By George R. Nethercutt Jr.. The New York Times. May 26, 2000
WASHINGTON -- Now that the House has approved legislation extending permanent normal trading privileges to China, it must decide whether it has the courage of its convictions on another issue: lifting sanctions on Cuba.
The vote on trade with China was the culmination of months of debate weighing the merits of trading with China against thorny issues like human rights, religious persecution and national security. In the end, the House Republican leadership persuaded a majority that trade with China actually
helps the United States resolve these other issues.
Yet, the leadership is using significantly different arguments to thwart legislation that would eliminate unilateral sanctions on the sales of food and medicine elsewhere in the world.
The current agriculture spending bill includes an amendment I wrote that would lift all food and medicine sanctions on Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea and Sudan. The United States stands alone in prohibiting sales of the most basic humanitarian goods to these countries, leading to $1 billion in
lost economic activity in rural America. Our farmers suffer from lost sales, but these sanctioned countries freely purchase an estimated $7 billion of agricultural commodities from our allies around the world.
Last year, 220 members of Congress signed a letter to Speaker Dennis Hastert, urging him to expedite the consideration of this amendment. The letter noted that that unilateral sanctions of food and medicine do not work. Because sanctioned states can easily buy the same supplies from our allies,
American farmers are the only ones punished; they are denied access to significant international markets. Moreover, denying innocent civilians access to food and medicine, if only in principle, is an abhorrent foreign policy tool.
The logic is straightforward: support American farmers and American values by allowing the export of food and medicine to currently sanctioned countries. The amendment merely allows sanctioned states to buy food and medicine on a commercial basis, nothing more. If a normal trading relationship
with China is a home run for America, then lifting these sanctions is the equivalent of a grand slam.
What, then, could be the problem? Despite the clear parallels with arguments it made in favor of the China deal, the Republican leadership is opposed to the amendment's inclusion of Cuba and seems intent on blocking even the sale of food to the world's smallest Communist regime.
This week, Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader, defended the position. "It's very easy to see the distinction" between trade with China and Cuba, he said, adding: "And if you all can't see it, I don't know. Maybe you're just blind to it."
In reflecting on the arguments in the China debate, I don't see the difference. Those who promoted normal trading relations with China said that trade promotes democratization. Change in Communist regimes is slow, but eventually democratic norms take hold. Dialogue and engagement with the United
States are central to this transition, as is exposure to our processes. If this is true for China, then why not for Cuba? Advocates of China trade note that trade talks are not the appropriate venue for resolving differences on human rights or security. These issues can be pursued in parallel
discussions. If this is true for China, why not for Cuba?
In his closing arguments in the China trade debate, Speaker Hastert asked the House to weigh the significance of the Chinese market, noting the intense interest of our global competitors. "The question is, who will be there when the door opens?" he asked. This week's vote demonstrates
that America will be in China. Then why not Cuba?
George R. Nethercutt Jr. is a Republican Congressman from Washington State.
Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company |