TONY CAMPBELL: SOWHAT??? (r)

[dawnstar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Did the Halls have a nice trip? Any news? 

Dawn Star wrote:
> 
> 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.