Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: MFN
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:02:02 GMT

In article <1eg84qINNabd@frigate.doc.ic.ac.uk> rap@doc.ic.ac.uk writes:
>From article <1992Nov19.125940.11065@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha):
>> Correct me if I'm wrong (and I may be), but wasn't the whole idea of Most
>> Favored Nation status developed in the first place so that the U.S. could
>> use the US market as a lever to force other nations to meet certain
>> human rights conditions? In other words, I think the whole reason for
>> MFN is to tie trade to human rights.
>
>I thought that withholding MFN (i.e. imposing extra trade barriers) was a
>means of punishing nations the US was cross with.  There are fewer than a
>dozen nations that come in for this treatment, aren't there?  Several off
>the list have human rights records as bad or worse, they just haven't
>defeated the US in a war, occupied a US embassy, etc, or asked the US
>not to bring nuclear weapons into their ports.  I don't think you'd
>suggest that MFN was withdrawn from New Zealand for human rights reasons.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
argh!  where's the Mali's human rights?!  Those ruthless New Zealanders! ;->
>
I agree.  a country can certainly enjoy MFN if its dictator calls Uncle
Sam "PaPa", but if they stopped doing that, trade sanctions, embargos,
and your El Presidente is a "god damned pistol totting money laundrying
drug kinpin", or a "godless Arabic power hungry territorial expanding
nuclear-weapon building nerve gas using hostage taking mad man".  

also MFN really means "average treatment" since everyone has it.  

The real fuss over this, besides all the people wrap themselves in
red, white and blue, and freedom, justice(of course, some of them 
do believe in it, they certainly over-simplify the situation, but I do 
applaud them for their believes),  Congresscritters like Dick Gephardt 
& company are simply on a mission to take home the pork, "save American 
jobs", and to stop "$7000 Hundai cars", et al.  Since they can't say 
that out loud these days, and "protectionism" is a dirty word, and 
"free trade" is the new buzz word(otherwise Prez. Gephardt would be 
running for re-election this year), what better excuse to keep out 
foreign made $20 sneakers and $9.99 GI Joe toys than wave the holy 
flag of human rights, freedom and Justice, and start a Jihad against
possible "forced labor" products?   

>But back on the point, I'd suggest that free trade, with the consequent
>enrichment of China, is also the quickest way of destroying the CCP's
>bureaucratic/totalitarian state.  It's also a lot safer and cheaper
>all round than Cold War.  Certainly try for any improvements to human
>rights you can get on the way, by making them think you might withdraw
>MFN, but actually doing it would be disastrous.
>
I agree.  Trading with them is the most effective way to bring about
change, it doesn't matter you're dealing with a private or state-owned
or joint venture company in China, the more they do business with
the outside world, the more their thinking will change, and these
are the people will bring more change to China in the near future.  

The US ought to lift the embargo against Cuba too, it is really having
a lot to do with Castro humilated the US before, and the national Ego
demanded until the Cubans goes down on their knees & apologize and give 
Uncle Sam a nice blow job ;->, the sanctions will remain.  But nowadays
Uncle Castro can't deliever the candy to his people, if uncle
Sam wave some $$ bill in their face, even the most hardened Communist
will give it a thought.  
>Ross


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china