-Caveat Lector-
The purpose of government is to maintain a society which secures to every
member the inherent and inalienable rights of man, and promotes the safety
and happiness of its people. Protecting these rights from violation,
therefore, is its primary obligation.
"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." --Thomas
Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795. FE 7:4
"The idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any
natural right." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. ME 15:24
"[These are] the rights which God and the laws have given equally and
independently to all." --Thomas Jefferson: Instructions to Virginia
Delegation, 1774. ME 1:185
"[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, VIII,c.3:] 'In the state of
nature, indeed, all men are born equal; but they cannot continue in this
equality. Society makes them lose it, and they recover it only by the
protection of the laws.'" --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace
Book.
"For the ordinary safety of the citizens of the several States, whether
against dangers from within or without, reliance has been placed either on
the domestic means of the individuals or on those provided by the respective
States." --Thomas Jefferson to James Brown, 1808.
--
June 20, 1997
The China Syndrome:
Let's not be hasty with a prescription
By US Representative Ron Paul
As a physician I know that what might at first seem to be a cure for a
particular ailment is really sometimes not a cure at all. In fact, going
with a gut reaction to prescribe a cure can do more harm than the original
problem.
The same is true for matters of state. The initial reaction to a problem in
society, or the world, will leads us to make a conclusion about a course of
action. Unfortunately, that first reaction can be wrong, even though guided
with the best of intentions.
We have such a case before us now. It is the dilemma of whether or not China
should be granted the same trade relationship granted to almost every other
nation of the world, a status misleadingly referred to as "Most Favored
Nations," or, MFN. We all know the charges: the Chinese government violates
basic human rights of its citizens, it is hostile towards Christianity, and
its system of government runs contrary to our most fundamental beliefs.
The initial reaction of our collective national psyche is to oppose MFN, to
be tough, and say, "No way, no special deals for China." But is it the best
solution?
To clear up a misconception, MFN is not a "special" status. In fact, MFN for
a country simply means we will trade with that nation with no extraordinary
barriers to their entering our marketplace. Free trade is not something to
be lightly dismissed. And MFN is nothing more than an attempt, albeit
imperfect, at free trade.
Eliminating MFN status for China does not hurt the Chinese government. But
it does hurt Americans in two ways. First, by imposing what is essentially a
tax on our people. It is a tax because it is the American consumer who will
pay higher prices on goods which come from China due to US policy. That
means higher prices on many items, but not just items which come directly
from China. If the tariffs on Chinese goods increases, people will be forced
to find replacement products. As the demand for those products increase, so
will those prices.
The second way it hurts Americans is the reciprocal barriers China will
inevitably create. It will be almost impossible for our farmers and
businessmen to sell their products there, which is why nearly every farmer
and every agricultural group I have heard from supports MFN.
But the critics of MFN for China do not address the free-trade aspect of the
debate, or the very real cost eliminating MFN will have on the American
people. Instead, they focus on the real facts that the basic rights of
people the rights we as Americans declare come from God are often violated
by China. And for that I defer to those who are "on the ground" in China:
the missionaries.
According to Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest who recently discussed
this topic on the Wall Street Journal's opinion page, the Americans actually
in China working to help the Chinese people are scared of what ending MFN
might do to their efforts and the people to whom they minister. After all,
ending MFN will not bring about the freedoms we hope China may confer on its
people, nor will ending MFN mean more religious freedom or fewer human
rights violations. In fact, those working in China to bring about positive
change fear only the worst if MFN is withdrawn.
"As commercial networks develop, Chinese business people are able to travel
freely, and Chinese believers have more disposable income with which to
support evangelistic endeavors," Sirico writes. Even worse, the missionaries
have been reporting that "such action would endanger their status there, and
possibly lead China to revoke their visas. It would
