The law signed Tuesday by Clinton came from an agreement reached between Washington and Beijing in 1999, which would facilitate China`s accession to the World Trade Organization. With WTO membership, China will significantly reduce its tariffs, opening its markets to products and investments from the United States and other countries. The agreement reduces Chinese tariffs on a wide range of agricultural and industrial products and removes some barriers for U.S. service providers, such as banks and telecom companies. And it puts the U.S. and China on an equal footing, since China joins the World Trade Organization, the 135-member trade group that sets the rules for global trade. The U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 is an act of the United States Congress granting China the status of normal sustainable trade relations (NTR) (former most favored nation (MFN) when China becomes a full member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and terminates the annual review and approval of NTR. It was signed on October 10, 2000 by U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The law also creates a congressional executive committee to ensure that China complies with internationally recognized human rights law, respects labor standards and allows freedom of religion, and establishes a task force to ban the import of Chinese products made in forced labor camps or prisons. [1] The law also contains so-called «anti-dumping» measures aimed at preventing the influx of cheap Chinese products into the United States, which could harm U.S. industries producing the same products. It authorizes new tariffs and restrictions on Chinese imports that «threaten to disrupt the market of U.S. producers of a like or directly competitive product.» [2] 6. The USITC believes that U.S. Exports to China will increase by $2.7 billion and these imports will increase by $4.4 billion, including the static effects of reduced trade barriers and the dynamic effects of productivity growth and capital accumulation (USITC 1999, Table ES-4, p. xix).

These estimates are based on «specific tariff or market access offers made by China in April 1999». These offers were more generous than the actual terms of the final accession agreement between the United States and China, concluded in November 1999. However, at the time of writing, the USITC had not been asked to prepare revised estimates of the impact of the Final Accession Agreement (Arona Butcher, personal correspondence, January 2000). A coalition of trade unions, religious groups, environmentalists and veterans has waged a furious campaign to deny beijing the commercial plum, arguing that it unfairly rewards a communist government that threatens its neighbors, oppresses its citizens and complains about the rule of law. Unions have also expressed fears that the adoption will encourage U.S. companies to relocate high-paying industrial jobs to China. However, in China, the United States has a trading partner that oppresses human and workers` rights even more than Mexico and has even more independent power to manipulate its currency to increase its trade balance with the United States. Under these conditions, any increase in U.S. direct investment in China leads to an increase in Chinese exports to the United States and a decline in U.S. exports to China (Burke 2000). Finally, the promoters of China-United States. The trade pact says any increase in imports will simply be a reorientation of imports from other Asian countries.

Proponents of NAFTA made similar arguments in 1992, claiming that all increased imports from Mexico would be diverted from Asia. However, after the adoption of NAFTA, imports from Mexico and Asia increased. Increased risk of U.S. debt. In 1999, the current account deficit of the United States (the gap between financial outflows and inflows) reached $340 billion, mainly due to the widening trade deficit. Because the United States has to borrow to pay for its excess of imports over exports, America`s growing and persistent trade deficits raised public and private external debt to $1.6 trillion at the end of 1999 (Blecker 2000). . .

. .