Sino-American intellectual property rights negotiations have gone on for several years and they surfaced once again last month. Most negotiations with foreigners since the Ching Dynasty (1644-1911) have been a matter of repaying a sum of money, or ceding territory, causing the Chinese people to suffer the greatest insult. Therefore, now, when the Chinese people hear the word "negotiation" mentioned their faces take on a whole new expression. This often causes us to avoid, loath, or even reject negotiations. Especially since the Sino-American copyright meeting brought many practical, immediate disadvantages, it's no wonder why, over the past several years, we have dragged matters on.

It looked as if the negotiations which took place in October could no longer be put off. This was not only due to the fact that the U.S. side was losing patience and repeatedly accused the R.O.C. government of lacking sincerity, but even more to the point is that the American Congress passed a new trade protectionist law in June, 1988. This law empowers administrative bodies with even greater authority so that they can use the international trade law, known as "Article 301," to take severe punitive measures against trading partners which engage in unfair practices. Since economic development is the lifeline of the R.O.C. at this time and the U.S. is our largest trading partner, any trade barriers will only bring us harm. Article 301 is like a curse and naturally causes us to be fearful and watchful.

Negotiations concerning intellectual property rights could not be avoided and had to be solved, which is not to say that we gave in simply due to pressure from the U.S.

Firstly, respect for intellectual property rights is a moral concept shared throughout the international community; legally it has also been established as a system of mutual principles.

Naturally, the U.S.'s use of Article 301 in order to pressure the R.O.C. into respecting intellectual property rights causes anger within us. But we should review and discuss the direction of domestic policy, reestablish a system of intellectual property rights, encourage creativity among the people, be diligent in carrying out research, accelerate the promotion of technological culture, and simultaneously nurture a respect for the law in the minds of the people who will then respect the rights of others. How can one know whether it will be a blessing in disguise or a disaster?

The achievements of the R.O.C.'s economy may leave behind the stigma of being known as a developing nation, but when speaking from a viewpoint of technological and cultural quality, there's still a great distance before it can be self-sufficient. Our reliance upon foreign countries is still great. As the U.S. seeks royalties for its reading material, we can compete on a reasonable basis if we can increase the prices of these materials in order to benefit R.O.C. products. On the other hand, academic, educational, and technological material might be sold in larger quantities at lower prices.

In view of the accomplishments of the R.O.C., we can now negotiate with foreign countries on an equal basis. Under the goal of mutual benefit we should not take advantage of others but we also need not underestimate ourselves. Consideration of the long-term benefit of the whole nation and complete preparation--with room for give and take--are the proper stance we should take in all negotiations.