In January of 1996 Council on Foreign Relations member President Bill Clinton wrote :
“Fair trade among free markets does more than simply enrich America; it enriches all partners to each transaction. It raises consumer demand for our products worldwide; encourages investment & growth; lifts people out of poverty & ignorance; increases understanding; and helps dispel long-held hatreds. That’s why we have worked so hard to help build free-market institutions in Eastern Europe, Russia, and the former Soviet republics. That’s why we have supported commercial liberalization in China-the world’s fastest-growing market. Just as democracy helps make the world safe for commerce, commerce helps make the world safe for democracy. It’s a two-way street.
In the coming years, we must continue to negotiate to lower trade barriers and insist that our trade partners play by fair trading rules. As we continue to work to open new markets, we must ensure the protection of our workers & our environment, as well as seek to advance labor and improve environmental conditions in developing countries.” (Source: Between Hope and History, by Bill Clinton, p. 36 Jan 1, 1996)
On November 15, 1999 Council on Foreign Relations Member Margret Warner moderated a discussion on the trade deal struck between China and the U.S. and how it might pave the way for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization. The discussion took place on Council on Foreign Relations member Jim Lehrer’s a Public Broadcasting Service TV show A Newshour with Jim Lehrer. The discussion included Council on Foreign Relations member Kenneth Lieberthal, Council on Foreign Relations member Robert Kapp, Liu Xiaoming, deputy chief of mission at the Chinese embassy in Washington; and Robert E. Scott, an international economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington.
Council on Foreign Relations member Kenneth Lieberthal, was special advisor to CFR member President Bill Clinton and senior director for Asia affairs at the National Security Council. Lieberthal had just. returnedfrom the negotiations in China.
Council on Foreign Relations member Robert Kapp was president of the U.S.-China Business Council, which represented more than 250 American companies doing business in China. Two companies on the USCBC’smembership list are The Scowcroft Group, an international advisory company managed by Council on Foreign Relation member Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor to U.S. President Council on Foreign Relations member George H.W. Bush and Council on Foreign Relations member Gerald Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scowcroft_Group) (2); and Kissinger Associates, Inc., a New York City-based international consulting firm, founded and run by Council on Foreign Relations member Henry Kissinger, Council on Foreign Relations member Brent Scowcroft, and Council on Foreign Relations member Lawrence Eagleburger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissinger_Associates).(3)
Liu earned a master’s degree in international relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Foreign Affairs of Tufts University in 1983. The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy is the oldest school in the United States dedicated solely to graduate studies in international relations.. Every Fall, the school enrolls approximately 450 full-time students. The Fletcher School employs 30 tenured or tenure-track faculty. Council on Foreign Relations member Stephen W. Bosworth, the U.S. special representative for North Korea policy, is the current dean of The Fletcher School. CFR member Peter Ackerman is the Chairman of the Fletcher School and sits on the schools International Management Advisory Group. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_Ackerman) The Fletcher School employs 30 tenured or tenure-track faculty. Seventeen faculty members are Council on Foreign Relations members.(1,2).
Robert E. Scott “joined the Economic Policy Institute as an international economist in 1996. Before that, he was an assistant professor with the College of Business and Management of the University of Maryland at College Park. His areas of research include international economics and trade agreements and their impacts on working people in the U.S. and other countries, the economic impacts of foreign investment, and the macroeconomic effects of trade and capital flows.” (http://www.epi.org/pages/economist/#scott).
“The Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit Washington D.C. think tank, was created in 1986 to broaden the discussion about economic policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers. Today, with global competition expanding, wage inequality rising, and the methods and nature of work changing in fundamental ways, it is as crucial as ever that people who work for a living have a voice in the economic discourse.” ( http://www.epi.org/pages/about_the_economic_policy_institute/ )
Council on Foreign Relations member Kenneth Lieberthal, Council on Foreign Relations member Robert Kapp, and Council on Foreign Relations educated Liu Xiaoming argued for admitting China to the WTO. Robert E. Scott argued against saying it would be bad deal for middle-income Americans and their families. You can see a transcript of the show and listen to the audio at ” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec99/wto_11-15.html PBS removed the link, transcript & podcast here is a link to a copy of the transcript https://web.archive.org/web/20120704085639/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec99/wto_11-15.html
On May 1, 2000 Council on Foreign Relations member NY Times Reporter David E. Sanger moderated a discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations Headquarters with Max Baucus, member, U.S. Senate. CFR member Sanger opened the discussion saying, “Thank you all for joining us and for this interesting session with Senator Baucus who, as you all know, is one of the leading proponents in the Senate of Permanent Normal Trading Relations with China. We are only about three weeks away now from the first scheduled vote which will be in the House; it seems like a good time to begin this discussion.” You can read the transcript of the discussion at http://www.cfr.org/publication/3647/why_pntr_for_china_cant_fail.html .
On July 2nd 2000 Council on Foreign Relations member President Bill Clinton wrote :
“After 13 years of negotiations, the Administration concluded a landmark agreement for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization. China agreed to grant the U.S. significant new access to its rapidly growing market of over one billion people, while we have agreed simply to maintain the market access policies we already apply to China by granting it permanent Normal Trade Relations. The U.S.-China agreement slashes Chinese tariffs on American goods; opens China’s markets to American services, and contains safeguards against unfair trading practices. China’s membership in the WTO will spur economic reforms in China, open China to information and ideas from around the world, and strengthen the rule of law in China.
The Administration [also] secured commitments from Asian Pacific nations to eliminate barriers to open trade in the region by 2020 for developing countries and 2010 for industrialized countries. Over the next two years, 15 sectors will be identified for tariff reductions.( Source: WhiteHouse.gov web site Jul 2, 2000 )”.
On February 16, 2000 Robert E. Scott published Issue Brief #137 The High Cost of the China-WTO Administration’s own analysis suggests spiraling deficits, job The Brief states “China’s entry into the WTO, under PNTR with the U.S., will lock this relationship into place, setting the stage for rapidly rising trade deficits in the future that would severely depress employment in manufacturing, the sector most directly affected by trade. China’s accession to the WTO would also increase income inequality in the U.S. Despite the Administration’s rhetoric, its own analysis suggests that, after China enters the WTO, the U.S. trade deficit with China will expand, not contract. The contradiction between the Administration’s claims and its own economic analysis makes it impossible to take seriously its economic argument for giving China permanent trade concessions.”
On April 4, 2008 as the presidential campaign heated up in the United States-family Robert E. Scott debated Daniel J. Ikenson, associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies. The subject of the debate was whether the next U.S. president should get tougher with China on trade. The debate took place at the Council on Foreign Relations Headquarters. Scott said, “The gains from trade between the United States and China have flowed to a very small segment of both countries’ elites. The gap between the value of what U.S. workers produce and what they receive has widened dramatically, partly because deregulated trade has of all non-college educated workers (about 70 percent of the labor force). Between 1980 and 2005, U.S. percent while real compensation (including benefits) of non-supervisory workers rose just 4 percent. This measure includes all the benefits of globalization received by these workers. Most of the benefits of growth since 1980 have been captured by the top 10 percent, especially the top 1 percent, of U.S. workers. The problem is not trade, per se, but the current trading system which has encouraged a race-to-the bottom in wages and labor standards.
The systematic suppression of workers’ rights has reduced Chinese wages by 47 percent to 85 percent according to a recent labor-rights petition, and the problems are worsening. Occupational illness and injury rates have never been higher in Chinese manufacturing. Workers are frequently forced to go unpaid, and their complaints and protests are often met with violent government responses.
Fueling China’s vast trade surplus with the United States is its very high savings rates, nearing 50 percent of GDP inrecent years. Conventional wisdom is that Chinese workers save excessively because China’s pension and public health systems are so poor. However, household savings recently declined to 16 percent of GDP. Business savings, on the other hand have soared to nearly 24 percent of GDP and government savings exceeded 10 percent according to the IMF.
Thus, globalization’s benefits in China are reaped by an elite cadre who own and operate private and public enterprises. Their savings are piling up in the net worth of the rapidly expanding business empires under their control…” http://www.cfr.org/publication/15888/should_the_next_us_president_adopt_a_tougher_stance_on_trade_policy_with_china.html )
On October 14, 2010, The NY Times reported, “The United States trade deficit widened in August, with the politically charged imbalance with China reaching its highest mark on record, according to government figures released Thursday.” ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/business/economy/15econ.html?_r=1).
To put this in perspective when CFR member Clinton was considering promoting China’s entry into the WTO the total trade deficit of the entire year was 68 Billion dollars in 2010 our trade deficit is 201 Billion dollars and the year is not over (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2010).
On October 7, 2010, The International Business Times reported, “Trade deficit with China costing the U.S. 500k jobs this year… Between 2001 and 2008 alone, China displaced 2.4 million U.S. jobs, and 60 percent of those were in the manufacturing sector…” Since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, the U.S. has lost 5.5 million manufacturing jobs and unemployment is at 9.6%. ( http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/69697/20101007/trade-deficit-with-china-costing-the-u-s-500k-jobs.htm)
Wake up people, Robert E. Scott is right, globalization’s benefits are being reaped by a small group of elites. You are not part of the group. The group has names, the names include: the Council on Foreign Relations, They Royal Institute of International Relations, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, the Australian Institute of International Affairs, the South African Institute of International Affairs, the Indian Institute of International Affairs, the Netherlands Institute of International Affairs, the Japanese Institute of Pacific Relations, the Chinese Institute of Pacific Relations, the Russian Institute of Pacific Relations, the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission.
(1) Fletcher School CFR member Faculty members : CFR member Jeswald W. Salacues (http://fletcher.tufts.edu/faculty/salacuse/default.shtml), CFR member Michael J. Glennon, Professor of International Law (http://fletcher.tufts.edu/faculty/glennon/default.shtml). CFR member Eileen F. Babbitt Professor of International Conflict Management Practice, CFR member Amar Bhidé, CFR member Thomas Schmidheiny Professor of International Business, CFR member John Allen Burgess Adjunct Professor of International,CFR member, CFR member Antonia Handler Chayes Professor of Practice of International Politics and Law, Daniel W. Drezner Associate Professor of International Politics (http://www.cfr.org/bios/5471/daniel_w_drezner.html ), CFR member Steven Dunaway Adjunct Senior Fellow for International Economics (http://www.cfr.org/bios/15102/steven_dunaway.html), , CFR member Leila Fawaz Issam M. Fares Professor of Lebanese and Eastern Mediterranean Studies, CFR member Michael J. Glennon Professor of International Law, CFR member Alan K. Henrikson Associate Professor of Diplomatic History, CFR member Robert Pfaltzgraff Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies, CFR member William A. Rugh The (CFR member) Edward R. Murrow Visiting Professor Public Diplomacy, CFR member Jeswald W. Salacuse CFR Henry J. Braker Professor of Commercial Law, CFR member G. Richard Thoman Visiting Professor of International Business, and CFR member David A. WirthVisiting Professor of International Law.
(2) The Fletcher School and Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) are the only non-law schools in the US that compete in the Phillip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition. Paul H. Nitze is a member of the council on Foreign Relations. Nitze has been a fixture in Washington since 1946 and has served in the State Department and as Secretaryof the Navy. In 1989 Nitze founded the Paul H. Nitze School for AdvancedInternational Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University. In 1993 Nitze published a book titled TENSION BETWEEN OPPOSITES: REFLECTIONS ON THE PRACTICES AND THEORY OF POLITICS. When a CFR member tries to make a difference it is a difference designed to create tension between two or more target groups. Nitze’s targets have been the US, Russia, and Asia. When nuclear weapons made their ominous debut at the end of World War II, Nitze was there. As Vice-Chairman of the US Strategic BombingSurvey, Nitze witnessed first-hand the effects of the A-bomb at the sites ofHiroshima and Nagasaki. (http://www.bilderberg.org/roundtable/NitzesNotSees.html )
(3) According to a March 2001 report, Selected Staff and Board Members of the Scowcroft Group included the following people: The Scowcroft Team : CFR member Brent Scowcroft, CFR member Kevin Nealer, CFR member Colin Powell, CFR member Condoleezza Rice, CFR member Richard Haass (currently CFR’s president), CFR member Ken Juster, CFR memberHoward Baker, CFR member Carla Hills(currently CFR co-Chair), CFR member Robert Strauss, CFR member Lawrence Eagleburger.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scowcroft_Group)
(4) Corporate Members of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the U.S.-China Business Council include Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Chevron Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation, American Express, BP p.l.c., Citi, Hewlet Packard, JPMorgan Chase & Co., McGraw-Hill Companies, Moody’ Investors Service, Morgan Stanley, Standard Chartered Bank, ACE Ltd., AT&T, General Electric Company, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, IBM Corporation, Merck & Co. Inc., PepsiCo, Inc., Pfizer Inc., PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Prudential Financial, United Technologies, Verizon Communications and Walmart. (http://www.uschina.org/member_companies.html & http://www.cfr.org/about/corporate/roster.html )