October 27, 2000
The Honorable Charlene Barshefsky Dear Ambassador Barshefsky: China must not be permitted to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) until it agrees to live by meaningful rules that will ensure effective enforcement of the market access and other commitments it has made in bilateral agreements negotiated with the U.S. and other WTO member countries. On this, there must be no equivocation. We must have protocols that are sufficient to hold China accountable for the full and faithful implementation of its commitments. The absence of agreement on the protocols was a major reason I voted five months ago against granting China permanent normal trade relations status. Reports from the last meeting of the Working Party on China Accession to the WTO have only raised my concern that China is more interested in renegotiating its agreements than in faithfully living up to its commitments. It is, therefore, essential that the U.S. representatives, at the upcoming meeting of the Working Party on November 2nd in Geneva, remain firm and resolute in their insistence that China must agree to strong and effective protocols. The stakes are very high for both American firms and American workers. If China is allowed to maintain its dual inspection system, one for domestically produced Chinese products and another for imported products, the value of its market access commitments, inevitably, will be greatly diminished for American business and American workers. If the WTO fails to maintain a "transitional review" presence in China for the full time that commitments are to be phased in, the likelihood that those commitments will never be implemented is significantly increased. Delays in phasing out quotas on autos and other products make China’s commitments far less valuable to U.S. manufacturers and U.S. workers. And if we renegotiate the standard for triggering a product-specific safeguard in trade diversion cases, as China now proposes, the risk of future job losses for American workers in steel and other import sensitive industries will be increased. If we do not make sure China takes the necessary steps to change its telecommunications laws and its wholesale and retail distribution laws, access to China’s market for telecommunications firms, auto manufacturers, and many other U.S. industries will also be reduced. If China is permitted to redefine and broaden the category of "statutory insurance" in order to avoid opening its market to foreign insurers, the commitments China made on insurance may prove to be worthless. If China is allowed to take advantage of protections in the subsidies code that are reserved for developing countries, American workers and American firms will pay the price in lost jobs and unfair subsidized competition. And U.S. and other foreign service firms will be subject to great harm if, as China has suggested, it fails to make its licensing system transparent by giving foreign firms an explanation in writing when licenses are denied. Clearly, the commitments China has made are only good if they are carried out. I would, therefore, encourage you to make it very clear at the upcoming Working Party meeting that China’s admission to the WTO simply will not occur, unless and until China accepts enforcement provisions and protocols that work. With every good wish. Sincerely, JOHN D. DINGELL
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
