***** The first thing to understand about the whole brouhaha is that PNTR is essentially a non-issue, or, rather, its importance is purely symbolic. The United States maintains Normal Trade Relations (a much more appropriate term than Most Favored Nation status) with all but six countries -- Afghanistan, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Serbia/Montenegro, and Vietnam (the UN sanctions on Iraq mean that in practice Iraq is also excluded from NTR) -- many of them countries that the U.S. wishes to punish for largely vindictive reasons. Furthermore, the U.S. provides special tariff treatment over and above NTR to more than 30 countries covered by special treaties like NAFTA, the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, and the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Area. China is not a candidate for any of this special treatment, but simply for normal trade relations, enjoyed by almost all of the world, including the full gamut of human-rights violators and violators of international law.
In addition, ever since Clinton's decision in 1994 to de-link consideration of annual renewal of NTR for China from considerations of human rights, annual renewal has been essentially automatic -- opponents of PNTR were not even seriously opposing the annual renewal. Most telling, however, is that, by the terms of the 1994 Marrakech agreement, after China's accession to the WTO (something that opponents of PNTR lack the political ground to fight on -- respect for human rights is not a condition of WTO membership, fortunately for the U.S.) -- the U.S. will have to grant unconditional NTR to China. It can still require annual renewal, but, without conditionality, renewal will be a pure formality.
<http://www.zmag.org/globalchina.htm> ***** -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>