|
MR. BUCHANAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of our press
conference here today is to urge the Congress of the United States to put
off
any vote on permanent MFN for Communist China until next year, until we
get a new president who is uncompromised in his relationship with Mainland
China.
Secondly, the U.S.-China portfolio ultimately, because it's the most
important strategic relationship this country is going to have in coming
decades, belongs not to the World Trade Organization. It belongs in the
White House. There is such a thing as linkage, and we need to link trade
to
other issues such as national security.
The chairman has given you the reason, one reason, why Congress ought to
reject permanent MFN and ought to reject this treaty, and that is,
Congress
is being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We don't even know what is in the
agreement we're being asked to support.
Secondly, however, there is the national security issue. Just this past
week,
we've had headlines that Communist China has warned the United States
and threatened the United States with nuclear missiles if we should
intervene
to attempt to defend the people and island of Taiwan. A week ago, China
threatened Taiwan with war if the Taiwanese do not immediately negotiate
an
end to their independence and liberty and return to the embrace of the
motherland.
Communist China, incidentally, has never controlled Taiwan. Taiwan has
been under Chinese control, Beijing's control, only four years of this
entire
century. So what we have here is the makings here of a Sudeten crisis
where a mighty dictatorship threatens war if what it claims as a lost
province
is not returned to the embrace of the motherland.
In my judgment, a vote by the Republican Party for permanent MFN would
make the Republican Congress a full accessory in the appeasement of Bill
Clinton.
A second issue is I believe that a ratification of permanent MFN or
approval
of permanent MFN for China right now would be a betrayal of the best
people
in China, the people who fundamentally agree with Americans in terms of
their values and convictions. Let me read a couple of minor items from
recent
reports. The first of these is a news report that came out between the
Delaware primary and the South Carolina primary, so it's fairly recent.
"China has arrested an 80-year-old bishop in the underground Catholic
church and now has at least eight bishops in detention, a U.S.-based
rights
group said Monday. The Cardinal Kong (sp) Foundation said 150 security
agents swooped down on the house of Archbishop John Yang Shudao (ph) in
Fujian province at midnight on February 10th."
Now, this is reminiscent of what the Stalinists did in Eastern Europe in
the
1950s. How do you deal -- how do you have normal business relations with
people like that? Let me read from Mr. Clinton's own recent report on
human
rights in China, just a sentence or two. This again was released February
25th, less than a week ago or a week ago.
"Abuses include instances of extrajudicial killings, torture and
mistreatment
of prisoners, forced confessions, arbitrary arrests and lengthy
incommunicado detention." Now, isn't this the same way John McCain was
treated in the Hanoi Hilton? How do you do normal business relations with
people who treat dissidents like that?
One other sentence: "Violence against women, including coercive family
planning practices, which sometimes includes forced abortions and forced
sterilizations, prostitution, trafficking of women and children." These
are the
individuals with whom we are asked to have normal trade relations on a
permanent basis. These are the individuals who Mr. Clinton believes
deserve
now permanent, unrestricted access to the greatest consumer market on
earth.
China trade policy, moreover, to move to a third issue, is a failure on
its own terms. Now, Pat has pointed out the National Association of
Manufacturers are talking about terrific deals we have signed with the
People's Republic of China. The point is, the deals have not worked, and
the statistics demonstrate that.
U.S. trade deficits -- right over here -- with China have exploded. Right
here is
Tiananmen Square, right about there, in 1989. And since then, the trade
deficit with Communist China has gone all the way from about $18 billion
in
Bush's final year to $70 billion last year, a trade deficit of $70
billion. Our
exports to China last year actually fell, while their exports to us grew
by $10
billion. What kind of trade relationships, on their own terms, is this?
They talk about farm exports. Let's take a look. Look at what happened to
corn exports to Communist China last year. They did very well in the year
just before Mr. Nixon was re-elected. There's a tendency on the part of
the
Chinese to ratchet up purchases when the American political system or
whoever the incumbent is may need them. That's 1995. Look what happened
in 1999 with wheat. Those are minuscule. Those are tiny fractions of what
we
should be selling to China simply as a normal market. Here again is the
trade deficit going up, and there's the trade exports, our exports to
China,
going down last year.
This is the most unequal trade relationship on earth. China sells us six
times
as much, more than six times as much, as we sell them. We take 40
percent of their exports. They take about 1 percent of our exports. How in
heaven's name can Ms. Barshefsky or Mickey Kantor or Clinton or Gore
defend a trade relationship like that?
The final chart I'd like you to look at is U.S. trade balances with China.
If you
take out -- if you even include fertilizer, where we had $1 billion
surplus in
selling China fertilizer, they sold us -- we had a $20 billion deficit in
computers and electrical equipment. We got a $1 billion surplus in
fertilizer.
Take a look at that last line. Everybody agrees we're the most efficient
agricultural nation in the history of the world. Why then are they selling
us
more agricultural goods than we're selling now?
The relationship with China entails the utter betrayal of the American
farmer.
This here is one of the reasons you can go out to middle America and see
one family farm after another collapsing while these farmers are being
told
what a great deal if only we get permanent MFN for China. What have they
accomplished in eight years? Well, the Communist Chinese have built up
these monstrous surpluses at our expense and could buy tens of billions of
dollars in American goods, both manufacturing and farm goods.
In short, U.S. trade policy with China is not trade. It is foreign aid to
the
People's Republic of China. And frankly, the causes for this disastrous
relationship should have been investigated by the Department of Justice.
We
need -- there's no doubt we need terms of engagement. We need
engagement with Communist China.
But the terms of engagement should not be set by Charlie Trie.
So with that, we'll be happy to take your questions. But let me say this,
finally. There is a return of economic patriotism in this country, I
believe.
Working with Pat Choate and Ross Perot and Ralph Nader and others back
in 1993, we almost defeated NAFTA. We lost by 30 votes when Mr. Clinton
went on a vote-buying spree in the Congress. In 1994, we almost defeated
the WTO. We lost when the Republicans collaborated with Mr. Clinton in
that
lame-duck session of Congress. If they had waited until 1995 when the new
congressmen came in, we could have beaten it.
We did defeat the establishment on fast track in 1998 and we clobbered
them on fast track in 1999. Bush, McCain, Bradley, Gore, Clinton, all
support permanent MFN for Communist China. The Reform Party and Pat
Buchanan oppose it. And we will win this battle. I am telling you, before
this
year is out, I believe permanent MFN will either be put across to the new
year or it will be defeated. Why? Because it does not comport with
America's national interest and it does not comport with America's values.
Thank you.
Question and Answer Session
MR. CHOATE: Let's open it up for questions.
QUESTION: Yeah. As far as the classified document, the trade agreement is
concerned, my assumption is that that gets unclassified as soon as it goes
up to the Hill.
MR. CHOATE: Normally it would. The Hill members can see it, but even the
Hill members can't tell what's in it. The 600-plus business advisers can
see
it, but they cannot tell what was in it. Normally when an agreement is
shared
with other countries, as they write the protocols that are necessary, it's
shared. This agreement has been shared with the Europeans, shared with
the Canadians. Obviously the Chinese know what's in the agreement. And so
what we have is this odd circumstance of the governments in Europe know
it,
the Canadians know it, the WTO knows it, the Chinese know it, the
Congress knows it, NAM and their advisers know it. The only people that
doesn't know it is the media and the American people.
QUESTION: Doesn't it automatically become unclassified and available to the public
as
soon as congressional debate starts on it?
MR. CHOATE: Not necessarily. Not necessarily. In Japan --
QUESTION: Or are they going to debate in executive session?
MR. CHOATE: Well, no, I think that they'll put a piece of legislation in
and
approve an agreement, as they've done other trade agreements, as they have
the implementing legislation. The argument that we're making is don't
release
the text of this trade agreement two days before you come up for a vote on
the implementing legislation. This text should be handled as NAFTA and
GATT was. We need months of time to study and decipher the footnotes in
the parts of that agreement. What this administration is doing is very
extraordinary.
MR. BUCHANAN: Let me respond to that. I think certainly he could not have
read it, but Tom Donahue, I believe, of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
right
as soon as the agreement was, quote, "negotiated," he said any
congressman who opposes this agreement does so, quote, "at their peril."
So whether or not the Republican Party can stand up to that kind of
pressure
and vote against this, I think, is going to be a test of its kidney, its
character
and its courage.
We are going to find out whether the Republican Party in Capitol Hill is
really
the party of Reagan or whether it is the political action committee of the
Business Roundtable. And this vote will be that test.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Pat, I know we're talking about trade here at the moment, but as you
know, the Taiwan presidential election is coming up the 18th of this
month.
And should a candidate get in that Mainland China is unhappy with and the
Mainland starts getting belligerent again, how far should the U.S. be
prepared to go to make sure Taiwan stays as it is?
MR. BUCHANAN: The people and the government of Taiwan have moved very
far toward modeling their system and approximating it as much as they can
on the American system. They're long-time friends of the United States of
America. And while Mr. Carter abrogated the mutual security treaty, I
believe, in 1979 and we do not have a mutual security treaty, the United
States of America could not sit by idly and let Communist China rain down
missiles on Taiwan or blockade that island or invade that island.
QUESTION: Is it a moral issue rather than a treaty?
MR. BUCHANAN: It is both strategic and it is moral.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that, please?
MR. BUCHANAN: Sure. And congratulations on a new addition to the
Squiteri (sp) family.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BUCHANAN: (Laughs.)
QUESTION: Last night, during the Democratic debate, the same question was raised.
And Bill Bradley essentially said that the Taiwanese, and I'm paraphrasing
him, should be told that independent -- they should not try to become
independent, but that the Mainland Chinese should also be told that they
should not forcibly try to threaten or coerce Taiwan into, quote/unquote,
"reunifying" with them. Is that essentially what you're saying?
MR. BUCHANAN: Well, I would agree with Senator Bradley's statement.
Certainly if Taiwan unilaterally declared independence, which would be a
breach of what has been policy since the Shanghai communication, which
was signed, incidentally, when I was in Shanghai with Mr. Nixon, I think
that
would be a unilateral step that the United States has not approved of.
Let me put it directly. We're not looking for a conflict with China. We're
not
looking for a war with China or a confrontation with China. And we would
not
want our friends to provoke such a confrontation. But to date, it is not
Taiwan
that is making belligerent statements or threats. They're all coming from
Beijing. It is Beijing that has threatened the United States of America
with
missiles if we should step in and defend Taiwan from attack. It is Beijing
that
is threatening Taiwan with attack if it does not negotiate away its
present
level of independence and freedom and liberty.
So Beijing is pushing this to crisis. And the worst message the United
States of America could send would be, at this crisis point, to capitulate
and
give China the greatest economic concession, virtually, it is in the power
of
the United States to give. That is the definition of appeasement.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask a related question --
MR. BUCHANAN: Sure.
QUESTION: -- on the trade itself. We've discussed this before, the timing of what
you
think may be the treaty going up to the Hill.
MR. BUCHANAN: I believe that the -- all right. I believe and I sense --
and
one reason we called the press conference, candidly, we had planned to
have it next Tuesday, after the Super Tuesday primaries. I called it
because I
sense in the Clinton administration, with Mr. Sweeney and others dropping
out of -- (inaudible) -- didn't they pull out of that? And with the
reports in the
Washington Times and other publications of these belligerent threats
coming
from Beijing, I sense a growing panic inside the White House that this has
to
be done early and rammed through or it's not going to be done at all.
And so this is why we wanted to move very early to say that we are ready
to
do battle if they send it up there in May, or even earlier, which I
believe they
may do and try to rush it through. And the Republicans are very nervous
about embracing an act of appeasement of China under the orders of Mr.
Donahue and the Chamber of Commerce close to the election. I think that
they're both afraid of the Reform Party. I think they're afraid of Pat
Buchanan.
| 
