Wei
Jingsheng Was Beaten Up
The Nov. 16 article on Wei Jingsheng ("Chinese
Dissident Turns U.S Life Into a Jail of Sorts," Column
One) is primarily a personal attack on Mr. Wei that entirely
misses the point of his mission. Rather than focus on the
important policy issues, it attempts to discredit Mr. Wei's
fight to bring freedom to China on the grounds of his personal
eccentricities.
It seems that while searching for reasons to cast Mr. Wei
in a negative light, the article manages to oversimplify his
position on United States-China trade relations. He has never
suggested that the U.S. "cut off all trade with China
entirely." Rather, in the interest of putting pressure on
Beijing to reform its legal system and improve its abhorrent
human rights record, Mr. Wei would prefer if the U.S.
government maintained the tradition of putting U.S.-China
trade relations up for annual review. For this reason he does
not support granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations
status. The deterioration of the human-rights situation in
China after the passing of PNTR gives credibility to Mr. Wei's
unpopular stance on the issue.
Furthermore, although Mr. Wei's participation in the
Democracy Wall Movement in Beijing in 1978 was touched upon,
his pivotal role in the democracy movement was not mentioned.
His most famous essay, "The Fifth Modernization: Democracy,"
not only spearheaded the movement in 1978, but also served as
the inspiration for the protests in Tiananmen Square in
1989.
If Wei Jingsheng is living within an
"isolation born of his own intolerance," he could not serve as
president of the Overseas Democratic Chinese Coalition.
Moreover, the differences in opinion that currently plague the
Chinese democracy movement suggest that it is fundamentally
democratic in nature. To overlook these facts and belittle a
man who has spent his life fighting for the freedoms that most
of us take for granted is to miss the point entirely.
Richard Long Washington, D.C.
Trading Up
I read with interest Manjit Bhatia's article on bilateral
trade pacts ("Lost
Cause? Free Trade Two-Step," Editorial page, Nov. 14). In
stating that free trade agreements "have the potential to
undercut the relevance of multilateral groups like APEC" Mr.
Bhatia appears to have misunderstood the fundamental role of
such agreements in strengthening the multilateral process.
While New Zealand retains as its top international trade
priority the initiation of a new round of multilateral
negotiations, it has taken the view that agreements (such as
the recently signed Closer Economic Partnership with
Singapore) constitute a building block in the multilateral
process and add momentum to global liberalization efforts.
Discussions at the recent APEC Leaders' meeting in Brunei
underlined that this sort of arrangement can be a very
constructive way of making progress towards the Bogor goals.
Indeed, bilateral and regional trading agreements among APEC
members serve as a tangible expression of those members'
intentions to comply with their APEC commitments. I think it
is important to note that the initiative with Singapore first
arose in the wings of last year's APEC summit in Auckland.
I would agree with Mr. Bhatia that poor quality trade
agreements do risk undermining the multilateral trading
system. There are currently too many so-called Free Trade
Agreements that fall short by avoiding sensitive areas such as
agriculture. Accordingly, New Zealand is interested in
entering into discussions with its trading partners only where
there is the possibility of negotiating high quality,
comprehensive trade agreements -- think "WTO-plus," not
"WTO-minus." In addition, such agreements should provide
tangible reciprocal benefits for both parties.
Mr. Bhatia's analysis of APEC focuses almost entirely on
its trade liberalization pillar, overlooking completely APEC's
role in trade facilitation and its substantial and growing
economic and technical cooperation agenda. APEC also
undertakes a wide range of cooperative activities that provide
a necessary complement to trade liberalization by boosting the
capacity of APEC members to participate fully in the global
economy and helping to spread the benefits of liberalization
as widely as possible within economies. It also encourages the
adoption of best practices in regulation, reforming legal
systems, competition law, corporate governance and financial
systems, to name but a few.
New Zealand remains committed to the multilateral
liberalization process and the early launch of a new WTO
round. We see the role of APEC as very important in achieving
this aim, not only through promoting trade liberalization, but
also through a host of other complementary activities that
will help to break down other, less visible, barriers to trade
in the region.
Hon. Jim Sutton Minister for Trade
Negotiations Wellington, New Zealand |