On July 11, 2013, the United States and Communist China agreed to restart negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). Opting in favor of proceeding with further and more substantive negotiations, China dropped its previous opposition to a BIT, “namely, efforts to exempt a number of its industries and sectors (including the service sector),” according to The Diplomat.
“The two sides agreed to enter a more substantive stage of negotiation as soon as possible,” said Chinese Minister of Commerce Gao Hucheng to reporters following the 5th round of the annual China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue, on July 11. “China announced its intention to negotiate a high-standard bilateral investment treaty with us that will include all stages of investment and all sectors,” said U.S. Secretary of Treasury Jacob Lew in his closing remarks. Lew went on to describe China’s announced cooperation as “a significant breakthrough, and the first time China has agreed to do so with another country.”
Although it is unclear when formal negotiations will commence, they will however lead to an official BIT between the U.S. and Communist China. Dr. Derek Scissors, Ph.D., a senior research fellow for economics at the Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center, believes that “Congress is unlikely to approve a BIT before 2017.” Dr. Scissors noted the following in a recent article posted on the Heritage Foundation’s website, about the various obstacles facing a proposed BIT:
The Senate already faces politically painful votes on Trade Promotion Authority (probably this year), the Trans-Pacific Partnership (probably next year), and, the Trans-Atlantic Partnership (possibly 2015). It would be very dubious politics to jump China ahead of American friends in the trade queue. But multiple political bloodlettings in a single year is almost as difficult to see as a pro-China vote during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Although the politics for a BIT may not be optimal at this time, the time for opponents to act is now while the negotiations are just beginning, and while there is still enough time to inform the electorate about the negative consequences of a Sino-U.S. BIT. According to China Daily, the state-owned Chinese Communist newspaper, on July 13, “the US pledged to treat Chinese investment equally and fairly and to welcome investment from China, including that from State-owned enterprises.”
The term “State-owned enterprises” is a misnomer and should be treated as such, considering that nothing is truly owned by just the “state” in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), but rather by “the people, represented by the Communist Party,” as stated by numerous Chinese Communist and former Soviet Communist leaders. In other words, the “state,” or government, in countries like China and the former Soviet Union is owned and controlled by the Communist Party. This is why the highest title or position in authority in both the former USSR and the present-day PRC is that of “General Secretary of the Communist Party.” For example, Xi Jinping, the current President of the People’s Republic of China, is also the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC). As General Secretary, Xi serves also as an ex officio member of the CPC Politburo Standing Committee.
Understanding the nature of the CPC’s politics is key to understanding the interlocking operation of the Chinese government and its “state-owned enterprises.” If a business is owned by the state, and the Communist Party in turn owns the state then it does not take much to logically deduce that the Communist Party of China thus owns such businesses or enterprises. The CPC and its key party members own any and all Chinese “state-owned” businesses and comprise the vast majority of China’s minority population of wealthy elites.
The ramifications of treating Chinese state-owned enterprises equally to U.S. enterprises and firms are of high importance when considering that such an acquiescence would further serve the interests of the Communist Party elites in China by giving them an unprecedented access to purchase U.S. businesses and properties. With the largest foreign currency reserves in the world, a reported $3.4 trillion, China would be capable of going on an extraordinary spending spree in the United States. Such a spending spree would have extraordinarily negative effects on our national independence and personal freedoms.
Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest producer of pork and other cold cut meats, based in Smithfield, Virginia, has agreed to a $4.72 billion deal with the Chinese state-owned company Shuanghui International Holdings Ltd. The above photo shows Wan Long, chairman of Shuanghui and also a member of the Communist Party of China, making the communist clenched fist salute in front of a large number of employees also making the clenched fist salute. On September 6, 2013, the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment approved what is now the largest acquisition of a U.S. company by a Chinese state-owned company, thus putting one sliver of U.S. food production into the managing hands of the Communists. As more U.S. firms, businesses, factories fall under the control of Chinese Communists, through these foreign “investments,” local U.S. governments and regulations will likely be curtailed and amended as needed to facilitate the new foreign Chinese Communist “business owners.” While some Americans would see short-term economic gain and profit, it is clear that Communist China would reap the greatest benefits from the proposed BIT.
Contact your representative and senators and urge them to oppose the negotiations for a U.S.-China Bilateral Investment Treaty based on the information above.