[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA AND TIBET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-114
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international--
relations
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-151CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
ELTON GALLEGLY, California MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PETER T. KING, New York PAT DANNER, Missouri
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South BRAD SHERMAN, California
Carolina ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MATT SALMON, Arizona STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
AMO HOUGHTON, New York JIM DAVIS, Florida
TOM CAMPBELL, California EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA LEE, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff
Kathleen Bertelsen Moazed, Democratic Chief of Staff
------
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
PETER T. KING, New York BRAD SHERMAN, California
MATT SALMON, Arizona WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
Grover Joseph Rees, Subcommittee Staff Director
Douglas C. Anderson, Counsel
Peter Hickey, Democratic Staff Director
Nicolle A. Sestric, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Arlen Spector, a United States Senator from the
State of Pennsylvania.......................................... 1
Mr. Xiao Qiang, Executive Director, Human Rights in China........ 8
Mr. Song Yong Yi, Librarian and Researcher, Dickinson College,
former detainee in China....................................... 10
Mr. Bhuchung Tsering, Director, International Campaign for Tibet. 12
Mr. John J. Sweeney, President, The American Federation of Labor-
Congress of Industrial Organizations, AFL-CIO.................. 14
Mr. Harry Wu, President, Laogai Research Institute, former
detainee in China.............................................. 18
Ms. Reyila Abudureyim, Daughter of Rebiya Kadeer, Uighur Muslim
detainee in China.............................................. 22
Ms. Tracey Zhao, Falun Gong Practitioner, former detainee in
China.......................................................... 23
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Hon. Christopher H. Smith, a U.S. Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey, Chairman, Subcommittee in
International Operations and Human Rights...................... 36
Mr. Xiao Qiang................................................... 40
Mr. Song Yong Yi................................................. 43
Mr. Bhuchung Tsering............................................. 45
Mr. John J. Sweeney.............................................. 49
Mr. Harry Wu..................................................... 52
Ms. Reyila Abudureyim............................................ 57
Ms. Tracey Zhao.................................................. 67
HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA AND TIBET
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2000,
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human
Rights,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in
room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Smith and Goodling.
Also present: Representative Wolf and Senator Spector.
Mr. Smith. [presiding] The Subcommittee will come to order.
I would like to welcome to the Subcommittee Senator Arlen
Spector, who will have to depart momentarily for some votes
that will be taking place on the Senate Floor, but we're very
pleased to have him here and I yield to the distinguished
senator from Pennsylvania.
Senator Spector.
STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTOR, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Spector. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I begin
by commending you for holding these very important hearings and
I appreciate an opportunity to address the Committee very
briefly. We're scheduled to vote on the Senate side at 2:15.
I've appeared here today to talk about Mr. Yongyi Song who is a
librarian from Dickinson College, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania,
who was detained by the People's Republic of China when he was
traveling there doing educational research work.
Song was born in Taiwan. He has been a resident of
Pennsylvania for some 10 years and was on the verge of getting
his citizenship, which was scheduled for September 1999. I'm
delighted to say that, since returning, he has been sworn in as
a citizen. He was taken into custody because he was gathering
documents about the Cultural Revolution. He is a scholar and he
is a librarian, he has published extensively on the subject. In
the name of academic freedom and basic human decency, there was
absolutely no reason to take Mr. Song into custody.
Then, on Christmas Eve, criminal charges were filed against
him that were very vague and spurious in nature. They did
release his wife, Helen, who returned to the United States. My
office had interceded to try to help. I compliment the State
Department, which was very active in trying to work through the
issue. Secretary of State Albright was personally involved and
a great deal was done.
I requested a meeting with the PRC Ambassador to the United
States. On the morning that that meeting was held, the Friday
morning, I had a little preliminary word that Song had been
released. It was quite a U.S. homecoming at the Philadelphia
International Airport the following Saturday when he was
released.
I think that this hearing and the activities of the
Congress are very important in elevating the issue of human
rights, and to say the People's Republic of China is difficult
to deal with is the understatement of the decade.
When I talked with the PRC Ambassador to the United States,
I got a little lecture on not interfering in domestic matters
in China. I responded with a little lecture about human rights,
and commented about the importance that the People's Republic
of China was and how much the United States wanted good
relations with the PRC, but had problems with what was
happening in Taiwan and missile sales to Pakistan and Tiananmen
Square and human rights, but we respected the power and growth
of the Nation of 1,200,000,000 people. The Ambassador quickly
corrected me: 1,250,000,000. I had left out 50 million people
in my statement of their population.
But I think that the PRC did notice the resolutions filed,
the congressional resolution with sponsors, and our statements
that if China wanted to be admitted to the community of nations
on permanent status with the most favored status, World Trade
Organization, that they would have to face up to some basic
concepts of due process of law.
For the record, I made no deals. I only have one vote, but
it is still a free and uninhibited vote as to what I will do
when those issues come up.
But I do commend what you're doing here, Mr. Chairman.
Congressman Wolf has joined the panel and others who have
worked very hard on this issue. So I'm delighted to see Mr.
Song at my side and I know his wife is even more delighted to
see Mr. Song at her side. Thank you for what you're doing and
thank you for yielding me a few minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Senator, for your comments.
We are all so delighted to see Mr. Song here. It just
underscores the reason for this hearing, which as I will go
into in much detail, is to chronicle the abuses, their
pervasiveness, and the fact that we do have levers that, if
used prudently, could lead to thousands of Mr. Songs getting
released. So we do thank you for taking the time to come over
here. We do appreciate it very much.
Senator Spector. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. I'm very pleased to be convening this hearing
on human rights in China and Tibet, as depicted in the State
Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, which
was released last Friday. This Subcommittee will hold a
worldwide hearing on the Country Reports next Wednesday, March
8, but the gross and systematic human rights violations
committed by Beijing regime during the last year are so
egregious that they require a separate hearing for an in-depth
analysis of their nature, scope, and possible solutions.
I am happy to say that the Country Report on human rights
in China is honest, extensive, and hard-hitting. Sadly, this is
because there is so much to hit. This year's report is about
14,000 words longer than last year's. It confirms that, during
1999, the already despicable behavior of the Chinese communist
regime has gotten worse in virtually every category of human
rights concern. In the words of the State Department, ``The
Chinese Government's poor human rights record deteriorated
markedly throughout the year. It continued to commit widespread
and well-documented human rights abuses.''
The quotations that follow are the administration's own
words, as taken from the new Country Reports. ``The government
intensified efforts to suppress dissent'' such that ``almost
all dissident activity effectively was halted.'' The crackdown
against political opposition, ``broadened and intensified
during the year.''
Regarding the freedom of religion and conscience, ``The
government continued to restrict freedom of religion and
intensified controls on some unregistered churches.'' The
Report notes that, ``Religious services were broken up and
church leaders or adherents were harassed and, at times, fined,
detained, beaten, and tortured.'' ``Police closed many
underground mosques, temples, seminaries, Catholic churches,
and Protestant house churches. Some were destroyed.''
During the past year, ``Tibetan Buddhists and Muslim
Uighurs came under increasing pressure'' and ``Tibetan Buddhism
came under increasing attack.'' As part of a massive crackdown,
``Tens of thousands of Falun Gong members were reported
detained in outdoor stadiums. An unknown number of members who
refused to recant their beliefs remain detained. Others are
serving prison or reeducation-through-labor sentences.'' In
addition, ``There were credible reports of beatings and deaths
of Falun Gong practitioners in detention who refused to recant
their beliefs.''
There was also a chilling report that the 10-year-old
Panchen Lama, who has been in detention for almost 4 years now,
had died in government custody. The Chinese government denies
this report, but because they refuse to allow anyone to see the
child, there is no way to know whether or not they are lying.
Remember, the Country Report covers only 1999. During the
last 2 months, several Falun Gong leaders have been sentenced
to long prison sentences. Just 3 weeks ago, approximately 150
agents converged to arrest an 80-year-old Catholic Archbishop,
John Yang Shudao, of Fujian Province.
The report also notes the Chinese regime's, ``Violence
against women, including coercive family planning practices,
which sometimes include forced abortion and forced
sterilization.'' During the past year, ``there was a
significant increase in the number of couples undergoing
sterilization procedures after giving birth to two children in
at least one inland province,''. In another province, newly
promulgated rules state flatly that ``unplanned pregnancies
must be aborted immediately,''. A quote from the Report.
The Report details increased repression of minorities. It
states that, and I quote again, ``Authorities have cracked down
harshly on suspected Uighur nationalists and independent Muslim
religious leaders.'' It notes numerous summary executions and
thousands of arbitrary detentions of Uighurs in Xinjiang. In
addition, ``The rate at which Tibetan political prisoners are
dying in detention or soon after their release, demonstrably as
a result of treatment while in detention, is increasing.'' So
they're dying upon their release and they're dying while in
detention.
The Report makes clear that Beijing, ``continued to
restrict tightly worker's rights.'' ``Independent trade unions
are illegal'' and ``The government continued its effort to
stamp out illegal union activity, including through detention
or arrest of labor activists.'' Chinese authorities ``have been
uncooperative,'' in the words of the Country Reports, in
fulfilling their obligations under the U.S.-China prison labor
Memorandum of Understanding.
The United States renewed numerous inspection requests,
dating all the way back to 1992, to inspect facilities
suspected of producing slave-made goods. However, according to
the State Department, ``The Ministry of Justice did not respond
to any of these requests during the year.'' The reason for
their nonresponse is no mystery. The report makes clear that
``forced labor is a serious problem, particularly in penal
institutions.''
Finally, the Report states that ``trafficking in persons,''
and this is the word of the State Department, ``and the
abduction of women for trafficking are serious problems.'' It
notes evidence of complicity in trafficking by ``local
officials, as well as the police and the military.'' The
Chinese government rarely imposes effective punishment on the
traffickers. Instead, it punishes the victims by imposing
``fines for illegal immigration'' and sometimes ``a term in a
reeducation-through-labor camp'' against trafficked persons who
are repatriated to China.
Let me say, parenthetically, earlier today we had a press
conference with a number of individuals, including James B.
Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters Union. One of the points
that he made and one of the followup actions that we took was
to drive down in a Teamsters truck to Charlene Barchevsky's
office to deliver the Country Reports on human rights
practices. Because, frankly, I don't think her office has read
it. If they did, they would come to some very, very different
conclusions regarding our policies vis-a-vis the People's
Republic of China.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses
today, not only about some of the details of these atrocities,
but also about what the United States can do to put an end to
them.
Two suggestions come readily to mind. First, the
administration has announced that it will lead the effort for a
tough resolution on China at this year's session of the U.N.
Human Rights Commission in Geneva. This effort is led by
Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy Harold Koh, who is
an effective and committed public servant. But the
administration must ensure that the Geneva effort is not
ghettoized in the DRL bureau.
If the administration really cares about winning on this,
then it must ensure that every desk officer in the State
Department, every Ambassador and every political officer in
every one of our embassies, makes clear to their interlocutors
in foreign governments that the resolution is a top priority in
the United States policy and that we urgently need their
government's vote in the Human Rights Commission.
Even more important, Beijing's regression on human rights
puts a spotlight on the administration's horrendous timing in
proposing to give permanent Most Favored Nation status to the
PRC. Remember the question this year is not whether or not we
will grant another 1-year extension of MFN. Rather, the
administration has asked Congress to sign away, once and for
all time, our right to ever object to MFN for the Beijing
regime.
A couple of years ago, the official name of MFN was changed
to ``normal trade relations,'' to spare Members of Congress
from having to vote in broad daylight for a policy that still
legally entitles Beijing to ``most favored'' status under our
customs and our trade laws. But even after this emergency
cosmetic surgery, MFN or NTR is still such an embarrassment
that many of its fondest supporters would prefer never to have
to vote on it again.
But when it comes to the rights of political and religious
dissenters, of workers, of torture victims, of women and their
unborn children, the annual vote on MFN is critically important
leverage. At an appearance before this Subcommittee shortly
after his expulsion from China, former prisoner of conscience
Wei Jingsheng testified that before an important vote in the
U.S. Congress, such as the annual MFN vote, the beatings and
the torture of political prisoners tended to be less frequent
and less severe. After the vote, once Beijing had gotten what
it wanted, the beatings and the torture got worse again.
Similarly, a Uighur Muslim woman from Xinjiang Province
testified that our annual MFN review even helps the Chinese
provincial authorities in that distant province decide whether
to kill people or to let them live. In response to
demonstrations sparked by China's arrest of Muslim leaders
during Ramadan, she stated that Beijing waited until after the
MFN vote before it staged public executions of seven Uighurs
and sentenced 23 others to prison terms. Giving it up with
permanent MFN means losing all leverage at trying to mitigate
this horrific behavior.
Mr. Smith. I would like to yield to my good friend from
Pennsylvania, a Senior Member of the International Relations
Committee and chairman of his own Full Committee for any
comments he might have.
Mr. Goodling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I specifically want
to welcome Mr. Song. We had a joyous occasion Sunday a week
ago. Not only happy to see him back on Dickinson College campus
where he's a librarian, but also to see him sworn in as a
United States citizen. He has learned firsthand how important
individual freedoms and rights are and how quickly they can be
taken away. So it was just a great experience to be there and
witness him being sworn in as a citizen of the United States.
The tragedy, of course, was that we couldn't seem to get
the Administration to do anything. In fact, the Secretary of
State pretty much indicated that they don't deal with
individuals and, furthermore, he's not a citizen. He was
supposed to have been a citizen in September. They prevented
him from becoming a citizen in September when that was supposed
to happen.
So, welcome back. I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Goodling, thank you very much.
Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. I just want to thank Mr. Smith for having the
hearing and the witnesses for being here. I'm going to have to
leave at 3.
Everything that Mr. Smith said is true. The persecution of
the Catholic church in China is horrible. The persecution of
the Protestant Evangelical church is horrible. The persecution
of Muslims is horrible and very few people heard Mr. Smith
mention it. Very few people ever speak out for the Muslims that
are going through a little hell over there.
In Tibet, where I visited 2 years ago, what the Tibetan
community is going through is unbelievable. I don't see how
this Administration can remain silent, just looking at what's
taken place. When we spoke to the monks and we spoke to the
nuns of the torture and the abuse which has taken place, it is
unbelievable, with the selling of organs and the other things
that are going on.
So I think it's important that Mr. Smith is having this
hearing. This is really what America is about. When I look at
the latest poll that was done by Peter Hart, 75 percent of
America, the American people, are opposed to granting MFN. As
Mr. Smith said, if you read the Country Report, and the State
Department did a good job of putting it together, no one can
read that without being just really worked up.
This administration has lost its way. They have a
fundamentally amoral policy, bordering on an immoral policy, on
this issue. I wonder what the President is thinking as he
leaves his last term. His record will go down as one of the
worst human rights records in the history of modern times for a
presidency. His record in Sudan is miserable. His record in
Rwanda was even more miserable. His record in East Timor was
horrible. His record in Sierra Leone today is horrible. His
record in China is absolutely horrible. This administration has
catered to the worst instincts that I have seen.
So I am just pleased that Mr. Smith is here having this
hearing to get the word out. You have been successful. The word
has reached the American people. Now it has to reach the
opinion leaders and those who serve good men and women to both
sides of the aisle in the Congress, that we will never grant
permanent MFN until the jails are open in Lhasa and they can
leave and the jails are open in the Tiananmen Square
demonstrators, some of whom have been there since 1989, can get
out. That the Muslims can be treated fairly and the organized
Catholic church can be recognized. The house church leaders can
operate.
None of these people are really a threat to the Chinese
government. Not one Tibetan that I spoke said anything negative
about the Chinese government. They want to worship the Dalai
Lama. They want to have their freedom. So if we keep just
pushing and pushing and pushing, ultimately the same thing that
happened in the Soviet Union will happen in China. In fact,
China must have found Ceausescu's playbook. Ceausescu, who was
head of the barbaric government in Romania did basically what
China is doing to its own population. What took place in the
Soviet Union will take place in China. I believe that before
Mr. Smith and Mr. Goodling and myself, before we leave this
earth, we will see freedom and liberty in China.
So I appreciate Mr. Smith having the hearing and all of you
who seem to show up at these events. You are making a
difference. You have won the battle with the American people if
we can just convince the people that represent them. I've given
up on this administration. But on the next administration and
the people that represent them on both parties, we can win this
battle and have freedom. So thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Wolf. Let me introduce
our distinguished witnesses today, beginning with Xiao Qiang,
who has served as Executive Director of Human Rights in China,
a New York-based NGO, since April 1991. Studying in the United
States at the time, he returned to China 2 days after the
Tiananmen Square massacre to provide aid and support to the
victims and their families. Previously the deputy director of
the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars,
Mr. Xiao is also the North American representative of the Asia-
Pacific Human Rights NGO Facilitating Team.
Second, Bhuchung Tsering is the director of the
International Campaign for Tibet. Born in Tibet, he grew up
with the Tibetan exile community in India where his family fled
to escape Communist Chinese forces. For over 10 years, Mr.
Tsering worked as part of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile in
India, including a year spent in Geneva in connection with the
Tibetan initiative at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.
John J. Sweeney, who is flying back from California and
will be here shortly, was elected president of the AFL-CIO in
1995 in the first contested election in AFL-CIO history. He is
currently serving his second term at the helm of that 13
million-member organization. At the time of his election, Mr.
Sweeney was serving his fourth term as president of the Service
Employees International Union and he had been an AFL-CIO Vice
President since 1980. A published author and the married father
of two children, he currently resides in Washington and will be
speaking I believe very strongly on labor rights in the PRC.
Harry Wu, the Executive Director of the Laogai Research
Foundation, spent 19 years in 12 different forced-labor camps
in China because of his criticism of the Communist Party. When
he was finally released in 1979, Mr. Wu left China and came to
the U.S. in 1985. In the summer of 1995, Mr. Wu was arrested by
the Chinese government and convicted for stealing state
secrets. He was sentenced to 15 years, but expelled from China
as the result of an extensive international campaign launched
on his behalf. The author of several books, Mr. Wu established
the Laogai Research Foundation in 1992.
Reyila Abdureyim is the daughter of Rebiya Kadeer, a
prominent Uighur Muslim businesswoman who was arrested by
Chinese authorities on her way to meet with a research
delegation from the U.S. Congress last August. The continuing
detention of Ms. Kadeer, her son, and her secretary is featured
in the State Department's recently released Country Report on
Human Rights practices. Ms. Abdureyim currently lives in
Oklahoma, along with her father, Ms. Kadeer's husband, and four
younger siblings.
Song Yongyi is a librarian and head of technical services
at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania. Born in Shanghai, China
and persecuted during the Cultural Revolution, Mr. Song has
been a permanent resident of the U.S. since 1989. Last summer
he and his wife Helen traveled to China so that he could
conduct research on the Cultural Revolution. On August 7, they
were seized by Chinese agents, separated, and interrogated. His
wife was allowed to leave China on November 16 after much
intercession. On January 29, he was released. Two weeks ago, he
was sworn in as an American citizen.
Finally, Tracy Zhao was born in Beijing, China, but came to
the United States in 1990 and became a U.S. citizen in 1996. A
flight attendant and a Falun Dafa practitioner, Ms. Zhao
traveled to China last month to observe the situation of the
Falun Gong in China. On February 4, she was detained by Chinese
agents and held for 8 days.
I look forward to the testimony of our witness. Mr. Qiang,
if you could begin.
STATEMENT OF XIAO QIANG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS IN
CHINA
Mr. Qiang. I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Smith, for
your leadership in promoting human rights around the world. I
want to thank Mr. Goodling, Mr. Wolf, for your support for
Chinese people's struggle for freedom.
Let me start to say, Human Rights in China, which has a
research office in Hong Kong and an extensive network in
virtually every Chinese city, verified and confirmed the State
Department report of 1999 on the Chinese human rights
situation. We support the conclusion, which is the grim truth,
that this past year has seen the most ruthless suppression of
dissent in China since the crackdown of the 1989 democracy
movement.
The freedom of expression, association, and assembling have
been routinely violated, despite the fact that these rights are
enshrined in China's own constitution. Other ongoing violations
of human rights include arbitrary detention, political and
religious imprisonment, widespread failure to enforce laws
protecting the rights of the workers and women, suppression of
religious freedom, and the use of physical and psychological
coercion in the implementation of the population control
policy.
Beginning in the fall of 1998, the Chinese government
broadened and intensified its crackdown against the China
Democracy Party and at least 200 China Democracy members have
been arrested and detained since that time. By year's end,
almost all of the key members of the China Democracy Party were
imprisoned and facing some of the longest prison terms handed
down to dissidents in the past decade. In 1 week in August
alone, China Democracy Party member Liu Xianbin, She Wanbao,
Zha Jianguo, and Gao Hongming were sentenced to prison terms of
13, 12, 9, and 8 years, respectively.
Moreover, in the past year, tens of thousands of members of
the outlawed Falun Gong spiritual group have been arrested and
detained and hundreds of others were sentenced to
administrative detention in labor camps under Reeducation
Through Labor. Several Falun Gong leaders were sentenced to
long prison terms in late December, including the 18-year
sentence meted out to Li Chang, a 59-year-old official in the
Public Security Ministry.
These prisoners and detainees are subject to deplorable
conditions and are frequently denied access to proper health
care. Indeed, just 2 days ago, He Xintong, the wife of China
Democracy Party founder Xu Wenli, began a hunger strike to
protest prison authorities' refusal to allow her to bring
medicine to her husband last year. Xu Wenli suffers from
hepatitis and Xu Wenli is currently 14 months into a 13-year
prison term imposed for supposedly, quote, ``endangering state
security.''
Mr. Chairman, over a decade after the June Fourth massacre
and the subsequent nationwide wave of repression, hundreds of
citizens remain in prison for participating in the peaceful
protests and hundreds more remain in exile. Moreover, the
families of June Fourth victims and those injured in the
massacre continue to be subject to harassment and persecution,
including prohibition from public mourning of their loved ones
and prevention from receiving purely humanitarian assistance
from abroad.
The families submitted a petition almost 10 months ago
requesting a criminal investigation into the June Fourth
massacre and the former premiere Li Pong's role in perpetrating
the massacre, but the government authorities have not even
bothered to respond to this petition. Actually, to add insult
to injury, Li Pong has been selected to represent China in the
United Nations millennial assembling in New York next
September, despite the fact that he is commonly known as the
butcher of Beijing.
While we support the State Department documentation of
human rights violations in China, the salient question remains:
What can and should the United States do as the leader of the
free world to promote a true respect for and adherence to
universally recognized human rights standards in China? The
key, I believe, as the chairman just said, lies in the
country's response to two matters of immediate concern: the
resolution condemning for its human rights record at the
upcoming United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva and
permanent, Normal Trade Relations.
Certainly, Mr. Chairman, the United States is to be
commended for sponsoring the China resolution at this year's
commission meeting. In order for the resolution to be
effective, it must be passed. As Executive Director of Human
Rights in China, it is my sincere hope that the United States
will actively seek support from other commission members from
Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa to ensure passage of
the resolution. I further respectfully urge Congress to write
to President Clinton emphasizing the urgent need to promote the
resolution from the highest level of the U.S. Government.
In addition to the resolution, permanent Normal Trade
Relations is the most congressional debate on United States-
China relations. In the eagerness to build trade relations with
China, it is crucial that China's human rights situation
remains the focal point of the PNTR debate.
Prior to 1994, the United States had set certain conditions
that China was required to meet to renew its Most Favored
Nation status. These conditions included taking steps toward
implementing the standards set forth in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights; releasing and providing an
acceptable accounting of political and religious prisoners;
allowing access to prisons by international humanitarian and
human rights organizations; protecting Tibet's religious and
cultural heritage; and permitting international radio and
television broadcasts into China.
Yet, today, 6 years after trade and human rights were
officially delinked, these rudimentary conditions have not been
met. On the contrary, it is all too apparent that they have
markedly deteriorated. The United States must face up to this
fact and match its efforts to make China a more reliable
trading partner with other genuine initiatives to increase the
pressure on human rights.
Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Qiang, thank you very much for your
excellent testimony and for the insights over the years that
you have provided to this Subcommittee, to the Full Committee,
and to the Congress.
I'd like to ask Mr. Song if he could present his testimony
at this point. Mr. Goodling is in a debate later on tonight and
is very much interested in hearing what you have to say, as we
all are.
STATEMENT OF SONG YONG YI, LIBRARIAN AND RESEARCHER, DICKINSON
COLLEGE, FORMER DETAINEE IN CHINA
Mr. Song. Chairman, Mr. Goodling, and other Congressmen.
I'm honored to be here to testify at the hearing on ``Human
Rights in China and Tibet.'' As a new American citizen, I'm
also very glad to be here as a witness to serve my Congress and
my country.
My testimony will be based strictly upon my personal
experience in China's prison for about 6 months from last
August through this January. During my ordeal there, I have
witnessed how the Chinese secret police deprive us scholars of
the academic freedom for historical research and how China's
problematic legal system violate Chinese citizens' basic human
rights as well. At that time, I was still a Chinese citizen.
I traveled to China last July to conduct my normal academic
research on China's Cultural Revolution, which was from 1966 to
1976. On the early morning, very early, about 1:00 a.m. of
August 7, China's state security agents detained my wife, Helen
Yao, and me in a hotel. They put me and my wife separately into
the Detention Center of Beijing bureau of State Security.
According to the Chinese Criminal Procedure Law, we had legal
rights to hire and to see our lawyer as soon as we were
detained and the Bureau should have notified our relatives in
Bejing within 24 hours. Unfortunately, none of above happened
by that law.
First, the secret policemen told us they did not allow us
to hire or see any lawyer.
Second, they started to inform my brother in Beijing about
our detainment after 3 days, i.e. after 72 hours. Even though,
after 72 hours, why they informed my brother in Beijing?
Because my brother went to the police station in Beijing City,
and put my name and my wife's name on the missing person's
list. Also, my brother tried to reach a major newspaper, put
our photographs as missing people on the advertisements. They
had to inform my brother about our detainment.
The first night after detainment, we both, my wife Helen
and me, asked these secret agents why did they detain us? We
thought we did nothing wrong. Reading many books about CCP's
court or about CCP's intent, they first detain innocent people.
They only turn to question to your side. For instance, I asked
them: Why? They just say, ``You should know. Where is here?
Here is Bureau of Beijing National Security. You are not easily
getting in. You are also not easily getting out. At that time,
the Deputy Director of the Bureau said clearly to me: ``Mr.
Song, you may spend your lifetime in China.'' You may never
come back to the U.S. if you don't cooperate with us.
When she asked them why they detained her, they just simply
answered ``because you are Mr. Song's wife.'' my wife was never
involved in my research. She knew nothing about my research.
When they released my wife on November 16, 1999, the secret
policemen also forced her to sign a written statement of
repentance, but she wrote her comments about her reservations
on the statement.
Because of lack of evidence, China's secret police changed
my criminal charge following their inclination during the whole
6 months of my custody. All of those ridiculous charges were
even against the Criminal Law of China. First, they decribed my
research on Cultural Revolution as cover steps the boundary.
[They] do not allow any scholar to cross. ``So my academic
study, had ideologically become a great danger to China's
national security.'' However, the new China's Criminal Law
indicates very clearly that there is no ideological crime in
China any more.
Second, they charged me for ``stealing state secrets''
based upon the published material I collected in China at free
market and used bookstore these materials are Red Guard
newspapers and handbills, were publicly provided in China
during the Cultural Revolution 33 years ago and are still
openly available now. When they want to get a judgment of
reclassification of those materials, their application was even
rejected by China's Secrecy Bureau.
Finally, they accused me of ``providing intelligence to
foreigners.'' They re-classified these published materials as
``intelligence,'' since there is never a clear definition in
China's Criminal Law of the term ``intelligence''. So they used
this kind of very vague words to charge an innocent scholar.
Upon this laughable charge, they formally arrested me on
December 24, 1999.
In every interrogation, I argued with those policemen in
every interrogation. On each of the charges, every time. I won.
However, these secret agents told me that, they would still
sentence me on the upcoming trial, though they always fell
silent on finding themselves defeated in argument.
Under the pressure from U.S. Congress, the State
Department, China's studies scholars across the world,
Dickinson College Community, as well as all American people,
Chinese government finally released me on January 28 and
dropped all criminal charges against me. Before I boarded the
Northwest airplane, a young officer told me, that I was
unfortunately, a hostage being exchanged for WTO. My answer is,
how shameful it is for a Chinese government to obtain favorable
trade status by using a Chinese as hostage. So their main
purpose for releasing me is very clear.
The results of my release shows China is currently not as
isolated as 33 years ago in the Cultural Revolution period, and
Chinese government could no longer disregard international
pressures on the human rights. But my painful experience also
absolutely evidenced that China's legal system has so many
problems and there is still a long and bumpy way to go for the
China's government's human rights record to improve.
Thank you again, Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Song, thank you very much for your
testimony. It is so good to have you back.
Let me ask Bhuchung Tsering if he would make his
presentation at this point.
STATEMENT OF BHUCHUNG TSERING, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN
FOR TIBET
Mr. Tsering. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving
me this opportunity and I would like to request that my full
statement be placed on the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, your full statement will be
made a part of the record.
Mr. Tsering. Thank you.
The Tibet section of the State Department Human Rights
Report this year depicts a good effort to describe in detail
the situation in Tibet. The Report provides significantly more
detail about human rights abuses, not just in the Tibet
Autonomous Region, but also in Tibetan areas outside of it. In
the previous report, the scope was limited to the development
inside the Tibet Autonomous Region, thereby neglecting more
than half of the traditional Tibetan areas where a majority of
Tibetans live.
Then 1999 saw the tightening of state control over every
sphere of Tibetan life. Over 100 Tibetans were arrested in
1999, according to one report coming out from Tibet, for
peacefully expressing their beliefs. A Tibetan surrogate
program, Voice of Tibet, broadcast from Norway, reported the
expansion of several prisons in Tibet where political prisoners
are believe to be detained.
Mr. Chairman, according to one estimate, there are
currently over 600 documented political prisoners and prisoners
of conscience in Tibet. The India-based Tibetan Center for
Human Rights and Democracy has done a good job in documenting
the case stories of some of these political prisoners.
The situation of the 10-year-old Panchen Lama, Gedhun
Choekyi Nyima, is of utmost concern to us. The State Department
report does not take up the case strongly and clearly. Rather,
there is an apparent attempt to equate the status of the
Panchen Lama with the boy, Gyaltsen Norbu, that the Chinese
government has appointed. The recognition of the Panchen Lama
is a deeply spiritual process and the United States should be
categorical in respecting the position of the Tibetan people.
China has no rights whatsoever in the process of identifying
Tibetan lamas.
Agya Rinpoche, a very senior Tibetan lama who held
prominent political and religious positions at the national
level in China sought asylum in the United States 1 year back
because he could not support the Chinese religious policy
toward Tibet, particularly on the issue of the recognition of
the Panchen Lama. Today, Agiya Rinpoche received asylum in this
country and is writing his autobiography, which may contain
much information on the true nature of China's religious policy
toward Tibet.
The report also merely mentions in two sentences the
dramatic escape of the Gyalwa Karmapa, another prominent
Tibetan Buddhist leader, from Tibet. This escape by the 14-
year-old Karmapa symbolizes the mental state of Tibetans in
Tibet. During his first-ever public address in Dharamsala, the
Karmapa said on February 19, that, ``Over the last two or three
decades, Tibet has suffered great losses. Tibetan religion and
culture have reached the point of complete destruction''.
Mr. Chairman, the escape of Agya Rinpoche and that of
Karmapa are clear evidence of the fact that even those Tibetans
who care to or who choose to cooperate with the Chinese
authorities know that the Chinese attitude toward Tibetan
religion and culture is dangerous and antagonistic.
It is no the 5th year of incarceration of Tibetan music
scholar Ngawang Choephel. China has not even consented to allow
his mother her legal right of visitation of her son in prison,
even though the United States has made this request on her
behalf.
I also want to draw your attention to PetroChina, China's
state-owned oil company, which is going public on the New York
Stock Exchange. We fear that the money raised would be used to
build a major pipeline in Tibet, where a controversial proposed
World Bank project is being planned. This project is extremely
damaging to Tibetans, both in terms of human rights, but also
environmental and social concerns are there.
The report also refers to the opening of Internet service
in Tibet, but fails to mention that its censored and people
feel extremely reluctant to use it for many purposes. Internet
users in Tibet do not have access to independent sites on
Tibet. Most sites, including that of the International Campaign
for Tibet as well as the Tibetan Government-in-Exile, cannot be
logged on by Internet users in Tibet.
This is the situation in Tibet today. So, while the report
does highlight some of these, it does not provide a solution to
what can we do for the situation there? So, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to join you and my previous speakers in pointing out
that there are two ways in which the United States can act and
act strongly to followup on the report that it has done.
First, keep Normal Trade Relations annual instead of
permanent. The United States should look at its human rights
report as a strong reminder of why the administration should
abandon its efforts to secure permanent Normal Trade status
with China and keep its annual review process.
Second, the United States should followup on its
announcement of raising the issue of China's human rights
practices at the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. The United
States should take up this at the highest level and actively
embark on a diplomatic effort to see the passage of its China
resolution in Geneva. Abandoning the effort to secure a
permanent NTR would show to Europe and other countries that the
United States is consistent in its stated commitment to censure
China at the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, human rights violations in Tibet are
merely symptoms of a bigger problem, which is political. Unless
political issues are addressed, we cannot expect the human
rights situation in Tibet to improve. The United States has a
policy of encouraging unconditional negotiations between the
Tibetan leadership and the Chinese leadership. This policy
needs to be more actively implemented.
Mr. Chairman, once again I thank you for this privilege of
testifying today and, on behalf of the Tibetan people, I would
like to thank you and the Members of Congress for your
continued support to us.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much for that testimony. Your
comments earlier at the press conference were very well-taken
and, hopefully, will be listened to very carefully by all
concerned, especially Members of Congress who will voting soon
on the MFN issue.
Our next witness will be John Sweeney. As I indicated
earlier, he is the president of the AFL-CIO, a 13 million-
member organization. I think it's significant that in appearing
today, he and his organization are trying to make the case to
get the information out to the American public and to Members
of Congress that human rights and workers' rights are
nonexistent in the PRC. Hopefully, we will collectively be able
to break down the ignorance factor, which is very much in
evidence.
As I said earlier, Mr. Hoffa, Harry Wu, and I delivered the
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices to Charlene
Barchevsky earlier in the day. We also asked that the President
himself take a look at his own State Department Country Reports
on Human Rights Practices. Because, frankly, I don't think
they've read it. I don't think they have sat down and read the
very information prepared by their administration. The left
hand apparently doesn't know what the right hand is doing. It
wouldn't be the first time that that has happened. But our hope
is that an honest read of the human rights situation in China
will lead any reasonable man or woman to the conclusion that we
cannot aid and abet these kinds of heinous practices.
Mr. Sweeney, you're next up and you're very welcome to be
here before the Subcommittee. We look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOHN J. SWEENEY, PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR-CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, AFL-
CIO
Mr. Sweeney. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Members of this
Committee, for the opportunity to express the views of the AFL-
CIO about the human and worker rights situation in China.
This is an extremely important and timely discussion, given
the intensifying debate in Congress over whether the United
States should grant China Permanent Normal Trade Relations
status and the recent release of the report which you've
referred to, the State Department's Annual Country Report on
China's Human Rights Record for 1999.
The State Department Report, all 110 pages of it, is
staggering in its scope and its breadth. It confirms once again
that China is one of the worst offenders of human rights in the
world. China is a country that does not tolerate political
dissent or free speech. It uses executions and torture to
maintain order, persecutes religious minorities, and violates
workers' rights.
As the State Department reports, China's human rights
record is getting worse, not better, having deteriorated
markedly throughout this year as the government intensified
efforts to suppress dissent. This has occurred as China's
corporate apologists in the United States have intensified
their campaign to provide the regime with all the benefits of
globalization while holding it accountable to not even a
minimum standard of civil behavior nor even the commitments it
has made in the past.
China, which has not yet ratified the two United Nations'
covenants on human rights which it had agreed to sign before
President Clinton's trip to China in 1998, has broken every
agreement it has signed with the United States over the past 10
years. Chinese government officials are already saying they
have no intentions of complying with the agreement they signed
with the United States only 3 months ago.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, China has
undertaken dramatic economic reforms during the past decade
which has resulted in a significant improvement in the standard
of living for some citizens, but for millions of Chinese
workers, the past few years have been the leanest of the post-
Mao era. Workers are responding in growing numbers. Worker
protests over layoffs and plant shutdowns; over the nonpayment
of wages, severance pay, and pensions; and over the massive
corruption of their factory bosses and the local party bosses
are a daily occurrence all over the country.
Such protests have become a fact of daily Chinese life. For
the most part, workers' demands have remained economic. Workers
want to earn enough for their families to live on. That's all
they want. But this can change quickly, especially if
reasonable economic demands remain unmet.
It is abundantly clear that the major concern of the
Communist leadership is to keep the protest from escalating and
challenging its right to rule. The State Department report
chronicles the record of arrest and sentencing of worker
activists virtually on a monthly basis throughout 1999.
Accurate figures as to the number of workers' activists who
have been detained are difficult to come by, since there are no
reports of arrests in the official press. Many workers simply
disappear in the prison system. It is only a matter of time,
however, before any worker attempting to exercise his or her
most basic rights will be arrested.
Let me highlight a more recent arrest not included in the
State Department report. Wo Keiking worked at a chemical
factory in Human City, Ubei Province. He was arrested on August
21, last year, for leading 2,000 fellow workers and family
members in a demonstration that stopped traffic in the city for
a day. The protest was over some money that the factory
management had deducted from the workers' wages in 1996 and
then absconded with after the factory closed down. Wo had tried
to discuss the matter with the vice mayor, to no avail. He was
tried and convicted of disturbing public order. He is now
serving his 1-year prison sentence. Such stories are
commonplace in today's China.
Forced labor continues to be a serious problem,
particularly in penal institutions. The AFL-CIO believes that
products made with prison labor enter the United States market
on a regular basis and that the Memorandum of Understanding
signed in 1992 prohibiting trade in prison labor products is
not worth the paper which it is written on. The State
Department now concedes that, in recent years, the authorities
have been uncooperative. In fact, the last time the authorities
permitted a visit by a U.S. customs official to a suspected
prison labor facility was 3 years ago.
The depths of the leadership's concerns about any
independent political activity can also be seen in its harsh
response to the attempted formation of a tiny opposition party,
the China Democracy Party. The State Department reports that by
years' end, almost all of the key leaders of the China
Democracy Party were serving long prison terms or in custody
without formal charges and that only a handful of dissidents
nationwide dared to remain active publicly. A number of
workers' activists have been detained because of their
association with the China Democracy Party.
The only legally recognized trade union structure, the All
China Federation of Trade Unions, ACFTU, like all Chinese
institutions, remains under the control of the Communist Party.
Its leader is not only a member of the Politburo, but also has
oversight responsibility for the security apparatus. In many
ways, the ACFTU's traditional role of mobilizing workers to
achieve Party objectives and improving labor discipline remains
the same. Only 90 percent of the 103 million members it claims
to represent work in state-owned enterprises, making the task
which has been assigned to it of ensuring that growing
membership dissatisfaction and desperation does not erupt into
political action an impossible one.
One thing is for sure, however, the ACFTU considers the
thousands of workers who have found the courage to stand up and
protest, many of whom have been arrested and remain in prison
as we speak, to be petty criminals. That is the message the
ACFTU has given to the International Trade Union movement every
time the issue of worker detainees has been raised.
Before I conclude, I would just like to make a few comments
about religious persecution in China. The harshness of the
crackdown on the Falun Gong spiritual movement is another
reflection of the leadership's preoccupation with preserving
its own rule. What was so challenging to the authorities was
not the spiritual precepts Falun Gong represents, but the fact
that it was able to organize tens of thousands of Chinese
citizens into an independent movement. Its demonstrated ability
to organize, independent of the state and the party, would not
be tolerated. Religious persecution goes well beyond the Falun
Gong spiritual movement, as you well know, Mr. Chairman.
The repression of the Catholic church continues. The latest
in the arrests of Catholic leaders happened less than a month
ago when Archbishop Yang, 81 years old, was arrested in the
middle of the night by security police. His whereabouts are
unknown at this time. Archbishop Yang has spent over 30 years
of his life in Chinese prisons for refusing to denounce the
pope as the supreme authority of the Roman Catholic Church and
for his refusal to cooperate with the authorities to form a
Chinese Independent Church.
Of course, the persecution of the Tibetan Buddhists
continues unabated. Associated Press reported only yesterday
that the family of Karmapa Lama, who recently fled to India,
has been detained. The widespread publicity given to the plight
of this particular monastery may offer some protection for the
Karmapa Lama and his family. It is the 6 million Tibetan
Buddhists who live outside the international spotlight who
continue to be the victims of Chinese government religious
persecution.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the AFL-CIO is urging Congress
not to grant China permanent Normal Trade Relations status and
discard annual congressional reviews of that country's human
rights records. The AFL-CIO recently commissioned a new
national survey of registered voters conducted by Peter Hart
Research Associates. Public opinion is strongly opposed to
ending the system of annual review for China. Americans feel
strongly that U.S. trade agreements should prevent the loss of
jobs in the United States, protect the environment, and stop
unfair competition from countries who violate workers' rights.
According to the Hart research survey, the majority of
voters, 65 percent, opposed giving China permanent trade access
without allowing Congress to annually review its record. 63
percent of Democrats and 75 percent of Republicans opposed
Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China. Seven in ten voters
reject the argument frequently made by supporters of permanent
free trade with China that the best way to improve human rights
in China is not to restrict trade, but to engage China and
include it in important international bodies, such as the World
Trade Organization.
They also reject the arguments that the agreement will
expand our exports and create good jobs in America and that
American business will be hurt if other countries have access
to the Chinese market and we don't. This is not the time, in
our view, to reduce the leverage we may have on China to
improve its dubious record by ending the annual review and
giving the Chinese Government a blank check.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Sweeney, thank you very much for your very
eloquent statement and for the mobilization you have initiated
in Detroit to make American workers aware of this surrender
that is underway with regard to workers rights and other human
rights in the People's Republic of China. Without the annual
review, our leverage is zilch. More people need to be
mobilized. As the Hart research clearly indicates, when the
question is posed directly, people seemingly understand the
consequences. But I think it's reassuring to know that you and
your organization will be very much out in front to make sure
that Members of Congress don't give away the store to the
People's Republic of China.
I understand a few of our witnesses are under very close
time restraints. Before introducing our next witness, I'd like
to ask a question of Mr. Wu, who has to leave shortly after his
testimony, as does Mr. Sweeney. Looking at the two of you
sitting side by side, it occurs to me that we have here the
leader of worker rights in China, Mr. Wu, and the leader of
worker rights in the United States, Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Wu
probably would have your job in a parallel organization in
China if it were free today, because certainly he has paid a
price, 19 years in the Laogai, and has been indefatigable in
fighting for those rights since he was released. He has been
spanning the globe on behalf of worker rights and human rights.
So, Mr. Wu, please proceed and then we'll go to a few
questions and then go to our two final distinguished witnesses
and then go to more questions.
STATEMENT OF HARRY WU, PRESIDENT, LAOGAI RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
FORMER DETAINEE IN CHINA
Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my testimony today, I
would like to focus on three areas of Chinese human rights
abuses: forced labor in the Laogai, which is China's forced
labor camp system, China's population control policy; and
executions and organ harvesting.
Last week, the State Department released a human rights
report about China. The State Department report correctly
states that, ``forced labor is a serious problem,''. The
Chinese Laogai is not a simple prison. It's equivalent to the
Soviet Union gulag system. The fundamental idea for this
Chinese system is ``Reform is the goal, forced labor is the
means.'' In the Laogai, the prisoners are forced to give up
their religious and political beliefs, confess their so-called
crimes, and submit to reform to become new socialist beings.
This can be a form of psychological torture.
Since China began on the road to economic reform, the
production part of the Laogai system has become more and more
important. Prisoners are regarded as tools of the regime. They
must fulfill work quotas or face beatings, reducing their food,
or have their sentences extended. Prisoners in the reeducation-
through-labor camps are there with no trial at all and they
call this an administrative punishment. Due process is severely
lacking for just about everyone who goes through the Chinese
judicial system. I think Mr. Song testified before you all
Committee about what it takes.
Some of the products they make in Chinese prison camps to
exported illegally to the United States. The State Department
report says, ``A 1999 directory of Chinese corporations
published by a foreign business information company lists at
least two correctional institutions as having business
enterprises.,'' This refers to Dun & Bradstreet, the well-known
business directory. The Laogai Research Foundation actually
discovered 99 forced labor camps listed in this directory. Two
of them had the words, ``Reform through Labor'' in the title,
but there were 99 in total. Some of them include camps whose
products are already banned by the U.S. Customs Service. These
companies are still looking for international customers and
international investment.
We do not know what part the Laogai plays in the Chinese
national economy. This is because all of the facts are
considered state secrets. Even today, we do not know how many
camps there are in China, how many prisoners, and what kind of
products in prison are made by forced labor for export. China
is not complying with the MOU on prison labor. They no longer
allow Customs officials to visit the camps and they do not give
information about suspected camps, as they are required to do.
The administration of the United States has done nothing.
As Amnesty International and the State Department report
noted, China executes more people than every other country in
the world combined. People sentenced to death are often paraded
in the streets and humiliated at public sentencing rallies. The
government calls this ``killing the chicken to scare the
monkey.'' The prisoners are then taken to the secret execution
sites. In some cases, the family of the victims can ask for and
receive the ashes of their loved one.
According to Chinese report, in China in the last couple of
years there kidney transplant cases were about 20,000 and also
a Chinese corporation said most of them, at least 90 percent of
them, come from prisoners, these death row prisoners.
The State Department reports that there are, ``credible
reports that organs from some executed prisoners were removed,
sold, and transplanted,''. I believe that this is a serious
understatement. The organ harvesting policy is a national
policy, coordinated by many different branches of government.
The courts, police, jails, hospitals are all run by the
government. The Chinese government makes announcement to say,
it's not allowed to buy and sell organs. It is true, it is
different from a country like India and the Philippines you can
purchase an organ from individual people. You cannot do that in
China. But it is an entirely government business. They execute
the prisoners and use them for transplant operations and the
fact is the hospitals are owned by the government.
In 1998, this Committee held a hearing on this practice. In
the past, the Chinese government has repeated this practice
occurs. Now they just lie and deny it altogether. But the
evidence keeps coming from China. Just last month, a Hong Kong
newspaper reported that Hong Kong patients were going to the
mainland to get liver transplants from executed prisoners. The
problem continues and is spreading. Even Chinese former
citizens intend to sell the executed prisoners organs in the
United States.
Last, I would like to talk about the Chinese population
control policy. This is a national policy that affects every
man, woman, and child in China. We have to know, in this
country, without a government permit, whether a woman is
married or unmarried, she cannot have a child. Then there are
some exceptions to the so-called ``one-child policy,'' but
those exceptions are still controlled by the government.
The main issue is what happens to the woman if she goes
against the government rules. Sometimes the family must pay
very stiff fines. But in many other areas, women who become
pregnant are forced to abort and women who have an extra-plan
child, that means have a second child, are sterilized. Many
children born outside of the plan are not given the
identification papers that are needed to get an education,
health care, and a job. Because they were not in the plan, then
the government does not care about them.
This government does not know the meaning of individual
dignity, but, yet, here we are again talking about whether or
not to expand our trade with this country. Today there it is a
fashionable idea that we make an investment in China and make
trade with them, that would benefit the people and promote
democracy in China. It seems to me this is kind of a false idea
and it is an echo to the Chinese line that the money can change
entire systems.
For years, the debate was about MFN, Most Favored Nation
trading status, and each year I asked, why do we favor this
communist country? We did not favor the Soviet Union in the
past. We do not favor North Korea and Cuba today. Then they
changed the name to NTR, Normal Trading Relations. But China is
not a normal country. Because China is a communist country. But
I want to tell you today, China is continuing on their own way
as a communist regime.
Now the administration and big business wants the United
States to give up the yearly review of NTR and give China
permanent NTR. They say that unions, human rights activists,
some Members of Congress, and others are standing in the way of
the PNTR and China's entry into the WTO.
But what about the Chinese government? This government's
leaders continue human rights abuses and military threats
against Taiwan. Recently we heard they purchased a missile
destroyer from Russia and they paid hard currency and hired
2,000 Soviet military experts. Their using their money to
upgrade their military systems. Their using their money to
strengthen their own control. The military police in 1986 only
half million. Today, there are 1.3 million police.
It is a sad reality that all of these human rights abuses
take place without any meaningful action in the international
community. It is not enough for the United States to sponsor a
human rights resolution against China in the United Nations
Human Rights Commission in Geneva. I agree that it is important
to take a stand in Geneva, but it is the least that the United
States can do. We should and we can take action in Washington,
D.C.
We heard many years ago, that copyrights violations were
happening in China and that Americans right away wanted to
impose economic sanctions. When you're talking about human
rights violations, they say, that's another issue. Because this
administration will not do it. It is up to the Congress to take
a stand for a principled China policy that puts people over
profit.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Wu. Let me just start
and then I'll go to our final two witnesses, because two of our
witnesses do have to leave, ask a couple of questions of Mr. Wu
and Mr. Sweeney.
Yesterday, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright argued,
and this is her quote at the House Appropriations Committee,
``I believe our business practices are such,'' she said, ``that
really push the issue of worker rights and human rights. The
way we treat our people is an example.''
Even in this country, I've never gotten the impression that
management was in a hand-in-glove relationship with its own
workers, even within its own factories. Yes, they may have
their interests at heart, but that's why we have strikes,
that's why we have binding arbitration. There is almost built
into the system an adversarial relationship that is very
constructive. But the Secretary of State seems to be suggesting
that those same captains of industry, when they go overseas,
somehow will be in the vanguard of China to protect worker
rights when the evidence, at least so far, years to date, is
absolutely contrary to do that.
As you pointed out, Mr. Sweeney, it's been 3 years since
there's been an inspection pursuant to the MOU. I remember when
President Bush first announced that, we took a look at it. I
went over to China. I tried to test it. I talked to the two
Customs officials that were deployed with other parts of their
team working on other things. As you pointed out, then and now,
the MOU isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The advance
notice that has to be given is so long that if we do get
access, we see a Potemkin Village.
It seems to me that the administration buys into this idea
that our CEO's and our government reps, when they go and employ
people over there, are going to be bringing American values, as
they put it. Do either of you share that optimism that somehow
if we're over there, worker rights will blossom into fruition?
Mr. Sweeney. If the secretary assumes that or makes that
assumption, I think she's dreaming. I really don't think
there's any basis for making that kind of an assumption. If
anything, we see multinational corporations taking the low road
and really building upon the lowest possible level in terms of
workers' rights and environmental protection and human rights.
As I said, China hasn't lived up to its agreements. There have
to be rules. Rules at the WTO, rules in terms of the
relationship between trade and these issues.
We're not opposed to trade. We're not unrealistic in terms
of the growing globalization. But we feel strongly that core
labor standards and human rights issues and environmental
protections have to be a part of globalization. China has to
have some kind of annual review if we're going to see what kind
of improvements are taking place in these areas.
Mr. Wu. Mr. Chairman, I think he's right. China under the
Communist regime oftentimes they had unions, but it's communist
union. In these American factories and companies in China,
there are the unions that exist. Those are controlled by the
party. American money really benefits these unions. So it's a
union in China and it's controlled by the communists and
spending and benefits from foreign investment. But if you're
talking about the other things: the workers can organize their
own unions, it would not happen and didn't happen in China,
Communist China, at all.
Mr. Smith. The State Department report points out that the
Ministry of Justice did not respond to any of the requests made
for visits pursuant to the MOU. Not so long ago, the Chinese
government agreed to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights with great fanfare and enormous amounts of
good will being affixed to that. As a matter of fact, I can't
tell you how many times their PR folks have used that to
suggest that somehow they're joining the civilized nations,
with regard to human rights.
Yet, there's been no implementation of that. The MOU is a
feckless almost unforceable document that has not been
implemented. Why do you think anyone in his right mind would
think that the WTO would be implemented with any kind of
effectiveness either, since as Mr. Song pointed out, the excuse
of ``state secrets'' is something that's used with impunity by
the Chinese leadership?
Perhaps that's a rhetorical question, but you might want to
take a stab at it.
Mr. Sweeney. I don't know why anyone in their right mind
would think that that's going to be the result. We think that
in order for these issues to be addressed, that the rules have
to be written and China has to be forced to play by the same
rules that the rest of the world plays by.
Mr. Wu. We are talking about the forced labor products MOU.
We, a couple of years ago, we issued a report, we explained the
MOU in a different way. We said it was the Meaning Of Useless.
OK. That piece of agreement actually is when the Chinese
government tried to dismiss the case, actually, right now, that
became realistic. The case was dismissed. The Administration
didn't do anything in the last couple of years.
Actually, according to our investigation, many products,
especially like auto parts, rubber shoes, toys, garments,
Christmas lights, even binding clips for office use is still
coming into the United States. They cover up and even if there
is evidence, solid evidence, that we present to the Customs
Service and so far, at this moment, there is no action because
they just don't want to bother their very good relationship
with the Chinese government.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. I do appreciate your
excellent testimony. Please feel free to stay until you
absolutely have to leave. But I do thank you for being here and
for the fine testimony both of you have provided.
I would like to ask Ms. Reyila if she would now make her
presentation.
STATEMENT OF REYILA ABUDUREYIM, DAUGHTER OF REBIYA KADEER,
UIGHUR MUSLIM DETAINEE IN CHINA
Ms. Abudureyim. I'm testifying because my mother, Rebiya
Kadeer, and my brother, Ablikim, got arrested last year in
China. First of all, we thank you all for arranging this
meeting for us. We thank the senators and the Congressmen in
Congress.
In February 5, 1997, the Uighurs who want freedom and
independence demonstrated in Ely City in Xingguo. But all the
Chinese cracked down. In February 15, 1997, my father arranged
a demonstration with 100 Uighur people against the crackdown of
the Chinese in front of the White House and Chinese embassy in
Washington, D.C. The Chinese government was informed about the
demonstration my father arranged. So, on March 27, 1997, the
Chinese government confiscated my mother's passport while she
was going to Tashkan. The Chinese government told my mother
that her husband had arranged a demonstration of war against
them and, for that reason, she was not allowed to leave the
country again.
After losing her passport, she could not finish her
business in central Asia and lost $600,000 at one time. There
is a, just for an example, my dad was there also. My mom
imported 15,000 tons of iron and steel from Kazakstan. At that
time, it should be $45 million yen in the market. My mom earned
$7 million instead.
From that day, my mom was under political stress. The
electric company tortured her by cutting off the electricity.
The fire department tortured her by fining her. The Tax Office
tortured her by doubling her taxes. Unlimited power of
government makes people think that it's appropriate for the
government to put stress on my mother.
In December 12, 1997, my mother gathered 400 businesswomen
in Rebiya Kadeer Market and built the Thousand Mothers Movement
to help women to rise. The Chinese government first passed out
a legal permit to do it. In order to break up the Thousand
Mothers Movement, in December 25, 1997, the Chinese government
kept $2 million yuan from the Thousand Mothers Movement in the
bank.
My mother was a member of Uighur Autonomous Region's
political consultation since 1993. In September 18, 1997,
immigrant Wang Loquan, the secretary of the Uighur Autonomous
Region, declared that my mom was kicked out of the Chinese
national political consultation.
The beginning of August 1999, Miss Carry, from the Library
of Congress asked my dad for my mother's phone number because
she was going to Urumqi and wanted to meet with my mother. My
dad gave it to her. When Miss Carry arrived in Urumqi, she
called my mom and invited her to hotel where she stayed. In
August 11, 1999, my mom and her friend with two other people
were arrested in front of Yendu Hotel by Chinese police and
security officers on her way to meet Carry.
On the same night, two of my brothers, Ablikim, 25, Alim,
23, and my mom's secretary Kahrimam, were arrested. My youngest
brother got released after 24 hours. The other brother and my
mom's secretary were sentenced for 2 and 3 years. They are in
the Olanbay Labor Camp in Urumqi.
On August 16, 50 Uighur business people went to the
government to ask them to release my mother. The government
arrested those people and held them for 1 day. After the
government courts organs had my mother's case, they returned
her case to the procuratorate twice. On November 20, last year,
they declared that there was not enough evidence to put my
mother on trial. She was accused of stealing state secrets and
giving information to the outside, as were my brothers. But she
doesn't know anything about the state secrets. She simply is a
businesswoman.
After my mom's arrest, her newly done 12-storey building
was stopped. Some of her business was stopped. We're waiting
for the Chinese government to release my mother, my brother,
and Kahriman. Thank you. God bless you all.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much for your outstanding
testimony and we appreciate your being here today and
presenting your remarks to the Committee which we will amplify
and get out to other Members of Congress. So, thank you.
I'd like to ask our final witness, Ms. Zhao, before going
to some additional questions, if you could present your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF TRACEY ZHAO, FALUN GONG PRACTITIONER, FORMER
DETAINEE IN CHINA
Ms. Zhao. Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to thank
the Members of this Committee for the opportunity to speak at
this hearing today. I hope that my testimony will help shed
some light on what is happening right now in China regarding
the suppression of Falun Gong and the persecution of innocent
Chinese citizens.
Before I begin, I would like to briefly introduce myself.
My name is Tracy Zhao. I was born and raised in Beijing, China.
Currently, I am an American citizen residing in Queens, New
York. I am 30 years old and working as a flight attendant. I am
also a Falun Gong practitioner.
Falun Gong is known as Falun Dafa, a spiritual practice
based on ancient Chinese principles. It has five sets of
traditional exercises and teaches practitioners to follow the
universal virtues of truth, compassion, and tolerance. It has
attracted millions of people all over the world because of the
positive effect it has on people's overall health and well-
being.
In early February of this year, I traveled to Beijing with
a number of other practitioners. I was interested to see what
it was like for Falun Gong practitioners in China. I had heard
stories through news reports and friends, but I wanted to get a
firsthand look at what was really going on. I had no intention
of participating in any protests nor was I there to cause
trouble. I simply wished to observe the situation firsthand.
Shortly before midnight on February 4th, which was the
night before the Chinese New Year, I arrived at Tiananmen
Square. I saw many policemen beating and kicking Falun Dafa
practitioners and dragging them into police vans. Many
policemen were without coats and were sweating profusely from
beating people, and practitioners were trying to peacefully
practice their meditative exercises as a way to appeal to the
government to allow them their constitutional right to freedom
of belief, assembly, and speech.
I quickly took out a camera to take a picture. The flash
caught the attention of the police and three of them
immediately pushed me into the police van without asking me any
questions. We were all taken to the nearby police station where
there were hundreds of practitioners being held there. Some
were bleeding in the face. Others had bruises or black eyes.
There were children in detention too.
These Falun Gong practitioners had done nothing wrong, had
not committed any criminal acts, but had only been exercising
their constitutional rights. The Chinese government claims it
is a country ruled by law, but it often violates its own laws.
In the early hours of February 5th, around 1,200 practitioners,
including myself, were taken to the Dong Cheng detention center
on the outskirts of Beijing. For 24 hours, there was no water
or heat. Each of us received only two pieces of Chinese bread
for food and we were not allowed to use the bathroom for a
while.
After 24 hours, the police questioned me and I told them I
was an American citizen. They did not believe me and sent me to
a prison cell. There were 15 other people there. Six of them
were practitioners and they told me they had been secretly
tried and had been sentenced for up to a year. All they had
done was go to the Government Office of Appeals to offer their
personal testimony to the government on how Falun Gong had
improved their health and made them better people. They were
arrested the moment they got there.
The Premier of China has recently urged the Government
Office of Appeals to improve their operating procedures so that
the offices would become better places for citizens to voice
their concerns without fear of retribution. But for Falun Dafa
practitioners, walking into these offices is more like walking
directly into prison.
Every practitioner in my cell had been abused at some point
by the prison guard and policemen. In prison, we were given two
meals a day and it was always the same: two pieces of Chinese
bread and cabbage soup. At night all of us slept on one big
wooden platform with one blanket for two people and no pillows.
It was very crowded. In the entire time I was there, we were
not allowed to take any showers. None of the practitioners were
allowed any contact with the outside, nor were family members
or relatives allowed to visit. The families usually also faced
huge fines.
In one instance, a female practitioner was trying to do the
meditative exercises. But each time she started, a prison guard
kicked her to the ground. This scene repeated itself many times
until she had been kicked into a corner. The guard finally left
her alone and she finished her exercises.
While I was in prison, the police interrogated me and
threatened that if I didn't answer all their questions, I would
be kept in prison forever. Finally, with the assistance of the
U.S. embassy and reports made by the international media, I was
released and deported on February 12th, eighth day of my
detainment. I was not allowed to make any contact with anyone
the entire time.
Since the ban on Falun Gong was announced on July 20, 1999,
the brutality with which this ban has been enforced has
continued to escalate. It is reported that more than 5,000
practitioners, including the elderly, pregnant women, and young
children have been sent to labor camps without proper legal
procedures, without trial, legal representation, or due
process.
In addition, more than 300 practitioners have been tried in
secret and jailed with sentences of up to 18 years. In
November, an internal government report stated that, in Beijing
alone, more than 35,000 practitioners have been detained, with
many being held under extremely inhumane conditions. So far, 11
people are known to have died while in police custody, while
countless others remain unaccounted for.
Unfortunately, as I commented before, the scope and
severity of this persecution continues to escalate. For
example, in January of this year, the Hong Kong-based
Information Center of Human Rights and Democratic Movement in
China discovered that some Falun Gong practitioners were now
being in mental hospitals where they were being injected with
various drugs and were subject to other tortures. This
situation has been reported in the world news by CNN, AP, and
Agence France Press, to name a few.
All of this is ironic in light of the fact that the
People's Daily, the state-owned paper, published a report just
last May stating that Falun Gong is a beneficial practice with
no political motives that can help people improve their health.
This was prior to the current crackdown.
Other television programs drew similar conclusions back
then as well. Despite the overwhelming brutality currently
happening in China, I would like to make it clear that Falun
Gong practitioners are not against the Chinese government. Nor
do they seek any particular political change or reform. What
they ask is that they regain the basic human rights to freedom
of assembly and freedom of belief, which are protected under
China's own constitution, as well under the U.N. Declaration of
Human Rights that China has signed.
In short, we seek your help to open a dialogue with the
Chinese government so as to peacefully resolve this crisis. On
behalf of tens of millions of Falun Gong practitioners around
the world, I want to thank Congressman Chris Smith for
introducing House Resolution 218, which was unanimously passed
by the House on November 18, 1999. This House resolution
condemns China's brutal crackdown on Falun Gong. I would like
to personally thank this Congress and the U.S. Government for
the many steps it has taken thus far to encourage the Chinese
government to end its persecution. I hope you will continue to
support a peaceful resolution.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much for your testimony. The
resolution passed overwhelmingly because members, I do believe,
are deeply concerned and, frankly, are aghast at what's
happening. We don't understand why, which is why these hearings
are so important, not just for chronicling the abuse, but also
for trying to ascertain the ``why''. I think there's been much
too little, discussion on what is at the core.
Yesterday, I met with Wei Jingsheng and he spent about an
hour or so talking to assembled Members of Congress and their
staffs about our lack of depth as an institution, as a
democracy, in understanding the true nature of this
dictatorship and its malevolent intentions toward the United
States and Taiwan and many other parts of the world, but
especially toward the United States. We are very Pollyann-ish
in our treatment of this dictatorship.
If China were a democracy, constructive engagement would be
something we could be breaking our backs to accommodate, but we
are, indeed, enabling the dictatorship, as you put it. Things
could go from bad to worse. There is an escalation with regard
to the Falun Gong, which we ignore at their peril and our own.
I think all of your points were very well taken at this
hearing.
I'd like to ask a few questions. According to our press
reports, the Chinese government has rounded up a number of
political dissidents--we know about Tibetan Buddhists and Falun
Gong practitioners--in an effort, to preempt any demonstrations
during the visit of Mary Robinson, the U.N. High Commissioner
for Human Rights. What effects do you believe the High
Commissioner's visit will have? Will she speak out, in your
view, boldly and clearly, about what's going on there? I mean,
if access is indeed denied, will she not then become a reason
for silence? That should ratchet and amplify the message of
repression. Would any of you like to touch on that? Mr. Qiang?
Mr. Qiang. Thank you. It was our press report 2 days ago
and yesterday that got into the fact of the increased
persecution of civilians, of the Chinese dissidents, trying to
prevent them from speaking out or trying to meet the High
Commissioner from the United Nations, Mary Robinson. Our office
has been regularly in contact with Mary Robinson's office per
her visit and provided a detailed, in-depth analysis of
information on the Chinese human rights situation to date.
Madame Robinson, who is a very respectable human rights
advocate around the world, however in her last trip to China,
in our view, was made quite a confusing statement by praising
China's sudden progress in the human rights area, which didn't
exist, including the village election and the needed reforms.
Which we are trying our best effort to keep her informed. This
time we certainly have asked her to speak out against those
violations.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Tsering. Can I just add to what Qiang said? Any
visitors to China or Tibet, whether it's the High Commissioner
for Human Rights or any other government officials, unless they
are well-prepared, it's likely that these may play into the
hands of the Chinese government. Last time when Mary Robinson
was in Tibet, I think there was a problem in a Tibetan prison.
Mr. Smith. Many of us were shocked and dismayed when Kofi
Annan made his visit to Beijing and claimed, according to press
reports, that somehow he had gotten a ``better understanding''
of the Chinese treatment--we read that as mistreatment--of the
Falun Gong. Ms. Zhao, do you have any comments on that?
I asked Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Wu earlier about Madame
Albright's testimony yesterday, which was not unlike her
testimony in this room just a few days earlier to the
International Relations Committee. I posed a question to her
regarding China and human rights. Her comment yesterday, and
I'll just quote it again, was, ``I believe that our business
practices are such that really push the issue of worker rights
and human rights. The way we treat our people is an example.''
Is that naive? Or is that something else? Or is it
accurate? Would anyone like to respond? Yes.
Mr. Qiang. The suppression of the Chinese people's effort
to organize independent unions and any other autonomous
organization is the most severe last year for Tibetans. We
already established that through the State Department report.
But I would add one more thing. The Chinese government has been
using their PR machine to emphasize the so-called dialogue with
the United States and other democratic countries on the human
rights area as a way to divert or deflect the international
pressure.
There is a simple question, I think, that the United States
can pose to the Chinese government before establishing any
meaningful dialogue. Which is, the Chinese government must
start a dialogue on human rights with the Chinese people with
any outside organizations. Those organizations, including my
organization, has been routinely requested the meetings with
Chinese officials to discuss the country's human rights
situation and never had any response.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask a question. Ms. Reyila, you might
want to comment on this and Mr. Bhuchung, you as well. The
Country Reports on China states, ``Ethnic minorities such as
the Muslim Uighurs and Tibetans are subject to less-stringent
population controls and enjoy relatively lax enforcement of the
government's population policy.'' This account seems to
contradict testimony presented to this Subcommittee by a Uighur
in late 1997. She described forced abortions being performed as
late as the 40th week of pregnancy and stated, ``The birth
control policy Uighurs is unbearable. Babies are being killed
in delivery rooms''.
Do you agree with the State Department's description of the
implementation of Chinese population policy against ethnic
minorities in Tibet?
Ms. Abudureyim. Yes, I agree, because when mom----
Mr. Smith. Wait. Let me say, you agree that it's less
stringent than in the rest of China, or stronger, or the same?
Ms. Abudureyim. I don't quite understand what you're
saying.
Mr. Smith. The State Department is suggesting that ethnic
minorities are treated less harshly than, say, the Han Chinese
in the rest of China.
Ms. Abudureyim. No, that's not true.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. Did you want to give any additional
amplification on that?
Ms. Abudureyim. Yes, it was 10 years ago, it happened to
mom. I was going to say that, but I don't know if you're
interested in that. My mom was put in 10 years ago and she was
fined $45,000 yuan. It was pretty big money in China 2 years
ago. Because she was delivering her third child to my stepdad.
Mr. Smith. She was fined for that. Did you want to comment
on that?
Mr. Tsering. Just that and also one sort of looking at all
Chinese rules whether it's on the family planning or any other
rules, I think you've got to keep in mind what's on paper and
what's in practice, whether it's in Tibet or in Eastern
Turkestan, anywhere. The family planning issue is one thing
which we are sensitive to. It is our main charge against the
Chinese authorities that they're trying to destroy the Tibetan
identity. Therefore, it's clearly bad for Tibetans, even if the
Chinese are implementing a slightly better policy in certain
areas. Because of the sheer difference in numbers, that we face
the brunt of the policy.
Mr. Smith. Ms. Reyila, you mentioned that in November the
Chinese government stated that it did not have enough evidence
to put your mother on trial. Do you have any information as to
how your mother is being treated in custody? Has any American
diplomat made any effort on her behalf to try to intercede? I
know you've pointed out State Department comments, but has
there been any attempt to visit her?
Ms. Abudureyim. Yes. February 3, 2000 was when mom was
visited by the political consultation seven people on the
political consultation. That's all we know, as far as I know,
that's the only time.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Song, we really want to keep a focus on
what our own government is saying and on its lack of follow-
through with regard to policy. The Country Report does say that
your months of detention, and this is a quote, ``raises
concerns about a possible chilling effect on other Chinese
researchers.'' When I first saw that, I said, ``Gee do you
think?'' But what signal do you really think that your
incarceration sends to others?
Mr. Song. In my case, think we might have two results.
First is that I went to the trial, and they sentenced me at
least 5 years under Article 111 of Chinia's Criminal Law. If I
was in this situation for western scholar, who go to China to
do the research, will be very difficult. Why? Because actually
what I did was a routine job for any researcher.
When I argued with these agents, I said, ``If you sentence
me, any university, any college teachers and scholars inside
China as well as outside China should be sentenced for their
research. Because we do the same job. We collect all the
original material first, read them carefully, get an idea, and
then write a book or essay.
But now the situation is a little bit different because we
won. We won the battle. I was released. For the Chinese
ministry part, especially for the national security agency
part, they will be more careful, but for our parts, there is
still potentially danger for Chinese-American scholars, is
especially Chinese scholars only have green card and don't have
citizenship to do the research in China. Their research
materials could be classified as anything all those newspapers
I called are openly available during the Cultural Revolution
and openly available now, but they still classified them as
``state secrets.''
When the Cultural Revolution happened, all Red Guards,
including me, produced tons and tons of those kinds of material
anywhere in China, like air, like sunlight. Reclassifying these
materials means the Chinese legal system does not work, not as
they have written on paper. In practice, those secret agents
never obey their law. They just use their internal regulations
against the law. Who knows what kind of internal regulations
they follow?
For instance, they told me, ``You cannot bring out those
old newspapers to the United States.'' Then I asked them: ``I
have read all of China's criminal laws. I didn't find one
single sentence indicated that I could not bring the materials
abroad. This is not secret. ``They answered, we have internal
regulations.'' I asked, ``show me your internal regulations.''
They said: Because this is internal, we cannot let you read
it.'' So who knows if the internal one exists or not?
Mr. Smith. Thank you. Mr. Song. Let me ask you another
question. Someone said that your release proves that
constructive engagement and quiet diplomacy will yield more
fruit than linking economic benefits to human rights. I suspect
that your individual case will be used and maybe even exploited
by some of those who take the other view with regard to
permanent MFN. I would like to know from you what is your
opinion in terms of linking human rights with trade?
Mr. Song. Yes, my opinion is that the victory come from
both sides, both hands. One hand did not work but both hands
worked. In my case, however,I first owned my release to
international pressure. It made Chinese government understand
if they still detain me, if they sentence me, they would not
get any change for WTO. So they released me. But I still want
to say that communication also is our strategy to force them to
understand the international standard of human rights as well
as academic freedom.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Qiang, let me ask you a question with regard
to Secretary Albright's testimony. She attempted to deflect
some of the criticism on MFN by merely pointing to the Geneva
Resolution and the fact that we support the resolution there.
We all know that that resolution ought not to be seen in
isolation. It is a very constructive way of trying to press the
case of human rights, but the U.S. only has one vote.
The question always arises: How serious is the U.S. effort?
As I said in my opening comments, is it a full-court press
where all of our embassies are trying to inform their host
governments just how important and what a priority it is? It
also could be a half-hearted, half-baked effort. One could then
say, ``See, but we tried.'' Then it's used to deflect the
concerns that many of us have about the real big issue, and
that is linkage of human rights and trade.
What is your take on that issue? How serious is our
undertaking in Geneva?
Mr. Qiang. Let me first say, take the resolution at the
Geneva Convention condemning China's human rights situation,
it's an important step. It is the correct step. It requires
much more effort than just sponsoring a resolution. China is a
permanent member of the Security Council in the United Nations.
It is tremendously influential, especially coming to the
question of human rights, the Chinese government has been using
all the diplomatic, political, and economic leverages to gain
the votes from mostly Third World countries to deflect their
human rights abuses.
But that requires that the U.S. Government, which is a
premier sponsor of the resolution, who is also a leader of the
democratic world, should put much more diplomatic effort from
the highest level, from the White House, to every Ambassador in
every member state of the Commission, to lobbying to gain the
actual vote for the passage. That's what I urge the U.S.
Government to do.
I also agree that, just as Geneva is not enough, there are
the bilateral pressure and the multilateral pressure has to go
hand-in-hand. That lack of a bilateral pressure and
inconsistency in the current administration's human rights
policy on China is a problem that contributes to the human
rights situation in China, especially since 1998. Why 1998?
Because the Chinese have got all they want from the United
States, the two summits and the rest of the bilateral
agreements.
On the human rights front, what the Chinese government has
done is playing with I call it hostage politics or diplomacy.
It is wonderful to see Mr. Wei Jingsing and Mr. Song Yong Yi,
very few high prominent political prisoners are in exile. At
least they are not in prison. However, that is by no means to
say that the Chinese government has any sincere step to
implement human rights as a country.
Mr. Song, we are very happy you are here, but, again, I
wouldn't take that as any step for the Chinese government right
now in improving human rights. If it is anything, it is the
opposite. They are using, abusing with over broad so-called
national security laws and under the name of so-called rule by
law, continually prosecuting human rights inside of China.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Bhuchung, let me ask you a question in
regards to the whereabouts, of the Panchen Lama whom we're all
deeply concerned about. Is there any recent information about
him?
Let me ask you an additional question. This year's State
Department report continues to refer to Gedhun Choekyi Nyima
as, ``the boy recognized by the Dalai Lama as the Panchen
Lama,'' rather than just as the Panchen Lama. In a similar
vein, it refers to Catholics who are loyal to the pope and not
to the government-sponsored Catholic Patriotic Association as
``unofficial Catholics.''
Do you think that this way of reporting undermines the
right of religious communities to define themselves? Does it
give unmerited credibility to the government's ability to say
this person is the Panchen Lama?
Mr. Tsering. Mr. Chairman, can I answer the second question
first? Yes, it does. When the United States comes up with such
confusing statements it does affect religious position of the
Tibetan believers.
Regarding the situation of the Panchen Lama, we are, of
course, very much concerned. Particularly so because of some of
the things you mentioned earlier. There was this news that the
Panchen Lama may have even died. Today, although it is no more
than 5 years since the Chinese have taken the Panchen Lama,
there is no report as to his whereabouts. There is no
indication about his health condition.
We have sought ways through the individual governments,
including the U.S. Government, as well as through the United
Nations agencies, including the United Nations Rights of the
Child Committee, in order to impress upon the government of
China the importance of this one boy.
This is not a political issue. This is an issue of
religious rights of the Tibetan people. Even if they do not
consider it as a religious issue, it is the right of a now 10-
year-old boy.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask you a general question, Mr. Qiang
maybe you want to touch on this. The report makes clear that
trafficking in women in the international sex trade is a
problem in China and that the local government officials are
often complicity in such trafficking.
As I think you may know, I introduced H.R. 3244. It's a
comprehensive anti-trafficking bill with particular emphasis on
those women, most of whom were forced into prostitution. It
would, at this end, in this country, increase punishment of
those who are a part of that and anyone along the line who is
apprehended. They could get up to life imprisonment. But it
also would deny nonhumanitarian aid to those countries that
have not taken steps to deter trafficking. It also has some
provisions dealing with helping women who are apprehended here
as part of, say, a crackdown on a brothel, so they're not put
on the next plane and put right back in the cycle.
Now the trafficking in China has not been a very high
visibility issue in the past, although there have been some
reports. What's your sense as to its severity? Do you think our
legislation, if you've studied it, is helpful in trying to
mitigate the problem?
Mr. Qiang. Thank you, Chairman, for addressing this issue.
It is not very visible, but actually China has been trying very
hard to raise the awareness of this particular issue, the
trafficking in women. We did research in 1995, including in
part of our report presented to the World Conference of the
Women's Conference in Beijing, and the followup report 2 years
ago.
The importance of this issue also lies in the context of
two things. One, it is human rights violation in China. It's
not just about a handful of dissidents. It's not just about
certain minority groups or the workers' union. It's literally
every citizen in the country.
The second one is the question of during these economic
changes, economic reforms, opening up, those vulnerable groups
and the new issues coming up, because of a lack of action or
lack of protection of human rights and the victims of human
rights abuses spread into the new vulnerable groups. The woman
trafficking is one of those groups. It is of those groups. It
is a severe issue in China, indeed. There is a lack of
legislation and the political will to protect those vulnerable
groups during those social changes.
But in addition to that, the fact of a lack of independent
organizations, lack of a free press, lack of an independent
judicial system severely contributes to those kind of
violations.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask the question, and anyone who would
want to respond to this, please do. I've been informed that
there is about to be a $5 to $7 billion initial public offering
of a controversial foreign corporation, PetroChina, here in the
United States. PetroChina is a subsidiary of the China National
Petroleum Corporation. In addition to its possible complicity
in inflicting serious environmental damage on Tibet, the CNPC
is also a 40 percent equity shareholder in the oil consortium
of the Khartoum regime in Sudan, which sponsors genocide,
terrorism, and slavery.
In your opinion, how serious is the danger that the
proceeds from this IPO will go to support the political
activities of another rogue regime, that which is in Khartoum?
Do you have any suggestions as to what we might do to try to
stop, can the U.S. Government do anything to stop this stock
offering?
Mr. Tsering. I would now like to take this question because
it is related to the Tibetan people in a direct way. I think it
involves two issues. One, of course, it is a well-known fact
that in the past the CNPC has been using money it has gotten to
support the regime in Sudan. Therefore, there is a coalition of
organizations which has been launching a campaign against it.
But we have had information saying that the money that
PetroChina proposes to raise this time through their IPO may be
used to exploit gas and petroleum resources in Tibet, which is
unfortunately or fortunately located near a controversial World
Bank project. If such a project leads to explosion of gas, it
would harm the Tibetans there. Second, it would change the
demographic map of the region and, thereby, bring social and
political unrest into the area.
So we have started a campaign recently along with other
organizations. I believe AFL-CIO has also come aboard on this
campaign requesting that American investors not buy from this
IPO because if China wants investment, international money,
China should learn to play by the rules. Right now, China
doesn't play by the rules. Therefore, it's important that
investors teach China this lesson by not buying the PetroChina
shares.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask Ms. Zhao, if you could speak to
whether or not you think the U.S. Government response has been
adequate to the atrocities committed against the Falun Gong,
which, you pointed out, are escalating. I think the number you
used was 11 people who have been murdered by the regime.
Countless others have been incarcerated or beaten.
It is indefensible for this government to be engaging with
china in a way that enables or facilitates that to happen. I
mean, in plain daylight. I've been following the reports every
day of people having their legs kicked out from under them,
according to Routers. I'm interested. Some of my Republican and
Democratic colleagues are deeply interested. But has the
administration done enough to protest? What would be your
recommendation for what we might do further to try to get them
to lay off this relatively new repression?
Ms. Zhao. I think right now the hardest thing is to
communicate with the Chinese government. All these people are
trying every day from all over the world and all over China.
They try to tell the government we want an open dialogue with
the Chinese government and there is no way to get them to
receive the message, I guess. So I think just to let them know
that we need an open dialogue with the Falun practitioners. To
let them know that we want all the practitioners that have been
arrested, to let them go free and we can practice in public
legally. That's what we want.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Are there any additional comments that any of our witnesses
would like to make before we conclude the hearing?
Mr. Tsering. Just one.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Tsering. It's not just the people in Tibet. Also they
are proposing to exploit oil fields in Eastern Turkestan so the
Eastern Turkestan people may also like to be involved in this
campaign.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Qiang. Just two points. First, is to reemphasize what
Ms. Zhao and I said earlier about a dialogue with the Chinese
people. Ten years ago, the students in Tiananmen peacefully
demonstrating required a dialogue with the government
officials. What they got was tanks and machine guns. Now the
Falun Gong people are in the reeducation-through-labor prisons.
People like myself, they are in exile. Without that basic step,
how can we say there is any human rights movement improvement
in China?
Second, those human rights violation has a direct
implication to the business or the business rules dealing with
China. Let me give you two examples. One is, as you probably
have read through the press, the report recently from the New
York Times. A Chinese citizen who lived in the United States
for 20 years, Mr. Vuan, who recently visited his family back in
Shanghai as a messenger to meet one of the Tiananmen mothers,
the mothers of Tiananmen victims, trying to deliver some
humanitarian donations to the mother.
But the security police stopped him, interrogated him. They
then, when they found out he doesn't have the money with him,
they forced him to write out a check from his U.S. bank as a
condition that otherwise they will implicate there his family
and sentence him. So, basically, this is extortion. He has to
write that check out of his U.S. bank. That kind of outrageous
behavior, I think it is directly to do with the business rules.
There is another one, even more serious. My organization
Human Rights in China has wired $20,000 U.S. dollars through
the Chase Manhattan Bank in New York to the Bank of China to a
recipient who will help us deliver this money to the Tiananmen
mothers. But the money was reported by the Bank of China to the
Chinese security and the security came, forced the recipient to
restore the money, and confiscated the money.
This is the last year, last June, however, when Human
Rights in China has been asking Chase Manhattan to withdraw
this money because we realized there was the possibility of
this. The Bank of China--they are a business partner of Chase
Manhattan Bank--replied the simply false information saying the
money had already been taken. At that time, we had clear
evidence the money was still in the Bank of China.
So by violating those business rules and the so-called
National Security Law, I think that human rights violations
clearly are nonexistent, just on those dissidents, but also,
directly, in this case, as a business partner when you're
dealing with China.
Mr. Smith. I want to thank our very distinguished witnesses
for being here today, for your testimony, for your brave
efforts on behalf of human rights in China. The information
that you conveyed to this Subcommittee will be given to the
Members of the House and some Senators, but certainly to
Members of the House. I do believe that the knowledge that we
glean from these hearings, and especially this one, will become
ammunition in the upcoming fight.
Because right now there's an all-out, as you know, public
relations effort being made by the Secretary of State, the
President of the United States. Arms will be twisted to try to
go along with permanent MFN in the next several weeks and
couple of months. But the information you give as witnesses
helps us to make informed decisions. I always believe just go
wherever the facts take you. What you're giving us is further
insight into the barbarity of the Chinese dictatorship. That
has to get out and we will do everything we possibly can to
ensure that it does.
So, thank you so much for being here and taking the time.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 2, 2000
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5151.035