Among the first voices raised in opposition to the deal were those of rightist Patrick Buchanan and AFL-CIO officials, who pledged to campaign to build opposition to the pact in the U.S. Congress. Buchanan called the pact a "cave-in" to Beijing. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said the agreement "deals away our democratic principles and most cherished values, and we will fight it." Washington, he said, is "prostrating itself in pursuit of a trade deal with a rogue nation that decorates itself with human rights abuses."

The U.S. rulers hope to eventually reimpose capitalist domination in the world's most populous country, where it was overturned 50 years ago in the Chinese revolution. They frame their trade and military policy with that in mind. At the same time U.S. capitalists want to reap profits today by exploiting the human and natural resources in China. Beijing, for its part, is pushing to join the World Trade Organization in order to expand trade relations and attract investment.

The agreement, if implemented, would open significant areas of China's economy to more direct and larger-scale penetration by U.S. capital. Its provisions include a reduction in the tariffs China levies on imported goods from 22.1 percent to 17 percent. Tariffs on U.S. farm products would be cut sharply to 15 percent or less. A steeper tariff cut would be applied to automobiles, from 100 percent to 25 percent over six years.

Other footholds for foreign firms include the ability of foreign companies to set up their own product distribution, repair, and maintenance systems in China. U.S. banks will be permitted to offer services to Chinese customers two years after Beijing joins the WTO. Foreign investors can purchase 49 percent of Chinese telephone service providers, increasing to 50 percent in two years.

At the same time Washington will be allowed to enforce protectionist measures against the alleged "dumping" of goods by China for 12 more years. These terms follow closely those proposed by Beijing and rejected by Washington in talks that Prime Minister Zhu Rongji and U.S. president William Clinton conducted in April in Washington.

In a number of rounds of negotiations over the last 13 years the U.S. rulers have withheld their approval of China's application for membership in the WTO and it predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, seeking to squeeze more concessions from the Chinese government. Recent talks conducted between the European Union and Beijing have had the same thrust.

The agreement takes Beijing a step closer to membership of the WTO. Several other major hurdles remain. Among the major imperialist powers, the governments of Japan and the United States have said they support Chinese entry, but those of the European Union and Canada have yet to do so. The agreement will also face a de facto review by the U.S. House of Representatives, when that body debates and votes on the "concession," according to the New York Times, of "granting permanent trading rights to China rather than reviewing those rights annually." This yearly review of the country's trading status has provided a stage for capitalist politicians to vent their hostility towards Beijing and the Chinese revolution.

Given these remaining obstacles to its membership in the WTO, China's representatives at the trade body's ministerial meeting in Seattle from November 30 to December 3 will probably be seated as observers.

The capitalists in the United States have to date indicated broad-based support for the agreement. The rulers have long been concerned about the growing U.S. trade deficit with China. Many hope to cash in on economic growth in that country of more than a billion people. A smaller layer of capitalists in sectors such as textile oppose the agreement, which will put more competitive pressure on their industries. The agreement schedules an end in 2005 to protectionist U.S. quotas on Chinese textile imports.

Some among the U.S. rulers hope they can greatly extend the foothold of capitalist property relations in China. The changes "could be profound" editorialized the New York Times, if they strengthen the "market advocates" in the Chinese regime.

Charlene Barshefsky, the chief U.S. representative at the Beijing talks, cautioned that "What you have accomplished is opening a market.à It could have a spillover effect ù but it may not." Those hoping to restore capitalism in the Eastern European workers states through the market alone have been sorely disappointed over the last decade.

Working people in China will bear the brunt of layoffs that will follow any major new influx of capital. A worker at the Beijing Light Truck Company told a reporter, "Our factory is already in bad shape. Most workers are on leave and are called back only when there is work to do. This will open China up to better and cheaper U.S. trucks. I don't believe we will survive."

The Stalinist rulers in China fear the resistance that workers and peasants will mount to the mass layoffs that foreign investors will demand in their quest for profits. While hailing the opportunities for the "financial giants" of the "West," a report in the International Herald Tribune lamented the fact that "good money has been thrown after bad out of fear that bankrupt state companies would breed social unrest."

Washington is holding out less and less hope that peaceful "reforms" will accomplish their goals of overturning the nationalized economy of the workers state and reimposing imperialist rule. It is beefing up its military forces, including a new generation of missiles designed to give the Pentagon a first-strike nuclear capacity, to prepare for military confrontations with Beijing that it sees coming down the road.

The leadership of the AFL-CIO national union federation pledged to campaign against the agreement. "It's an outrage that a country with China's record on labor rights is allowed into the WTO without any attempt to improve its record," said Mark Levinson of the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees.

These officials take positions that echo those of rightist figures like Buchanan and conservative politicians like Republican presidential contender Malcolm Forbes, who also opposes China's entry into the WTO. Under cover of concern over human rights violations, they advocate more protections against foreign competition for U.S. capitalists.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home