States limit their ability to sell crops on the U.S. market. Other Third World governments, however, have supported the need for import controls as absolutely critical to any country which is trying to balance supply with demand. They understand that if the United States ends up with a surplus of any crop, the government will dump this surplus on the world market and destroy world prices. Low world prices not only ruin the income of food exporting nations, they also make it impossible for small farmers in Third World countries to sell their crops for a profit in their own domestic markets, thereby damaging the long-term food production capacity of many poor Third World countries.

While it may be of some economic benefit to Mars candy company to import more cheap sugar, many groups, like the National Council of Churches Rural Crisis Team, have pointed out the enormous damage to small farmers and peasants that would result. In the Third World, sugar is usually grown on huge corporate-owned plantations, often created by driving away or killing the poor peasants who traditionally grew or gathered their own crops on these lands. These plantations use extremely low-paid labor. The peasants who are displaced to create sugar plantations sometimes find that their only option is to begin cropping on the hillsides of the mountains, causing extreme environmental damage.

The sugar companies have been joined in their efforts to use GATT to make import controls illegal by the fast food restaurants, who want to see GATT do away with the strict import controls on hamburger and other meats. Some environmental organizations, like the Environmental Project on Central America, have expressed alarm knowing that any change in GATT which allows for unlimited U.S. imports of sugar or beef will mean an acceleration of ecological destruction in Central and South America, as rainforests are cleared for both cattle ranches and sugar plantations.

Towards a positive GATT outcome

The most unfortunate part of the attempt by the corporations to use GATT to undermine U.S. farm programs is that it gives GATT and the whole multilateral system a bad reputation, just when we need to be strengthening global cooperative efforts. There are serious economic and environmental problems that must be addressed by multi-country efforts, and GATT could play a positive role, rather than serving the global deregulatory interests of a few greedy multinational corporations.

A wide range of concerned groups, including the National Toxics Campaign, the American Agriculture Movement and the Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers Union, have formed a national Fair Trade Campaign to oppose the most negative provisions of the U.S. GATT farm proposal, and to demand that GATT begin to play a positive role in addressing the serious problems of worldwide hunger and environmental degradation.

A progressive agenda for GATT must reject the most radical deregulation elements of the current U.S. proposal. The two most dangerous of these are the plans to replace all U.S. farm programs with welfare-type government payments, called decoupling, and the plan to eliminate all U.S. import controls, called tariffication. Another dangerous plan put forward by the United States, euphemistically called "harmonization," would lower the pesticide standards applied to imported foods.

As important as stopping these bad proposals is the need to promote a positive agenda at GATT. A progressive GATT would affirm the right of all nations to determine their own food security and safety policies. It would strengthen and enforce the GATT rules which prohibit export dumping and regulate import controls to ensure that they protect family farms in all countries, including the United States. And, finally, it would require all nations to share equitably the responsibilities of maintaining international food reserves, including the costs of storage and the burden of reducing overstocks when worldwide surpluses rise to price depressing levels.

It is important to remember that GATT is not the only forum for trade negotiations, and that trade is not the only issue that confronts us on an international level. In the near future we will be confronted with a proposed U.S. free trade agreement with Mexico, a United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and other equally far-reaching debates, proposals and potential agreements. All of these will have an enormous impact on farmers, workers, consumers and the environment in the United States.

In the 1970s the slogan of "think global, act local" guided much of our thinking about the inter-connections. In the 1990s, we need to expand on this, developing the capacity to "think local and act global." If we are working to stop a toxic waste dump or to save our family farm, we will need to be able to influence events in Geneva, Tokyo, and Rio de Janeiro.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Ritchie is the Executive Director of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and serves as the national coordinator for the Fair Trade Campaign.

______________________________

GATT has been in existence since 1947. George Herbert Walker Bush is the one who spent his Vice Presidency under Reagan and his entire Presidency reforming GATT. GATT revisions were negotiated by Bush One and these revisions were finalized and signed by most of the 125 countries involved under Clinton. But the revisions and widespread expansion of GATT were initiated and negotiated by George Bush One and finished under Clinton.

Bill Clinton negotiated trade agreements not FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS which are very specific types of complex agreements that are designed to do two things: suck jobs out of the United States while pouring people and goods into the United States.

There is nothing wrong with trading agreements. These are essential to import and export goods and services between nations. What has been disaster for the USA are NAFTA, a Bush One concoction and all the FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS negotiated by GW Bush since 2002 when he was given sole authority to negotiate the terms and conditions of these agreements by the US Congress ... an authority his father had but that Clinton didn't have because Congress did not renew the authority while Bill Clinton was in office. Congress renewed it in 2002 after lapsing since 1994.

The FREE TRADE disaster that our country is experiencing is the result of Bush One and Bush Two.

As to Clinton and US Immigration Enforcment, Clinton prosecuted hundreds of companies every year for violating US Immigration Law. His last year in office he prosecuted almost 800 and during his 8 years in office, prosecuted thousands. George W. Bush has only prosecuted a handful during his entire 6 year Presidency thus far.

That is why states far from the border are crying out for assistance and enforcement. That is why people like me are crying out for security of our borders and enforcement. That is why my state almost 2000 miles from the southern border has been over run with illegal aliens since 2001. That is why places like Hazleton, PA more than 2000 miles from the southern border are passing ordinances to solve the problem. The reason immigration is an issue is because of what George W. Bush has not done to enforce our laws and secure our borders. While there was always a problem in the border states, this problem did not traverse our nation in volumes that have Americans on the verge of revolt under the Presidency of George W. Bush, a Presidency that has not only failed to secure the borders and enforce US Immigration Law, but a Presidency that amplified the flow by inviting it through non-enforcement; inviting it through his announcement of Guest Worker Program in 2004; by inviting it through agreements with Mexico; by inviting it through FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS that not only invite it, but that actually provide for it and make it legal.

There is a huge difference between fair trade agreements and "Free Trade Agreements". There is a huge difference between incidental illegal immigration and deliberate inaction and non-enforcement to flood our nation.

George W. Bush opened our borders, flooded our nation and did so on purpose deliberately and in direct violation of our laws and his sworn oath.

2ndamendsis, I took the time to remove that odd character in my post on the Truth About Illegal Immigration. I haven't taken it out of the link but will later. It's much easier to read now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1648579.stm

Saturday, 10 November, 2001, 18:53 GMT

China admitted to WTO

Asian countries fear losing export markets to China

By Steve Schifferes
BBC News Online economics reporter in Doha

The world's most populous country, China, was officially admitted to the World Trade Organisation on Saturday after a 15-year battle - a monumental change to the world trading system.

In a ceremony lasting just a few minutes, the 142 members of the World Trade Organisation unanimously approved the accession of the world's largest country into membership.

Loud applause and hugs between the Chinese delegation and the head of the WTO, Mike Moore, greeted the decision in the glittering conference hall in Doha, Qatar, where trade ministers are meeting to try and launch a new trade round.

An event of historic proportions for the world trading system

Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General
For its part, China pledged to work hard to ensure the success of the trade negotiations, and thanked the five heads of the WTO who have been in post since it began its struggle for membership in 1986.

But it put the WTO on notice that a trade round could only succeed if it addressed the gap between rich and poor nations, and ensured that all countries would gain from globalisation, as it staked its claim to lead the group of developing countries.

Chinese Trade Minister Shi Guangsheng that it supported a new round of trade negotiations "on the basis of full consideration of the interests and reasonable requests of developing countries."

The United States was the first to congratulate China on its membership.

US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick hailed the move as an historic step that would strengthen the WTO.

"I believe that as this century unfolds and people look back on this day, they will conclude that in admitting China to the WTO we took a decisive step in strengthening the global economic trading system," he said.

And he said everyone would benefit from the expanded access to markets and the expansion of a rules-based trading system.

Later, a US press briefing on China was delayed when a group of protesters drawn from the non-governmental organisations attending the conference blocked the entrance, shouting slogans like "the world is not for sale" and "Zoellick go home."

For his part, the EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy said it was the end of a long and arduous road and an enormous achievement.

Competitive threat

China hopes that WTO membership will cement its commitment to economic reform, which has led to a rapid economic expansion in the past 20 years and an explosion of foreign investment.

But some other countries, particularly in Asia, fear that China may take away export markets as it expands its trade.

"Of course China is going to be very competitive, but having China competitive under rules, under a binding dispute mechanism, is, I would have thought, in the whole world's interests," Mike Moore, the head of the WTO, said.

Long Yongtu says opening China's markets benefits the whole world

Industrial countries, who have negotiated a wide range of deals opening Chinese markets in agriculture, telecoms and financial services, are hoping that China will live up to its commitments.

"Just like every member of the WTO, China will have to deliver on its commitments, and we will be watching this very carefully," Pascal Lamy, the EU trade commissioner, said.

China insists it will meet its obligations.

"As long as our market is open to the outside, the more economic growth we have and the better for the world," China's trade negotiator Long Yongtu told reporters.

China will become a formal member of the WTO 30 days after it approves the terms of membership and notifies the WTO secretariat.

____________________

China was admitted to the WTO under George W. Bush.

China had Most Favored Nation Status with the United States and this was renewed by the US Congress under Clinton but had already been granted by previous administrations.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_12467117

FindArticles > Publications > Free > News & Society > US Department of State Dispatch > June 8, 1992 > Article

US extends most-favored-nation status to China - statement by Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater; letter from President George Bush; report of Office of the Press Secretary - Transcript

US Department of State Dispatch, June 8, 1992

White House Statement

The President informed the Congress today that he plans to extend China's most-favored-nation (MFN) status for another year. In making this important decision, the President stressed that it is wrong to isolate China if we hope to influence China.

Section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974 explicitly links eligibility for MFN to the important human rights issue of free emigration. Continuation of the current Jackson-Vanik waiver (and, thus, MFN trade status) will substantially promote freedom of emigration from China, as it has since 1979. China continues to permit the departure of citizens who qualify for a US immigrant visa.

Although we have seen positive, if limited, developments in our human rights dialogue, the President has made clear to the Chinese that their respect for internationally recognized human rights is insufficient. We are deeply disappointed in China's limited actions with regard to internationally recognized human rights and cannot describe our relations as fully normal until the Chinese Government effectively addresses these concerns. We want to elicit a faster pace and a broader scope for human rights improvements in China. Withdrawal of MFN would achieve neither of these objectives.

Short of fully normal relations, maintaining a constructive policy of engagement with China has served US interests. In our bilateral relationship, we have used the tools available to achieve the foreign policy goals shared by the Administration and the Congress. This has been true of our targeted use of 301 and Special 301 trade investigations and our vigorous enforcement of the law against prison labor imports and textile fraud. Our non-proliferation dialogue also has been successful: China has acknowledged international non-proliferation standards by acceding to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and declaring adherence to Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines. We are monitoring these commitments closely.

We have generated positive results without withdrawing MFN from China. Withdrawal of MFN would inflict severe costs on American business people, investors, and consumers. It would mean lost jobs and failed businesses in the United States and a multi-billion dollar surcharge on American consumers' imports. Our direct engagement with the Chinese is, on the whole, a successful policy. We intend to maintain it in order vigorously to protect American interests while we promote positive change in China.

Letter to Congress

I hereby transmit a document referred to in section 402 (d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 2432 (d)(1) ("the Act"), with respect to the continuation of a waiver of application of subsections (a) and (b) of section 402 of the Act to the People's Republic of China. The document includes my reasons for determining that continuation of the waiver currently in effect for the People's Republic of China will substantially promote the objectives of section 402, and my determination to that effect.

Documents concerning the extension of the authority to waive subsections (a) and (b) of section 402 of the Act, including a determination with respect to other countries and the reasons therefore, are transmitted separately.

Report to Congress

Pursuant to subsection 402(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (hereinafter "the Act"), having determined that further extension of the waiver authority granted by subsection 402(c) of the Act for twelve months will substantially promote the objectives of section 402, I have today determined that continuation of the waiver currently applicable to China will also substantially promote the objectives of section 402 of the Act. My determination is attached and is incorporated herein.

Freedom of Emigration Determination.

China's relatively free emigration policies have continued during the past twelve months. In FY 1991, 18,051 U.S. immigrant visas were issued in China, a 7.8 percent increase over the previous year. The U.S. numerical limitation for immigrants from China was fully met. Early figures indicate that the Immigration Act of 1990 will lead to an additional 15-20 percent increase in immigrant visas issued in China this fiscal year. The principal restraint on increased emigration continues to be the capacity and willingness of other nations to absorb Chinese immigrants, not Chinese policy. I have concluded that continuing the MFN waiver will preserve the gains already achieved on freedom of emigration and encourage further progress.

Chinese Foreign Travel Policies.

China continues to adhere to a relatively open foreign travel policy. According to Chinese officials, issuance of passports for private travel increased more than threefold between 1986 and 1990. US diplomatic posts in China issued 77,615 nonimmigrant visas in FY 1991, a 28 percent increase from the previous year. In FY 1991, 39,465 visas were issued worldwide to students and tourists from China, a 17 percent increase over FY 1990 and a 114 percent increase over FY 1988.

_______________________

George Herbert Walker Bush extended Most Favored Nation status to China in 1992.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/03/china.trade/

Clinton Proposes Renewing China's Most-Favored Trade Status
Congressional reaction mixed amidst larger China policy issues
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 3) -- President Bill Clinton on Wednesday proposed renewing most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status for China, saying it was "clearly in our nation's interest" as he urged Congress to support the request.


Most-favored-nation status offers low tariffs and treats countries as normal trading partners.

"Trade is also an important part of our relationship with China. Our exports have tripled over the last decade and now support over 170,000 American jobs," Clinton argued.

"This status does not convey any special privilege," Clinton said. "It is simply ordinary, natural fair treatment offered to virtually every nation on Earth."

Clinton cited China's hosting of a five-nation meeting in Geneva this week as an important example of the role Beijing can play in "meeting the challenges of the 21st Century."

The Geneva meeting is aimed at preventing an escalation of nuclear tensions in South Asia.

"Not to renew would be to sever our economic and, to a large measure, our strategic relationship with China, turning our back on a fourth of the world at a time when our cooperation for world peace and security is especially important, in light of the recent events in South Asia," the president said, referring to heightened tensions between Pakistan and India.

Clinton also continued to support his policy of "constructive engagement" with the Chinese.

"Trade is a force for change in China, exposing China to our ideas and our ideals, and integrating China into the global economy," Clinton said.

Congress has 30 days to respond to the president's recommendation for an MFN waiver. But amid growing concern about the president's involvement with another waiver that possibly led to the disclosure of sensitive national security information to China, reaction from Congressional leaders is mixed.

Support from Gingrich
House Speaker Newt Gingrich welcomed Clinton's recommendation for renewing MFN status for China, and vowed to work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that China receives it from Congress.

Gingrich, joined by Reps. Bill Archer (R-Texas) and Philip Crane (R-Ill.), made his comments in a letter to Clinton.

The lawmakers told Clinton, "We welcome the determination you made today to recommend the renewal of MFN trade status for China, and we pledge to work with you in a bipartisan manner to preserve our longstanding policy of commercial and diplomatic engagement with the Chinese. Seeking to keep China open to the West has proven to be the most effective way to advance our democratic values in this turbulent region of the world -- a policy we are committed to maintaining."

Despite their positive feedback, the members reminded Clinton that Congress is about to examine the question of whether national security was compromised by the transfer of missile technology to China, pledging to "carry out this investigation as fairly and expeditiously as possible."


Many members of Congress are not as positive about the president's announcement as Speaker Gingrich.

House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt issued a statement Wednesday opposing Clinton's plan to extend China's trading status for another year.

Gephardt said China has not significantly improved its human rights record and "America must stand for more than money."

Gephardt has consistently opposed Clinton on China's most-favored-nation status, only to lose when the contentious issues comes to a vote. But Democratic opponents say they have a better shot at defeating the president this year because of new questions about Clinton's China policy.

Strange bedfellows

The anti-MFN coalition encompasses some strange bedfellows: liberal Democrats upset with China's human rights record and Christian conservatives critical of China's lack of religious freedom. This year, even some establishment Republicans who traditionally have supported MFN are threatening to withhold support because of questions about Clinton's technology waivers, and questions about China's role in Pakistan's missile and nuclear programs.

House GOP Conference Chairman John Boehner, a traditional MFN supporter, said Wednesday that support for the annual extension was in peril because Clinton had not swiftly put to rest suggestions the missile technology waiver was connected to big Democratic campaign contributions from the Loral Space & Communications' chairman.

The U.S. granted most-favored-nation status to all its trading partners in 1934. But in 1951, during the early days of the Cold War, the policy was modified to require the president to suspend the MFN status of all Sino-Soviet bloc countries.

The Trade Act of 1974 allowed "nonmarket economy" countries to be granted a waiver and have their MFN status restored. Under the conditions of that act the waiver must be renewed every year. In 1979 President Jimmy Carter sent Congress a trade agreement with China that included a MFN waiver. Normal trade status was formally restored to China on Feb. 1, 1980.

Despite a strained relationship after China's 1989 crackdown of protestors in Tiananmen Square, China has been granted a MFN waiver every year since 1980.

CNN's John King, Ann Curley and Steve Glasser contributed to this report.

_________________

Most Favored Nation Status is a diplomatic status. Carter negotiated the first trade agreement with China. This massive volume of imports into the United States during the past 6 years has been the result of China's membership in the WTO which leads our companies to believe they are protected; encourages the relocation of our companies to China; encourages outsourcing to China; and provides a structure for dispute resolution.