Re: [corp-focus] Against China PNTR

Dear K.J.Khoo,

I would be happy to read the piece you are suggesting to post. Your
contributions are, in my opinion, of high quality and thought-provoking.
And this particular topic certainly needs to be viewed from all points
of view.

Petros Haritatos, Athens

-----Original Message-----
From: kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my <kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my>
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: Ôñßôç, 23 ÌáÀïõ 2000 4:34 ðì
Subject: FWD: [corp-focus] Against China PNTR


>A view from Washington-based analysts?
>
>May I have permission to post a long (about 40Kb) piece by Walden
>Bello and Anuradha Mittal (under the Institute for Food and
>Development Policy by-line as well as Focus on the Global South, a
>Bangkok-based NGO think-tank) taking quite an opposite point of view?
>
>kj khoo
>
>
>--- begin forwarded text
>
>Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 19:46:20 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Robert Weissman <rob@essential.org>
>To: corp-focus@venice.essential.org
>Subject: [corp-focus] Against China PNTR
>Sender: corp-focus-admin@venice.essential.org
>List-Id: Sharp-edged commentary on corporate power
><corp-focus.lists.essential.org>
>
>
>Against China PNTR
>By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
>
>Should China be fully immersed into the corporatized global economy?
>
>The debate over whether the U.S. Congress should grant Permanent Normal
>Trade Relations (PNTR, formerly known as permanent most favored nation)
>status is about many things, but none more important than this basic
>question. The vote on PNTR is intertwined with a U.S.-China bilateral
>trade deal that contains tariff concessions and deregulatory measures
>designed to aid U.S. business, and with China's accession to the World
>Trade Organization (WTO).
>
>This should not be a hard question to answer. Opening the economy
further
>to U.S. and other multinational corporations and deregulating the
economy
>further will exacerbate the worst social and economic tendencies in
China,
>while undermining many of the country's important achievements of the
past
>50 years.
>
>As NAFTA proponents argued about Mexico, PNTR proponents can fairly say
>that China is already open to foreign business. But as with NAFTA, PNTR
is
>about corporate investment as much as the trade in goods. U.S. business
>wants the certainty that comes from the China trade deal and Chinese
>membership in the WTO, and the progressive elimination of the many
>barriers to foreign investment in China.
>
>Most of the hardships that large numbers of Chinese people will
experience
>if PNTR is granted and China joins the WTO are not seriously disputed:
>
>* Ten million or more peasants will be thrown off the land, as
>agricultural supports are withdrawn.
>
>* Millions of workers will lose their jobs as state enterprises wither
in
>the face of foreign competition, or downsize and speed up operations in
an
>effort stay competitive.
>
>* Social service provision will be decimated. Healthcare, education,
>pensions and other such services have long been provided by
employers --
>duties that state employers no longer want or can afford in the face of
>foreign competition. Foreign private corporations are generally not
>interested in taking on social service provision responsibility.
>
>* As a result of these and other factors, there will be a surge in
income
>and wealth inequality, exacerbating dangerous trends already underway.
>
>* Foreign tobacco companies will gain greater access to the Chinese
>market, which almost certainly means there will be a rise in smoking
rates
>among women (traditionally non-smoking in China) and children. Because
of
>the vastness of China's population, even small increases in smoking
rates
>may result in millions of excess tobacco-related deaths.
>
>* China will progressively lose the ability to employ the protectionist
>tools that have enabled it to grow at such rapid rates in recent
decades,
>and to weather the Asian financial crisis with minimal hardship.
>
>Corporate proponents of PNTR counter that the economic boom that will
>follow from PNTR will balance out the harms to workers and farmers --
that
>these transition costs are an unavoidable cost of modernization. But
there
>is little evidence to support these claims, and even if PNTR
>hypothetically did spur economic expansion -- a contention we find
>implausible -- it would still occur amidst worsening economic
inequality,
>a worsening of poverty and shredding of the social safety net.
>
>Strangely, despite the cheerleading from Big Business for PNTR and the
>acknowledged harms (no small thing to shunt aside), some progressives
have
>offered support for PNTR. They contend that it is inappropriate for the
>United States to treat China differently than other nations, absent a
call
>from Chinese workers and farmers for such differential treatment. But
>there are almost no independent mass organizations in China, nor even
>non-governmental organizations. Who exactly do these progressives look
to
>issue such calls?
>
>Another strand of progressive criticism of PNTR opposition rejects
>"protectionism." But it is perfectly appropriate for U.S. unions and
>others to protect the interests of U.S. workers, especially against the
>ravages of corporate globalization. PNTR will cost domestic
manufacturing
>jobs and enhance the downward pressure on U.S. wages by making it
easier
>for U.S. manufacturers to produce their goods in Chinese sweatshops. It
>promises few if any new jobs for workers in the United States. Big U.S.
>corporate winners from PNTR in the financial and service sectors will
>create virtually no jobs in the United States as they gain market share
in
>China. And most of the manufacturers who hope to sell goods to the
>emerging middle class in China intend to make those products in China.
>
>PNTR and China's accession to the WTO may be a winning deal for the
>Fortune 500, but it is a lose-lose proposition for people in both China
>and the United States. Opposing PNTR is an easy call.
>
>The PNTR vote in Congress is neck and neck. You can make a difference
by
>making a call of your own. Call your representative at 1-877-722-7494
>(toll free), and urge them to vote "no" on PNTR.
>
>
>Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate
Crime
>Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based
>Multinational Monitor. Mokhiber and Weissman are co-authors of
Corporate
>Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy
(Monroe,
>Maine: Common Courage Press, 1999, http://www.corporatepredators.org)
>
>(c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>Focus on the Corporation is a weekly column written by Russell Mokhiber
>and Robert Weissman. Please feel free to forward the column to friends
or
>repost the column on other lists. If you would like to post the column
on
>a web site or publish it in print format, we ask that you first
>contact us
>(russell@essential.org or rob@essential.org).
>
>Focus on the Corporation is distributed to individuals on the listserve
>corp-focus@lists.essential.org. To subscribe to corp-focus, send an
>e-mail
>message to corp-focus-request@lists.essential.org with the text:
subscribe
>
>Focus on the Corporation columns are posted at
><http://www.corporatepredators.org>.
>
>Postings on corp-focus are limited to the columns. If you would like to
>comment on the columns, send a message to russell@essential.org or
>rob@essential.org.
>
>--- end forwarded text
>
>
>