China Trade Bill Makes for Strange Alliances

In the congressional fight over expanding trade ties with China, opponents are quick to note Beijing’s abysmal human rights record, its religious persecution and its intimidation of Taiwan.

So why are Taiwanese interests quietly working for a yes vote on the trade bill, why has evangelist Billy Graham hinted his support for the idea and why are China’s own dissidents deeply split on the issue?

The often-surprising, seemingly contradictory stands taken by some of those involved in the massive lobbying effort over the trade bill have provided the measure’s advocates an important edge, one that has helped the momentum shift in their favor as a House vote looms this week.

“It’s neutralized the other side of the argument,” said Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento), one of the leading Democrats in favor of the trade bill. “They don’t command the moral high ground when there are dissidents inside China taking our position.”

But such stands also underscore a point central to the debate: The issue is far more nuanced and complex than the black-and-white sound bites dished out daily for media consumption. And this, in turn, has made the vote a particularly tough call for the 35 or so lawmakers still undecided.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) is one of those undecideds for whom the human-rights question is paramount.

“There are people he respects on both sides of the debate, providing completely opposite views of what the impact this bill will have on human rights,” said Waxman’s press secretary, Philip Schiliro. “It just makes it all more difficult.”

Such divisions also make it hard for members politically.

“Wherever they come down, the undecideds know they are going to alienate somebody,” said Mike Jendrzejczyk of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch. The privately funded group backs the trade deal but only with conditions aimed at prodding China to improve its human rights record.

Jendrzejczyk added: “The intensity of the lobbying atmosphere and the stakes involved have created some strange alliances between people who usually concentrate on trade and those who focus only on human rights. Groups that usually don’t work together or which usually vehemently disagree with each other are finding themselves on the same side.”

The pivotal House vote on permanently granting China normal trade relations is widely seen by Washington policymakers as one of the most important of the Clinton presidency. The stakes are especially high for California: In 1998, more than 100,000 jobs in the state were traced back to the $6 billion in U.S. exports to China, according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Dominating the lobbying are two powerful coalitions. Corporate America is the major backer of the legislation because of the new opportunities it will provide for U.S. firms in China. Organized labor is the most powerful opposition bloc, claiming that the deal will cost U.S. jobs and increase exploitation of foreign labor.

Alton Frye, who studies the role of Congress on foreign policy for the Council on Foreign Relations, believes that the positions of these groups and others do not so much influence the thinking of House members as provide the lawmakers with potential political cover for casting a vote unpopular in their home districts.

“A member who takes an unpopular stand can point to the company he or she is keeping,” Frye said. “If misery loves company, a politically risky decision loves it even more.”

Precisely for this reason, Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas), a leading House proponent of permanent trade status for China, this week circulated to colleagues a carefully worded letter he received from the Rev. Billy Graham that Dreier’s aides say places the respected evangelist squarely in their camp.

In the letter, Graham cautioned: “I do not want to become involved in the political aspects of this issue.” But he then states an argument shared by proponents of a yes vote.

“I believe it is far better for us to thoughtfully strengthen positive aspects of our relationship with China than to treat it as an adversary,” Graham wrote. “In my experience, nations can respond to friendship just as much as people do.”

Graham spokesman John Corts described the evangelist’s comments as a statement of personal preference and said that the well-known preacher had no plans to make any formal public endorsement on the issue.

While other religious leaders have endorsed permanent trade ties with Beijing, Graham’s reputation--and his letter--are especially important, trade advocates claim. They say that it helps them counter the argument frequently made by opponents that the trade deal is driven mainly by the greed of big business.

An apparent shift by the state of Massachusetts on the issue of trade versus human rights, on the other hand, would appear to bolster those who argue that the quest for corporate profits is the bottom line for those backing the China bill.

Two months ago, state officials went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend a 1996 Massachusetts law that punishes companies that trade with the military regime in Myanmar (a decision on the case is pending). Earlier this week, Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci came to Washington declaring that “open trade helps . . . improve the quality of life in China.”

The difference between the two, say critics of the trade bill, is easy to spot: China offers significant opportunities for Massachusetts businesses; Myanmar does not.

To those supporting the bill, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters has engaged in similar footwork but in the opposite direction.

Teamsters President James P. Hoffa only two months ago urged the Clinton administration to let United Parcel Service serve the U.S.-China market because it would create new American jobs, including many for his union. But then Hoffa joined with other large industrial unions to oppose granting permanent trade status to Beijing on grounds that it would be bad for both U.S. and Chinese workers.

“Teamsters are not opposed to fair trade, but this trade isn’t fair,” said Teamsters acting Communications Director Bret Caldwell. “Clinton’s proposals don’t protect jobs here or labor standards abroad.”

Other stands seem to cut against the grain of conventional wisdom.

Taiwan, for example, quietly backs the China bill despite being openly threatened with war and invasion by Beijing. Its reasons: a huge and growing commercial relationship with the mainland; an understanding that once Beijing enters the World Trade Organization, Taipei will quickly follow; and the belief that expanded U.S.-China ties would improve Taiwanese-Chinese relations.

And so, in his first post-election newspaper interview, Taiwanese President-elect Chen Shui-bian advocated normal U.S.-China trade ties. Then, Chen signaled to Taipei’s most ardent supporters in the U.S. Senate that he would prefer to delay action on controversial legislation to beef up the U.S. defense commitment to Taiwan until after he assumed office Saturday. The move effectively separated the measure from the China trade bill.

The Taiwan security legislation, already approved by the House, is strenuously opposed by Beijing.

The split among human rights and pro-democracy groups over the China deal has produced some unlikely backers of the legislation. The best-known Chinese dissident, Wei Jingsheng, remains among its more visible opponents. But others, including many still struggling in China itself, have issued statements supporting permanent normal trade ties in the belief that opening the country to outside forces will moderate the government’s behavior.

Hong Kong’s most prominent pro-democracy figure, Martin Lee, recently joined President Clinton at the White House to lobby a group of undecided House members on the virtues of permanent normal trade ties.

“I told the president that this is not an end in itself but a beginning, the beginning of the rule of law for China,” Lee said. “It is the single biggest opportunity we have” to bring China under a rule of law.

Lee was referring to the rules that would bind China once it joins the WTO.

While the effect of such verbal tugging and pulling remains unclear, one of the few certainties is that it will intensify as the debate enters its final days.