TONY CAMPBELL: SOWHAT???

[dawnstar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Ok, he and his wife were hosted by the killer dictaturship, so, how long
does it take to tell the truth of their visit?  Or do they have
something to hide...ds


> J Moe wrote:
> Recently U.S. CongressmanTom Campbell visited Burma and many of you may wish
> to know who he is and what he stands for. To the best of my knowledge, he's
> going to be tough on Burma unlike Tony Hall of Ohio. The following texts
> show what he stands for on some important relevant issues.On November 19,
> 1999, he announced his  candidacy for the US Senate from California.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Julien Moe
> 
> China -- Most Favored Nation Status
> *******************************************
>    Most-favored-nations status is the same status we give to practically
> every country on earth. The only
>    exceptions I know are Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Cuba. Failure
> to give most-favored-nations
>    status to China would result in their goods coming into our country with
> extremely high tariffs. China
>    would, likely, respond by imposing extremely high tariffs on our goods
> exported to their market. The result
>    would be a loss of the China market to U.S. exporters. That would mean a
> tremendous loss of jobs,
>    especially in high tech, and in our area particularly, because we export
> so many electronic goods to
>    China. Also hurt would be those U.S. industries that rely on parts made
> in China.
> 
>    Those advocating denying China most-favored-nations status generally do
> so out of a desire to improve
>    China's human rights policy. If we are to have any such effect, however,
> we must be sure other countries
>    won't simply fill in what we no longer export. In my view, they surely
> will. That is what happened from
>    1949 to 1973, when the U.S. did not trade with China at all. Hence, we
> would have imposed very little
>    cost on China, but would have lost China's market to exporters from
> Europe, Japan, and Australia.
> 
>    During the time when we didn't trade with China, that country experienced
> some of its worst human rights
>    abuses (the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution). It seems,
> therefore, that isolating China
>    from the U.S. did nothing to improve China's human rights record. There
> is no reason to believe it would
>    be any different now. On the contrary, there is good reason to believe
> that economic freedom (which
>    China is increasingly enjoying) tends to weaken autocratic governments.
> Individuals who realize that
>    wealth comes from their own labor, rather than from the state, become
> less willing to tolerate dogmatic
>    politics of the state. This needn't happen, of course; but the record of
> countries with economic freedom
>    but authoritarian governments is that the latter often soften. (Chile is
> the best example, Singapore is
>    coming along.)
> 
>    Lastly, there is the case of Hong Kong to consider. China has pledged to
> maintain that city's economic
>    freedoms, and a greater degree of political freedom than is allowed
> anywhere else in China. Hong Kong is
>    now part of China. I suspect those calling for terminating
> most-favored-nations status with China would
>    not exclude Hong Kong. China might very well respond by ignoring its
> pledge on political freedom, viewing
>    the U.S as having gone back on its pledge to Hong Kong. At this most
> difficult time for Hong Kong, I
>    would not wish the U.S. to do anything that would jeopardize its
> continued freedoms.
> 
>    The result of terminating most-favored-nations status, therefore, based
> on what actually happened before,
>    and what is likely to happen in the near future, is that we would hurt
> Silicon Valley, California, and the
>    U.S. economy--with no appreciable effect on human rights in China,
> except, perhaps, to make them
>    worse as the Chinese react. It is a time for calm voices and measured
> action. I hope we, and China, both
>    have the wisdom to take that course.
> 
> Freedom
> *************
>    Margaret Thatcher wrote: "Let me give you my vision: a man's right to
> work as he will, to spend what he
>    earns, to own property, to have the state as servant and not as master.
> These are the essence of a free
>    country and on that freedom all other freedoms depend." In 1762, Jean
> Jacques Rousseau advised, "Fly
>    from the pious believers. Nothing is more dangerous than their company,
> they must either dominate or
>    destroy."
> 
>    Both quotations deal with freedom. Both apply to our country today.
> Individual freedom and economic
>    freedom. In politics today, both freedoms are at risk. I've seen a
> thousand schemes for taking wealth
>    away from individuals, all in the interest of achieving some greater
> social good, but almost all with the
>    effect of killing off private initiative, as Margaret Thatcher warns.
> I've also heard a thousand sermons of
>    how private behavior, what we read, what we think, should be governed by
> a code set down by others to
>    achieve a greater good. Sermons in churches are fine, but when this kind
> of sermon comes from
>    government, it's just as corrosive as Rousseau warned us. One who would
> convince by force of
>    government rather that by reason or by religion voluntarily taken up,
> seeks to deny freedom. They must
>    either dominate or destroy.