congressional_record: CREC-1994-10-08-pt1-PgE29
This data as json
| granule_id | date | congress | session | volume | issue | title | chamber | granule_class | sub_granule_class | page_start | page_end | speakers | bills | citation | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CREC-1994-10-08-pt1-PgE29 | 1994-10-08 | 103 | 2 | CODE OF CONDUCT FOR U.S. BUSINESSES IN CHINA: NEW LEGISLATION INTRODUCED | HOUSE | EXTENSIONS | FRONTMATTER | E | E | [{"name": "Tom Lantos", "role": "speaking"}] | 140 Cong. Rec. E | Congressional Record, Volume 140 Issue 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994) [Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [Congressional Record: October 8, 1994] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] CODE OF CONDUCT FOR U.S. BUSINESSES IN CHINA: NEW LEGISLATION INTRODUCED ______ HON. TOM LANTOS of california in the house of representatives Friday, October 7, 1994 Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, with President Clinton's decision last May to renew MFN for China and to cease the linkage between China's human rights performance and United States trade benefits, a turbulent issue in United States foreign policy has supposedly been laid to rest. I suggest to you, however, that it has merely been side-tracked. It will come back to haunt us because the Chinese regime has no intention of tolerating any independent political activity and continues to suppress brutally all attempts at freedom of expression, assembly, or worship. Indeed, in recent months both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have offered ample documentation of deteriorating human rights conditions in China. Yet opponents of the linkage policy insist that trade provides an avenue for constructive engagement with repressive regimes. They cite the Asian miracle as proof that over the long-run, China's economic development will foster political liberalization. In China, however, the long-run appears to be very long. Thus, the country with the world's fastest growing GNP, also runs a massive forced labor camp system, in comparison to which the Soviet Gulag pales. Change will come eventually, but can that allow us to be complacent in the face of enormous agony and suffering today and for the foreseeable future? Mr. Speaker, let's be honest about the trade-as-the-vehicle-of-change argument, and acknowledge that it lacks credibility in the case of China. More persuasive is the pragmatic concern raised by the business community: since the Europeans and Japanese are unwilling to condition trade with China on human rights, why should the United States disadvantage itself by doing so unilaterally? This is a serious issue, and it ultimately swayed the President. But I disagree with the President because I don't think that helping the PLA to modernize its weaponry and to boost its arms sales to rogue regimes is in the interest of the United States. It seems to me that we have allowed short-term commercial gain to blind us to long-term, fundamental security concerns. ____________________ |