Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 22:40:56 PST Reply-To: ccf-editor@ifcss.org Sender: China-Net From: ccf-editor@ifcss.org Subject: CCF #9318, Nov 17: "From NAFTA and Beyond" To: Multiple recipients of list CHINA-NT ==+==+==+== C h i n e s e C o m m u n i t y F o r u m ==+==+==+=== Wednesday, November 17, 1993 (Issue No. 9318) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Chinese Community Forum (CCF) is a journal published on China-Net. CCF is dedicated to the discussion and debate on the issues related to the Chinese community. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the Editorial Board of CCF. Contributions to the discussions and suggestions of new topics are very much appreciated. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Table of Contents Author | # of Lines ============================================================================ 1. Theme of the Issue: From NAFTA and Beyond a. NAFTA in the Eyes of a Chinese.............................Anzhi Lai 122 b. From NAFTA To APEC -- The Answer of America to the Challenge from United Europe ...........................................................Jian Chen 68 2. Will Economic Development Bring Democracy to China.....Changqing Yang 125 3. From the Readers a. Comments on CCF #9314, 2b: Comment on China's Economy .................................................gdu@acs.ucalgary.ca 25 b. Corruption, Economic Growth and Preference..............William Deng 31 c. About Luo Ning's Article "Tidbits from ..." in CCF #9313....X. N. Su 14 d. Error the UPI Article in CCF............................William Deng 3 ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1. Theme of the Issue: From NAFTA to APEC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1a. NAFTA in the Eyes of a Chinese.............................Anzhi Lai 122 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No doubt, the center of the political storm in the US at the moment is the NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Although it seems to be a rather remote storm for the Chinese in the United States, it offers an opportunity for us to view a national issue without worrying the danger of being hurt by the storm, in other words, we may have an more objective and less emotional (contrary to the MFN for China) view on the issue. NAFTA will eliminate most trade barriers among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, which means that products as well as capital can flow freely among these countries. Unlike most other issues where we see Democrats vs Republicans, this time we see government (or elite) vs people (or grass roots). The government (including all former Presidents, Secretaries, the retired Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, the US Nobel prize winners in economy, and about 60% business leaders, or simply the elites) argue that NAFTA will give the US the opportunity for its products to enter Mexico and Canada much more easily, which in turn will not only reduce its trade deficit, but also creat trade related jobs. The anti-NAFTA force (led by Ross Perot, including most trade unions and largely supported by ordinary people, or simply the grass roots) argue that NAFTA will open the gate for US companies to shift easily their investments to Mexico where the labor is 1/7 in value that of the US, which in turn will make ordinary Americans lose their jobs or force them to accept low pay jobs. NAFTA, although signed by the Presidents of the three countries, has to be approved by the Parliaments of these countries. It is commonly regarded that the US Senate usually reflects the view of the elites, while the House of Representatives usually reflects the view of the grass roots. Same this time: the House is currently the battle field. The government is still short of votes to pass NAFTA even after the Gore-Perot debate, which was largely regarded a victory for Gore, and was believed having changed the views of a lot of people. The interesting phenomenon is that the US government has not been able to mobilize the people to influence those undecided Congressmen, but the trade unions with Perot have been lobbying the Congress vigorously than ever (this reminds me of the lobby for CSPA and MFN). Those Congressmen REALLY feel pressure for losing their jobs in the next election because a lot of them wouldn't be on the Capitol Hill without the support from the trade unions. Why the clash of government vs people? According to Gore, the US Government has been trying for long long time to open the market of other countries, but all the efforts encountered tremendous difficulties. Currently, the US products going to Mexico are imposed 20-30% tariff, but the Mexican products come in with nearly 0 tariff. NAFTA is going to be the first agreement that will put US products on a leveled ground to compete with the others. As ordinary people, they do not really care too much about US products entering other countries, rather, they care the most whether their jobs will be in jeopardy. Obviously, the government sees more of PRODUCTS, while the people see more of CAPITAL, flowing to Mexico. The former will definitely benefit the US, the latter will also in long term, but obviously will indeed make some Americans lose their jobs. When a government sees more national interests (however long or short), the people have to put their personal interests above everything else, which is 100% legitimate (not many care about only-God-knows-how-many-years-later?). I do not believe either side will be able to convince the other. The only unfortunate guys are those Congressmen who are caught in the middle. They probably know that NAFTA is a good deal for the country in a long run, but they could not ignore the concern of the people about their immediate interests. Besides the reasons mentioned above, it is interesting to see that both sides have a lot of other reasons for their actions. Among all, we see the arguments on human rights, democracy, environment protection, and fair trade practice again. Although the international community considers that Mexico has been moving rapidly in the past few years in all the mentioned aspects, which has been an necessary condition, according to Gore, for the US and Canada to sign such an agreement with Mexico, Perot seems still very unsatisfied. He still considers Mexico a dictatorship with a corrupted government (about 13 families run the country, in his words) that does not pay any attention to its people's rights and environment protection, and has been conducting unfair trade with the US. As a Chinese, these arguments naturally triggered a question in my mind: What if Mexico was replaced by China in the picture? Naturally also, the answer is not that promising. If the US government was to sign a SUSFTA (Sino-US Free Trade Agreement), it would probably have no chance to get an approval from the Capitol Hill. Why? Because, the government, on one hand, would be short of words defending China in all the mentioned aspects, and Perot et al., on the other, would have much stronger reasons to kill it. If nothing else is to mention, the unfair trade practice in China is probably much more serious than the high tariffs the Mexican government has been imposing on the US. For examples, the extremely tight import/export control that requires permission for almost everything (this has been one of the reasons that so many overseas CSS's could not "contribute" their love to the country by bridging trade between the two countries, and also a reason that the government officials are terribly corrupted), the trade compensation policy, the third port trading, and so on. It is said that President Clinton is going to negotiate with China and other Asian countries in the upcoming APEC summit. Let's wait and see what is going to happen. Through this NAFTA debate, I deeply felt something else. I have seen quite a few articles on CCF that claimed that the US government behaves in the world purely based on the US national interests. I very much agree that the leaders of any country have to put their national interests above everything, but I simply can't accept the notion that no justice is involved in international affairs. Having witnessed so many changes in the world, I must say that the US leaders are of the most idealism! When almost every country (especially those in Asia) in the world is practising protectionism, the US is still advocating free trading (as a result of this, it is "enjoying" a huge trade deficit, and is still so "stupidly" doing it!); when most countries in the world only talk about human rights without putting it into practice in international business, the US strongly adheres to this principle. If the "world leader", let's borrow this phrase, was not the US but another country, what the world would look like? Probably much worse than today! The other side impact of the NAFTA debate on me is the force of the organized people. While I do think NAFTA is a good deal for the US, I know that there is a good chance that it won't pass. If that is the case, it is simply because the majority of the people oppose it! History will prove who is right or wrong on this issue, but the reality is already telling us that a healthy society badly needs the balance between the people and the government. This balance largely relies on whether the people have the rights to organization and to opposing. We do not see this in China. Even sadder, many elites are so worried about the opposition from the people. Whenever they sense this kind of opposition, they always tell the people "be rational", "be cooperative", etc, as if the sky were falling down because of people's opposition to the government. It is my dream that, some day, the Vice President of China is sitting in front of the camera of the CCTV side by side with someone who opposes the government, debating on an national issue, just like Gore vs Perot on the NAFTA. (From: Anzhi Lai Nov-12-93) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1b. From NAFTA To APEC -- The Answer of America to the Challenge from United Europe ...........................................................Jian Chen 68 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- After World War II, the European economy was destroyed. United States sets up the well known Marshal Plan to help rebuild Europe. During the Cold War, Soviet Union presents a great threat on Western Europe countries. United States protected Western European countries from Soviet Invasion. Today, the Cold War is over. Soviet Union collapsed. The threat is gone. The economy of Europe is strong. They do not need help from American. United States is no longer useful to them. Europe is under the way to unification. The European Parliament is already there. The Central Bank of Europe will be founded in 1994. ECU (European Currency Unit) has been used between banks and the currency will be issued to the public in 1999. The tariff between European countries has been eliminated. The import duty from non-European countries was increased. The trade war between America and Europe is becoming more and more often. It will be more and more difficult to export American products to Europe. As an example, it is very difficult to find Oldsmobile, Buick, Plymouth and other America cars in Europe. With heavy import duty, Boeing and MD can hardly compete with government subsided European Airbus in European market. United Europe presents a great challenge to America. The size of European economy is greater than America. The more important, unlike China which are mostly labor intense low technology, European economy has the similar structure with United States which is high technology and service oriented. They have a head-on competition in the world market. The tension across the Atlantic Ocean has been high for a long time. President Clinton never visited, nor planned to visit Europe since he took the office. Recently, there are many debates on TV about NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement). There are many arguments for it and against it. Principles, jobs, so on. However, the key reason for NAFTA was never spoken in public. That is, to face the challenge from a united Europe, America must have more allies in the global competition. NAFTA will combine three economies, USA, Canada, Mexico, together and make American economy greater. This will strength America in the competition with Europe. A careful person can get hints from the interview of CNN with the speaker of US House of Representatives, Mr. Foley, right after he met President Clinton. Instead of talking principles, jobs, he said NAFTA is important to America for NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST in next century and predicted NAFTA would pass Congress. Why national security interest? Who is the potential enemy? APEC meeting will be held right after US Congress vote on NAFTA in Seattle. Clinton invited the leaders in Asia Pacific countries to attend the meeting including Chinese President Jiang Zeming. The aim of the meeting is to promote the economic cooperation between Asia Pacific countries. In other words, America is looking for allies in Asia Pacific Region. In the testimony with US Congress Foreign Policy Commission, the Secretary of State Christopher said he will improve the relationship with China for the national interest of America. USA views China as a potential ally now. All of these clues point to the global strategy of United States of America. USA is preparing to fight against a threat with USA, Canada, Mexico as the core, Asia Pacific countries including China as allies. With collapse of Soviet Union, the threat can not be anyone else, but UNITED STATES OF EUROPE! As this strategy gains momentum in Washington, Sino-US relation is expected to improve rapidly. It is understandable that many Chinese people were upset because Yinhe (Milkway) Incident and US Congress resolution on Olympic Bid. However, we should leave these events behind and improve Sino-US relationship. It is the national interest of China to improve the relationship with USA. It is also the interest of Chinese students in USA to have a better relationship between China and USA. Chinese students in USA have the responsibility for it. For the national interest of America, US government has put the Tiananmen Event in history and will improve the relationship with China. For the national interest of China, Chinese people should put Yinhe Incident and failure of Olympic Bid behind and improve Sino-US relationship. (From: Jian Chen Nov-15-93) ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 2. Will Economic Development Bring Democracy to China.....Changqing Yang 125 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since the early 1980's, China has been experiencing an unprecedented rapid economic development. The growth rate was much faster than that of Japan and other South-Eastern Asian countries during their economic taking-off. According to the study by the World Bank, during merely more than ten years, the number of people living under absolute poverty in China has dropped from 250 million to 100 million. It is half a United States, or more than one Japan which was left up from poverty, not counting the population increase. There have been no one in the world history achieved this much in such a short period. The entire world is amazed. Yet, the Communist regime in China has been keeping very tight political control over that vast land. June 4, 1989, one of the greatest tragic day in the 20th century, is still a fresh memory in millions and millions people's minds. The concepts of democracy and human rights are still sounding alienated to one-fifth of the world population while the vast land north of China has be liberated from the dictatorship. People have been constantly puzzled with one question: Will the rapid economic development bring democracy to China? My answer to this question is a firmly YES. The Beijing Government, when questioned about their human rights record has constantly makes the point that the most basic human right is the right to survive. And I do see their point, also I think they are using that as an excuse for lack of progress in the area of other human rights. It is very obvious that every one has to live before they can be granted any other rights. A country that could not even protect its citizen's life could have done nothing to protect its people's other human rights. A nation in starvation can no longer considering its people's rights of speech. A person left out in the cold winter would not worry who can let him think or speak freely. People in Somalia would worry about their food first before they consider what kind of government they want. People in Yugoslavia would want the killing stopped before they start to think what kind of political system they want. People in Russia are so apathetic to the on-going political struggle in Moscow because they have to spend half of their day to buy food and another one-third to find fuel for the coming winter. As one of the Marxist principle, although I can not pretend I thoroughly understand Marxism, is that ideology is determined by economical foundation. A democratic society can not be set up on the basis of poverty. We have seen quite a few examples around us which showed that economic development brought the democratization of a country or a region. South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Philippine, etc., all become more democratic after their economy reached a certain level. We all remember the student movements and uprising in South Korea in the 70's and early 80's. We all remember the military rules in South Korea, in Thailand, in Philippine, etc. The Japanese LDP, although was in a so-called democratic society, was as corrupted as any third world dictator. Lee Kuan Yew had been one of the long time dictator in the regional history. Not to mention Taiwan, which just emerged a democratic face recently. On the contrast, the former Soviet Union and the Eastern block, have tried the other way around: political reform first, and then economic development. It has been about four years since the communists lost their power in Eastern Europe. Yet, communists were elected back to power in Poland and Lithuania. In Romania, it was still communist there. Eastern Germany, despite the help of Western Germany, still has long way to go before the economy's recovery. Neo-Nazi has recovered faster than the economy. Russia, as we all have seen, has fallen into endless political struggle. A dictatorship is on the horizon. Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, several of the republics in the former Soviet Union are in civil war. Except Czech, Hungary and Bulgaria, most of the former Eastern Block, which followed the "political reform, then economic development path" are all in trouble. All the lessons and experiences tell us that the process of democratization will only follow the economic development but not before. One may quickly point out the examples of pre-WW2 Germany and Japan. The economic development of pre-WW2 Germany and Japan led to the greatest tragedies of the two nations as well as the entire human being. Comparison of the economic development of China with the above two examples is invalid. First of all, the characters of the compared economies are different. In the pre-WW2 Germany and Japan, the economy was highly military-oriented, highly nationalized, or state controlled. The economy in China is going to the opposite direction. Last year nearly half of the GDP was produced by the private sectors. A government has no total control of the economy will not be able to bring the entire nation to any kind of total disaster. A dictatorship with private enterprises is highly unlikely. Second, both pre-WW2 German and Japanese Governments used certain propaganda to stir up anti-foreigner (and anti-communism) sentiments, stir up some sort of the national superiority feeling in their people. While this can unite a nation, it can easily bring a nation to the cliff of disaster. On the contrary, the Chinese government, while unhappy with the Western ideological doctrine, has been willing to open the door wider, willing to let the people know more about the outside world, willing to admitted the backwardness of the country. On one hand, they want to keep the national prestige, one the other hand, they never stir up or claim any kind of national superiority. They are not trying to blame the outside world for their own problems. It is highly incomparable with what Nazi did before WW2. In fact, the economic development in China has brought quite dramatic changes in the political environment in China. Anyone who is not biased, blind should have seen it. The press there is apparently much freer compare to four years ago. The people there have more freedom to choose where to live and where to go to work. Last December, the government started to allow amateur radio station the first time since the founding of the People's Republic. Not to mention many others. All of these were not thinkable ten years ago. Of course, it is not enough. Yet, it is changing, it is in progress. As the continuing economic development, the further progress in privatization, the growth of the market force, and, most importantly, the formation and the maturity of a middle class, the power will inevitably shift from the central government to the people who are controlling the economy, i.e., the middle class. The future of democracy in China lies on this, but not political struggle or radical ideological religious like revolutions. Every one wants to see the changes come faster. Yet, we have to bear in mind that we have to make sure that all the changes will not cause social unrest. If social unrest breaks out, all the achievement we have gotten so far will go down the drain. As overseas students and scholars, the best thing we can do to promote the changes in China is to promote the economic development in China, to promote the exchange between China and the rest of the world, while be alert of any changing in the direction of the reform. We need to be somehow a little friendly towards the government in order to promote the changes, as long as it keeps current path without changing direction. We need to be a little more reasonable towards the government while we push for democracy and freedom in China. We need to adjust our strategy. A little cooperation can achieve more than a lot of confrontation. We, especially IFCSS need to change the mentality. We need to think more in term of the national interests instead of ideology. We need to think in term of the future while we do not forget the past. We can not simply oppose what ever the government supports and uphold what ever the government opposes. We are overseas. It is in the interests of the nation that we are rational, not emotional. It will eventually be in our own interests that we have a strong and prosperous motherland standing behind us. (From: Changqing Yang 8-OCT-93) ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 3. From the Readers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3a. Comments on CCF #9314, 2b: Comment on China's Economy ..................................................gdu@acs.ucalgary.ca 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- a). The author of Article 2b in CCF #9314 seemed worried that the Chinese economy is not privatizing. It actually is! That fact that more than forty percent of the economy is no longer state-owned is the clear indicator that the economy is privatizing itself by the way that the fastest growing section of the economy is the private sector. State-owned companies are generally speaking performing worse than small businesses. Given time, the state-owned proportion will decrease to a point that the central government or the Party does not have the power to influence the economy any more. That will be the time the economy will really develop on a free market sense. At present, it is best to leave the way it is. If efforts are made to privatize the state-owned companies, there will be too much attention to be paid to avoid a political debate or disturbance. Further, the stock issuing of the state-owned companies IS a measure of privatization. It is just a matter of time and way to do it. b). I think too much attention is paid to Deng. When Chairman Mao died, everybody thought that China would have had a disaster and we were facing our destination. We turned out to be better off having Deng in position. We attribute much of the reform to Deng and he will be remembered for this. But remember Deng was a member of the Politburo himself in the Mao times and deeply in his heart and judged from his act, will never make political reforms as long as he is alive. Nobody can stop the earth from evolving and we do not have to worry about anybody's death. We Chinese should stop thinking of our future depending on somebody's death or liveness. Believe that new people have new thinking, have opener minds, and can do it better! (From: Nov-11-93) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3b. Corruption, Economic Growth and Preference..............William Deng 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No doubt that corruption is not popular anywhere. But it's funny to call an economist a communist simply because he said that corruption is not necessary a bad thing. Indeed, the whole economics profession has little dispute against many researches' conclusion that corruption plays a positive role in contributing to China's amazing economic growth, because corruption increases resources allocation efficiency, among others. Corruption is also an unavoidable by-product of the ongoing reform in China. The totally central planning economy before reform had little corruption and the fully developed economy like that in the U.S. also has little corruption. Nobody wants to go back to Mao's era. But the process to a full developed market economy take time and patience. With the underdeveloped market system and related institutions at this stage of reform in China, corruption is one important lubricant to keep the economy running smoothly. Thus, there is a painful trade-off choice for China to make between corruption and economic growth. But corruption is unfair, immoral and very unpopular. I myself hate corruption personally as anyone else because I have bitter experiences of being forced to give bribes to get what I want, like my passport. The Chinese government realize that and therefore there are one round after another anti-corruption campaigns, which, as expected, resulted in little effect in turning around the tide. Because corruption is caused by the social structure problem rather than anything else, not much fundamental could be done until the reform is fully accomplished and a developed economy is established. Writing all these simply because I think we need more understanding, patience and even tolerance to give China's reform a chance for complete success. Corruption is a bad thing, but not as bad as most of us may think. How bad (or good) it is really depends on your preference for short-term justice or long-term economic growth and democracy which is an inevitable product of fully developed economy. (From: William Deng Nov-15-93) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3c. About Luo Ning's Article "Tidbits from ..." in CCF #9313....X. N. Su 14 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Ning Luo: In your recent article "Tidbits from This Year's Election" on CCF, you wrote: "Chinese-American politicians have been traditionally dominated by Democrats. This time the Asian community turned its back on Democratic Party by a 2 to 1 margin...". Could you tell us where or how you got this source or impression that Asian community have been traditionally dominated by Democrats? If you were talking about local Asian community in New York area, you might be right.(I don't know.) But if speaking nationwide, I believe the fact is just exactly opposite to what you have claimed. Look at the results of previous presidential elections. Don't look too far, just look the last year's presidential election in which Bush lost in most of categories and almost all the race groups EXCEPT ASIAN GROUP which voted for him by an about 3:1 ratio. (From: X. N. Sun 11-Nov-93) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3d. Error the UPI Article in CCF............................William Deng 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I just saw the forwarded UPI Article 5. "Clinton...." on CCF #9315. Those deficit figures should be "billion"s instead of "million"s, I believe. I think you may like to know that. (From: William Deng Nov-12-93) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ + Executive Editor: Shusheng Luan Executive Moderator: Tong Shen + +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + For subscription: mail "SUB CHINA-NT Your-First-Name Your-Last-Name" + + to LISTSERV@UGA (bitnet) or listserv@uga.cc.uga.edu (internet) + + For back issues of CCF: + + anonymous ftp to cnd.org[132.249.229.100]:pub/community/CCF + + For contribution and inquiry: mail to ccf-editor@ifcss.org + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++