To understand Gary Locke’s origin story one has to venture into a tiny village called Jilong, located in the Guangdong province of China.
“It’s a village about two miles from a city of about three million people,” said Locke, yet it’s like going back into the late 1800s. There’s a village outhouse and the cooking is done using wood kindling and coal briquettes.
It is here that Locke’s grandfather and father hail from, and it is a striking contrast to his Pacific Northwest upbringing, an American life filled with education and promise that would lead back to China where he represented the United States as ambassador to one of the world’s largest economic powers.
Locke’s public service includes two terms as governor of Washington state (1997 to 2005), Secretary of Commerce under President Barack Obama (2009 to 2011) and finally as ambassador to China (2011 to 2014) during which time his children were able to visit the village his family came from.
“My story is my grandfather came over just before the turn of the century and worked as a houseboy, a servant for a family in the state capital (of Washington, Olympia). He then eventually went up to Seattle and worked, and then went back to China, got married, had a family where my father was born.
“But grandfather came back to the United States to work by himself and send money back to the village, and eventually, he brought the whole family over.
“So my dad came over when he was about 12 or 13 years old, and then learned English, joined the United States Army just before the outbreak of World War II, and he was part of the Normandy invasion.”
So Locke, 76, has the distinction of being part of a third generation immigrant family, but the first of his family born in the United States. He was here in Utah this past week at the invitation of World Trade Center Utah, lending his expertise to business and government leaders.
In a wide-ranging exclusive interview with the Deseret News, Locke discussed both the threats and opportunities posed by China, America’s current standing in the world, and the state of immigration policy, including the failures at the border and the current unrest facing immigrants.
The interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.
Deseret News: From your perspective, what’s the current state of U.S.-China relations?
Gary Locke: Well, it’s very mixed. Trade is still fairly robust between the two countries.
(There are) limitations, of course, on various items that can be imported or exported. But we do have, obviously, geopolitical disagreements, and disagreements on a whole host of issues, not just on trade and economic policy, but on national security issues (and) international affairs, whether it’s Ukraine or Middle East and other parts of the world.
But the key thing is that the two countries do depend on each other and are integrally related to each other.
DN: Can you elaborate? How do China and the U.S. depend on each other?
GL: Well, so much of what we use in our daily lives — items that we buy at Home Depot, or Costco, or sporting goods stores — are made in China. And so much of what we grow, in America, is exported to China, whether it’s hay, or apples, or cherries, beef, pork — we produce more than we can actually consume, and a variety of commodities, and China cannot grow or produce those.
The reality is that not every country can produce and manufacture all that they need.
And so, whether it’s mangoes, or avocados, or airplanes — Boeing and Airbus are the world’s predominant suppliers other than some of the small, you know, commuter jets ...
DN: How do you balance the dependence on China (or others) and the risk of foreign actors stealing American secrets?
GL: Well, you need to be very, very careful about our technology. We don’t want any of our trade secrets, inventions, and things like that, taken by any person, whether it’s a competitor down the street, in another state, another country, and certainly, we don’t want our technological — our very sensitive technology — used by other countries, especially that might be counter to our national security, or used by their military.
So we have to be very, very guarded about that.
But at the same time, there are many products that are of everyday use, that pose no threat to anybody. And we need to continue that robust trade.
DN: What is your take on President (Donald) Trump’s policy on tariffs?
GL: I very much disagree with trade wars that are brought on by tariffs. We need to level the playing field, obviously, between countries. Many countries impose high tariffs on U.S. products going into their countries, and tariffs on their products coming into the United States are fairly low.
So there needs to be an equalization.
And America does have long-standing concerns about and disagreements, objections, to China’s economic, industrial policy. But I don’t think tariffs are the way to approach it. Certainly not unilateral tariffs.
For many decades, American businesses and U.S. policymakers have been concerned about China’s lack of adherence to its promises, when they entered the World Trade Organization (WTO), and certainly unfair subsidies, and have been a concern to American businesses as well.
It makes it unfair, leading to unfair competition. But when President Trump imposed the tariffs on China in his first term, China retaliated. … So much of which we use every day, whether it’s barbecues, microwave ovens, appliances, sporting goods, shoes, clothes, electronics. It raised the price on the American consumer.
And even the New York Fed, and The Wall Street Journal said that the average household paid around $800 extra per year because of those tariffs.
So that hurt the American consumer.
At the same time, the retaliation by China of tariffs on American products made American products more expensive in China.
Now, whereas, we in America have not many alternatives to the stuff that we buy that comes from China, China had alternatives.
They didn’t have to buy American soybeans. They could buy Brazilians’ — soybeans from Brazil.
They don’t have to buy Boeing airplanes. They can buy Airbus.
They don’t have to buy GE medical equipment. They can buy Siemens and Phillips, and the list goes on and on.
So, American companies were hurt.
DN: You worked on export control reform when you were with the Commerce Department. Can you describe what that is and its difference from tariffs?
GL: That was a joint effort with Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, and his philosophy was, if you can buy a product at RadioShack or Home Depot, or if you can get a CAD drawing for that particular item, then why are we restricting that from being sold to China?
There are many things that are like a screw or a nut or a bolt, that, yes, could be used by the military in their vehicles, but does that mean that that American product should not be sold to China?
Just because it might be used, for a military application, if it’s just a common household item, (it should be OK). So the idea was let’s really protect the things that we really need to protect, and build high fences, and safeguard that technology. But everyday other stuff, we should relax those controls and allow American companies to sell those around the world, not just to China, but around the world.
DN: Is the world a fundamentally different place today than when you were ambassador to China?
GL: There’s certainly a lot more turmoil, not just between the United States and China, but certainly with other countries all around the world. And the Independence Day tariffs (had an impact).
I think it has really led to less respect for America, and perhaps a bit of distrust of America. Can we really keep our word? Can people depend on what America says?
And then you also see the rising influence of China, filling the vacuum left by the United States in terms of foreign aid.
So many members of the military and the defense establishment have said that key to Americans’ security, national security is helping other countries and bringing them into our fold and having them respect and rely on and be a partner with the United States.
And so, I mean, back starting in the Kennedy days, in the Eisenhower days, we had massive foreign aid programs, helping countries build hospitals, wastewater treatment, or water purification systems, building roads, and schools.
That garnered great respect and affinity for America and Americans.
And that has benefited us in terms of our foreign policy, and in times of world conflict or disagreement, those countries would side with us.
But when we started pulling back on foreign assistance, China, filled that void, and they’ve built ports, they’ve, you know, brought factories into different countries, especially in Africa and parts of the Mediterranean.
And so in recent times, when there have been some disputes at the U.N., those countries have sided with China against the United States.
The immigration crisis
DN: Your family story is compelling. Is this the definition of the American dream, or perhaps have you exceeded the American dream?
GL: Well, I think, you know, the story of our family is really the story of most Americans. I say that America is really the land of foreigners, whether we’re first generation or 10th generation, whether their ancestors came on the Mayflower, a slave vessel from Africa, or a steamer from Asia.
You know, each wave of immigrants, whether from Ireland, Poland, you know, has struggled, and faced hardship, discrimination, ostracism, but they assimilated, and they worked hard, they brought new ideas, new culture ... and music, cuisine, and everything, which really has created the vitality and diversity of America.
And it’s a constant wave of new people coming in that drive that energy and ideas that has really propelled our innovation. I think that’s really the story of America.
DN: Why has America had such a problem the past 30 years, really, trying to identify an immigration policy that is compatible for all?
GL: You know, it’s been really tough.
I mean, people want to come to America, because they see this as a land of opportunity, and whether it’s an opportunity for financial security or better lifestyle, better living, or to escape repression, violence, or disease, and, uh, and so forth, they come.
So America is still a beacon.
But we have not been able to address an immigration policy. We can’t let anybody come, obviously. But who should come? And how do we handle that desire, and bring people to America, that also benefits America at the same time?
What are our values?
Obviously, the influx of millions of people illegally across the border was just terrible, and was completely mishandled.
And obviously, the American people support removing people who are here illegally, and also who have committed huge, major, major crimes. But what about the people that have been here for 30 years? Permanent residents with a green card, and being arrested because they bounced a $15 check 15 years ago?
I don’t know.
Several years ago, we almost had immigration reform. I know of many folks who have had to work and it took a long time for them to even come to America, and they feel that they had to play by the rules and it’s not fair that others could just walk across the border.
There were proposals among the Democrats and the Republicans, I think, during the Bush administration, about immigration reform that would have granted a pathway to citizenship, even though there are big requirements; have they paid their taxes, have not committed crimes?
Unfortunately, that fell apart.
Note: Doug Wilks is the Executive Editor of the Deseret News