[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OPEN FORUM: PUBLIC PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES IN CHINA
=======================================================================
ROUNDTABLE
before the
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 9, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.cecc.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-358 WASHINGTON : 2003
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
Senate House
MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska, Co-
CARL LEVIN, Michigan Chairman
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JIM LEACH, Iowa
BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota DAVID DREIER, California
EVAN BAYH, Indiana FRANK WOLF, Virginia
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOE PITTS, Pennsylvania
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire SANDER LEVIN, Michigan
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JIM DAVIS, Florida
EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
PAULA DOBRIANSKY, Department of State
GRANT ALDONAS, Department of Commerce
D. CAMERON FINDLAY, Department of Labor
LORNE CRANER, Department of State
JAMES KELLY, Department of State
GREG MASTEL, Acting Staff Director
JOHN FOARDE, Deputy Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
Foarde, John, deputy staff director, Congressional-Executive
Commission on China............................................ 1
Adler, Alan, executive director, Friends of Falun Gong, Tenafly,
NJ............................................................. 2
Fu, Christina, spouse of Yang Jianli, imprisoned in China,
Brookline, MA.................................................. 4
Senser, Robert A., editor, Human Rights for Workers, Reston, VA.. 5
Oyunbilig, executive director, the Inner Mongolian People's
Party, Gaithersburg, MD........................................ 6
Mower, Joan, communications coordinator, Broadcasting Board of
Governors, Washington, DC; accompanied by Brian Mabry, senior
advisor for external relations, Voice of America, Washington,
DC............................................................. 8
Ciping, Huang, the Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition,
Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars, Senior Optical
Engineering Consultant, Whitehouse, OH......................... 10
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements
Adler, Alan...................................................... 26
Fu, Christina.................................................... 27
Senser, Robert A................................................. 29
Oyunbilig........................................................ 30
Mower, Joan...................................................... 31
Submissions for the Record
Nunez, Kery Wilkie............................................... 33
Togochog, Enhebatu, president, Southern Mongolian Human Rights
Information Center............................................. 34
OPEN FORUM: PUBLIC PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES IN CHINA
----------
MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2002
Congressional-Executive
Commission on China,
Washington, DC.
The open forum was convened, pursuant to notice, at 2:31
p.m., in room SD-215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, John
Foarde (deputy staff director) presiding.
Also present: Greg Mastel, acting staff director and chief
trade counsel, Senate Finance Committee; Susan Weld, general
counsel; Matt Tuchow, Office of Representative Sander Levin;
and Tiffany McCullen, U.S. Department of Commerce.
OPENING STATEMENT OF JOHN FOARDE, DEPUTY STAFF
DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
Mr. Foarde. Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon, and
welcome to the open forum. I would ask you to take your seats,
please. The panelists who are here in the room, if you could
join us at the panel table.
Once the panelists have taken their seats, I would ask you
to turn your name tags around and have them face us so we can
be sure we are addressing the right person.
Again, good afternoon and welcome to the Congressional-
Executive Commission on China's open forum. We are delighted
that our panelists are here and that people that are here
attending in the audience are here with us this afternoon.
This is the final public roundtable in the open forum
format that we will have in this calendar year. But because we
have considered it a very successful format, I am sure we will
be having several next year along with our regular issues
roundtables and the formal hearings that the Commission holds
from time to time.
I would like to introduce, immediately to my left, to your
right, the acting staff director of the Congressional-Executive
Commission on China, Greg Mastel, who masquerades in his other
life as the chief trade counsel for the Senate Finance
Committee and works for Senator Max Baucus. Greg, thanks for
joining us today.
And immediately to his left, to your far right, Susan
Roosevelt Weld, who is the general counsel of the Commission.
I would like to introduce our panelists, briefly, then we
will do our usual procedure, which is to proceed from the
window to the wall. We are obviously missing one, which is Dr.
Greg Kulacki from the Union of Concerned Scientists. I am sure
he will join us, and when he does we will give him a chance to
make his presentation.
Mr. Alan Adler is the executive director of Friends of
Falun Gong USA. Ms. Christina Fu is from the Medical School at
Harvard and is here in her own capacity today as the spouse of
Yang Jianli, imprisoned in China. She will explain during her
presentation.
In the middle is Mr. Robert Senser, Editor of Human Rights
for Workers here in the Washington area. Next to him, is Mr.
Oyunbilig, the executive director of the Inner Mongolian
People's Party, also from here in suburban Maryland. And Ms.
Joan Mower, who is the communications coordinator for the
Broadcasting Board of Governors here in Washington.
The open forum works on the principle that we give you 5
minutes to make an oral presentation, and when each panelist
has had a chance to make his or her presentation, we then open
it up to questions from staff on this side of the table, again,
for 5 minutes each until we have gone through a couple of
rounds.
And as long as the conversation is good we will keep it
going, and when we are pretty much out of steam we will call it
off, or when 4:30 comes, whichever is first.
So, pending Dr. Kulacki's arrival, I wonder if Mr. Alan
Adler would like to open up the proceedings? You have lights in
front of you that my colleague, Anne Tsai, is going to control.
After 4 minutes, the yellow light will go on and that is
your signal to wrap up your formal presentation. You can pick
up some themes, if you would like, during the questions and
answers.
So, Alan, if you would go ahead, please.
STATEMENT OF ALAN ADLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FRIENDS OF FALUN
GONG USA, TENAFLY, NJ
Mr. Adler. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak
to you today. My name is Alan Adler and I am the executive
director of Friends of Falun Gong USA, a nonprofit human rights
organization established by concerned citizens who support the
freedom of belief of people who practice Falun Gong.
With the abolition of the annual review of China's most
favored nation [MFN] status, and with China's accession to the
World Trade Organization [WTO], we would expect this esteemed
Commission to aggressively advocate for basic freedom of belief
in China.
Unfortunately, reading this Commission's 2002 Annual
Report, one gets another impression, at least in terms of the
Falun Gong. Falun Gong was only mentioned in passing in various
sections of the report when it should have, instead, been a
focal point.
Why does Falun Gong deserve more attention and advocacy?
The sheer numbers of people affected make the persecution of
Falun Gong the number one religious freedom violation in China
today, and perhaps in the world.
According to the reports from the Chinese Government's own
statistics, prior to the ban there were 70 to 100 million
people practicing Falun Gong in China. That is a group larger
than most
nations.
When you consider that their family members, friends, and
co-workers are also victimized, the numbers are absolutely
staggering. The group of people affected becomes comparable to
the population of the United States.
This brutal suppression has targeted everyone from school
children to judges. Some reports state that roughly half of all
prisoners held in China's forced labor camps are Falun Gong
adherents.
Based on one estimate, this would put the number of Falun
Gong in the camps at 2 to 3 million. Chinese police and guards
routinely brutalize Falun Gong prisoners by raping women,
binding people in torture devices for weeks on end, stripping
them and leaving them outside in below-freezing temperatures,
holding them in cages too small for their bodies, repeatedly
and severely beating them, and so on.
In recent months, we have received reports almost daily of
people being tortured to death. There are event accounts of
children in schools being forced to memorize poems denouncing
Falun Gong, and of people being made to trample the photograph
of the Falun Gong founder in order to enter train stations.
Officials are given bonuses and promotions for successfully
persecuting Falun Gong. This persecution has permeated every
level and every facet of China's society.
When one considers the gravity of this situation, the
amount of media attention Falun Gong has received, and the
extensive support of local and state governments, it becomes
clear that this Commission and the Federal Government need to
do more. You have a responsibility to put Falun Gong at the
forefront when it comes to human rights and rule of law issues
in China.
I would like to make the following recommendations: That
the Commission make Falun Gong a focal point in its work in
future reports; that the Commission advise our President to
speak out. He has met with Jiang Zemin three times this year,
but has yet to make a public statement in defense of the
largest persecuted group in China.
That the Commission recommend a Senate hearing on this
topic. The House has held a number of hearings and has recently
lent unanimous support to House Resolution 188, yet the Senate
has been curiously passive.
The Chinese Government does not admit that they have a
human rights problem, much less that they need to change. It is
extremely difficult to engage in fruitful dialog to educate or
to reason with a government that flatly denies and routinely
whitewashes the grave violations that are occurring. Bold
public international pressure may be the only true, effective
means of change.
Additionally, one of this Commission's recommendations was
that corporations work to bring about change by giving
recommendations to relevant Chinese Government entities.
I have done business in China for over 30 years and have
employed tens of thousands of people there. I have improved
workers' rights to the best of my ability.
However, I know that even one semi-public statement, such
as posting my company's human rights policy in Chinese, would
bring that factory to the immediate attention of the Public
Security Bureau and the repercussions would be disastrous.
This is just a simple illustration of the pressure that
corporations are under to comply with the repressive
environment.
I feel that the idea of developing a long-term
collaborative relationship between government and business is
not a realistic approach. Corporations can do little to change
the situation without strong support and advocacy on the part
of our government. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adler appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Foarde. Thank you very much, Alan.
Our next speaker is Christina Fu.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINA FU, SPOUSE OF YANG JIANLI, IMPRISONED IN
CHINA, BROOKLINE, MA
Ms. Fu. I am Christina Fu, wife of Yang Jianli. On April 26
this year, my husband was detained in Kunming, China, during a
peaceful visit to his native country. Today marks the 227th day
of his detention, and his whereabouts remain unknown.
My husband is the president of the Foundation for China in
the 21st Century, through which he promotes the cause of
democracy in China. As a veteran of the 1989 Tiananmen student
movement and an outspoken advocate for human rights in China,
he testified before the Congress twice in 1989, and again in
1996.
It is commonly known that he is one of the 49 prominent
dissidents who have been blacklisted by the Chinese Government
and denied entrance to China since 1989.
My husband is a permanent legal resident of the United
States, but has remained a citizen of China. His decision to
travel to China this spring was the result of his growing
concern about under-
reported labor unrest and his strong belief that he has the
right to go to his own country. That is guaranteed by
international
treaties.
After my husband was detained and was being held in a hotel
room, guarded by Chinese police officers, he spoke with me by
phone. We spoke again the next day on the morning of April 27.
Since that day, we have been unable to communicate with
him. In the past 7 months, our family has been greatly
concerned for my husband's well-being and safety. We have done
everything we could to obtain information about him, but our
basic rights were denied.
We submitted 8 written requests, made more than 20 calls to
the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC, and made 6 visits to the
various offices in China. I arrived in Beijing on May 23 and
was expelled on the same day. My husband's brother traveled to
Beijing four times from his home in Shandong Province to learn
where my husband was being held, and tried to arrange for legal
representation.
No lawyers in China would accept this case, since there was
no official record of arrest or a trial date. Chinese
authorities and the Public Security Ministry, the State
Security Ministry, the Foreign Ministry, and the Beijing Public
Security Bureau would not provide any confirmation.
We have been in close contact with the U.S. State
Department, which has been very supportive. Despite their
active involvement in the case, they have also been unable to
obtain even the most basic information.
Chinese law requires notification of detention within 24
hours. Chinese law imposes a 37-day limit on detentions without
a warrant. Chinese law requires that the detainee be permitted
rapid
access to legal counsel. China has not honored its own law with
respect to my husband's case.
He has not been permitted to communicate with anyone since
his detention 7 months ago. Such an extended period of
isolation from the outside world surely constitutes inhuman,
cruel, and degrading treatment.
Just today, my attorney, Jared Genser of Freedom Now, filed
a petition to the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights' Working
Group on Arbitrary Detention describing the violations of
Chinese and international law in my husband's case. The
petition will be attached with my statement.
I am hopeful and appreciative of the many people working on
my husband's behalf. I would particularly thank the more than
40 Members of Congress from the Senate and House, Republicans
and Democrats, who have written a total of 21 letters to both
the Chinese and United States Governments to appeal for my
husband's release.
Supportive letters were also written by Archbishop Desmond
Tutu, President Lawrence Summers of Harvard University, 34
faculty of Harvard University, Chancellor Robert Berdahl of the
University of California at Berkeley, and many others.
Their efforts have given me much courage and hope during
this very difficult struggle. Their help will have a direct
impact on my husband's fate. I greatly appreciate the
opportunity to inform the Congressional-Executive Commission on
China of my husband's case and to appeal for help.
It is also my hope that this Commission will continue to
show concern about my husband's case and take advantage of the
coming human rights dialog with China to press for my husband's
release so that joy and peace will return to my children and my
family. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fu appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Foarde. Thank you, Ms. Fu.
Our next speaker is Bob Senser.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. SENSER, EDITOR, HUMAN
RIGHTS FOR WORKERS, RESTON, VA
Mr. Senser. First of all, thank you very much for this
opportunity to explore a crucial issue: How to evaluate or to
assess progress made in China.
I would like to emphasize the importance of using a
standard that relies on basics. Jacek Kuron, a Polish
intellectual who was also leader of the Solidarity movement,
has provided a guide that meets this test. More than 12 years
ago, at a conference not far from here, he outlined the two
essential characteristics of totalitarianism.
First, a monopoly of organization, a monopoly, in theory,
so total, Kuron said, that if citizens gather freely and
discuss freely a matter as simple as roof repairs on a block of
condo apartments, this constitutes a challenge to the central
authority.
Second, a monopoly on information. Everything in print and
in the electronic media has to be steered by the central
authority. ``As a practical matter,'' Kuron added, ``this
ideal, this model, cannot be followed in all of its fullness.''
Of course, Chairman Mao went a long way toward doing so
before his successors changed course. Unfortunately, although
short of Mao's terrible extremes, the two basic elements of
totalitarianism survive in modern China.
As a practical matter, the regime has made selective
exceptions to imposing the model in full. One exception that
fascinates me is the American Chamber of Commerce in China,
headquartered in Beijing. It enjoys the freedom to organize.
Its members number more than 1,500, representing more than 750
companies, small and large, throughout China.
It enjoys freedom of information through a monthly
magazine, through comprehensive analytical reports, through its
Web site. The Chamber distributes its views not only among its
own members, not only internally, but externally to many more
people
outside its ranks, including government officials at various
levels.
Some of these views are cautiously critical of the Chinese
Government. Take its annual white paper on the climate for
business in China. In analyzing labor conditions, for example,
the Chamber praises positive developments benefiting business,
but it also publicizes a series of complaints, such as that
labor costs in China remain higher than those of many Asian
countries and are rising steadily.
Or take its latest report on China's compliance with WTO
accession agreements. It praises China's serious commitment to
meeting its WTO obligations, but also expresses many specific
concerns in some areas where China may not yet be in full
compliance with WTO commitments.
On its Web site, in Chinese and in English, the Chamber
publicly offers many other details on how it exists and how it
acts as an enclave of non-totalitarianism in China. Indeed,
that enclave offers an instructive model for what China must do
to free itself fully from the shackles of totalitarianism.
Now, in singling out the Chamber, I am, of course, not
objecting to freedoms enjoyed by American and other foreign
business people in China. It is just that their freedom stands
out in such glaring contrast to how thoroughly, often brutally,
the regime in China
denies these same freedoms to its own citizens, including its
working men and women in factories, fields, and offices. Such
grossly unfair, discriminatory treatment cannot long endure.
Thanks for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Senser appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Foarde. Thank you very much, Bob.
Our next speaker is Mr. Oyunbilig from the Inner Mongolian
People's Party.
STATEMENT OF MR. OYUNBILIG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE INNER
MONGOLIAN PEOPLE'S PARTY, GAITHERSBURG, MD
Mr. Oyunbilig. First of all, I thank the Commission for
giving me this opportunity to speak on the human rights
situation in Inner Mongolia. My name is Oyunbilig. I came to
the United States from Inner Mongolia in 1995 and now I am
staying in the United States as a political asylee.
Due to the limited time, I will get straight to the point.
However, I do need to point out that the southern part of the
Mongol land and its people have always been a part of the
Mongol Nation that came to exist in the 13th century, and that
is where the name Inner Mongolia came to be.
In 1947, the Chinese Government set up the Inner Mongolia
Autonomous Region against the will of the Mongol people. Since
then, individual human rights have been deprived from the
Mongols in Inner Mongolia, along with their political and civil
rights as a people.
Fore more than half a century, the Mongols in Inner
Mongolia have witnessed the most horrifying events in our
people's history: Mass killings of innocent civilians, total
destruction of the religious establishments, calculated and
forced cultural assimilation that brought the Mongol culture
and traditions to the brink of extinction, and catastrophic
destruction of the grasslands, just to name a few.
Now I will present two cases as testimony to what we are
very concerned about today. The first one, is the case of Mr.
Hada and Mr. Tegexi. In 1992, Mr. Hada, Mr. Tegexi, and other
Mongol
students and intellectuals established the Southern Mongolian
Democracy Alliance [SMDA].
The goal of SMDA was to promote and preserve the Mongolian
language, history, and culture in Inner Mongolia and to strive
for civil and political rights for the Mongols.
In December 1995, Mr. Hada, Mr. Tegexi, and over 70 members
and supporters of SMDA were arrested after they organized
peaceful demonstrations and student strikes at universities
against the Chinese Government's oppressive policies toward the
Mongols in Inner Mongolia.
On December 6, 1996, Mr. Hada was charged with crimes of
inciting separatism and was sentenced to 15 years in jail. Mr.
Tegexi was accused of similar crimes and was sentenced to 10
years in jail. Today, Mr. Tegexi's whereabouts are totally not
known.
According to Mr. Hada's wife, Ms. Shinna, he has been
tortured by prison guards constantly and suffers from a number
of physical illnesses. Ms. Shinna was also arrested several
times for giving interviews to foreign media, including Voice
of America [VOA] and Radio Free Asia [RFA].
The bookstore they owned was shut down and left Ms. Shinna
and their son Weylas, with no reliable sources of living. In
2001, Mr. Hada's 16-year-old son Weylas was expelled from
school without sufficient explanation from the school.
Later, in December 2001, he was arrested for alleged
robbery and sentenced to 2 years in jail, again, without proper
trial. According to Ms. Shinna, prison guards also beat Weylas
several times.
The second case concerns the Chinese Government's ongoing
effort to evict and relocate Mongol herders by force. In recent
years, sandstorms originating from the north have become a big
problem for China as they grow in calamity and frequency.
Beijing is one of the major cities hit by the sandstorms
because of its close proximity to Inner Mongolia.
Government officials in Beijing had long ignored the
problem until they were exposed to the threat of sandstorms.
However, they put the blame on the Mongol herders and their
animals instead of on their own policies toward Inner Mongolia.
Since the early 1950s, the Chinese Government moved
millions of Han Chinese into Inner Mongolia as an attempt to
make the
occupation of Inner Mongolia a fait accompli.
Most of these Han Chinese are peasants, and their only
means of life is to cultivate the land. Unsuited for
agricultural cultivation that strips the land of its topsoil,
the Inner Mongolian steppes were turned into patches of desert
after only a few years of farming, the consequences of which
are threatening China's capital now.
The Chinese Government started a program to forcibly
relocate Mongol herders 2 years ago under the pretext that the
main reason for the sandstorms is over-grazing. According to
the Xinhua News Agency, the program will resettle about 650,000
people in 6 years, and most of them are Mongol herders. One of
the nine prefectures of Inner Mongolia already declared a total
ban on livestock herding.
We have heard many reports from Inner Mongolia indicating
that Mongol herders were asked to sell off their livestock and
were forced off from their pastures into unfamiliar territory
and an unknown lifestyle without any support from the
government.
Members of the Commission, Mr. Hada and Mr. Tegexi are two
of the few political prisoners who are serving 10 or more years
of prison terms in China. I would like to ask the Commission
and the U.S. Congress to bring up their cases during their
future contact with Chinese officials.
I also ask you to urge the Chinese Government to stop the
relocation program that is aimed at the Mongol herders and
provide adequate support and subsidy for those who have already
have been displaced.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Oyunbilig appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Foarde. Thank you very much, Mr. Oyunbilig.
Our next speaker is from the Broadcasting Board of
Governors, but I am afraid I might have mispronounced your last
name. So would you give it to me correctly?
Ms. Mower. It is Joan Mower.
Mr. Foarde. Mower.
Ms. Mower. You can say Mower.
Mr. Foarde. Mower is better. Mower it is. Joan Mower. Thank
you, Joan.
STATEMENT OF JOAN MOWER, COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR,
BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS, WASHINGTON, DC; ACCOMPANIED BY
BRIAN MABRY, SENIOR
ADVISOR FOR EXTERNAL RELATIONS, VOICE OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON,
DC
Ms. Mower. Thank you very much.
I am the communications coordinator with the Broadcasting
Board of Governors [BBG], which is an independent Federal
agency supervising all U.S. non-military international
broadcasting,
including Voice of America and Radio Free Asia.
I note that in a recent op-ed piece that Senator Baucus and
Congressman Bereuter wrote, they said that VOA and RFA provide
many ordinary Chinese with their only source of objective,
uncensored news. That is true.
Your bosses also say, ``We believe the audience will only
grow if we increase funding and improve programming.'' Again,
that is true. But audiences will grow much greater if we can
get rid of one problem, one major problem, which is jamming of
all of our broadcasts into China.
We work with the Federal Communications Commission and we
have determined that virtually all VOA and RFA short-wave radio
transmissions into China, in the Cantonese, Mandarin, Tibetan,
and Uighur languages, are jammed. That means virtually all of
them have problems getting in.
Unfortunately, jamming seems to be on the rise, even though
we are seeing increased commercial and diplomatic contacts
between the United States and China. In Lhasa, for instance,
Tibet's capital, it is almost impossible to get a good VOA
reception in Tibetan, even though we are broadcasting on three
to five frequencies,
depending on the time of day.
As has been widely reported, the Chinese are also blocking
our Internet sites, www.voa.com and www.rfa.org. We are not
alone in that. Harvard Law School just reported there are
19,000 sites that the Chinese are blocking.
But it is really a problem as we try to provide the Chinese
with news over this very popular and fast-growing Internet. We
also have e-mail subscription services that are blocked.
You might ask, why is this a problem? Well, like all
Americans, we believe that everyone is entitled to factual,
uncensored information. In fact, our mission is to promote and
sustain freedom and
democracy by broadcasting accurate and objective news and
information about the United States and the world. So, it is a
human rights issue.
Second, it is a big issue for the United States Government
because the Chinese are not getting a clear view of what the
United States policies and our policies are.
We have a recent survey that showed 68 percent of urban
dwellers in China consider the United States their country's
No. 1 enemy. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out
that that is not a good thing. At a time when we have got a war
on terrorism going on, to have 18 percent of the world's
population ill-informed about the United States, about our
culture, about our democracy and our freedoms, that is not
good.
On a related issue, we consider the Chinese actions
incredibly unfair. While China is blocking and jamming our
information and news, we are allowing CCTV, which is the
government television channel on many cable systems across the
United States, and China Radio International, is also
broadcasting on a mix of AM and FM radio stations in our
country.
Of course, we are a country that supports freedom of
information, so we would not have it any other way. But there
is something patently unfair with us allowing them to have
basically access to all of our outlets, while we are unable to
broadcast into China.
At the same time, Voice of America and Radio Free Asia are
severely restricted in the number of journalists that work in
China. We are trying to get two more visas. We only have two
journalists currently working in Beijing on a full-time basis,
but China will not give us additional visas to put people into
China. This is at a point where the United States also allows
the Chinese Government to have at least 40 journalists working
unfettered in our country.
So what can be done? At a minimum, we have approached the
Bush Administration. They are very supportive of us and we are
hopeful that they will raise this agenda diplomatically so that
we might get some action.
We also work with the FCC to file harmful interference
reports with the International Telecommunications Union. We
have been doing this since August 2000. The Chinese have
recently acknowledged these reports that we file. They claim,
somewhat disingenuously, that, ``Oh, the problem is, we are
mixing signals, that they come on our signal.'' But our
engineers say that that is basically not true.
It costs us a lot of money to overcome jamming. We spend
about $9.5 million of taxpayers' money to go in on 100,000
hours of VOA and RFA broadcasting, which means we have all
different kinds of transmissions just to get into the country.
Finally, we are working with research, experimenting with
different proxy servers and mirror Internet sites to try to get
through the Bamboo Curtain. But what really needs to happen, is
we need to have a concerted congressional-executive strategy to
deal with this issue, to raise it in the public's mind at
hearings, discussions, put it on the agenda, and let us really
focus on what is happening there with Radio Free Asia and Voice
of America.
Thanks very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mower appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Foarde. Thank you, Joan.
Our next speaker is Huang Ciping, who wears a number of
hats and represents a number of very fine organizations. Most
recently, she has taken on a senior role at the Wei Jingsheng
Foundation, and we are very happy to have you today.
STATEMENT OF HUANG CIPING, THE OVERSEAS CHINESE
DEMOCRACY COALITION, FEDERATION OF CHINESE STUDENTS AND
SCHOLARS, SENIOR OPTICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT, WHITEHOUSE, OH
Ms. Huang. Thank you very much. To the Congressional-
Executive Commission on China, I would like to talk about the
Olympic Games in Beijing in 2008. I am the secretary general
for the Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition, and I thank you
very much for providing me this opportunity today at this forum
to speak up for the suppressed Chinese people with regard to
their human rights and religious rights.
I am asking you to pay attention to the Olympic Games in
2008 with regard to Chinese human rights conditions. When
conditions permit, I hope you could cooperate with the
International Olympic Committee in an effort to push for
Chinese human rights improvement instead of deterioration.
This speech is a collective cooperation and response from
several Chinese organizations which include the Overseas
Chinese Democracy Coalition, the Committee to Investigate
Religious Persecution in China, the Independent Federation of
Chinese Students and Scholars, and the Wei Jingsheng
Foundation.
Because we did not have the opportunity to present to you
in last month's roundtable about the Beijing 2008 Olympic
Games, we are here to present our opinion and the concerns
regarding the Olympic Games which will be held in Beijing in
the year 2008.
This opinion represents the views of many of our fellow
Chinese, including the underground Chinese Christians
persecuted in China, which are in very bad shape, and we really
urge you to pay attention. We urge the international community
to pay attention as well.
Last year, as most of us know, unfortunately, the rights of
hosting the 2008 Olympic Games was offered to the dictators of
the Chinese Communist Government, just as what has happened in
1930 to Nazi Germany, and in 1980 to the former Soviet Union.
We wanted this honor to go to a democratic China.
Unfortunately, at the present situation, the Chinese Government
has been suppressing the Chinese and there is not much hope for
democracy in China at this time.
From history we have learned that when the glory and
reputation of the Olympic Games are used for evil identity and
evil attention, the people will suffer. World peace will be in
jeopardy as well.
Nevertheless, the International Olympic Committee [IOC]
decided on Beijing to be the hosting city. The resentment of
people in Beijing has been widely reported because of all the
face-lifts
ordered by the Chinese Government.
In particular, we are concerned that that fact has been
used by the Chinese Government as an excuse to further suppress
the
Chinese people, especially Chinese Christians.
We have obtained a secret document from the Chinese
Government that, in the name of welcoming the success of
receiving the award of the 2008 Olympic Games, instructs
officials to maintain social order, to severely attack
``illegal rallies, gatherings, and all other activities that
disturb social order.'' Those kinds of secret documents have
been used to suppress the religious people, including the
Christians.
Hereby, we urge the CECC to pay close attention in this
form of human rights abuses in China in the noble name of the
Olympic Games. Whenever possible, we wish you could try your
best to present our views to the IOC and to the whole world,
and to
enforce such a monitoring process, together or separately.
Since July 2000 we have been, and still are, appealing to
the IOC to establish a human rights monitoring committee or
establish such a functionality in a similar fashion as the CECC
to reveal the Chinese human rights conditions prior to the
Games with the capacity of revoking the hosting rights.
Also, although we have not been able to reach our goal and
we feel that human rights condition in China has been
deteriorating since, we still push for such a goal. We hope the
CECC will maintain a close relationship with members and
leaders of the IOC and set up a good example in this regard.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Foarde. Thank you very much, Huang Ciping. We will come
back to some of those themes in the question and answer
session.
I would call, if he is in the room, on Dr. Greg Kulacki. If
you are here, you can come forward.
[No response].
Mr. Foarde. Evidently he is not here, so we will go right
to our question session. As I said before, each of the staffers
up here will have the opportunity, if they wish, to pose a
question to one or all of you. We will have 5 minutes each to
ask the question and hear the answer.
I think I will begin by asking for some clarification on
some points from Alan Adler, if you please. Is the Friends of
Falun Gong an organization of practitioners of Falun Gong or
people who are not practitioners, but are friendly to that
movement?
Mr. Adler. They are not practitioners.
Mr. Foarde. As a friend of people who practice Falun Gong
in China, would you describe Falun Gong as a religion or as
something else?
Mr. Adler. I would not describe it as a religion. It is
based on ancient Chinese exercises, Qi Gong, its cultivation
practice. It is a very simple way for people to remain fit. The
principles of truthfulness, benevolence and forbearance are
elaborated and explained in a book. It seems to be a very
simple thing. I often describe it as just an advanced form of
Tai Qi.
Mr. Foarde. So there is no belief system or no worship, as
such?
Mr. Adler. Absolutely not.
Mr. Foarde. It is simply a physical and spiritual
cultivation practice.
Mr. Adler. There is a lot of respect for the man who
brought this public, an enormous amount of respect. We find it
to be a profound doctrine. Friends of Falun Gong does not
really advocate for the practice, although we find it is very
socially redeeming and good for the people who do it.
Mr. Foarde. So, just to clarify, you are not a practitioner
yourself, for example?
Mr. Adler. I am the one exception, probably, or one of the
few exceptions. I volunteer my time. I believe, as soon as
there is some funding and others can do what I do and they can
hire someone, I will stop.
Mr. Foarde. You have been doing business in the PRC for
quite some time, according to your statement.
Mr. Adler. Yes.
Mr. Foarde. You do not seem very positive about the idea
that government, business, and perhaps other interested parties
in the United States could cooperate on a strategy to try to
advance the types of issues that would help obtain for Falun
Gong practitioners in China, for example, freedom of
association, freedom of expression, et cetera, unless I
misunderstood you.
Mr. Adler. I think you did.
Mr. Foarde. All right.
Mr. Adler. I do not believe that corporations can do it by
themselves. We need a lot of government support. We would like
to hear the Senate, hear the President, hear people, or give us
some sort of mandate or regimen to follow.
When I go in and I try to post my human rights policies, I
just cannot. It is impossible. Everything has to be verbal. I
have no way of monitoring it. I really do not feel that I have
my government's support. The factories that I do business with
would be out of business very quickly if I posted a doctrine in
Chinese providing them any sort of safety.
Mr. Foarde. I have a couple of seconds left, so let me try
another question. To Christina Fu, please.
Has the Chinese Government said formally, either to Dr.
Yang Jianli or to you, that he is on a blacklist that would not
permit him to travel to China?
Ms. Fu. No.
Mr. Foarde. No. So there has never been any formal
statement of that?
Ms. Fu. No. There is no formal or written statement from
the Chinese Government.
Mr. Foarde. Has his passport been revoked, or has he tried
to apply for a Chinese passport since he first came to the
United States as a student?
Ms. Fu. I do not remember when exactly he did it. I know
the blacklist was revealed in 1994 by Human Rights Watch and
Human Rights in China, and there was a press conference on a
right to return to China and a right of freedom to go back to
the homeland. So, it was quite public.
Mr. Foarde. These are things, of course, that our
Commission members very much support, the right of freedom to
travel, and certainly the right and the freedom of the Chinese
people to return to China if they are studying abroad or
visiting abroad.
In the case of Dr. Yang Jianli, he has never formally tried
to apply for a passport or to get his own travel document to
return to China?
Ms. Fu. I do not remember when exactly he submitted a form.
I know the Chinese consulate did not even give him a chance for
that.
Mr. Foarde. How did he travel to China back earlier this
year when he went? What did he use to travel? Did he use his
green card?
Ms. Fu. He did carry his green card and he used that.
Mr. Foarde. What did he use to enter China?
Ms. Fu. As far as I know, he used a friend's passport.
Mr. Foarde. So a passport that did not belong to him.
Ms. Fu. Yes.
Mr. Foarde. All right. I am almost out of time, so we will
go on.
Greg.
Mr. Mastel. Ms. Fu, you mentioned that your husband went to
China to investigate labor unrest. Can you tell us a little bit
more about what brought him to China, what he was looking into?
Ms. Fu. I actually do not know what exactly he was
thinking. But for the 3 months before he left Boston, he had
been constantly talking with friends on the phone or in his
office about this not-reported or under-reported labor unrest.
He was very concerned because we heard that almost 70 percent
of workers were laid off in that part of China.
Mr. Mastel. Ms. Mower, do you have any estimate now of how
large your listenership is in China?
Ms. Mower. I do not. Let me ask Brian Mabry, who works at
VOA. It is about 5 million, which is large, but it is not that
large for China. Not nearly as large as it could be.
Mr. Mastel. In your testimony you mentioned some
technological approaches to try to counter jamming. Can you
explain a little bit more about that? Is there any potential
for that to be an
answer to some of your problems in China?
Ms. Mower. What I was referring to was actually what we're
doing with e-mail servers and mirror Internet sites. In talking
to the engineers--and I would have to get back to you on this--
I do not know what you can really do to stop jamming.
I understand that jamming is all kinds of things, like
Chinese opera at strange hours. You will be listening to the
station and you will hear thuds, or you will hear Chinese
opera.
I do not know what you can really do to stop it, other than
go in on other frequencies. Of course, we follow all of the ITU
regulations. It is all done by the international organizations
to make sure that we are on the legal frequencies that are
granted to us.
Mr. Mastel. You were talking about what you are doing on
the computer.
Ms. Mower. Yes. Again, I am not an engineer and I am not an
Internet expert. I am basically the PR person. So, I would be
happy to provide a paper for you on that. We actually do have
those, and I can get your e-mail and I will get you that this
week.
Mr. Mastel. But it sounds like you do not foresee much
potential there.
Ms. Mower. I think there are actually some very promising
things that we are doing with the Internet. I think there are
mirror sites, and I think we have just hired a new contractor
who is doing some exciting work in trying to make sure that we
can find sites that are blocked and get our stuff in.
So, I think we are actually working on some interesting
things, I just do not know the details of them. But I will get
those for you.
Mr. Mastel. Thank you.
Mr. Senser, your testimony about the American Chamber of
Commerce in China was very interesting. If in fact the Chinese
are allowing more access by the Chamber, why do you think that
is? I mean, obviously they criticize the Chinese Government,
too. Why do you think they see them as a less threatening
category than
others?
Mr. Senser. Well, that is a very interesting point here.
The Chinese Government obviously feels they have an ally that
will continue to support the enormous infusion of American
resources into China. For example, $400 million a day, every
day of every week of exports from China imported into the
United States.
That is a big chunk of help. If Adolf Hitler had it, he
would have gone beyond the support he got from German business
and he would have turned to American business, too.
Mr. Mastel. But I guess my question is--I actually read the
report you referred to from the Chamber of Commerce which
criticized the Chinese in a number of respects in terms of the
WTO
accession.
As you say, totalitarian governments are not fond of
tolerating dissent. Why would these critiques be all right, and
why would the Chinese be willing to tolerate these critiques?
Mr. Senser. Well, first of all, I tried to show that they
are rather mild. The Chamber has to do something to defend its
own interests, and they are doing that, but the support that
China is getting makes it bearable.
Mr. Mastel. One last question, quickly, and it is probably
a long question for Mr. Adler. Maybe you can give me a short
assessment. As someone who is a friend of Falun Gong and a
long-time businessman in China, I have always been curious as
to why the Chinese Government took such interest in Falun Gong.
It seemed to always be, to me, for lack of a better term,
exercise movement as well. Why, in your opinion, has it become
such a focus of the
Chinese Government?
Mr. Adler. I believe it is directly attributable to a
twisted, paranoid leader. There is not much more to it than
that. For some reason, his jealousy or whatever motivated him,
he picked Falun Gong. There is no other reason. These are good
people, just trying to be better people. They are basically not
against the government. I never understood it either.
Mr. Foarde. Susan Roosevelt Weld.
Ms. Weld. Thanks a lot. If I can just follow up on that, do
you see any change in the leadership's attitude after the
change in leadership at the 16th Party Congress?
Mr. Adler. I think it is possible that the 16th Party
Congress might have made it even worse. He seems to have
retrenched himself and we see very little change coming from
it.
Ms. Weld. Thank you very much.
I have a question for Ms. Fu. Did your husband make efforts
to go back to China legally before this time when he used the
friend's passport?
Ms. Fu. The only time he showed me a piece of paper was
when he applied for a visa to Hong Kong in 1996 using his
American travel documents, and he was rejected.
Ms. Weld. He was refused. Thank you very much.
Now, this is a question for Mr. Oyunbilig. I am wondering
several things. One, is the pace of government-sponsored Han
migration to Inner Mongolia keeping up at the same level now as
it was in the past? How is the pace of that going on?
Mr. Oyunbilig. According to the latest census, the pace has
somewhat slowed down. But I think that is mainly due to the
fact that there are already so many people in Inner Mongolia,
about 25 million.
Before 1950, there were only a few million Mongols. The
Mongolian population was more than 80 percent, 90 percent
before 1950. Now the Mongolian population is less than 20
percent.
Also, 18 out of 100 of the poorest counties in China are
located in Inner Mongolia, so that may stop a lot of people
from going to Inner Mongolia.
There are still a lot of people going to Inner Mongolia
from other provinces because recently there has been a huge
natural gas reserve that was discovered right in my hometown.
All of the people who are working on that are Han people from
inland China. The Mongols are not getting any jobs.
Ms. Weld. Another question for you. In educational matters,
is the Mongolian language used in the schools? Or what are the
rules as to using Mongolian language in the schools and selling
books, and so on?
Mr. Oyunbilig. There are still schools using the Mongol
language to teach. But enrollment is not very good right now
because if you go to a Mongolian school, if you graduate only
from a Mongolian school, you cannot get a better job because
your Chinese language is not good. In China, if you do not
speak Chinese well, there is no chance of getting any jobs.
Also, if you graduate from a Mongolian high school, it is
really hard for you to get to a good university and pursue a
better education. So, enrollment is now very low and a lot of
young people do not speak the native language any more. That is
very disturbing for us.
Ms. Weld. Thank you very much.
Now, Ms. Mower, I want to ask you, the 5 million figure you
gave us was for a radio audience.
Ms. Mower. Yes. Right. VOA and RFA.
Ms. Weld. How about hits on the Internet sites, for those
people who are able to get into it? I mean, what is the total?
Ms. Mower. Brian, do you have those?
Mr. Mabry. The best number we can give you, we cannot talk
Internet hits, but we send about over 300,000 e-mails daily
with a news summary that is getting out there.
Ms. Weld. Yes, I have seen that.
Mr. Mabry. On hits, there is such a wide variance in
numbers, we cannot agree on what constitutes a hit and whether
it is coming from China or whether it is coming from anywhere
else in the world.
Ms. Mower. Right. And we have got two different sites, both
VOA and Radio Free Asia.
Ms. Weld. Right. Thank you very much.
I was thinking, Huang Ciping. I was wondering, as far as
the Olympic Games go, whether there could be any interlock
between the freedom of information, such as Ms. Mower talks
about, and having the Olympic Games in China. Is there any
requirement one could put on China to allow no jamming of such
things as Voice of America and Radio Free Asia at the time,
certainly, of the Olympic Games?
Ms. Huang. Yes. That is what we felt like. There are two
documents that we filed with the international committees,
particularly the IOC, with regard to our detailed requests. Of
course, the CECC could help us to achieve this. In particular,
especially before the games and during the games, the Chinese
Government would use order as an excuse to round up dissidents,
et cetera.
But when they were trying to gain the rights to host the
games, they promised they would protect people's rights. So we
feel very strongly that the international community must keep
the Chinese Government in line with their promises, including
that they must guarantee not to restrict people's mobility
during the games, and that includes political dissidents.
Another thing is about information flow. You must allow
free broadcasting, at least during the games, which sometimes
you would see. That had happened before, and this is the
opportunity for doing so.
Ms. Weld. Thank you.
Mr. Foarde. The next questions will come from our friend
and colleague, Tiffany McCullen, who works for Grant Aldonas,
the Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, and
one of our commissioners.
Tiffany.
Ms. McCullen. Thank you. Alan, actually, I have a question
for you. You mentioned wanting government support for, was it
human rights issues in China? I was not exactly sure.
Mr. Adler. Yes.
Ms. McCullen. If that was the case, then what type of
support do you think would be helpful, if you have anything in
mind?
Mr. Adler. Well, I am here specifically recommending human
rights for Falun Gong practitioners, although it probably
applies to others. We feel that the most important thing would
be to have our President say something.
He has met with Jiang Zemin three times this year. There is
a lot of dialog. He has not uttered the words ``Falun Gong,''
has shown no support. The people over there who are suffering
take great comfort when they know that their suffering is not
going
unnoticed.
We think, also, raising public awareness here on the
persecution over there, the staggering numbers. We have had
some success in the House, but no hearings in the Senate, no
resolutions. It is as though Falun Gong persecution does not
exist in the Senate. If they do not speak up, the Chinese
Government seems to brutalize these people unfettered.
Ms. McCullen. Thank you.
I have one question for Joan. Joan, I was wondering, have
you all done any studies to find out how many people actually
use short-wave in China? Also, is there any way that you are
able to advertise the services that you offer in China so
people are aware of them?
Ms. Mower. I think we probably have estimates on short-wave
users, which I will also get for you. I am sure we have got
that.
In terms of advertising, no, we are unable to advertise. In
fact, there was a recent case in which we were going to put a
program on. I cannot remember what it was. Anyway, they asked
us to remove the VOA logo, which kind of defeats the purpose,
but not really. So, no, we do not advertise.
Ms. McCullen. All right. Thank you. That is all I have.
Mr. Foarde. Our next questioner is our friend and
colleague, Matt Tuchow, who represents Congressman Sander
Levin.
Mr. Tuchow. My first question is for Mr. Adler also. I was
wondering, the Falun Gong movement seems to be particularly
well organized. I was wondering, is there any sort of political
committee of Falun Gong, either here in the United States or
with regard to Chinese affairs? How is it so well organized?
Mr. Adler. I do not know that it is so organized. It
appears organized because I think of the organization of the
Chinese Government and their persecution. So I think, really,
all that is going on, is that we are able to report and able to
get the information into China.
There are several programs that help us get the information
so the persecution, at least in China, is being reported. I
think over here there is just a group of volunteers who are not
organized. Most of us met in Washington, DC.
We came here because we knew what Falun Gong was, and there
was nothing wrong with it. I think that we are just people of
good conscience. We just came here. That is where we began to
meet, and we communicate through the Internet in terms of any
progress we might be able to make. But there is no
organization. I am strictly a volunteer. I will relish the day
when I can just go back to my full-time, paying job.
Mr. Tuchow. In China, I believe there have been several
incidents where TV programming was--I do not know if it was
blocked or there was Falun Gong information placed on this. Can
you explain what that was and whether that emanates from the
Falun Gong movement's leadership, or what?
Mr. Adler. No. What happened, was they were able to somehow
climb up and get into the cable lines and broadcast for about a
half an hour. When they were able to do that, it was reported.
It was reported over the Internet and through e-mails, through
telephones.
Other people thought, that's a great idea to let the people
in China actually know what is happening. It's a one-sided
thing there with propaganda. I think, when people are able to
see a good thing work, they just, all over the country, started
to do it, and will continue to do it, I assume.
Anything that works and is successful in combating this
brutal persecution seems to be picked up by all those who can
do it. Most of them end up going to jail and worse because they
get caught. There is no way of doing it without getting caught.
They have all received stiff prison sentences.
Mr. Tuchow. And, finally, with regard to corporate social
responsibility in China, my understanding is a number of
companies that source from China have codes of conduct which
they require their suppliers to follow, and they even include
compliance with internationally recognized human rights
standards.
Do you do that with your suppliers in China?
Mr. Adler. First, I have never seen any of those documents,
and certainly have never seen any of them in Chinese, and have
never seen any of them posted anywhere.
The most that I have seen, is that some of the socially
responsible mutual funds have posted their human rights things
in terms of what companies they will invest their fund's money
in.
But I think any company that posts human rights policies,
internationally accepted human rights policies that protects
the workers, that place will be closed very quickly and they
will be out of business. I would like to see it, though, if you
know of any.
Mr. Tuchow. Do you have any other suggestions of how
American companies should promote human rights in China?
Mr. Adler. I basically feel, as a free trader, that through
trade it will work eventually. That is just my own personal
opinion. But not without strong government support. I think
there has to be continued dialog. I find what is happening, is
they are selling to, besides the United States, many of the
other countries.
The other countries sort of look to us for moral leadership
and there is none being given. A little bit in the House, but
as far as the President, our President speaking out, clearly,
at least on the Falun Gong issue, it has not happened.
Mr. Tuchow. I have a quick question for Christina Fu. With
regard to your husband, have you or anyone else in your
husband's family received any written arrest warrant yet?
Ms. Fu. No.
Mr. Tuchow. And has anyone in your family been able to
visit him in his detention or arrest?
Ms. Fu. No.
Mr. Tuchow. No. All right. Well, I see the yellow light is
on.
Mr. Foarde. Thank you for ceding the floor, anyway, seeing
that the inevitable is coming up.
Let me follow up with Christina Fu, please. I just want to
be clear. The authorities have said absolutely nothing formally
to your family, either in China or to you here.
Ms. Fu. There was a phone call.
Mr. Foarde. There was a phone call.
Ms. Fu. Yes. To my husband's brother on June 21. It was the
local police from Linyi City in Shandong Province. They phoned
his brother and told him that Yang Jianli was formally arrested
on June 2 and was being held in the Beijing Public Security
Detention place. After that, Jianli's brother went to Beijing,
went to a detention place, and visited two offices. They could
not find him.
Mr. Foarde. So your family does not really know whether
Dr. Yang is there in Beijing in the public security detention
or anything else.
Ms. Fu. That is right.
Mr. Foarde. And you have received nothing.
Ms. Fu. I have received nothing.
Mr. Foarde. Is it your understanding that Chinese law
requires a formal notice to the spouse or family member when
someone is arrested like this, formally arrested?
Ms. Fu. Yes. Under the Criminal Procedure Law, Article 64.
Mr. Foarde. But you have received nothing.
For Bob Senser, please. You used, and explained why you
were using, the AmCham in Beijing as an example of an
organization that--I am probably putting more words in your
mouth than you actually said--but it really has essentially
extraterritorial privileges because it is able to organize
itself and petition the government for redress of complaints
and things of that sort.
I am just wondering if there are other foreign
organizations, either chambers of commerce or other ones in
China that you are aware of that have more or less the same
privileges as the AmCham seems to have, in your view.
Mr. Senser. The short answer to that is ``yes.'' This
includes, for example, in areas where there are known
sweatshops, publicized and documented sweatshops, whose
managers are Koreans and Taiwanese.
They have the contracts with American companies and they
are able to meet, probably informally, and lobby their
interests, which in one case included making sure that fire
inspections were not made of their factories. We used the
example of the Chamber and there are similar organizations,
business organizations.
But I think we cannot be too pessimistic. There are a lot
of possibilities for progress. I guess I used the AmCham as a
template for what is possible. I understand recently the Lion's
Club was officially recognized. Now, this is a Lion's Club of
China.
In other words, some of these organizations are getting
that privilege, too, of organizing themselves. There are NGOs
and lawyers groups of Chinese working on these problems.
So there is a possibility for change coming from Chinese
sources, too, and not just because of American pressure,
although I agree with the point that external pressure is very
important, as it was in South Korea and in Taiwan.
Mr. Foarde. The Chinese labor activist, Han Dongfang, has
been advocating for some time that on the specific question of
workplace health and safety issues in China, that workers be
allowed to actually do what is in the new workplace health and
safety law, and that is establish worker safety committees in
their factories.
How optimistic are you that this might be able to happen,
given that you see that there is some progress or some reason
to hope for progress, but still nothing like full ability to
organize on the part of workers and the ability to represent
themselves?
Mr. Senser. It is a very good move, and a very smart move.
It is half a loaf, but it is a very good idea. Han is not alone
in pursuing that. In mainland China, Chinese lawyers are
pushing that. After all, who can be against increasing
awareness on health and safety, and who is a better source of
knowing what is going on in the plant than the workers?
Mr. Foarde. My time is almost up, so I will pass it on to
Greg.
Mr. Mastel. Thank you.
Mr. Oyunbilig, if I understand your answer to the last
question correctly, are 80, 90 percent of the population of
Inner Mongolia now Han Chinese? Is that correct?
Mr. Oyunbilig. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Mastel. Tell me a little bit about what the ultimate
objectives of your organization are. If, in fact, Mongols are a
minority now in Inner Mongolia, in an ideal world, what would
you like to see? What changes would you like to see? Are you
seeking independence?
Mr. Oyunbilig. Seeking independence may be our dream or our
ultimate goal, but it does not seem very practical at this
moment.
First of all, I would like to see that basic human rights
in Inner Mongolia are respected, and the Mongols are getting
what the Chinese Constitution states.
Inner Mongolia is still called the Inner Mongolia
Autonomous
Region, according to the Chinese Constitution. The autonomous
region and its people deserve civil, political, and otherwise
autonomous rights. So, I would like to see those rights
materialize.
Mr. Mastel. I see. So to summarize, you are just saying you
would like to see the Mongol people have the rights that they
are granted under the Chinese Constitution.
Mr. Oyunbilig. That is the first thing.
Mr. Mastel. All right.
What are the next steps?
Mr. Oyunbilig. The next step. The constitution of my
organization states that we strive for the independence of
Inner Mongolia, but that is my organization. That is the
ultimate or higher dream.
Basically why we say that is because it seems like we have
been trying with this autonomy for many years and it did not
bring us any good. The situation is getting worse and worse,
and basically our people are pushed aside and our culture and
tradition are near extinction.
Mr. Mastel. Now, the Han influx that you talked about. I
think you alluded, though, that part of that is a result of the
Chinese Government policy or policies. Are those policies
continuing today? Do you expect that number to go up in the
future?
Mr. Oyunbilig. It is continuing and there is no sign of
lessening. I think this is due to history. Also, according to
some other parts of the world, this situation will still
continue until that country
becomes a democracy.
So, I am kind of pessimistic because this is a relationship
with two people, and democracy is somewhat different. They will
start to respect the rights, but they will not give those
rights to the
minority people without fighting or striving for it.
Mr. Mastel. But it sounds like the Han population in Inner
Mongolia is now well-established. I mean, if China were to
become a democracy tomorrow, that would still be a reality in
your region. Is that correct?
Mr. Oyunbilig. Yes. What I am saying, is the current
situation will still continue even if China becomes a
democratic nation. That is what I am afraid of.
Mr. Mastel. I see. So if Inner Mongolia were autonomous, it
would still be overwhelmingly a majority of Han Chinese.
Mr. Oyunbilig. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Mastel. All right.
Mr. Adler, you talked a lot about the need for the U.S.
Government to take a stand in favor of Falun Gong. Tell me a
little bit more. How do you think that would help, and why do
you think it would help?
Some would argue that, in fact, China would simply ignore
those stances. The Chinese tend to ignore those kinds of
stances, and the rhetoric on the part of the United States
would not have much impact. I do not agree, myself, but I am
curious to hear your opinion.
Mr. Adler. I do not agree that it would not help. I think
this is a real grass-roots effort of people that are fighting
to uphold freedoms in China, and the message gets through.
Whatever support they get from outside is just a tremendous
relief to them.
It has been 3 years now for the persecution, and basically
the President has not really spoken up on its behalf. So, we
have only seen what happens when they do not speak up. I
personally feel that if they did mention it and shine the light
on it a little bit, it would only help.
Mr. Foarde. Susan.
Ms. Weld. Great. I had another for Mr. Oyunbilig. I wonder,
do they have village elections there? Have you heard about
whether the village elections law is being implemented in Inner
Mongolia?
Mr. Oyunbilig. I have not heard.
Ms. Weld. The other thing is, in the foreign-invested
enterprises in Mongolia--I assume that there are some--is there
any sense that they would agree to hire a certain percentage of
Mongolian people? It sounds as though you are saying, in the
development of the natural gas reserves, they are only hiring
Han men.
Mr. Oyunbilig. That is correct. Actually, there are a
number of international corporations--because Inner Mongolia is
very rich in natural resources, a number of foreign corporation
companies partnering with Chinese corporations to do it.
They are not allowed to independently go into China, 100
percent foreign-owned. We are not allowing that. Companies such
as Exxon Mobil are doing this drilling. But I have not heard
that there is such a policy like U.S. affirmative action. We
never heard of such a policy.
Ms. Weld. Thank you very much.
This is a final question for Mr. Senser. I just read an
interesting piece of yours about the toy factories. I wonder if
you could give us a little summary of what your findings were
in that respect.
Mr. Senser. Actually, my article relies on other people's
research. In spite of codes of conduct--at least in this area
there are codes of conduct--they are consistently being
ignored, with some exceptions. Remember, the codes have been
around now for 10 or more years, and they have not shown the
promise that they were originally held up for.
Part of the article deals with the Chinese Government-run
labor movements, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions
[ACFTU]. The point is that the evidence from China itself is
that this is an arm of the government, and that one of its main
jobs, by law, is to ``support the People's democratic
dictatorship.''
So, the reason to make that point these days, is that in
many parts of even the United States, but also in Europe, there
is an effort to have a rapprochement with this organization for
various reasons. It allegedly represents so many people.
Some of the incentive is that, because China has a large
workforce which is really an extended workforce for Europe and
the United States, they say, well, somebody should speak up for
those workers.
Ms. Weld. Right.
Mr. Senser. But the question is, by having an official
contact with this arm of the Party, does it do any good for
that purpose? The answer is, ``it does not.'' There is no
evidence that it does. This is not to say that there are not
good people within the ACFTU.
There is evidence that some people in the ACFTU want to
defend rights or want to get better legislation and so on. But
then there are a lot of good people in the U.S. Labor
Department but they are not the AFL-CIO, so there is a
distinction to be made. It is not a question of who is good or
bad, but who represents legitimate interests of the workers.
Ms. Weld. And if progressive legislation on labor were to
happen in China, can you think of which level of government it
would come at? For example, there have been national laws,
which seem to be approved but not enforced. I wonder if there
are provincial laws or local laws which are being passed which
might be useful.
Mr. Senser. Legislation on labor affairs, as on other
affairs, exists on many different levels, even though the
signal comes from the central authorities. But there is room
for improvement, not only of the laws, there is an effort by at
least one international NGO to stimulate the government to
enforce those laws.
In fact, there is U.S. Government funding for that
initiative. Whether it is going to be effective is another
question. Just changing the law does not change anything,
unless there is enforcement by the Chinese Government itself.
Ms. Weld. Thank you very much.
Mr. Foarde. Matt.
Mr. Tuchow. Yes. I have a follow-up question for you, Mr.
Senser. How do you feel that foreign businesses that are doing
business in China should promote workers' rights?
Mr. Senser. That is a very good question. It is one I have
asked myself as a critic of some of what is going on in China.
What would I do if I were in some role in business there? I do
not see that happening. It could not happen for various
reasons. But I think that one of the things I would be very
concerned about is the health and safety of my people.
See, part of the confusion is, American corporations hire
people directly on their own payroll, but then they also have
people working for contractors who make deals with local
authorities, even
police, and who use that factory with Taiwanese or Koreans as
managers.
So, I would want to be worried about the health and safety
of those workers, too, to hear their views. That would be a
very practical thing that I think should be done. There is some
movement to do that by at least one large American corporation
that I am
familiar with.
Mr. Tuchow. Mr. Oyunbilig, could you tell us your personal
circumstances in seeking political asylum in the United States?
Do you feel that you have suffered persecution in China on
account of your political or other views?
Mr. Oyunbilig. Yes. Because of my political views and my
involvement with the Inner Mongolian underground movement, it
put me in danger so I came to the United States. I still
continue my work on Inner Mongolia's human rights and other
issues we are concerned about.
Mr. Tuchow. Did you suffer any persecution in China?
Mr. Oyunbilig. Not physical persecution. I was not in jail
or such kind of persecution, but I feel I am threatened.
Mr. Tuchow. Is there a problem of child labor in Inner
Mongolia?
Mr. Oyunbilig. The problem with child labor is not a
particular problem in Inner Mongolia, it is in the whole of
China in general. There is a child labor problem.
Mr. Tuchow. I understand there is a cultural affinity with
Korea. Is there Korean investment in Inner Mongolia, and if so,
how is that affecting, if at all, human rights in Inner
Mongolia?
Mr. Oyunbilig. There is not much Korean investment in Inner
Mongolia. Most of them are going to the independent State of
Mongolia, which is Outer Mongolia, because the investment
conditions and policies there are much nicer than in Inner
Mongolia.
Mr. Tuchow. All right.
Finally, for Huang Ciping. I had a question about the 2008
Olympics Games. Practically, knowing what you know about the
Chinese Government, what do you think the most effective
techniques of leveraging the Olympic Games to promote human
rights would be? What would be practical?
Ms. Huang. Well, I still think a practical way is, in some
ways, similar as the most favored nation status, that if you
threaten to revoke their right, then they would behave better.
That is a common practice. You should know, in dealing with the
Chinese Government, if you are tough, then they will take some
lessons.
So I do think that is why we strongly advocate to have a
committee in charge of monitoring human rights conditions in
China similar to this Commission, that if you were to ever to
say, well, we will revoke your trade privilege, then the
Chinese Government will behave much better.
Mr. Foarde. It is almost 4 o'clock and you have all been
very generous with your time. So, I would like to bring this
session to a close by making just a couple of comments.
First, to pick up on a theme that Ms. Huang Ciping raised
in her original presentation. Any time that the Commission has
a hearing or a staff roundtable, or one of these open forums,
if you cannot appear but would like to submit a written
statement that becomes part of the record, we would always be
delighted to have it and it would be part of the record.
So occasionally we have to make some decisions about how
many witnesses or panelists we might have at a given hearing.
But if you have views on the subject of the hearing, we would
be delighted to hear them or to have them for the record in a
written statement. Normally we would like it within a few days
of the event so we can get it into the printing process.
In saying that, I hope that you would all stay involved
with us and keep up on what we are doing, and when you do have
views, we would like to hear them.
Thank you all, this afternoon, for sharing your time with
us and your thoughts. I particularly appreciate my friend and
colleague, Greg Mastel, sitting in on behalf of Senator Baucus.
On behalf of Senator Max Baucus, our chairman, and Congressman
Doug
Bereuter, our co-chairman, this brings this open forum to a
close.
We will see you all again next year. Have happy holidays.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:01 p.m. the open forum was concluded.]
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements
----------
Prepared Statement of Alan Adler
december 9, 2002
introduction
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today. My
name is Alan Adler, and I am the Executive Director of Friends of Falun
Gong USA. Friends of Falun Gong USA is a nonprofit human rights
organization established by concerned Americans who support the freedom
of belief of people who practice Falun Gong.
With the abolition of the annual review of China's most favored
nation status and with China's accession to the WTO, we would expect
this esteemed Commission to aggressively advocate for basic freedom of
belief in China. Unfortunately, however, reading this Commission's 2002
annual report, one gets another impression, at least in terms of the
Falun Gong. Falun Gong was only mentioned in passing in various
sections of the report, when it should have instead been a focal point.
Why does Falun Gong deserve more attention and advocacy? The sheer
numbers of people affected make the persecution of Falun Gong the No. 1
religious freedom violation in China today, and perhaps the world.
According to reports from major media and the Chinese Government's own
statistics,\1\ prior to the ban, there were 70-100 million people
practicing Falun Gong in China. That is a group larger than most
nations. And when you consider that their family members, friends, and
coworkers are also victimized--some are fined, some are jailed, and
others are forced to turn in their loved ones--the numbers are
absolutely staggering. The group of people affected
becomes comparable to the population of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Seth Faison, ``In Beijing: A Roar of Silent Protestors'' (The
New York Times, April 27, 1999). Joseph Kahn, ``Notoriety Now for
Movement's Leader'' (The New York Times, April 27, 1999). Renee Schoof,
``Growing Group Poses a Dilemma for China'' (The Associated Press,
April 26, 1999). Bay Fang, ``An Opiate of the Masses?'' (U.S. News &
World Report, February 22, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This brutal suppression has targeted everyone from schoolchildren
who do the practice, to grandparents who rely on it to maintain their
health, from military commanders, to doctors, to professors, and even
judges. Some reports state that roughly half of all prisoners held in
China's forced labor camps are Falun Gong adherents.\2\ Based on one
estimate, this would put the number of Falun Gong in the camps at 2-3
million.\3\ Chinese police and guards routinely brutalize Falun Gong
prisoners, raping women, binding people in torture devices for weeks on
end, stripping them and leaving them outside in below-freezing
temperatures, holding them in cages too small for their bodies, and so
on. In recent months, we have received reports of people being tortured
to death almost daily. Chinese authorities have confiscated and
shredded or burned millions of Falun Gong books, and there are even
accounts of children in schools being forced to memorize poems
denouncing Falun Gong, people being made to trample the photograph of
the Falun Gong founder in order to enter train stations, and China's
cutthroat college entrance exams now contain questions criticizing the
practice. Officials have been given bonuses and promoted as a result of
their efforts to persecute Falun Gong.\4\ This suppression has
permeated every level and every facet of China's society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ``Calls for End to China's
Falun Gong Re-Education Camps'' (July 4, 2001).
\3\ The Laogai Research Foundation estimates that currently there
are between 4 and 6 million prisoners held in China's forced labor
camps (laogai). http://www.laogai.org/chinese/aboutus.html
\4\ See, for example, Tamora Vidaillet, ``Shandong Boss Dark Horse
for China Leadership'' (Reuters, November 5, 2002); Ian Johnson,
``Death Trap: How One Chinese City Resorted to Atrocities to Control
Falun Dafa'' (Wall Street Journal, December 26, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is well known that Falun Gong is currently No. 1 on the Chinese
Government's hit list. When one considers the gravity of this
situation, the amount of media
attention Falun Gong has received, and the extensive support of local
and state governments, it becomes clear that this Commission and the
Federal Government more broadly need to do more. You have a
responsibility to put Falun Gong at the forefront when it comes to
human rights and rule of law issues in China.
recommendations
I would like to make the following recommendations:
That the Commission make Falun Gong a focal point in its
work and future reports. Falun Gong speakers should be invited to a
greater number of events and hearings, and a section of next year's
report should be dedicated to Falun Gong, if the situation remains as
is or continues to worsen.
That the Commission advise our President to speak out. He
has met with Chinese President Jiang Zemin three times this year but
has yet to make a public statement in defense of the largest persecuted
group in China. Some believe that quiet, behind-the-scenes diplomacy is
most effective. I feel that behind-the-scenes diplomacy plays into the
hands of China's closed, paranoid regime. The world must hear about
this issue and know that others care. The words of the President are
needed. His Congress has condemned this persecution and asked that he
do so as well.\5\ We are still waiting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This is in reference to H. Con. Res. 217, H. Res. 188, and
numerous Dear Colleague letters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That the Commission recommend a Senate hearing on this
topic. The House has held a number of hearings and has recently lent
unanimous support in the form of House Resolution 188, yet the Senate
has been curiously passive.
I'd like to leave you with a few comments. From what I have seen,
the Chinese Government does not admit that they have a human rights
problem, much less that they need to change. It is extremely difficult
to engage in fruitful dialog, to educate, or to reason with a
government that flatly denies and routinely whitewashes the grave
violations that are occurring. Bold, public, international pressure may
be the only truly effective means of change.
Additionally, one of this Commission's recommendations in its
annual report was that corporations work to bring about change by
giving recommendations to relevant Chinese Government entities.\6\ On a
personal note, I have done business in China for over 30 years and have
employed tens of thousands of people there. I have improved workers'
rights to the best of my ability. However, I know that even one semi-
public statement, such as posting in a factory my company's human
rights policy in Chinese, would bring that factory to the immediate
attention of the Public Security Bureau and the repercussions would be
disastrous. If I were held responsible for the posting, would I be
allowed back into China? Would the translator of the document be
spared? This is just a simple illustration of the pressure that
corporations are under to comply with the repressive environment; one
small move brings great risk. I feel that the idea of ``developing a
long-term collaborative relationship between government and business''
is not a realistic approach. Corporations can do little to change the
situation without strong support and advocacy on the part of our
government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Congressional-Executive Commission on China, 2002 Annual
Report, Page 7, bullet 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Christina Fu
december 9, 2002
(This statement was last revised on February 6, 2003).
Christina Fu I'm Christina Fu, wife of Yang Jianli. On April 26th
this year, my husband was detained in Kunming, China during a peaceful
visit to his native country. Today marks the 227th day of his detention
and his whereabouts remain
unknown.
My husband is the president of the Foundation for China in the 21st
century, through which he promotes the cause of democracy in China. As
a veteran of 1989 Tiananmen student movement and an outspoken advocate
for human rights in China, he testified before the Congress many times.
On June 21 and July 7, 1989, after my husband fled China, he testified
before the Congressional Human Rights Committee his eye witness of the
Tiananmen Massacre, and testified in front of the United Nations on
July 8, 1989. On April 5, 1991, my husband appeared in the Congress
hearing testifying China's worsening human rights record. In December
1996, he testified again on ``the Hearing of China's Human Rights.'' In
May 1997, he testified before the Congress on the Chinese government's
persecution of Christian in China.
My husband is a permanent legal resident of the United States, but
has remained a citizen of China. He came to the U.S. in 1986 as a
student, and his passport expired in 1991. Since 1993, he tried many
times to get a new passport from the Chinese consulate general in New
York. I remembered traveling to New York with him a number of times to
visit the Chinese consulate. As soon as the people inside the consulate
heard my husband's name, they told us to go away. No one even wanted to
talk to us.
After my husband was detained in China, on May 8, 2002, I called
the Chinese consulate in New York and spoke to Mr. Wang Hai-Tao, a
consul in charge of the affairs for overseas Chinese, told me that ``if
we do not give him (Yang Jianli) a passport, he should not go back to
China.'' On June 14, when my husband's mother and two sisters visited
the Chinese Embassy in Washington DC, the first secretary and consul
Mr. Wang Yi-Gong told them that ``our government cannot give Yang
Jianli a passport based on what he was doing in the United States. What
he was doing here even you may not know.''
It is commonly known that my husband is 1 of the 49 prominent
dissidents who have been blacklisted by the Chinese government and
denied entrance to China since 1989 (please refer to the attached
report by Human Rights in China, January 6, 1995).\1\ According to the
HRIC report, the Chinese government's ``re-entry Blacklist'' was issued
confidentially by the Ministry of Public Security to all border control
units in China in May 1994. My husband's name was listed in the third
category with other 17 people. In this category, it says ``in
accordance with relevant instructions from the Party Center: if subject
attempts to enter China, to be dealt with according to circumstances of
the situation.'' (That is, border authorities are to seek immediate
instructions from above on how to handle the case, while presumably
keeping their charges either in isolation or under close surveillance.)
For this
category, the duration of detention was not specified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This document is retained in Commission files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My husband's decision to travel to China this spring was the result
of his growing concern about the under reported labor unrest and his
strong belief that he has the right to go to his own country, that is
guaranteed by international treaties. The ``International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights,'' signed by the Chinese government in 1998
but has not ratified by the Congress of People's Representatives,
states that ``no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to
enter his own country.'' (Article 12, item 4.)
After my husband was detained and was being held in a hotel room
guarded by Chinese police officers, he spoke with me by phone. We spoke
again the next day on the morning of April 27. Since that day, I have
been unable to communicate with him.
In the past 7 months, our family has been deeply concerned for my
husband's well-being and safety. We have done everything we could to
obtain information about him, but our basic rights were denied. We
submitted 8 written requests, made more than 20 calls to the Chinese
Embassy in Washington DC and made 6 visits to the varies offices in
China. I arrived in Beijing on May 23 and was not allowed to enter the
country. I was sent to Canada on the same day.
My husband's brother traveled to Beijing four times from his home
in Shandong province to learn where my husband was being held and try
to arrange for legal representation. No lawyers in China would accept
his case since there was no official record of his arrest or trial
date. Chinese authorities at the Public Security
Ministry, the State Security Ministry, the Foreign Ministry, and the
Beijing Public Security Bureau would not provide any confirmation.
We have been in close contact with the US State Department, which
has been very supportive. Despite their active involvement in the case,
they have also been unable to obtain even the most basic information,
such as where my husband is being held and how he is being treated.
Since July, the State Department has more than once requested a written
notification from the Chinese government, but
nothing has happened.
Chinese law requires notification of detention within 24 hours;
Chinese law
imposes a 37-day limit on detentions without a warrant; Chinese law
requires that the detainee be permitted rapid access to legal counsel.
China has not honored its own laws with respect to my husband's case.
He has not been permitted to communicate with anyone since his
detention 7 months ago. Such an extended period of isolation from the
outside world surely constitutes inhuman, cruel and degrading treatment
Just today, my attorney Jared Genser of Freedom Now, filed a petition
to the United Nation High Commission on Human Rights, Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention describing the violations of Chinese and
International law in my husband's case. The petition will be attached
with my statement.
I remain hopeful and appreciative of the many people working on my
husband's behalf. I would particularly thank the more than 40 Members
of Congress from Senate and House, Republicans and Democrats, who have
written a total of 21 letters to both the Chinese and U.S. governments
to appeal for my husband's release.
Supportive letters were also written by Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
President Lawrence Summers of Harvard University, 34 faculties of
Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Chancellor Robert Berdahl of
University of California at Berkeley and many others. Their efforts
have given me much courage and hope during this very difficult
struggle. Their help will have a direct impact on my husband's fate.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to inform the Congressional-
Executive Commission on China of my husband's case and to appeal for
help. It is also my hope that this commission will continue to show
concern about my husband's case and take advantage of the upcoming
human rights dialog with China to press for my husband's release so
that joy and peace will return to my children and my family.
Thank you all very much!
______
Prepared Statement of Robert A. Senser
december 9, 2002
How To Assess China's Progress
More than 12 years ago I attended a conference on democracy
sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy and hosted in the
House Foreign Affairs Committee room, just down the road from here. It
was an exciting time. Among other historic events, Solidarity had been
legalized in Poland just a few weeks earlier, and so it was natural
that the lead-off speaker was someone from Poland--Jacek Kuron, a
leading advisor to the Solidarity movement. As the conference program
pointed out, Kuron was the person ``most responsible for developing the
strategy of building civil society'' in Poland.
I was greatly impressed with the conceptual framework of Kuron's
remarks--his outline of the essential characteristics of
totalitarianism. Drawing on his own personal experience in the struggle
against a repressive regime, Kuron identified ``a monopoly of
organization'' as the key element of totalitarianism. This monopoly, he
said, ``is so total that if its citizens gather freely and discuss
freely a matter as simple as roof repairs on a block of flats [or
condominium apartments], this constitutes a challenge to the central
authority.'' The second most important characteristic of a totalitarian
state, Kuron said, ``is a monopoly on information, meaning that every
printed word--not to mention the electronic media--is centrally steered
by central authority.'' As a practical matter, he quickly added, this
model is an ideal that
cannot be implemented in all its fullness.
Kuron's model of totalitarianism is a useful tool for making a
serious assessment of any country at any time, and it is especially
useful for making judgments about one particular country, the People's
Republic of China, at this particular time. A powerful country daily
becoming ever more powerful, China is in the midst of
historic change, dramatized by a double transition, first, to a new
generation of leaders at the top of the country's Party/state command
structure, and second, to a new global role in the international
political economy as a leading member of the World Trade Organization.
Chairman Mao went a long way toward imposing the totalitarian ideal
on China, and caused unbelievable horrors before his successors changed
course. Unfortunately, although well short of the Mao era extremes, the
essential characteristics of totalitarianism survive in modern China.
The regime still tenaciously holds on its monopolies of organization
and of information--even as it ``opens up'' in significant ways. But,
as a practical matter, Beijing has made selective exceptions to its
implementation of the totalitarian model. Let me briefly describe one
that fascinates me.
Consider the thriving existence of an organization called the
American Chamber of Commerce in China [AmCham-China]. It is
headquartered in Beijing, but its influence reaches beyond the capital
city. Its membership comprises more than 1,550 persons representing
more than 750 companies, small and large, with operations throughout
China. It is a ``forum'' for exchanging information inside and outside
its own ranks, even with China Government officials at various levels.
That information covers a lot of ground. Its annual White Paper, a
comprehensive survey (in English and Chinese) of the ``climate'' for
American business in China, provides exhaustive details on both the
positive and the negative features of that climate. Its analysis of
labor conditions, for example, praises ``positive developments . . .
benefiting both international and domestic business,'' but also
contains many complaints, such as that ``labor costs in China remain
higher than those of many Asian countries, and are rising steadily . .
. [without a] corresponding improvement in the competitiveness of the
Chinese labor market.'' The full text of the White Paper is available
on the Web. Among the Chamber's other activities are these:
Publishing a business magazine, AmCham China Brief, 10
times a year. It reaches a readership estimated at 5,000, including not
only 1,500 business executives, but also Chinese and U.S. Government
officials, foreign diplomats, and directors of other chambers of
commerce in the Asia-Pacific region.
Monitoring and publicizing China's compliance with its
World Trade Organization (WTO) accession agreements. Its WTO
Implementation Report, released this fall, praises China's ``serious
commitment to meeting its WTO obligation,'' and also expresses ``many
specific concerns . . . [about] some areas where China may not yet be
in full compliance with WTO commitments.'' The Chamber will continue
this monitoring, and is planning to issue an annual public report for
the rest of China's 5-year WTO implementation period. There you have
some details (culled from http://www.amcham-china.org) on an enclave of
non-totalitarianism in China. In fact, that enclave offers a non-
totalitarian model of how freedom of organization and freedom of
information can be exercised in China, if permitted by the government.
It also outlines the kinds of openness that China must attain to free
itself fully from the shackles of totalitarianism.
In singling out AmCham-China, I am of course not objecting to the
fact that American business people, like the business people of many
other foreign countries, have successfully organized themselves and are
actively pursuing their interests in a collective fashion, even to the
point of lobbying the Government of China. It's just that their
freedoms so glaringly contrast with how thoroughly, often brutally,
China denies these same freedoms to its own citizens, including its
working men and women in factories, farms, and offices. This policy has
a historical antecedent, nowadays in universal disrepute, called
colonialism, a system whose central failing was to grant foreigners
greater rights than a country's own people. It eventually inspired
revolutions. Will the neo-colonialism of the 21st century do likewise?
In an article he published in Hong Kong in 1994, just before he was
again jailed, China's famed human rights advocate, Wei Jingsheng,
protested against the discriminatory policy of granting foreigners
various rights, privileges, and preferences denied to China's own
people. ``The citizens of this country will not put up with such unfair
treatment for long,'' he warned. ``We know from history that at times
of great social change, unfair phenomena can easily change to the
opposite extreme. That is, while it is the Chinese citizens who are
treated unfairly; in the future it may be the foreigner.''
China has experienced no such unfairness to foreigners. But
remember, it took time before colonialism to become recognized as
grossly unfair and to be rejected as intolerable. And 21st century
communications and technology can speed up history.
______
Prepared Statement of Oyunbilig
december 9, 2002
Members of the Commission, Ladies and Gentlemen,
First of all, I thank the Commission for giving me this opportunity
to speak on the human rights situation in Inner Mongolia. My name is
Oyunbilig. I came to the United States from Inner Mongolia in 1995 and
now I'm staying in the United States as a political asylee.
Due to the limited time, I'll be straight to the point. However, I
do need to point out that the southern part of the Mongol land and its
people had always been a part of the Mongol Nation that came to exist
in 13th century and that's where the name Inner Mongolia came to be. In
1947, the Chinese Government setup the ``Inner Mongolian Autonomous
Region'' against the will of the Mongol people. Since then, individual
human rights have been deprived from the Mongols in Inner Mongolia,
along with their political and civil rights as a people. For more than
half a century, the Mongols in Inner Mongolia have witnessed some most
horrifying events in our people's history: mass killings of innocent
civilians; total destruction of the religious establishments;
calculated and forced cultural assimilation that brought the Mongol
culture and tradition to the brink of extinction; and catastrophic
destruction of the grassland, just to name a few.
Now, I'll provide two cases as testimonies to what we are very
concerned about.
The first one is the case of Mr. Hada and Mr. Tegexi. In 1992, Mr.
Hada, Mr. Tegexi, and other Mongol students and intellectuals
established the Southern Mongolian Democracy Alliance (SMDA). The goal
of the SMDA was to promote and preserve Mongolian language, history and
culture in Inner Mongolia and to strive for the civil and political
rights for the Mongols.
In December 1995, Mr. Hada, Mr. Tegexi, and over 70 members and
supporters of the SMDA were arrested after they organized peaceful
demonstrations and student strikes at universities against the Chinese
Government's oppressive policies toward the Mongols in Inner Mongolia.
On December 6, 1996, Mr. Hada was charged with crimes of inciting
separatism and was sentenced to 15 years in jail. Mr. Tegexi was
accused of similar crimes and was sentenced to 10 years in jail. Today,
Mr. Tegexi's whereabouts are not known.
According to Hada's wife, Ms. Xinna, Hada has been tortured by the
prison guards constantly and suffers from a number of physical
illnesses. Ms. Xinna was also arrested several times for giving
interviews to foreign media, including Voice of America and Radio Free
Asia. The bookstore they owned was shutdown and that left Ms. Xinna and
their son Uiles with no reliable sources of living. In 2001, Hada's 16-
year old son Uiles was expelled from school without sufficient
explanations from the school. Later in December 2001, he was arrested
for alleged robbery and sentenced to 2 years in jail, again, without
proper trial. According to Ms. Xinna, prison guards also beat Uiles
several times.
The second case concerns the Chinese Government's on-going effort
to evict and re-locate Mongol herders by force.
In recent years, sand storms originating from the north have become
a big problem for China as they grow in calamity and frequency. Beijing
is one of the major cities hit by the sand storm, because of its close
proximity to Inner Mongolia. Government officials in Beijing had long
ignored the problem until they were exposed to the threat of sand
storms. However, they put the blame on the Mongol herders and their
animals, instead of on their own policies toward Inner Mongolia. Since
the early 1950s, the Chinese Government moved millions of Han Chinese
into Inner Mongolia as an attempt to make the occupation of Inner
Mongolia a fait accompli. Most of these Han Chinese are peasants and
their only means of life is to cultivate the land. Unsuited for
agricultural cultivation that strips the land of its topsoil, the Inner
Mongolia steppe would turn into patches of desert after only a few
years of farming, the consequence of which is threatening China's
capital now.
The Chinese Government started a program to forcefully relocate
Mongol herders 2 years ago under the pretext that the main reason for
the sand storms is overgrazing. According to the Xinhua News Agency,
the program will resettle about 650,000 people in 6 years and most of
them are Mongol herders. One of the nine prefectures of Inner Mongolia
already declared a total ban on livestock herding. We have many reports
from Inner Mongolia indicating that Mongol herders were asked to sell
off their livestock and were forced out from their pastures into
unfamiliar territory and unknown lifestyle, without any support from
the government.
Members of Commission, Mr. Hada and Mr. Tegexi are two of the few
political prisoners who are serving 10 or more years of prison terms in
China. I would like to ask the Commission and the U.S. Congress to
bring up their cases during the future contact with Chinese officials;
I also ask you to urge the Chinese Government to stop the relocation
program that is aimed at the Mongol herders, and provide adequate
support and subsidy for those who already have been displaced.
Thank you very much.
______
Prepared Statement of Joan Mower
december 9, 2002
China's Jamming of U.S. International Broadcasting
The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) is the independent
Federal agency that oversees all U.S. nonmilitary international
broadcasting, including the Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia
(RFA).
Our mission, quite simply, is to ``promote and sustain freedom and
democracy by broadcasting accurate and objective news and information
about the United States and the world.'' In China, however, we face a
serious problem in fulfilling that mandate because Beijing is working
hard to prevent the news we report from getting through to the Chinese
people.
Even as China is actively trying to expand its role in the global
marketplace, it is isolating its people, cutting off the free flow of
information and denying citizens reliable and credible news from the
United States, among other places.
The BBG, which monitors jamming with the assistance of the Federal
Communications Commission, knows that virtually all of VOA's and RFA's
shortwave radio transmissions directed to China in that country's
languages are jammed. VOA broadcasts in Cantonese, Mandarin and
Tibetan. RFA broadcasts in Cantonese, Mandarin, Tibetan and Uyghur.
Unfortunately, jamming seems to be on the rise, despite increased
commercial and diplomatic contacts between the United States and China.
In Lhasa, Tibet's capital city, for example, it is impossible to
receive a good signal for VOA Tibetan, even though the service is on
three or five frequencies, depending on the time of day.
As has been widely reported, the Chinese Government also is
determined to censor the fast-growing internet by blocking sites,
including those of VOA www.voanews.com and RFA www.rfa.org. Researchers
at Harvard Law School recently concluded China has the world's most
censored internet, with the government blocking up to 19,000 websites.
Additionally, email subscription services are blocked. The BBG--along
with, we hope, all Americans--is concerned about the Chinese
Government's actions for a number of reasons.
First, it's a human rights issue: Everyone is entitled to factual,
uncensored
information.
Second, the Chinese people know woefully little about the United
States--and that's not good. Surveys show a disturbing 68 percent of
urban dwellers in China consider the United States their country's No.
1 enemy. By controlling outside media, the Chinese Government has
manipulated the news and stopped the United States from telling its
side of the story. As a result, some 1.2 billion people are
ill-informed about our people, our culture, our democracy, our freedoms
and our
government policies.
Not only are the Chinese Government's actions wrong--they're
unfair. While China jams VOA and RFA, the United States allows China's
Government television, CCTV, on many cable systems across the country.
China Radio International, China's Government radio, broadcasts
unjammed on shortwave and on a number of affiliated AM and FM radio
stations in the United States. Of course, as a country that supports a
free exchange of views and ideas, we wouldn't have it any other way.
At the same time, the U.S. Government has granted more than 40
journalists from China's state-run media permission to live and work in
the United States without restriction. The same cannot be said about
China where American journalists work under more stringent
restrictions. Moreover, the Chinese have refused to
increase from two the number of correspondents working for U.S.
international broadcasting in China.
So what can be done? At a minimum, the issue needs to be brought to
the forefront of the public agenda. Top administration officials
already have promised to raise the issue with the Chinese through
diplomatic channels and other discussions so we're hopeful that there
might be some movement on that front.
The BBG also has filed complaints of ``harmful interference'' with
the International Telecommunications Union monthly since August 2000,
claiming Chinese jamming violates radio regulations. China first
acknowledged receipt of the complaints in July 2002, and again in
August 2002. Failure to acknowledge complaints is itself a violation of
radio regulations. China insists, implausibly, that what we hear as
jamming is merely an accidental overlap of broadcasts on the country's
highly congested airwaves. The BBG believes these responses are
duplicitous at best. Chinese officials have not responded positively to
a U.S. request to discuss frequency management.
To overcome jamming, the BBG generally broadcasts on different
frequencies to reach a broad geographic region. U.S. international
broadcasting spends about $9.5 million annually to transmit about
100,000 hours of RFA and VOA programming to China. Costs could be
slashed about 25 percent if China ceased jamming. China spends a
comparable amount to counter U.S. transmissions.
Finally, both VOA and RFA continue to research and experiment with
proxy servers and mirror internet sites to circumvent the bamboo
curtain.
But the bottom line is this: the United States, now engaged in a
global war on terrorism, cannot afford to have 18 percent of the
world's population misinformed about our country. We need a concerted
strategy involving Congress and the Executive branch to grapple with
this problem--and to stop the jamming.
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Kery Wilkie Nunez\1\
december 9, 2002
Slander and Persecution of Falun Gong in China and in the United
States: Losing the Right to Appeal
Under China's constitution, there is an appeals process. Yet Falun
Gong practitioners who appealed peacefully by quietly meditating or
displaying a banner were detained, beaten and even sentenced to long
prison terms. Some were tortured and killed despite the fact that every
single appeal Falun Gong practitioners made was peaceful and legal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mrs. Nunez is a Falun Gong practitioner and a legislative
director for a national Hispanic organization. She may be contacted via
email at [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practitioners outside of China took their appeals to the free
world. While they received significant support from the international
community, the Chinese Government has made it more difficult to appeal,
even in the free world. To achieve this, they used slander, the
creation of a blacklist, threats to family members of practitioners,
intimidation of local officials who support Falun Gong, and harassment
of practitioners abroad.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For background information and media reports on the PRC's
harassment of practitioners in America visit http://www.faluninfo.net/
specialreports/freedomunderattack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While every single demonstration that Falun Gong does is peaceful
and practitioners follow principles of ``truthfulness-compassion-
tolerance,'' Chinese authorities use slander to convince foreign
governments that these innocent people may pose a threat. For example,
in an effort to ruin the reputation of Falun Gong, the
Chinese Government staged a self-immolation incident on Tiananmen
Square in January of 2001. While none of the participants in the self-
immolation were
practitioners, the Chinese Government used the self-immolation incident
as the centerpiece of its campaign to discredit Falun Gong.\3\ The
International Education Development Bureau reported to the United
Nations in August of 2001 evidence that the Chinese Government staged
the self-immolation.\4\ Nevertheless, fabricated lies of this nature
are used by the state-controlled media in China and are also shown by
Chinese channels in foreign countries, including the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Torture is Breaking Falun Gong: China Systematically
Eradicating Group. Washington Post, August 5, 2001.
\4\ International Education Development Bureau Statement before the
United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human
Rights, Fifty-third session, Agenda item 6, August 2001. The regime
points to a supposed self-immolation incident in Tiananmen Square on
January 23, 2001 as ``proof'' that Falun Gong is an ``evil cult''
However, an analysis of the PRC's Government's newscast footage of the
incident shows that the event was staged by the government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is also pressure on overseas practitioners not to appeal on
behalf of Falun Gong. When practitioners in the United States tell
people the facts about the persecution, their families in China are
threatened. In America, practitioners' apartments have been broken
into,\5\ people have been beaten up, a car filled with Falun Gong
literature was firebombed, and phones are wire tapped. Even U.S.
officials are pressured by the Chinese Government to rescind
proclamations given to Falun Gong.\6\ On February 21, 2002, the Wall
Street Journal reported ``The Chinese Government, not content to
persecute the Falun Gong in China, has [urged] local U.S. officials to
shun or even persecute them right here in America. The approach . . .
tends to combine gross disinformation with scare tactics and, in some
cases, slyly implied diplomatic and commercial pressure.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Beijing's Long Arms: How China is Suppressing Falun Gong in
America, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com, December 2002.
\6\ Will Chinese Repression Play in Peoria. The Wall Street
Journal, Thursday, February 21, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In another effort to silence Falun Gong practitioners, the Chinese
Government pressures foreign countries to deny them entry. For example,
many practitioners, including U.S. citizens, were denied entry into
Iceland during Jiang Zemin's visit. Once the general public learned of
this affront to civil liberties, 3,000 Icelandic citizens demonstrated
on behalf of Falun Gong and wrote apologies in their major newspapers.
Unfortunately, citizens in other countries may not even know when their
government cooperates with the communist regime. Last April, German
media reported that Falun Gong practitioners were abruptly forced to
clear their hotel rooms. The Chinese Government's pressure is not
limited to pressure on governments alone. For example, when Jiang Zemin
visited the United States in October, Falun Gong practitioners lost
their reservation of a ballroom at a hotel in Houston. Practitioners
were planning a conference 1 day prior to the arrival of Jiang. The
ballroom was canceled 45 minutes before their conference was to begin
despite the fact that the practitioner making the arrangement had a
signed contract in hand, which had been paid in full 2 weeks prior to
the event.
Practitioners and supporters in America hope that the United States
will take the lead in ensuring that the peaceful Falun Gong
practitioners, who are unjustly persecuted by the Chinese Government,
have the opportunity to appeal in the free world.
I recommend that the Congressional-Executive Commission on China do
the
following: Urge the U.S. Government to investigate and take legal
action against illegal activities by Chinese diplomats concerning
harassment of U.S. citizens and residents who practice Falun Gong; urge
the U.S. Senate to hold a hearing on House Resolution 188 once it is
reintroduced in the 108th Congress; and make Falun Gong the focal point
of the Commission's work and future reports.
Thank you for accepting my written statement for the record.
______
Prepared Statement of Enhebatu Togochog, President, Southern Mongolian
Human Rights Information Center
december 9, 2002
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As you know, the mission of Radio Free Asia (RFA) is to bring
uncensored and non-partisan news and information to Asian populations
which might otherwise be denied such access by their governments. This
is the essential criterion for the choice of RFA's broadcasts. There is
also the implication that RFA as a U.S. Government sponsored
organization secondarily seeks to encourage democratic values. One
important virtue of RFA is that it beams its broadcasts in the native
languages of the Asian populations it seeks to service. In the new
millennium, information and news is a more critical part of the social
and political functioning of nations and governments than ever before.
When information and news becomes a political tool and falls under the
control of a single agenda, the essential quality of this important
function becomes distorted and in direct opposition to democratic
values. RFA plays an important role in counteracting such distortions.
Given this backdrop, it will be argued that RFA broadcasts in the
Mongolian language are completely in line with the RFA mission and
there is a vital need for such broadcasts. We begin by
providing a brief picture of the extent to which disinformation is
being used at the detriment of the Mongolian populations of China.
Chinese Government interference and censoring with the free flow of
news and events has been well documented. In Inner Mongolia, all kinds
of media such as TV, radio broadcasting, newspapers, Internet, and
publications, especially those in Mongolian language, are strictly
controlled by the Chinese Government. No independent agency exists
dealing with news, press and publication nor is there any provision
allowing for open dissent of government decisions or policies. Those
who try to express their opposing political, ethnic, religious,
cultural or historical opinions and ideas are subject to arrest and
jail. According to incomplete figures of the Southern Mongolian Human
Rights Information Center (SMHRIC), since 1990, at least a hundred
different titles of books, magazines and other publications, 20 movies
and videos have been banned; more than 70 Internet sites have been
blocked; at least 40 bookstores, Internet cafes and reading clubs have
been shut down; thousands of books, video tapes, CDs and tape
recordings of Mongolian songs thought to be against national policies
in one form or another have been confiscated from individuals and
retail stores without any compensation. At least 100 Mongolian authors,
writers, correspondents, editors and translators and other dissidents
have been detained, arrested and sent to jail for alleged acts of
government opposition (about the most prominent cases, please see the
annex). The official government policy of sinicization of the Mongolian
populations and regions causes them to see expressions of Mongol
cultural identity as a threat and establishes the basis for official
distortion and disinformation about these repressive actions.
The Chinese Government not only strictly controls all information
sources but also regularly misinforms the Mongols about Western
countries, especially the United States policies, society and culture.
School textbooks emphasize that the U.S. is an ``imperialist country,
like a `paper tiger', doesn't have any real power.'' School authorities
stress that the only purpose of the United States foreign policy is
``to split our great mother country by using `sugar-coated bullet' or
`peaceful revolution.' '' American democracy is said to be a ``fake
democracy whose beneficiaries are just a few rich people.'' In
colleges, students are forced to attend the so-called ``political
study'' classes on every Thursday afternoon. Absences are not allowed.
The main purpose of the ``political study'' is to indoctrinate the
Mongolian intellectuals into believing that the best political system
in the world is ``the Chinese style socialist system.'' They also
describe American society as ``a monster's hole which is the darkest
part of the world where people eat people.'' Propaganda Committees at
various levels give speeches or show movies, videos and slides stating
that the U.S. is a society where violence and crime are spread
everywhere and people have no social or moral values, therefore,
people's lives and property are not safe and everybody faces the threat
of robbery and murder at anytime. They also say that in America,
relationships between people are based on money and people don't have
any family connections, where everybody has at least one extramarital
sexual partner. These and other distortions are intended to encourage a
hostile attitude toward western countries, particularly the United
States. For example, shortly after the 9/11 disaster, China's largest
official news agency, Xin Hua News, stated that in the Inner Mongolian
Autonomous Region, especially the capital Huhhot City, Osama Bin
Laden's pictures and toys with his name became the best selling goods
in many stores. This is a reflection of the relative success of the
government disinformation campaign.
Official news about the Mongolians themselves is also similarly
distorted in order to push the interests of the government. All kinds
of publications and the media have taught people that Chinggis Khan is
Chinese and that the Mongols are a part of the great Han Chinese (Zhong
Hua Min Zu) Nation. They stress that not only Inner Mongolia but also
the independent country of Mongolia was a part of the great mother
Nation of China. Many publications insist that Mongolia should return
to its ``mother country of China'' and some even go so far as to say
that now it is time to take Mongolia back because most of the
Mongolians are willing to ``return to the embrace of their homeland
China.'' Similarly, news about native Mongols in opposition to official
Chinese policies is suppressed. The government uses misinformation to
push their political, economic and cultural agenda with little regard
to historical truth or objectivity.
China has been condemned by human rights organizations and the
international community in general for violations of civil and human
rights. There is extensive documentation on their harsh suppression of
non-Han Chinese cultural and ethnic expressions on the part of
individuals and groups. But international attention has not been paid
to their policies of disinformation and distortion of world and
national events to the same degree, yet we would argue that these are
as reprehensible as their human rights record. The substantial Mongol
population in China of 5 million people are victims of this information
distortion. The only way in which the total control of the media can be
neutralized is through independent reporting and access to broadcasts
such as RFA's. We request that the Mongol populations of China be given
access to RFA broadcasts in the Mongolian language. They too, like the
Tibetans, Uyghurs and the Chinese should have the privilege of hearing
clear and objective reporting that only the RFA can provide.
Thank you.
annex
The followings are the most prominent cases about free press, free
speech, and free assembly in Inner Mongolia:
Banned books:
1. Way Out of Southern Mongolia--A Mongolian book by Mr. Hada,
president of the Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance, who was
arrested in 1995 and
sentenced to 15 years jail. This book has been banned since 1995;
2. Kang Sheng and the False Case of Inner Mongolian People's
Revolutionary Party--A Mongolian book, published in 1995, revealing the
truth of the 10 years-long genocide against ethnic Mongolians during
the Cultural Revolution, by Mr. Tumen, an ethnic Mongolian high ranking
official who has been accused and put under house arrest after
publishing the book. This book has been banned since 1996;
3. Do Not Forget, Extinguished If Forget!--A Mongolian book by B.
Baabar, an Outer Mongolian author, promoting and protecting the
traditional Mongolian culture and identity. This book has been banned
since 1992;
4. Ethnic Problems in Inner Mongolia--A Mongolian book by Mr.
Muunohai, an ethnic Mongolian prominent dissident who had served 8
years jail, using Marxism to analyze the Chinese authorities ethnic
policy in Inner Mongolia. This book has been banned since 1995;
5. Prisoners Outside the Prison--A Mongolian book by Mr. Unag,
publishing some ethnic Mongolian dissidents' articles, has been banned
since 1998;
6. I Have Nothing Wrong, Never!--A Mongolian poetry anthology by
Mr. Chingdalai, expressing his strong desire to basic human rights and
fundamental freedom, has been banned since 1999;
7. I Am From Harahorin--A Mongolian poetry anthology by Mr.
Ulziitogtoh, describing his dream of freedom, has been banned since
2001;
8. The Truth of the Cultural Revolution's ``Unearthing the Inner
Mongolian Revolutionary Party Members'' and ``Cracking Down Traitor
groups'' Movements in Inner Mongolia--A book by Mr. Bayantai, revealing
the truth of the Chinese Communist Party's massacre against ethnic
Mongolian population in Inner Mongolia during the Cultural Revolution,
has been banned since July 2002;
Banned books:
1. Voice of Southern Mongolia--A Mongolian language magazine by the
Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance, publishing dissident's articles
and human rights documents, has been banned since 1995;
2. History of The Great Mongolia--A Mongolian language magazine
edited by the Mongolian scholars, publishing Mongolian history, has
been banned since 1997;
3. The Freedom-Seeking People--A Mongolian language magazine by
college
students in Huhhot City, publishing ethnic Mongolian student's articles
regarding freedom, has been banned since 1992;
Banned movies and videos:
1. The Great Mongol--A documentary film made in Japan and
translated into Chinese in Taiwan, showing the different version of
Mongolian history, has been banned since 1992;
2. Tsokht Taij--A Mongolian movie made in Mongolia, describing the
Mongolian hero Tsokht Taij who tried to unify Inner and Outer Mongolia
centuries ago, has been banned since 1990s;
3. Queen Manduhai Tsetsen--A Mongolian movie made in Mongolia,
telling the story of Queen Manduhai Tsetsen who tried to unify all of
Mongolian tribes centuries ago, has been banned since 1993;
4. A Beautiful White Yurt--A Mongolian movie made by Inner
Mongolian Film Making Corporation, has been banned since 1996 because
one of the scenes in the film ``over emotionally describes the
relationship between Inner Mongolians and Outer Mongolians;''
Blocked Internet sites and e-news:
1. www.innermongolia.org--website of the Inner Mongolian People's
Party, the largest exiled organization established by Inner Mongolian
political refugees in the United States. This site has been blocked
since 1997;
2. Southern Mongolian Watch--an e-mail based magazine edited by the
Southern Mongolian Human Rights Information Center (SMHRIC) publishing
Inner Mongolian human rights situation and general human rights issues,
has been blocked by the Chinese Internet police since 2001;
3. http://www.caccp.org--website of the Florida based Citizens
Against Communist Chinese Propaganda (CACCP), has been blocked since
1998;
4. http://www.taklamakan.org/mutti-l--a website regarding Southern
Mongolian, Tibetans, Eastern Turkestan and Taiwan's issues, has been
blocked since 2001;
5. http://southernmongolia.hypermart.net/forum/mainpage.pl--An
Internet forum called ``Southern Mongolian Forum'' (later changed to
``Inner Mongolian Cultural Saloon'') created by the Inner Mongolians
abroad, has been blocked since 2001;
6. www.voa.gov and www.rfa.org--websites of Voice of America and
Radio Free Asia have been blocked since they were created;
7. www.smhric.org--website of the Southern Mongolian Human Rights
Information Center (SMHRIC), blocked since October 2002;
8. www.mongolculture.com--an Internet forum created by Inner
Mongolian intellectuals in Inner Mongolia, discussing Mongolian
cultural issues, has been blocked before the Chinese Communist Party's
16th National Congress in November 2002;
Bookstores, reading clubs, and Internet cafes shut down:
1. Mongolian Study Bookstore--a bookstore owned by Mr. Hada,
president of the Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance (SMDA), and his
wife Mrs. Xinna, has been shut down and demolished by the authorities
after the SMDA was cracked down in 1995;
2. Mongolian Students Reading Club--a free academic association
established by ethnic Mongolian students in Huhhot City, has been
cracked down and announced as ``an illegal organization'' since 2001;
3. Blue City Internet Cafe--an Internet cafe providing ethnic
Mongolians with low price Internet access, has been shut down and
announced as illegal business since 2001;
Books, video tapes, computers and copy machines
confiscated:
1. Mongolian Study Bookstore's all books valued at 200,000 Yuan
(approximately 23,000 U.S. dollars) were confiscated by the authorities
without any compensation after the crack down of the SMDA in 1995;
2. Mongolian Students Reading Club's more than 500 books and other
facilities such as copy machine and computers have been confiscated
after its crack down in 2001;
3. Blue City Internet Cafe's 47 computers, 2 copy machines and
other facilities were confiscated by the authorities in 2001;
4. According to the ethnic Mongolian victims, thousands of video
tapes of ``The Great Mongolia,'' ``Manduhai Tsesten,'' and ``The Great
Mongol'' have been taken back from the buyers and retail stores without
any compensation;
5. According to many ethnic Mongolian readers, thousands of
Mongolian books such as ``Kang Sheng and the False Case of the Inner
Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party,'' ``Prisoners Outside the
Prison,'' ``I Have Nothing Wrong, Never!'' have been taken back from
the buyers and bookstores without any compensation;
6. According to the November 7, 2002 report of the Chinese official
news, Xinhua News, in order to welcome China's 16th National People's
Congress, Inner Mongolian authorities have conducted a 10-month long
so-called ``Publication Market Cleansing Movement,'' and confiscated
and burned 50,000 books and magazines. The report also says, many book
stores have been shut down;
Ethnic Mongolian victims of the Chinese authorities'
violations against free speech, free press, and free assembly:
1. Mr. Hada--Author of ``Way Out of Southern Mongolia,'' also the
president of the Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance, has been
sentenced to 15 years jail. Currently, he is still serving his
imprisonment in Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region No.4 Prison in Chi
Feng City;
2. Mr. Tegexi--Vice president of the Southern Mongolian Democratic
Alliance and the editor of ``Voice of Southern Mongolia,'' has been
sentenced to 10 years jail since 1995. Currently, he is still in a jail
near Huhhot City;
3. 70 members of the Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance were
detained
respectively 6 months to 3 days in 1995 for the so-called ``illegal
association, illegal gathering, illegal lecturing;''
4. Mrs. Xinna--Wife of Mr. Hada, co-owner of ``Mongolian Study
Bookstore,'' had been detained three times for total length of 99 days
for receiving Voice of America's telephone interview in 1996;
5. Hutsuntegus--A leader of the Ih Ju League National Culture
Society who tried to legally register the organization, has been
sentenced to 5 years jail for ``illegal publishing and illegal
propaganda.'' In 1991, he translated and distributed a book called ``Do
Not Forget, Extinguished If Forget!;''
6. Wang Manglai--Another leader of the Ih Ju League National
Culture Society, has been charged 3 years jail for the same reason;
7. 26 key individuals of the Ih Ju League National Culture Society
were put under house arrest in 1991;
8. Ulaan Shovuu--A teacher at Inner Mongolian University, has been
sentenced to 5 years jail for ``passing on confidential document to
foreigner'' in 1991. In fact, the so-called ``confidential document''
is a document regarding the authorities' violation against ethnic
Mongolian basic human rights and fundamental freedom;
9. Zhang Haiquan--A Mongolian student at Inner Mongolian University
was detained 5 months for writing a 4-word sentence, ``Min Zhu Wan
Sui'' which means ``Long Live Democracy!,'' on his classroom blackboard
in 1992;
10. Unag--Author of ``Prisoners Outside the Prison,'' had been
detained three times for more than 9 months and brutally tortured
during the detention;
11. Chingdalai--Author of ``I Have Nothing Wrong, Never!,'' had
been detained for 6 months in 2001 and brutally tortured by the police
for expressing his desire to freedom;
12. Ulziitogtoh--Author of `` I Am From Harahorin,'' had been
detained for 3 months and now still being held under house arrest for
expressing his ``strong
national sentiment'' through the book;
13. Altanbulag and Badarangui--Two young musicians, was arrested in
2001 for ``distributing the splittism materials.'' In fact, the so-
called ``splittism materials'' are some open letters by ethnic
Mongolian dissidents.
-