American Politics Journal -- China, Trade and Human Rights: A Different Perspective



Home • Latest • Archive • Search

Guest Editorial
China, Trade and Human Rights: A Different Perspective
by Tom Granger

Friday, May 19, 2000 (AmpolNS) -- The Clinton Administration claims that "Our WTO agreement ... for China will help move China in the right direction toward attainment of our human rights objectives. Over time, people-to-people contacts through the media, Internet and travel expose the Chinese people to international standards and values and will continue to gradually loosen rigid, authoritarian structures."

A statement by Secretary of State Albright informs us that "[China's membership in] the WTO will add to the pressures welling up from within China for greater personal and political freedom."

These claims, and now the proposed Levin-Bereuter watchdog commission, are designed to win over and provide cover for congressmen who claim to be worried about granting PNTR to a country with a poor human rights record. The administration's argument that PNTR for China will, coincidentally, improve the human rights situation in China, is a little too convenient. It's not much different than giving GM a huge tax break in order to garner a fat campaign contribution, and then suggesting that the tax break could dramatically decrease unemployment by inducing GM to expand production.

But then maybe there is some merit to the administration's theory. Perhaps Jiang Zemin is losing sleep over the idea that by joining the WTO he is opening up his country to underground revolutionary forces. Maybe he and other Chinese leaders are even now vacillating daily over membership as a result: Monday they're itching for a WTO agreement, but Tuesday they decide that the inevitable collapse of their government is too dear a price to pay. But probably not. If the Chinese leadership didn't think that WTO membership would benefit them -- that is, help them help their friends, help them make a few bucks, help them stay in power -- they probably wouldn't be going all out for accession.

If you buy into the theory that permanent normal trading rights for China will help weaken the current Chinese government, then you have to believe one of three things about the Chinese leadership:
1. They're a bunch of dolts who are completely oblivious to this theory;
2. They also buy into this idea and preparing themselves to be wittingly undermined by the United States; or
3. They have considered this theory and have decided, a. it's laughable, and/or b. they feel pretty confident that they can beat into submission any of their citizenry that goes about preaching revolution as a result of WTO accession.

I'm putting my money on option 3a or 3b.

In fact, it wouldn't be surprising to find that the "China in the WTO = improved human rights" concept was given to the Clinton administration by the Chinese:

Bill with Jiang Zemin: "Well President Jiang, I'd really like to grant you guys WTO trading status, I mean it'd do wonders for our economy and yours, but I don't see any way I can get it approved in Washington. With all of the do-gooders back home clamoring about your human rights record and what not, there's just not enough support."

Jiang: "I've been thinking about this. Let me float this past you Mr. President: why don't you tell your public that as Chinese markets open up to your companies, Chinese citizens will undoubtedly gain a greater appreciation for human rights and various individual freedoms via their association with the influx of foreign workers ... tee hee hee ... Once the Chinese masses get a taste for these freedoms (snicker, snicker), they will demand it from us leaders (haw, haw, haw) and we will bow to public demand like we always do (guffaw, guffaw, howl, howl, whoo-hoo-hooo..)..."

Bill: "(Guffaw, guffaw, howl, howl, whoo-hoo-hooo...)...Whew! That's a doozy President Jiang. But you know what, I believe that with the right spin by my PR folks, we might be able to sell this puppy. I'll get back to you (hee, hee, heee)."

Take a look at Chinese history. Since the Communist Revolution of 1949 the Chinese government seems to have had a pretty good grip on the country. It was only eleven years ago that the west thought that the demonstrations in Beijing could potentially topple the government. After dilly-dallying with the students for a while, the Chinese leadership gave the finger to world opinion and crushed the students like so many ants underfoot. In 1983 there was a government campaign geared to eradicate the "spiritual pollution" of Western influence which leaders at the time deemed inappropriate. Prior to the 1989 incident, there was a pro-democracy movement in the late 1970's. But by 1979, pro-democracy political posters were banned and the movement ended (or went underground). There was the "100 Flowers Movement" in 1956 where the government invited free speech and government criticism. However, by 1957 the government began the "Anti-Rightist" campaign to silence the dissent. If the Clinton Administration is right about open markets paving the way to intellectual freedom and improved human rights, they will likely be right only until the government decides enough is enough.

Two years ago Clinton visited China and, when I arrived on his heels in Shanghai a month later to begin teaching English, the locals couldn't have been more ecstatic when they learned I was an American. Everyone on the street greeted me with smiles, gave me thumbs up and pats on the back, "America and China are good friends" I was told. Less than a year later and a considerable chunk of population was in the streets demonstrating vehemently against the U.S. as a result of the embassy bombing in Belgrade. I was told by the U.S. State Department as well as by my Chinese supervisor to stay in my apartment for fear of reprisals. The university at which I taught was plastered with pretty evil, although colorful, anti-American posters the day following the bombing. In the class I taught immediately following the incident, I got quite an earful from my students. None of them looked to be putting on an affectation of anger at the behest of the government. They were sold on the government's view of the bombing and appeared to be genuinely pissed off. I find it hard to believe that a year later the Chinese government has anything less than a tight fisted grip on the reigns of the country. WTO accession will not change this fact.

Even though open markets will not lead to a dramatic liberalization of Chinese society, Congress should still vote to give China permanent normal trading relations, and here's why: your average Zhou on a Chinese street is not sweating the state of human rights in his country. He/she is also not overly concerned with freedom of the press, freedom of religion, or democracy. This is not to say that a Chinese criminal unfortunate enough to be languishing in a Chinese jail, or a Chinese professor wanting to write about corruption in his country, or a Falun Gong member, or some students unhappy with their inability to express themselves are not concerned with these things. But the majority of people, the vast majority of the relatively poor and uneducated Chinese, could give two hoots. What most Chinese admire about the United States is not its political system or its Bill of Rights, but its wealth.

Though I am nobody's Sinologist, my limited experience in China as a teacher and traveler does incline me to believe that the Chinese people are slightly obsessed with the attainment of a western standard of material existence. In Shanghai, entire blocks, nay districts, are devoted to the sale of western toilets and bathroom fixtures. Other markets are lined with stalls selling knock off western clothes -- Nike, Adidas, North Face, Levis, and Tommy Hilfiger labels are tacked onto everything. Pirated music and movies, both in the form of compact discs and usually of American or Japanese origin, are hawked from street corners for $.50 to $2.00. Cell phones are about as prevalent in Shanghai as in Los Angeles or New York, and the nightlife is hopping for those who can afford the fast life. But no doubt about it, all of the younger generation aspires to this lifestyle.

My students were not the Mao-suit-and-horn-rimmed-glasses-wearing, quiet, shy, and extremely studious types I had anticipated. They came to class with Gameboys and Motorola beepers or phones in hand, and their clothes usually cost more than mine. Though I put quite an effort into sparking discussions on world affairs and issues in modern China, I usually came up empty. What I did finally get animated discussions on was the Backstreet Boys, Michael Jordan (a virtual god), the movie "Titanic", and Monica Lewinsky -- the closest thing I got to an enthusiastic political debate (well, except for the aforementioned class following the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade).

The main concern of most of my students was acquiring a position with a foreign company engaged in a joint venture upon graduation -- not, it seemed to me, revolution. Gainful employment may not be as romantic sounding a concern as human rights, but it's what they're after. However, my students by no means qualified as China's top intellectuals. The school in which they were enrolled was a kind second tier school for those who scored too low to obtain one of the very few spots available at state universities. This being the case, and the number of positions with foreign companies being fewer than the spots at state universities, the best that most of my students could hope for was a position making reservations at one of the posh hotels or waiting tables at a swanky restaurant catering to foreigners. But, assuming Congressional approval of PNTR for China and China's impending entry into the WTO, many of these same students would have a much improved chance at landing a decent paying job with a foreign company. They can fight the good fight for human rights later.

Although admission into the WTO will not result in the spread of intellectual freedom in China, denial of entry would, as Former President Carter pointed out, "... be a serious setback for further democratization, freedom, and human rights." If Congress votes against China later this month, you can be sure that life for any number of Chinese intellectuals will deteriorate as the government goes about demonstrating it's displeasure with being strong armed. The Chinese government will punish the rights groups holding China's PNTR hostage by stomping on the head of a popular dissident or two.

The only remotely positive result to be derived from restricting trade with China would be the protection of some American workers who would almost certainly become at least temporarily unemployed with China's accession into WTO. It is worth noting that the American workers who would be hurt by this are the ones who can least afford the pain: they are for the most part fairly low-skilled workers. Conversely, the Americans with the most to gain already lead a pretty damned comfortable life and would continue to do so even without granting China WTO trade status. Yet we live in a democratic and a capitalistic society in the good ol' US of A, and both democracy and capitalism will in all likelihood drive Congress toward approval of China's application. But if you are open minded enough to believe that a Chinese worker's life is no less valuable than that of an American, then you can console yourself with the fact that, although the WTO may make some poor Americans even poorer, it will raise the standard of living of millions of Chinese to a level still lower than that of the poorest American.