Cotton said in a post on Twitter that the move would be a step to counter the loss of American manufacturing.
“Taking effect January 1, 2002, this is the final step in normalizing U.S.-China trade relations and welcoming China into a global, rules-based trading system,” the White House said in a statement at the time.
In a follow-up post on Tuesday, Cotton suggested that subjecting China’s PNTR status to an annual review would be a way to hold the country to its commitments in the area of trade and human rights.
Cotton said in an interview on Fox & Friends on Monday that revoking the special status would also give the United States leverage in case of an escalation of tensions.
“Let’s say China shoots missiles at our ships in the Western Pacific or cracks down on Hong Kong. Then we would be able to say each year, we are not going to renew most favored nation status for China,” he said.
The decision to remove the requirement to subject China’s trade status with the United States to an annual review has been criticized on a number of fronts, including that while China benefitted from unfettered access to American consumers, it kept its market selectively closed to foreign competition, forced U.S. companies to enter into joint ventures with Chinese state-controlled enterprises and so gained access to key technologies, and continued its past pattern of suppressing dissent.
He argued that free trade benefits all sides, but only if all parties play by the rules.
“Actual free trade is best for everyone, but that isn’t how China has operated. While U.S. firms deal with things such as minimum wage, occupational health and safety regulations, and all types of environmental laws, China uses prisoners for labor. In fact, during the past decade, several cases have been brought to light that amount to forced labor in China,” he noted.
Another issue was that the move to normalize trade relations led to over-reliance on supply chains rooted in China.
“Prior to China’s PNTR status, there was always the threat that favorable access to the U.S. market would be revoked. That tended to keep leaders in Beijing concerned about how others perceived the nation’s behavior. It also deterred U.S. firms from becoming overly dependent on Chinese suppliers. Once PNTR was in place, however, the floodgates of investment were opened, and U.S. multinationals developed new China-centric supply chains,” he wrote.
In 2018, the Trump administration launched an effort to re-balance the U.S.-China trade relationship, which led to President Donald Trump imposing around $400 billion in tariffs when negotiations stalled.
Trump has said that China’s unfair trade practices have “ripped off the United States.”
“To make matters worse, they are considered a developing nation getting all sorts of benefits that others, including the United States, are not entitled to,” Trump added, referring to the “developing nation” status China received when it entered the WTO, which gives the world’s second-largest economy special privileges, like longer implementation periods for tariff cuts.
Chinese officials have argued that China’s special WTO rights were legitimately negotiated as part of accession talks.
Trump’s tariffs against China were authorized under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which lets the president impose tariffs if a foreign country impacts U.S. commerce by using trade practices that are unfair. The Trump administration has justified the tariffs on grounds of China’s forced technology transfer policies and violations of intellectual property rights.