[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WHAT WILL DRIVE CHINA'S FUTURE LEGAL DEVELOPMENT? REPORTS FROM THE
FIELD
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 18, 2008
__________
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
43-634 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
House
Senate
SANDER LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota, Co-
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio Chairman
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California MAX BAUCUS, Montana
TOM UDALL, New Mexico CARL LEVIN, Michigan
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
PAULA DOBRIANSKY, Department of State
CHRISTOPHER R. HILL, Department of State
HOWARD M. RADZELY, Department of Labor
CHRISTOPHER PADILLA, Department of Commerce
DAVID KRAMER, Department of State
Douglas Grob, Staff Director
Charlotte Oldham-Moore, Deputy Staff Director
(ii)
CO N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
Opening statement of Hon. Byron Dorgan, a U.S. Senator from North
Dakota, Co-Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on
China.......................................................... 1
Pitts, Hon. Joseph R., a U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania,
Member, Congressional-Executive Commission on China............ 3
Han, Dongfang, Executive Director, China Labour Bulletin......... 5
Smith, Hon. Christopher H., a U.S. Representative from New
Jersey, Member, Congressional-Executive Commission on China.... 7
Wang, Tiancheng, Beijing scholar and Founder, Liberal and
Democratic Party of China...................................... 9
Levin, Hon. Sander M., a U.S. Representative from Michigan,
Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China.......... 10
Xiao, Qiang, Director, China Internet Project, and Founder, China
Digital Times, University of California-Berkeley............... 11
Fu, Bob, President, China Aid Association........................ 14
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements
Han, Dongfang.................................................... 26
Wang, Tiancheng.................................................. 29
Xiao, Qiang...................................................... 31
Fu, Bob.......................................................... 34
Levin, Hon. Sander............................................... 38
Dorgan, Hon. Byron............................................... 39
Pitts, Hon. Joseph R............................................. 40
WHAT WILL DRIVE CHINA'S FUTURE LEGAL DEVELOPMENT? REPORTS FROM THE
FIELD
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008
Congressional-Executive
Commission on China,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:34
a.m., in room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Senator
Byron Dorgan, (Co-Chairman of the Commission) presiding.
Also present: Representative Sander M. Levin, Chairman;
Representative Joseph R. Pitts; Representative Michael M.
Honda; and Representative Christopher H. Smith.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON DORGAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
NORTH DAKOTA, CO-CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION
ON CHINA
Co-Chairman Dorgan. We're going to begin the hearing this
morning. I'm Senator Dorgan, Co-Chairman of the Congressional-
Executive Commission on China [CECC]. The Chairman of the CECC,
Congressman Levin, is detained at the moment in a Ways and
Means Committee markup, but he will be along.
We're joined by Congressman Pitts. Congressman Pitts,
welcome to you.
Let me describe the purpose of today's hearing. We have
four witnesses. Let me state at the outset that the witnesses
are people of great courage who have, in many different ways,
fought for change, democracy, and human rights in China. Three
of these four witnesses have spent time in jails in China. We
appreciate the work that all of them have done on behalf of
people who aspire and yearn to be free.
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine China's legal
development. For three decades now, China has engaged in legal
reform. But it seems to be at a standstill, and it is unclear
at this point whether that means it has stalled or is at a
turning point.
Why does it appear to be at a standstill?
Well, first, the massive earthquake that tragically killed
and
injured tens of thousands of people, too many of them children.
Second, the violent crackdown that began in March continues in
Tibetan areas. Beijing has closed off most Tibetan areas, and
detained or expelled journalists. Finally, the Summer Olympic
Games are fast approaching. Hosting the Olympic Games has
highlighted some of Beijing's achievements. We don't and
shouldn't deny them that. But even more it has highlighted
Beijing's terrible record on human rights and the environment.
As the Olympic torch circled the globe, Beijing's Olympic dream
became a public-relations nightmare.
These three events are having an enormous impact on many
areas in China, including legal reform and human rights. And
that is why we are here today.
At the Commission's February hearing on the Olympics, I
submitted for the record a list of political prisoners. Here is
an update on just one: Hu Jia, a courageous activist, was
jailed last December by Chinese authorities for comments he
made at a European Parliament hearing. His comments were
critical of China's hosting the Olympics. At the time of the
CECC hearing, his wife and four-month-old daughter had been
under house arrest for several months. In April, he was
sentenced to three and a half years in prison for ``inciting
subversion of state power.'' Hu has severe health problems. His
request to be released on bail for medical treatment was denied
in June. His wife and baby remain under constant surveillance,
and face harassment.
Every country that has hosted the Olympics has had its
critics--both at home and abroad. China has dissenting voices
too on the Olympics--like Hu Jia. But instead of being
tolerant, it has hit back hard with a combo punch of
intimidation and imprisonment.
The Commission is dedicated to understanding these events
on a deep level. For that reason, we have called four prominent
Tiananmen Square activists and now internationally renowned
figures in human rights and rule of law in China. We hope they
will address two straightforward questions:
What factors are most likely to determine the course of
China's legal development in the coming year and beyond?
What factors do Western analysts more frequently tend to
overlook or misinterpret?
I would ask each of our witnesses to highlight for us the
factors that, in each of your varied experiences, and unique
perspectives this Commission should focus on in order to most
effectively understand the course that China's legal
development is taking and will take as events unfold.
It would be helpful if you would focus specifically on
steps China has taken to: combat corruption and to maintain
popular support for further reform, prospects for the
enforcement of worker rights, collective bargaining, and labor
unions.
I would also ask that you comment on the regulation of
religious life and of minorities, and trends in pre-Olympic
crackdown.
Finally, I would also ask each of our witnesses to make a
point also of identifying for us the one or two factors that,
in your experience, Western analysts most frequently overlook,
misunderstand, or plainly misinterpret. Your complete candor
will be most helpful and appreciated.
I want to say one final point. China is a big country with
a rich, interesting, nearly unbelievable history. It will be a
significant force in our lives here in the United States, for
good or for ill, for many decades. That's why we aspire to
understand what is happening in China.
We as a country strive always to call upon other countries
to embrace the human rights of their people, to not imprison
people for telling the truth, for speaking out, for exercising
their right of free speech. There is much in China that is
troubling us, and there is also much that gives us hope. We're
trying to understand China better, and your willingness, the
four of you, to come forward today and testify is very much
appreciated.
As I indicated, all four of you have played significant
roles in the history of China. Three of you have spent time in
Chinese prisons. Your courage need not be explained much
further than that fact, and we appreciate your being here.
Mr. Pitts, did you wish to make comments?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, MEMBER, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE
COMMISSION ON CHINA
Representative Pitts. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important
hearing on China's future legal development.
I remain disturbed about the negative trends on human
rights issues in China prior to the Olympic Games in August.
Many thought the Chinese Government would understand that with
a brighter spotlight on its treatment of its citizens, the
officials would take this opportunity to allow for more freedom
for journalists, lawyers, and human rights advocates. There
were positive steps in relation to allowing reporting on the
tragic earthquake in China, and this led to much international
sympathy and humanitarian and disaster assistance. However, the
general trends are disturbing as there is increased harassment
of religious leaders and practitioners and others. Case in
point is the May 21, 2008, recording of Chinese consulate
official Mr. Peng Keyu describing his and other officials' role
in organizing, in the United States, protests against and
harassment of Falun Gong members. While this particular
instance
focused on Falun Gong, I have received reports of other Chinese
religious believers or political activists inside the United
States being harassed and threatened by Chinese Government
officials. It is indeed a problem when Chinese officials harass
their own citizens at home and in a nation like ours where rule
of law is established--it's even more disturbing when the
Chinese Government hacks the computers of Members of Congress
who focus on raising awareness of human rights violations
within China. That does not bode well for the positive
treatment of the average Chinese citizen who wishes to
peacefully express his or her social, political, or religious
views.
In our previous hearing, I mentioned being encouraged and
discouraged during countless cycles of two steps forward and
then three steps backward in terms of the Chinese Government's
respect for the Chinese people. Sadly, since our February
hearing, nothing has really changed. I continue to receive
numerous reports about Chinese officials' actions against North
Korean refugees, Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang Province, child
laborers, Tibetans, Catholics loyal to the Vatican, and
Protestant house church leaders and congregants. In fact, on
June 1, 2008, government officials detained nine house church
congregants in Henan Province for providing funds to help
victims of the earthquake, and in late May, security officials
confiscated a bank card, a mini-van, Bibles, and Christian
literature from a house church seminary. It does not appear the
Chinese security officials are interested in maintaining any
facade of treating religious believers with respect. There are
additional reports, including from China Aid Association, that
the ``Ministry of Public Security has received funding from the
Chinese Central Government to increase its campaign of
eradicating house churches throughout China.'' Even further,
this morning I received a report that a senior house church
leader, Mr. Zhang Mingxuan, and his interpreter were detained
today as they traveled to meet with an official from the
European Union; Pastor Zhang has been beaten, arrested, and
imprisoned 12 times by Chinese security officials.
It takes great courage and leadership to challenge the
Chinese Government's actions and attitudes, even more so when
the officials break their own laws. Yesterday, the National
Endowment for Democracy [NED] held an event to honor ``Chinese
workers, lawyers, and writers working to advance democratic
values and fundamental rights within China.'' Recipients of the
NED award included Chen Guangcheng, Teng Biao, Li Heping, Li
Baiguang, Zhang Jianhong, Yao Fuxing, and Hu Shigen. These
individuals, our witnesses today, and others who cannot be
named, are true heroes as they seek to make a better today and
tomorrow for the people of China.
I look forward to hearing from our very distinguished
witnesses and receiving their insights and recommendations on
steps the U.S. Government should take to further support the
fundamental rights of the Chinese people.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Congressman Pitts, thank you very much.
Congressman Honda, do you have an opening statement?
Representative Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have
any comments. I just came to listen to the responses to some of
the questions that have been posed for the purpose of our
hearing, what are some of your opinions, your insights as to
the direction that the PRC should be taking in order to achieve
the kind of legal development that is expected by us. Welcome
to the hearing. I look forward with great interest to hearing
what you have to say from your perspective. I think the other
question was, what are some of the factors that Western
analysts, Western minds or observers, frequently overlook and/
or misinterpret? I would like to know that. That would be very
helpful.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Congressman, thank you very much.
First, we will hear from Han Dongfang, Executive Director
of the China Labour Bulletin and a moderator at Radio Free
Asia. A 26-year-old railway electrician, he emerged as the
leader of China's first independent labor union since 1949, the
Beijing Workers Autonomous Federation, during the 1989
Tiananmen Democracy Movement.
After the crackdown in Beijing on June 4, Han learned that
he was on the government's Most Wanted list, and on June 19
turned himself in to police. He was never tried or sentenced,
but he was jailed for 22 months before being released to seek
medical treatment in the United States for health problems
contracted in prison.
Since 1997, he has hosted an influential weekly call-in
show on Radio Free Asia that reaches an estimated 43 million
people in China. He has tried to go back to China but has been
prevented and stopped from doing so. He continues to be in
daily contact by phone and e-mail with workers in China.
Mr. Han, thank you very much for being here, and thank you
for the work you've done on behalf of workers' freedom and
workers' rights. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF HAN DONGFANG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHINA LABOUR
BULLETIN
Mr. Han. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, I'm
not 26 anymore. [Laughter.]
Co-Chairman Dorgan. We'll stipulate for the record that
you're older than you were in Tiananmen Square.
Mr. Han. Thank you. Thank you.
Actually, just about two weeks ago on my radio program I
had a victim, an earthquake victim, calling me from Sichuan
Province. His daughter just died, 16-year-old daughter. When
the mother, 16 years ago, was giving birth to this girl, she
died, so this man raised the daughter on his own.
Unfortunately, the daughter died in the earthquake. But when
the father went to the collapsed school, he saw the main beam
of this building and inside there are these big rocks, that
big, everywhere. That's the main reason the whole building
collapsed.
This guy was crying on the other end of the telephone line.
He finally said, ``I'm going to spend the rest of my life
looking for justice for my daughter, and the government is not
going to do that. The government is not going to respect the
law, to hold somebody responsible for this collapsing building,
and I am going to have my private law created and I'm going to
find those people who were responsible and I'm going to kill
them myself.'' So as a person talking to somebody over the air,
it's not easy to listen to this kind of comment in this kind of
a situation.
So the only thing I can do is try to calm him down. I said,
``Please, this is not the solution, you kill somebody. What if
you find something wrong? What if I have some other radio
listeners, they are lawyers, and they can provide you some
free-of-charge legal advice, even legal help to go through a
legal procedure to, for example, make a lawsuit if you collect
enough evidence? '' So that was very useful and he calmed down.
He said, ``Please, if there is any lawyer who would like to
help me, I would like to go through the legal procedure.''
So the reason I'm telling this story is, in China, people
don't trust the law. The biggest law-breaker is the government,
the judges. The judges don't take these cases, particularly
local government officials. They don't like these cases and
they just reject these cases. If people don't trust the law, no
matter how many laws you can produce, it doesn't work. So from
this case, fortunately this guy took my advice and will go
through the legal procedure. But there are many people in this
country that lost land and they have no compensation. You have
millions of people in the countryside in that situation that
have no faith in the legal system.
I believe, particularly after the earthquake, this quake
really shook everything differently than before. I watched
three times the State Council press conference and I could hear
from those people, it sounds like their conscience is being
shaken out. When they saw these shocking pictures and they
started asking questions, what are we going to do to deal with
these things, from watching the State Council press conference
I saw even high-level government officials, and they start
thinking how to go through this reconstruction process and
getting some more people's trust.
Also after the earthquake, the Premier, Wen Jiabao, went to
Sichuan three times. He really gained a lot of trust from
people. But when I saw this guy flying around, walking the
water, I mean, people now respect him as they respect God. I'm
asking myself the question, this guy gained too much respect,
he's over-respected. He gained too much respect for the party
as well. After this earthquake when the rebuilding process
began, the corrupt local government officials who were not
learning the lesson overnight because of the sad pictures,
they're going to steal the money for rebuilding, for
reconstruction.
How much Premier Wen Jiabao gained the trust from the
people, that will be as a double-edged sword. The Communist
Party has to deliver that much respect. I am sure the corrupt
local government officials will not be able to deliver what the
Premier has claimed, so there will be a big clash between
people's expectation and the corrupt government officials'
behavior. So I put a really big wish on if we have enough legal
assistance, and also the news information provided to people,
stations like Voice of America, Radio Free Asia. These news
media groups can continue their great work to speak ideas to
these people, peaceful approaches, and to help civil society to
grow in my country.
Second, we have our lawyers in China. My organization is
also helping the workers to make lawsuits to claim compensation
from employers when they got sick from their work. As well as
like these earthquake reconstruction processes. There are
people who will need legal assistance. If we have enough legal
assistance, concretely providing lawyers to people and to have
these people able to claim their compensation, claim their
legal rights through a legal procedure, as I said earlier, no
matter how many laws you produce, if people don't trust them,
people don't use them, or people cannot afford to use them,
that doesn't work.
There's no legal system, no rule of law that can be built
in any country without people trusting the law and people
having the ability to use the law. Therefore, again, I really
recommend that the U.S. Government and this country--the United
States--really strongly support the freedom media in China, and
also provide legal help to those people who need lawyers in
China. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Han appears in the
appendix.]
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Thank you very much for your testimony.
We appreciate hearing your perspective on these issues.
We've been joined by Congressman Chris Smith. Mr. Smith, do
you have an opening statement?
Representative Smith of New Jersey. I do. I apologize for
my lateness. I was unavoidably detained. The Prime Minister of
Kenya is in town and we had a meeting that was set prior to
this, so I apologize for that.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
FROM NEW JERSEY, MEMBER, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON
CHINA
Representative Smith of New Jersey. Let me just say thank
you for holding this very important hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Early in the 1990s before the permanent normal trade relations
[PNTR] debate, while we still called it most-favored nation
[MFN], most of the so-called experts told Congress that global
free trade and the laws of economics would irresistibly lead to
the rule of law of China. Now we know that these so-called
experts were wrong. In fact, the decisive factor has been the
Chinese Communist Party leaders, and they have crushed moving
toward the rule of law.
Trade was a tool that we had to influence them to accept
the rule of law, and we gave that tool away, squandered it,
when we brought China into the World Trade Organization with no
linkages whatsoever to demonstrable progress in human rights.
The result has been ominous: a government that advances toward
the rule of law in commercial matters, at least sometimes,
while it moves backward in its respect for fundamental human
rights; a government that comments an economic giant, while
remaining itself a human rights pariah state.
Still, it leaves two levers remaining to us to influence
the Chinese leaders: speaking the truth about their regime and
disseminating the truth to the Chinese people by means of the
Internet. As to speaking the truth, we don't do this often
enough. Often the truth of the Chinese Government's actions is
so shocking that we can hardly grasp it, or prefer not to think
about it.
Last night at a National Endowment for Democracy awards
ceremony where I was one of the presenters, I met some old
friends, a group of heroic Chinese human rights activists. One
of the activists we honored who could not be there because he
was sitting in a Chinese prison was Chen Guangcheng.
Chen filed a class action lawsuit, using the rule of law,
against the Chinese Government on behalf of thousands of women
from Yinye, a single city in Shandong Province. These women
were subject to the crime of forced abortion. For his lawsuit
and for an interview he gave about Yinye to Time Magazine in
2005, he was placed under house arrest, he was beaten, and now
he's serving a four-year prison term.
If Chen can speak the truth inside of China and pay a price
like that, like many of our witnesses here today have done
before him, I think we must do a better job of speaking truth
to this unjust power. They have to know that we mean business,
and that someday the perpetrators of these crimes will be held
to account. What is the truth about the one-child-per-couple
policy, to take only one of the Chinese Government's human
rights outrages?
The truth is that most women in China are limited to
bearing just one child and that the government coerces
compliance with this by mandatory monitoring of all Chinese
women's reproductive cycles, mandatory contraception, mandatory
birth permits--imagine, you have to ask for permission to have
a child--mandatory sterilizations, and/or contraceptive
implantation against their will, and government control of
birth spacing, all part of a national plan to complete the
local birth target numbers.
That compliance with this policy is coerced by forced
abortion, draconian fines which could be up to 10 times the
average Chinese annual income--that is both husband and wife--
and it includes the bulldozing of homes, placing incredible
social pressure to force women to abort by punishing their
families, workgroups, and villages for their pregnancies, and
by denying unlicensed children healthcare and education.
When we watch the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, Mr.
Chairman, which will be replete with smiling young people
dancing and waving flags, ask yourselves, where are their
brothers and sisters? In the land of the one child per couple,
they have been killed. Brothers and sisters are illegal in
China. The truth is also that this evil system violates the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the 1994
Program of Action of the Cairo International Conference on
Population, and the 1995 Beijing Declaration and U.N.
Declaration on the Rights of the Child.
As to the second tool, using the Internet to disseminate
the truth inside of China, I want to mention very briefly the
Global Online Freedom Act, which would prevent U.S. high-tech
companies from turning over to the Chinese police information
that identifies individual Internet users and to require them
to disclose how the Chinese version of their search engine
censors the Internet. In October, the Foreign Affairs Committee
approved my bill and we are hoping to move it to the floor of
the House soon.
I want to mention the exciting firewall-busting technology
that a group of dedicated Chinese human rights activities are
promoting. They have technology that enables users in China to
bypass the Chinese Government's so-called Golden Shield
censorship effort and surf the Internet freely.
With this technology which has been demonstrated to me in
my office, Chinese users can visit the same Internet you and I
do and there is nothing the Chinese Government can do about it.
I think we should all ask the State Department to support this
technology which could produce a human rights and rule of law
revolution in China.
Again, I thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
timely and important hearing, and yield back the balance of my
time.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Congressman Smith, thank you very much.
We've been joined by Congressman Levin, who is the Chairman
of our Commission. I indicated that he was at a markup of
legislation in the Ways and Means Committee, but he is now here
and we appreciate him being here.
I have to leave for something on the Senate side, but what
I want to do, is I want to introduce our next witness and then
turn the remainder of the hearing over to Congressman Levin.
Again, let me say that the four witnesses who have come here
today are people of great courage. They've demonstrated that
courage in many ways.
Our next witness is Wang Tiancheng. He is the Visiting
Scholar at the Center for the Study of Human Rights at Columbia
University Law School. He earned his bachelor of arts from
Hunan Normal University and his law degree from Peking
University, where he served as law lecturer. He was active in
the 1989 Pro-Democracy Movement and was imprisoned without
trial, serving one-and-a-half years in a reeducation through
labor camp.
Upon release he helped found an independent political
party, the Liberal and Democratic Party of China, and was
involved in the Free Labor Union of China. He was quickly
detained again in 1991, and along with his friend Hu Shigen,
was charged with ``actively taking part in a
counterrevolutionary group'' and ``carrying out
counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement.'' He was
sentenced to five years in prison. He served his five-year
prison term and was released in 1997.
He continues to play a very active role in speaking out
about
politically sensitive issues and has published influential and
prize-winning papers on the rule of law, federalism, and
constitutionalism in China, and has called publicly for a
reconsideration of the government policies on Tibet.
Let me thank you very much for being with us, and you may
proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF WANG TIANCHENG, BEIJING SCHOLAR AND FOUNDER,
LIBERAL AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF CHINA
Mr. Wang. Thank you.
In terms of the legal system in China, we face three very
serious problems. First, there are lots of laws and systems
which deprive human rights, basic rights. They are passed to
take away basic rights. Second, the judiciary is not
independent and is controlled by the Communist Party. Third,
the government, as the law enforcement agency, does not receive
outside supervision.
Those three issues are the products of the one-party
autocratic political system. The largest obstacle to China in
establishing the rule of law and ensuring human rights is the
one-party autocratic political system.
How to facilitate the transformation of the political
system, I think is the key issue. I don't believe that small
changes in Chinese law will eventually lead to the
democratization of China. If the political system is not
changed, I don't believe that the rule of law will come.
I think the greatest impetus for accelerating the reform of
Chinese law in the direction of guaranteeing human rights is
the people's dissatisfaction with reality and the increase in
the desire and call for democracy, human rights, and the rule
of law. The pressure from the international community is also
very important. It does make a difference.
Here, I have four suggestions. First, I hope the American
Government and the international community could urge the
Chinese Government to ratify the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. The Chinese Government signed this
covenant in 1998, 10 years ago. But up to now, today, the
covenant is not on the agenda of the National People's Congress
of China. I hope that we could urge the Chinese Government and
we could ask the Congress of China to ratify the covenant, make
the covenant a part of Chinese law. Then we can request that
all the laws that conflict with the covenant be changed or
amended.
My second suggestion. I think, of course, it is very
important to follow individual cases of human rights abuses,
but we should also pay attention to the related laws and
provisions. If the laws and system do not change, the Chinese
Government's softening or changing on certain individual cases,
do not mean improvement of the situation of human rights in
China, because similar abuses still do occur.
Third, I hope particular attention can be paid to the
following laws and systems: the assembly and demonstration law;
provision in the criminal law related to the crimes of plotting
to subvert state power and incite subversion of state power;
the regulations on religious affairs issued by China's State
Council; the reeducation through labor system; the situation in
the custody houses.
The fourth suggestion is to urge the Chinese Government to
establish an effective system for reviewing the
constitutionality of laws. That is to say, give people the
right to challenge unconstitutional laws in courts.
One last statement. Having the Chinese Government accept
these criticisms and demands is certainly not easy, but I
believe that unremitting criticism and pressure will eventually
obtain results and benefit the facilitation of democratization
in China.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wang appears in the
appendix.]
STATEMENT OF HON. SANDER M. LEVIN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MICHIGAN, CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
Chairman Levin [presiding]. Thank you very much.
I'm sorry that I missed Han Dongfang's testimony--though I
had a chance to look at your statement. I think of the four of
you here who have been so instrumental in bringing these issues
to the fore, you are the only member of the distinguished panel
whom I had a chance to meet before, many years ago. I regret
that the Ways and Means Committee called a markup that
conflicts with this hearing, and I may have to leave to vote on
some amendments, but my colleagues will carry on.
The concern that exists among the five of us, and other
members of the Commission, both Executive and Congressional,
are widely shared in this Congress. I expect that there will be
more and more interest in this as the Olympic Games come
closer, though it's really only an opportunity--and I don't
know that we need the Games--to raise these issues.
As we all know, this Commission was created by Congress and
the President with considerable discussion, now, about eight
years ago. The purpose was to monitor and to report on China's
compliance with international human rights standards, including
worker rights and the development of the rule of law.
We held a hearing just a few months ago here that
documented the commitments that China made in connection with
its Olympics bid and in its preparations for the 2008 Summer
Games. That's why we often refer to these commitments--because
they were a necessary prelude to the determination that China,
and Beijing specifically, would host the Olympics.
There's a full transcript of that February hearing
available at the back of this room, and I hope that you will
all take a copy of it. I think when you look at those
commitments, and we hear from you and others of China's failure
to meet these commitments, you will see why it's important to
look at them, and why we say today that the record is highly
disappointing.
There is the new Regulation on Open Government Information,
and we hope that it will be implemented. But let me just say,
it's not really clear at this time what factors will set the
course of China's future legal development. That is why we are
so privileged to hear from you today, because the future is so
uncertain. How much it will diverge from the past and improve
on the past is unclear.
When we talk about true rule of law, we're not talking
mainly about documents that have been stamped with the word
``law.'' We're talking about how there is or is not effective
implementation. What appears to be occurring in this area is
that there is a huge credibility gap in terms of what is
stamped as law and what is real.
In our last annual report, the Commission noted four
factors that appear to be highly influential in determining the
course of China's future legal development. Just quickly, let
me review them. First, China's leaders' increasing intolerance
of citizen activism, which you have commented on, and will
comment on. Second, and increasingly obvious, the manipulation
of law for politically expedient purposes. Third, a concerted
effort to ensure that sensitive disputes do not enter legal
channels that lead to Beijing, thereby insulating the central
government from the backlash of national policy problems. We
have seen a good measure of that in recent months. Fourth, the
growing impact outside of China of its domestic problems of
implementation.
So we're privileged today to have the four of you to talk
to us about your first-hand experience. That's what this
hearing is really all about. You've been on the ground.
So thank you to the two of you who have testified so far.
Now we are privileged to have the testimony of the Director of
the China Internet Project. I remember when I was in China some
years ago, meeting mostly with younger--though not all were
younger--citizens of China who told me about the development of
the Internet there, and how it was going to change, hopefully,
and dramatically perhaps, the dynamics within China.
So we're privileged to hear from Xiao Qiang, who, as I
said, is the Director of the China Internet Project and who
became a full-time human rights activist after the events in
Tiananmen Square.
So, welcome. We look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF XIAO QIANG, DIRECTOR, THE CHINA INTERNET PROJECT,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY
Mr. Xiao. Thank you. It is a privilege to be here in front
of the Commission again.
I am the Director of the China Internet Project and the
founder of China Digital Times, which is a Chinese news portal.
My research and writing are largely focused on the political
and social impact of the Internet in the People's Republic of
China.
I often describe the online censorship, the firewall that
is sometimes called the Golden Shield Project of the Chinese
Ministry of Public Security, as the largest obstacle that we
are facing to promote the freedom of speech in China.
In my past testimonies I have written about how exactly
that censorship has been practiced and implemented, and that
situation has not changed. China has the world's largest, most
sophisticated censorship system, both humanly and
technologically. It has been only increasing in past years,
leading to the Olympics and beyond. That is a part of the
story.
Another part we have constantly heard from the press is the
growth of China's Internet. Now China is the largest Internet
market in the world, and has more users than the United States.
It has surpassed the United States. If we counted the more than
485 million wireless cell phone users, China is a seriously
wired country and still has room to grow.
So we are often facing these two fundamental questions.
One, is we do see the growing use of the Internet. In my
written testimony I described how that has impacted Chinese
society.
But then we also see this increase in censorship and the
government still has very effective control over the online
media space. How do we read that? How do we interpret that?
What does that mean for China's rule of law, legal development,
political transformation, and relationship to the world? These
are very key questions.
In my written testimony I gave three examples of very
prominent online cases that happened in the last year. Two of
the three are positive examples about how rising online public
opinion and increasing civic engagement facilitated by the
Internet, actually caused some impact and changes in those
individual cases, whether it's raising the right consciousness
or actually changing government policy or implementation, such
as in Shanxi Province--the Brick Kiln Case.
But then I also gave another strong case, that of a large
demonstration that was caused by corruption and financial
scandal of a local government, the news affected tens of
thousands of people, but the news was completely suppressed on
the Internet. That was just an example.
The whole picture is described as such. The Chinese
Government is capable to this day to effectively control the
Internet, particularly on the issues of directly, openly
challenging the legitimate state of the Communist Party. On the
issues like massive, collective action--protests--information
such as this can possibly propagate through the Internet, and
communicate and connect with other protesters. That kind of
information is being suppressed the most harshly online.
The only way to sort of address that is, because the
Internet after all is not just within China, it is across the
boundary, therefore they oversee servers and blogs and Web
sites and news reports to, at least to a certain degree, keep
those stories alive and coming back to China if we can
penetrate that firewall.
But while the Chinese Government can no more control the
information absolutely, there are increasing spaces for the
ordinary citizens to participate in the political life and in
raising their concerns in the following areas. In areas in the
Chinese Government, different agencies have different
interests. The central government and the local government have
different interests.
When those interests are sometimes competitive and in
conflict, there is often a time gap between when the central
authorities can send directives to censorship and the local,
special government agencies feel uncomfortable with that
information. There is often a gap in the time of the incidents.
When that happens, that gives the Internet, online citizens, an
opportunity to raise their issues.
In the cases I pointed to in that category, which is a
local action being aggregated through the Internet, it is
sometimes a matter of hours, sometimes a matter of days of the
gap. Then it is very possible when those cases are resident to
the larger national online participants that they become a
national event. In some cases, even the Chinese national press
will catch that news to make a further case. Most of them, we
can describe as citizenry engagement to call for more
accountable government, to make the government more responsive
to the citizens' demands.
I am afraid to say, if you watch the year of 2007 until
now, there is not any other sign that the Chinese central
leadership has an agenda for political reform. All of their
domestic policies, and internationally, can be clearly
described as prolonging the monopoly of the political power and
there is no sign of reform, except the Internet from the bottom
up. Whenever those conflicts of interest exist, whenever there
is sometimes a gap that they cannot completely control, you see
there are rising citizen efforts to moving things forward
incrementally.
So let me just conclude and actually echo what Congressman
Smith said. Speaking truth to the power of the Chinese citizens
is an increasing activity facilitated by the Internet. To help
the circumvention of information, to circumvent the great
firewall, is definitely a priority in terms of promoting
freedom of speech, rule of law, holding the government more
accountable, and political reform in the People's Republic of
China.
Finally, that is also providing an incredible window for
the outside world to understand China better. But what is
happening on China's Internet, because of the censorship and
because of the incredible energy and fast changes, it requires
a much closer look and understanding of the situation. The
over-simplistic, optimistic, or pessimistic interpretation, I'm
afraid, will miss that picture.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Xiao appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Levin. Thank you. We're anxious to throw some
questions at all of you, but before we do that, let me
reintroduce Bob Fu, who is the Director of the China Aid
Association [CAA], and was very active in the student Democracy
Movement at Tiananmen Square. He has in recent years been
involved in religious activities, and I think you were jailed
as a result 12 years ago. After you were released you came to
this country and studied theology here, and now you're director
of CAA, where you monitor and write reports on religious
activities in China.
So we're very anxious to hear from you, and thank you very
much for your years and years of activity. So, take over if you
would.
STATEMENT OF BOB FU, PRESIDENT, CHINA AID ASSOCIATION
Mr. Fu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
Commissioners, Congressman Smith, Congressman Pitts, and
Congressman Honda.
Please forgive my Chinglish--Chinese English--if I
misspelled something because I had little sleep last night. I
had to deal with the arrest of this house church leader, Pastor
Zhang Mingxuan, who was kidnapped on the bus in the early
morning while he was on the way to meet with a member of the
European Parliament, Dr. Belda, who is in charge of China
Affairs. He just made a request to visit Pastor Zhang, who's
the chairman of the Chinese House Church Alliance. On his way
on the bus, he and his translator were both abducted and then
put into detention in Shangyushu PSB office, the Public
Security Office in the Haidan District, up until now.
Let me, before I talk about the pre-Olympics assessment and
the religious persecution situation in China, I want to note
that despite Article 36 of the Chinese Constitution which
guarantees citizens religious freedom, and despite the 2005
religious regulations in which it encouraged or prescribed some
qualifications for religious institutions to be registered, in
China up until today, after 50 years of political and economic
development, Chinese citizens only have very limited freedom of
religious belief but have little freedom of the manifestation,
or practice, of their religious belief.
The vast majority of the religious institutions and
religious believers have been discriminated against, have been
persecuted, by and large. Religious discrimination, in
particular against children under 18 years old, has been
enormous. These children have basically been forbidden to
receive any religious education, even within the government-
sanctioned religious bodies.
In recent years, of course, the name of the rule of law, or
rule by the law, in spite of these different regulations that
were passed on religious affairs, the persecution has been even
increased. Just with the approach of the Beijing 2008 Olympic
Games, we find that it has been accompanied with, instead of
even a saving-face approach as we all thought the Chinese
Government would take some measures to reduce some level of
persecution, on the contrary, it has been accompanied by a
significant deterioration in religious freedom for China's
independent religious organizations, institutions, especially
the targeted campaign against the unregistered Protestant and
Catholic house churches.
In May 2008, two independent sources informed the China Aid
Association that the Ministry of Public Security has received
special funding from the central government to increase its
campaign of eradicating house churches throughout China. On May
28, an official Chinese Government Web site has already
reported that on May 28 of this year the City of Beijing
conducted a special meeting, convened by the Deputy Mayor of
Beijing, to launch a so-called special struggle against illegal
Christian activities, the fandui jidujiao fefa huodeng
zhuanxiang douzheng.
So the horrible abuse of religious believers continues and
raids against Christian meetings continue to take place.
Persecution includes the largest mass sentencing of house
church leaders in 25 years and a level of expulsion of foreign
Christians from China not seen since 1953, with targeted
repression of a particular Chinese house church group called
the Chinese House Church Alliance, as its chairman is still in
detention this morning.
Also, reports have been received of planned intensified
persecution with greater control and prevention of large
Christian gatherings is also anticipated. It is further feared
that harsher persecution will take place even after the
Olympics.
If you want me to name some changes, some positive changes,
if you can call it that, I could say these changes only happen
tactically. They only happened from the strategy of how to get
rid of religion overall in the 1960s, to now this strategy on
how to control religion and how to control religion in the name
of these regulations and the law.
The named charges against religious believers changed from
counterrevolutionary in the 1950s, to disturbing social order
and social stability in the 1980s, to the so-called ``evil
cult'' charges in the 1990s, to now actually other criminal
charges, including separatism, including using illegal business
operations, and these types of criminal charges that have never
been used before but now are being used more often.
I want to, in particular, note about the challenges in
light of the rule of law and religious freedom in China. I want
to particularly point out that a mechanism of the religious
regulations, the Chinese Government policy to implement their
religious policy, is a lip-service strategy. On the one hand,
in 2005 China's new religious regulations suggested that any
religious institution and religious site can be registered if
you met certain standards. It's not that the Chinese
unregistered churches or other religious institutions are
reluctant or antagonistic by refusing to register, actually,
it's to the contrary. In recent years, especially these urban
churches, many of them have been trying in every way to
register. They file the papers.
Like, I know of a church in Beijing called the Beijing
Shouwang Church, with about 1,000 members. They rented their
facility in an office building and they have been gathering for
several years already. They have filed their application to the
Civil Affairs Department and the Religious Affairs Bureau, but
without even being
allowed to register. So I want to point out just one thing.
One thing that really poses, I think, the biggest challenge
for the rule of law on the religious freedom issue is this
Zheng Fa Wei, this grand, really politically charged quasi-
legal body called the CCP Political Commission and Legal
Affairs. Oftentimes, like many other cases, the religious
persecution cases were brought to the court and oftentimes this
Zheng Fa Wei body was the final arbitrator of each and every
case. I have just obtained this one document.
It is a document called ``the Legal Opinion Regarding the
Criminal Cases of the Falun Gong,'' issued by the Supreme
People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate in
January 2001. This is just one article. I will read it in
Chinese. It is better to understand for the Chinese audience.
It said, [Article read in Chinese].
This opinion basically said, before any court hearing a
sentence on Falun Gong cases--and of course other religious
cases applied--the political body, the Zheng Fa Wei, has to
make coordination and determine even the evidence and make a
determination between the different law enforcement bodies. So
to me, we should pursue and call the attention to the Chinese
Government to clarify the rule, the conflicting rule between
the court and this body.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fu appears in the appendix.]
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much.
We understood when the hearing was organized that one or
more of you needed to leave here by noon for another hearing,
so we agreed we'd finish right at noon. That will work out;
each of us can ask a few questions. I may have to leave after I
begin the questioning. Just, if each of you will just take five
minutes. We can just proceed.
As always, the staff, our excellent and talented staff, has
prepared a set of questions. If we asked them all, we'd be here
for hours. So let me just ask you, each of you, to comment on
this from your perspective. I think it's hard for us in this
country to really gauge where China is and where the people of
China are. We read about workers. There is more turbulence
today than there was 10, 15 years ago, right? As a result,
there are more people who are arrested. In terms of religious
activity, there seems to be an increase, and also a change in
the perspective of the people of China that is hard for us to
gauge. Then if we take the Internet, you mentioned 400 million
people online?
Mr. Xiao. Cell phones. The Internet is over 220 million.
Chairman Levin. Two hundred and twenty million. Four
hundred and some million cell phones. I don't know how you can
hold people back from hearing news with 400 million cell phones
working. But it's hard for us to gauge what this is really all
about with the desire of the government to essentially block
information flows. Then we have the ability of cell phones to
use text messages, and it's not really clear how the Chinese
government intercepts them. So if you would, tell us a little
bit about where you think the Chinese people are today, and
what this means for American policy and American efforts, both
before the Olympics and after. So if you would, just go down
the line and inform us of your perspective on that. Han
Dongfang, why don't you start? Just quickly, just take a minute
or so, because I want to be sure our colleagues each have five
minutes before you have to leave. Thank you.
Mr. Han. Thank you, Congressman. There are more than
80,000 strikes every year in China. That only counts those
strikes involving more than 100 people. Those involving 90
people are not counted. Think about the size. In the whole
Pearl River Delta area, in that region mainly, foreign
companies are investing there, the strikes involving more than
1,000 workers happen at least once a day.
What the Chinese people are doing, after 30 years of
economic reform, the market economy now, the government is on
the one hand pushing for a market economy, and on the other
hand they don't have political reform. Reflected in the
workers' rights areas, you don't have workers to organize
unions, you have no collective bargaining. This can, down that
way, go too long. Now these workers, there is no strike law and
the workers are going to the streets. They go strike anyway. So
that is the nature of workers. If we're not treated well, we go
together into the streets.
So now I think the government learned that lesson. They
fear that. I heard that within a half a year or one year, there
will be a law to regulate strikes. So mainly we will have a law
to regulate strikes and the workers will have the right to
strike. When the strike activities have been legalized, the
workers can do more because we believe a strike is part of the
collective bargaining. The collective bargaining tool is a very
useful tool.
So from this you can see not only people are waiting for
the
government to provide something and the people are reacting and
people's activities are changing the government's mind-set, so
therefore I feel very positive in the future that the civil
society growth, you have a bunch of nice people within the
government, within the Party, and these people together will
make a very positive move for the democratic process.
Also, I believe, don't feel too bad if something happens
suddenly, because democracy is a process rather than a concrete
result. Look at this country--the United States. The legal
system building and democracy development is always as a
process. I don't think you would say your country has a perfect
democracy system, not yet. So, I feel positively for my
country, too.
Chairman Levin. Okay. Anybody else want to comment on where
the Chinese people are and how we react to that? Are they text-
messaging each other?
Mr. Xiao. They are, a lot. But let me say it this way, how
to picture China. China has 1.3 billion people. The 200 million
people on the Internet, you can say essentially are urban
elite. When I say ``elite,'' they don't necessarily have a
higher political position but they have certain input to the
political system. Mostly they're the urban residents. Then you
have the rest of the Chinese people, talking about 800 million
or 1 billion, the ones who produce the products. Those are the
ones who have no right to organize. Those are the ones that do
not have full status for even living in the city. Those are the
ones that have no political input to the system whatsoever.
That is where China's economic competitive advantage comes
from. They are the ones who suffer most from the environmental
pollution.
So from these top nine members of political bureaus and
under the ruling Communist Party, their central code word is
control, how to keep the gap between the people who have and
who have not in the system that actually produces economically,
but is politically not threatening the monopoly of the power of
the Communist Party. That's the only secret of China. The human
rights issues, the rule of law issues, it's all reflected in
that power relationship.
The result is, what you can see, is this oscillation
between the two extremes, the insecurity of the rulers because
they have this vast base of people who have nothing and the
arrogance of the rulers because now they're part of a global
economy and they produce such cheap goods and they're becoming
a rising power. You see both. You see both phenomena on the
Internet as well as from the rising citizen participation and
to the other side of the nationalistic--phobia, which is caused
also actually by the Internet. I agree with you, we don't know
where China is going. It could go in either direction.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Pitts, take over. Then others will participate. I need
to go back to the committee. Thank you so much. So, each of you
take five minutes.
Representative Pitts [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your extremely informative
testimony and your responses. I found it very interesting that
there's something like 80,000 strikes of over 100 people, you
say, of labor-type strikes. I assume that there are other types
of protests as well, but this is hundreds every single day
throughout China.
But thank you for your insight, Mr. Wang, for some very
specific suggestions that we in Congress should press for. Very
helpful. And Mr. Xiao, I found your incidents--you mentioned
three examples of the government controlling the political
impact of the Internet and I was intrigued especially--well
China's most incredible mail house was very interesting,
rescuing children from slave labor in the brick kilns. Then you
mentioned an ant farmer's protest, a corrupt pyramid scheme.
I'd be interested in knowing what that means.
And Mr. Fu, your two pages of recommendations are very
helpful. I would just like to ask you, and each of you can
comment if you'd like, in what way specifically has China's
desire to maintain a positive image for the Olympics led to
increased censorship of the press, the Internet, and repression
of human rights? What would be the benefits, if any, of
President Bush's attending the opening ceremonies of the
Olympic Games, as he said he will do? What harm, if any, might
his attendance cause, if you would care to comment on that? You
can start. We'll just go down the line.
Mr. Fu. That's one of the recommendations. I have been
editing over the years. The vast majority of the Chinese
independent house churches and other believers, they don't want
to remain underground. Actually, they want to engage society,
want to care for the poor, care for the vulnerable, care for
the needy.
So one way that I think President Bush or any other senior
U.S. official and Congressional leaders who visit China could
benefit, is if you could persistently and firmly request that
you want to sit in an unregistered church service, you want to
sit and visit independent religious institutions, you want to
worship with them. I mean, you don't need to even make a press
conference or statement.
I think that shows solidarity with them and that will be a
huge encouragement. Unfortunately, I found many Western
diplomats and senior officials had some unfounded fear, like,
``Oh, we will cause them trouble.'' If the Chinese believers
and leaders are not afraid to meet and to fellowship together,
what fear do we need to have?
Representative Pitts. In the run-up to the Olympics, have
you seen an increased amount of repression on religious
liberties?
Mr. Fu. Absolutely. I mean, in just the last month, from
the end of April until now, several thousands of believers in
the City of Beijing have been raided. Ironically, many of them
were holding prayer services for the earthquake and organizing
the relief work when they were raided, when their pulpits were
knocked down and microphones were taken away from the pastors'
hands.
Even on several occasions, as you mentioned, over 10
believers were arrested because they were traced by their
donation checks that they sent for relief work just because
they have the name ``house church'' and they were forced to pay
a heavy fine.
Representative Pitts. Thank you.
Mr. Xiao, any examples of increased repression, and
positive or negative on President Bush's visit?
Mr. Xiao. Well, let's first off say there has been an
increase in online censorship and control of the media, all the
way to the Olympics, controlling the image. With the Sichuan
earthquake, there was a two-week exception but that was because
of a natural disaster. That window quickly closed.
On President Bush's visiting China to attend the opening
ceremony, it certainly is part of the U.S.-China relationship
that they decided to do that. But there is an important message
that should not be misinterpreted. While several other
governments, including the European governments, are
considering not attending the opening ceremonies because of the
human rights performance on Tibet and other issues, the United
States, as a leader of the free world, should not let its own
visit, its attending, as otherwise. If President Bush is going,
he needs to express his concerns on the human rights issues in
China very clearly, otherwise it could be counterproductive.
Representative Pitts. Thank you.
Mr. Wang?
Mr. Wang. I came to America just several months ago and
last year I was still in China. Last October, there was a warm-
up race of Olympians in Beijing. I was under house arrest. The
Olympic Games are a disaster for human rights in China.
Dissidents, human rights activists, Christian activists, Falun
Gong practitioners, and thousands of petitioners are being
suppressed and monitored more heavily than before. I do not
think the Olympic Games is just a sporting event. I disagree
with this opinion.
The Communist Party of China, I think, will benefit a lot
from the Olympic Games. If leaders of big countries in the
Western world go to China to celebrate the opening event, it
will be a great honor for the Communist Party. I can foresee
that when the Olympics Games are finished, or even ongoing, the
media is controlled. The media will say, how correct our
leadership, how great is the Communist Party, it is the best
time for our country. We should continue on the current path.
I'm sure they'll say things like this.
Representative Pitts. Yes.
Mr. Wang. Thank you.
Mr. Han. Mr. Bush going or not going to the Beijing
Olympic opening really depends on what kind of message you are
going to bring, and bring to whom. I'm sure I agree with
everyone here that the Communist Party will be greatly
appreciated if President Bush can go, but at the same time I
heard there are many foreign media, particularly like Voice of
America and Radio Free Asia, they will go, too. They will send
their reporters.
For example, if President Bush goes to Beijing and he can
give an interview to both Voice of America and Radio Free Asia,
to use these two free news channels to let the Chinese people
know that President Bush is there not only for honoring the
Communist Party and the Chinese Government politically, but is
also concerned about human rights, and particularly if Mr. Bush
can particularly discuss with the President of China, even for
three minutes, about the concern about human rights in China,
and through these free media deliver that to the Chinese
people, that will be another way to look at this.
Therefore, I actually prefer President Bush to go to bring
this message to the Chinese people rather than staying home.
The Chinese Government would misinterpret this boycott as
boycotting the Chinese people.
Representative Pitts. Thank you very much.
In the interest of time, members are invited to submit
questions for the record to be answered on the record by
witnesses.
I will turn to Mr. Honda.
Representative Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Given the time I won't ask a question, but I have two
requests. The discussion from all four of you was very
enlightening and insightful and provoked a lot of thought for
me. In this country we have the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act [FISA] and your country has censorship. One is
trying to control a democracy that has free speech, but tries
to understand what's going on in the Internet and dragging
through it to get information and we're trying to figure out
how we control that. On the other hand, we have a country
that's struggling for free speech and other things. So there
are two countries coming from two different points of view,
rule of law and rule of man.
If you wouldn't mind just jotting down some of your
thoughts on what are lessons that could be learned from these
two observations, if any. I'd appreciate some comments from
you.
The second would be, the comment is, what I hear you saying
is what reminds me of--and what you're saying is, you have to
be very careful if you make a move on the Olympics because of
how it's interpreted by the people who we're supposed to be
wanting to help versus the image that we create here. So that
image sort of reminds me of the Chinese character of crisis.
There's two characters that we all know about, one is danger,
the other is opportunity. It sounds like you're saying that
there's an opportunity for us to be able to speak clearly on
issues that we believe in at a moment of crisis so we can
probably avoid misunderstanding. But I just have to say that
your comments fall very heavily on me, and I think that it's
been very helpful, at least for me. I appreciate your comments
and your insights.
Representative Pitts. Thank you.
Mr. Smith?
Representative Smith of New Jersey. Thank you. Again, in
the interest of time, let me just collapse several questions,
and whoever would like to answer them, please do.
First, I think it is clear, and you might want to comment
on this, that the intent is to target terrorists. The intent of
the secret police in China is to find the expression of free
speech as it relates to democracy building, human rights, and
religious expression. Even our Global Online Freedom Act makes
it very clear that that's what we're focusing on, to try to
open up that part of the Chinese dialogue. Those individuals
need the ability, without the secret police knocking on that
door, dragging people off, as all of you have experienced, to a
very dark night of torture. So, I would just raise that as a
concern.
Let me just ask all of you, I held a number of hearings--
and several of you testified--in the past. Mrs. Gao ran a
family planning program in Fujing Province and got out of the
country. Harry Wu expedited her coming to the United States.
She made some very powerful statements about how much power the
family planning cadres have, far and above most other aspects
of the secret police, because of this one-child-per-couple
policy being implemented.
My question is, what legal rights, what due process rights,
what rights of appeal does a mother have, or mothers in China
who are pregnant without government permission and are in the
process of being coerced into having that child destroyed?
Second, let me ask the question--and I think this would go
to Han Dongfang--you mentioned the role of Chinese labor
unions, the role of NGOs. I think the U.S. Government needs to
play a more robust role. Last year we--the AFL-CIO, John
Sweeney--submitted a very powerful Section 301 case to the
United States Trade Representative [USTR] asking for an
investigation because of the enormous violations of fundamental
labor rights in China. A very well-documented piece. Ben Cardin
and I were the two Congressmen who co-signed this petition. I
found it appalling that the USTR wouldn't even open up an
investigation about occupation and safety violations,
arrearages, and routine violations of labor rights.
Now, the Chinese individuals are taking great risk, as you
did, to advance labor rights. It seems to me that there is a
role that has been missed almost completely by the U.S.
Government, and many other governments, when they wouldn't even
investigate that this was an unfair labor practice. So, if you
might want to touch on the role of U.S. corporations, the role
of the U.S. Government, I would appreciate it.
On the Internet, again, the role of U.S. corporations, when
Google, Yahoo!, Cisco, Microsoft, and others are complicit in
partnering with the secret police, actually aid and abet the
censoring--I asked the general counsel from Google, what is it
that you censor, and he wouldn't tell me in an open hearing
that I chaired three years ago. We heard a similar lack of
responses from Yahoo! in a hearing that Mr. Lantos chaired just
a few months ago.
It seems to me, if you're going to be part of a system,
part of
repression, there needs to be accountability, which is what
we're trying to get at with the Global Online Freedom Act. So
perhaps you might want to speak to this with regard to the role
of U.S. corporations. They want to be on the side of at least
neutrality, but not complicity with repression.
Finally, Mr. Fu, on the significant deterioration, I think
that you bring to this Commission very damaging information,
that the repression has gotten worse in the run-up to the
Olympics. We know that cyber dissidents are being hunted down.
The New York Times did a big story on it in January or
February.
But the church people, I mean, what threat do they
represent to the dictatorship with the run-up to the Olympics?
Significant deterioration, as you put it. In your
recommendations, you made several. They're all great. I've read
them. I think they're outstanding. Would you also add perhaps
that our office, our ambassador-at-large for the implementation
of the International Religious Freedom Act [IRFA], needs to
take China to the penalty phase?
As we all know, China is a country of particular concern.
It is deteriorating, as you said. I think that also holds true
for the Falun Gong, not just the Uighur Christians, as you
pointed out, but the Uighur Muslims, and so many others. There
needs to be a penalty phase pursuant to that legislation.
They're on the list every year. What happens? Nothing. Or at
least some jaw-boning, but nothing by way of a penalty phase.
So, perhaps you could add that to your list or might speak to
it.
The U.N. Human Rights Council. You mentioned the special
rapporteur for religious intolerance. Well, the U.N. Human
Rights Council has as a sitting member in good standing the
People's Republic of China. What are they doing? They go after
Israel. They focus like a laser beam on the alleged abuses of
Israel. But what about the situation in China? They need to be
held to account in that venue as well. You might want to speak
to that.
Representative Honda. Mr. Chairman, I think two gentlemen
have to be at another hearing.
Representative Smith of New Jersey. I know.
Representative Honda. And two could stay. So I was hoping
that they could respond to your great questions in writing. So,
we can excuse two of them, and perhaps the other two could
respond.
Mr. Xiao. Can I, briefly? I, unfortunately, need to go to
the other Commission to answer precisely the same question, the
Global Internet Freedom. Let me just briefly say, it is
absolutely necessary to hold those companies more accountable,
so therefore they're not part of the complicity of the
censorship.
Representative Smith of New Jersey. Thank you.
Would others like to answer other parts of those questions?
Yes.
Mr. Han. Obviously the Chinese people are acting, and it's
not that they're just sitting there being exploited, and then
these strikes and all these things happen. The farmers lost
land and are not being compensated. They are taking actions,
too.
Now, the question is, how can we better the system instead
of, as I mentioned in the very beginning, the guy who lost his
daughter and doesn't trust the government, who wants to use his
own way to solve this problem, instead of having more people go
that way of finding those who are responsible for the collapse
of the school buildings and kill them, if we have more
assistance to those who have no chance to go through the legal
system, that will be a great help.
For example, there are many institutions in this country--
the United States--that are really facilitating, supporting the
democracy movement around the world. I believe these
institutions, these organizations, their ability needs to be
boosted up, particularly working on China. China, I believe,
after the earthquake, after the Olympics, this country goes to
the direction, there's no return. The government has to be more
and more open, even sometimes when they make two steps forward
and one step backward. But there's no way for them to make a
complete return.
So if we know this is the direction, the next 5 to 10 years
will be the critical years for China in where to go. We have to
jump out from the traditional way of thinking, which is only
giving the Chinese Government pressure. But now the question
is, the Chinese people are already standing up. How can we
better assist the people to act on their own behalf rather than
make this huge country depend too much on international
pressure on the Chinese Government.
In other words, we should really put more trust on the
Chinese people's power, which is the Chinese Government that
cares more about them, cares more about them than the
international pressure.
Representative Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Fu?
Mr. Fu. Let me make a comment. I totally agree with Mr.
Han's optimistic tone, that the trend for the next 5 to 10
years is irreversible. Actually, you answered the question of
how we accomplished that goal. I have firsthand observation and
information and documentation indicating that it really takes
the grassroots citizens, the weakening citizens, and the
lawyers, the farmers, and these individual church believers
that are willing to take up the task to bring this injustice,
through this different--as flawed as it is, the judicial
system.
I see we have already won several cases in the court. Two
cases. Even the labor camp officials came to apologize to these
unfairly treated or arrested church leaders. So that's some
progress over there. I think today we have several
distinguished recipients of the NED award last night. As Dr. Li
Baiguang described himself like an ant, like a little ant, just
little things at a time and gradually it's changing.
To answer your question about the power of family planning
policy, I had firsthand experience. I remember when I was
small, my sister-in-law got pregnant with the second child
accidentally and she fled out of her home. I remember at
midnight our house was broken into. These birth planning
officials just took away my brother and put a big bag, what do
you call it? A hood. And grabbed him and turned off the lights
and just had three or four, used a big stick just to beat him
up.
There's no appeal process. There's no one to whom you can
file any complaint. They're almost outside the judicial system,
with a super-ultra body with unlimited power to punish, to
confiscate your property, they can destroy your own house and
confiscate your cows, if you're farmers. In many cases, that's
the only available items.
I think that is a very outrageous--for development of the
rule of law. I, again, agree with Mr. Han about how, in the
free world, instead of just the pressure, we should also
empower--how to empower these human rights lawyers, how to use
every tool at our disposal to help them, to equip them, to
really encourage them by visiting them, hug them, send them a
letter.
Representative Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Fu, thank you very
much.
Can I ask, if it's not too personal, what happened to your
sister? Was she forcibly aborted?
Mr. Fu. No. She actually was able to hide in a cave and
had the second daughter born.
Representative Smith of New Jersey. Let me just say, and
this Commission I believe as well as the Congress, we all need
to do more to bring more focus to that outrage. We know now
beyond any reasonable doubt that there are huge numbers of
missing girls. Not only are women being violated, men being
beaten, fathers-in-laws and others are held in custody until
the woman agrees to a voluntary abortion, but they're missing
as many as 100 million girls in China. That's the upper
estimate. The gendercide, which is like genocide, is like the
forgotten human rights abuse. It's being enabled, like the U.S.
corporations enable the Internet to do; rather than opening,
it's closing.
The U.N. Population Fund and so many others have a hand-in-
glove relationship and are now sharing that outrage with other
countries, saying you, too, need a one- and two-child-per-
couple policy, and you only get there through coercion and
through involuntary activities on the part of the government.
For a dictatorship, it's ready-made. So, I just raise that. Mr.
Fu, thank you for sharing that personal story which I did not
know about. Thank you both, and to our other two distinguished
witnesses.
Mr. Pitts?
Representative Pitts. Thank you. You've been bombarded
with questions in a very short period of time. You can submit
further answers for the record. That would be very much
appreciated. But you have given us a lot of very informative
information, very helpful information. We thank the witnesses,
we thank the members, the staff, and those who've attended.
We've exceeded our time, so at this time the hearing is
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements
----------
Prepared Statement of Han Dongfang
The Prospects for Legal Enforcement of Labor Rights in China Today--A
Glass Half Full
JUNE 18, 2008
Everyday in China's manufacturing heartland, the Pearl River Delta,
there is a strike or some form of labor dispute involving more than one
thousand workers. At countless other factories in the region there are
smaller disputes over low wages, non-payment of wages, overtime and
benefits or management abuse and exploitation. Strikes and work
stoppages are part of daily life in the Pearl River Delta. This is in
spite of the fact that, under the current constitution of the People's
Republic of China (PRC), workers do not have the right to strike. The
daily strikes and protests have forced legislators in the delta boom
town of Shenzhen to take a long hard look at local labor legislation
and amend it in an attempt to placate the demands and grievances of
ordinary workers.
In June this year, the standing committee of the municipal people's
congress issued ``Draft Regulations on the Growth and Development of
Harmonious Labor Relations in Shenzhen Special Economic Zone.'' They
represent a significant step toward redressing the current huge
imbalance of power between labor and management in the region. In
particular, the regulations stipulate that when a major strike breaks
out, the government can order management not to take any action for a
period of 30 days that is liable to exacerbate the dispute. As a local
labor union official in Guangdong Province has pointed out in a recent
article in the New Express newspaper, by clearly stipulating the rights
and obligations of employers and workers, these Draft Regulations bring
strike action within the scope of legal regulation, and as such, the
legal right to strike is now ``only one step away.''
THE ROLE OF CHINA'S LABOR UNION
The pressure of workers' actions is changing the legislative
landscape in China. Laws are being amended to better serve workers'
interests. However, simply changing the law is not enough. For China's
legal system to really develop, the law must be enforced, and workers
must be allowed to exercise their legal rights to actively participate
in the legal process. The new Labor Contract Law gives prominence to
the use of collective labor contracts as a means of fostering more
harmonious labor relations in the workplace. There is a crucial role to
be played here by China's sole legally permitted union, the All China
Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), in both ensuring the law is
respected and implemented, and in bringing workers into the negotiation
process for collective labor contracts--factory-wide, legally binding
contracts covering the wages, overtime payments and benefits of all
employees.
Unfortunately, the ACFTU has so far been more focused on fulfilling
quotas and meeting targets than in effectively representing workers,
and has tended to impose collective labor contracts in a top-down
manner and with little regard for the actual needs and conditions of
the enterprise concerned. However, at the local level, there are ACFTU
officials--people who have the difficult job of actually ensuring
greater social and political stability at the grassroots level--who
realize that developing worker participation in the negotiation process
is the only effective way of ensuring that a collective labor contract
has any real meaning. They understand that if the workers are not
involved, the contract cannot reflect their demands and therefore will
do little, if anything, to address or resolve problems on the factory
floor.
By actively encouraging worker participation, the ACFTU would both
improve its own, currently very limited, credibility as a genuinely
representative workers' organization, and help develop respect for and
confidence in the law among workers. The PRC has a wide range of labor
legislation dating back to the 1992 Trade Union Law and the 1995 Labor
Law, which give China's workers basic legal rights. These rights have
been enhanced by the new Employment Promotion Law and Labor Contract
Law, both of which went into effect on January 1, 2008, and by the
Labor Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law, which was enacted on May
1, 2008. The promulgation of three major labor laws in one year
indicates just how effective worker action has been in forcing the
government's hand. These laws have not been introduced because the
government is particularly enlightened, but because workers' strikes
and protests against widespread and continued rights violations left
the government with no option but to change the law, as a means of
forestalling increased labor conflict. In other words, China's emerging
labor movement, although still spontaneous and unorganized, is already
acting as a positive force for change.
CHANGING THE LEGISLATIVE LANDSCAPE ACROSS CHINA
It is not just at the national level and in relatively progressive
areas such as Shenzhen where the legislative framework is changing.
Local and regional governments across China are responding to rapidly
changing economic and social conditions and workers' demands by
introducing new labor regulations and provisions
designed both to protect workers' rights and to improve relations
between labor and management. The provinces of Hebei, Liaoning,
Jiangsu, and the cities of Beijing, Shanghai and Shenyang, for example,
have all recently introduced new regulations on the promotion and
implementation of collective labor contracts.
Hebei took the lead in this process by introducing its Regulations
on Enterprise Collective Consultations between Labor and Management on
January 3, 2008. The regulations specify that the negotiation process
between labor and management ``should be open and equal, seeking
consensus, and giving equal weight to the interests of the enterprise
and the workers, safeguard workers' actual pay levels, and conform to
enterprise productivity levels and local economic conditions.'' The
Shenyang regulations even make it compulsory for employers to accept
workers' requests to conduct collective negotiations over the terms and
conditions of employment, and substantial fines are specified for
companies and CEOs that refuse to do so.
Significantly, the Hebei regulations explicitly state that where
there is no labor union at the enterprise, the workers' representatives
in the negotiations should be ``democratically elected by a majority of
employees.'' Where there is a labor union, representatives should be
``recommended'' by the union, and scrutinized by the workers' congress.
(Currently, the majority of private-sector workplaces still have no
official union presence.) The regulations outline in detail the scope
of the negotiations, which focus on wage levels but include a wide-
range of pay and benefit related issues, including methods and times of
wage payment, subsidies and allowances, holidays, sick leave and
maternity leave, as well as the length and conditions of renewal of the
collective labor contract. They specify that the workers' remuneration
agreed in the collective contract can not be lower than the local
minimum wage, and that the remuneration specified in individual
workers' contracts can not be lower than the terms specified in the
collective contract.
LABOR RIGHTS LITIGATION
The problem for workers in China is not a lack of legislation; it
is a lack of legal implementation and enforcement. Many workers believe
that the law only exists on paper and lacks real force to protect their
rights. In 2003, China Labour Bulletin (CLB) set up its Labor Rights
Litigation Project, to demonstrate that, even if local government
agencies are unwilling to enforce the labor laws, ordinary Chinese
workers can use that legislation to protect their rights in a court of
law. CLB provides workers with local lawyers to represent them in civil
and administrative actions against employers and local government
authorities, or--in cases where worker activists have been detained by
the police--in mounting an effective court defense for them against the
criminal charges involved.
It is often assumed that there is little or no judicial
independence in China. While this is certainly still true in
politically sensitive cases, in the majority of labor rights cases, the
courts nowadays tend to deal with cases impartially and to render
verdicts on the basis of the law. In many cases, the labor rights
violations are so blatant and egregious that the judge has no option
but to rule in favor of the plaintiff. And over the last two years,
workers, in particular migrant workers, have been winning larger and
more significant awards. The Shenzhen Commercial Daily reported that on
October 16, 2007, a 36 year old migrant worker was awarded 440,000 yuan
(approximately $50,000) in compensation by a court in Shenzhen after
being paralyzed in an accident on a construction site the previous
year. The award was more than twice the government's recommended
compensation for the families of workers killed in coal mining
accidents. Other recent cases have significantly broadened the scope of
labor rights litigation. The Southern Daily reported that on October
22, 2007, a Guangdong court awarded a migrant worker named Song 45,000
yuan in compensation even though he had signed a contract waiving his
rights to work-
related compensation. The court deemed the contract to be invalid.
Probably the most widespread grievance among migrant workers is the
issue of non-payment of wages. However, workers' attempts to claim
wages in arrears though the arbitration and court systems have been
hampered by a common
misunderstanding of China's Labor Law. Article 82 states that: ``In
raising an arbitration claim a party should make a written application
to the Labor Dispute Arbitration Committee within 60 days of when the
labor dispute first occurred.'' Many legal and government officials
have assumed this stipulation meant claims for wages in arrears could
only be for two months at the most. However, according to the Southern
Workers' Daily, in December 2006, a Shenzhen court awarded a migrant
worker named Hu two years worth of unpaid overtime wages, totaling more
than 46,000 yuan.
FACILITATING MEDIATION, ARBITRATION AND LITIGATION
The main problem for workers seeking legal redress for violations
of their rights is not, in most cases, a lack of judicial independence;
it is simply that they cannot afford a lawyer. As such, CLB is
committed to paying the legal fees for workers who are unable to pay
for their own lawyer. Over the last 15 months, CLB has taken on 274
labor rights cases, and provided about $87,000 in fees to law firms and
individual lawyers in China who specialize in workplace discrimination
and work-related injury cases, as well as those handling disputes over
the non-payment of wages, pension, redundancy and economic compensation
cases. The great majority of cases concluded have been successful and
many have resulted in substantial compensation awards for the
plaintiffs. Over sixty cases have been concluded so far, mostly via
court litigation, and provisional verdicts and compensation awards have
been handed down in an additional 104 cases. The worker plaintiffs lost
in fewer than ten of these cases. In all the rest they won compensation
for industrial injuries, recovered wages in arrears, gained job
reinstatement or obtained other benefits such as labor insurance
payouts. The total amount of compensation (confirmed or provisional)
and other benefits obtained by workers was 3.8 million yuan (about
$547,000).
In addition, CLB last year helped obtain 7.2 million yuan ($1.02
million) in wages in arrears for about 2,000 construction workers who
had been staging a week-long public protest. Mediators in the dispute
not only diffused the protest but successfully negotiated a settlement
with local government officials, demonstrating that mediation and other
non-adversarial dispute resolution techniques are just as important as
litigation in developing a civil society in which legal contracts
between employers and employees are honored. Indeed, mediation is often
preferable to litigation, which tends to be a measure of last resort
used after a labor dispute has become irreconcilable.
THE KEY ROLE OF NGOS IN CREATING A CIVIL SOCIETY
The role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil rights
groups in China has been, and will continue to be, crucial in the
development of the country's legal system. The Beijing-based group
Yirenping, for example, is actively involved in raising awareness of
HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis B (HBV) discrimination in China. It has
published a handbook informing people with HBV how to protect their
rights, it runs an online support group, and most significantly for
labor rights protection, it intercedes in cases where workers have been
sacked or refused employment because of their HBV status. Yirenping has
helped to bring dozens of anti-discrimination lawsuits and has already
obtained significant compensation awards for the plaintiffs.
Regrettably, however, many of these compensation awards are subject to
confidentiality clauses and cannot be made public.
In addition to winning compensation for individual plaintiffs,
Yirenping's advocacy has also helped change the legislative landscape.
On April 2, 2008, a university graduate denied employment at a computer
firm in Shanghai because of his HBV status was awarded ``satisfactory''
compensation through a confidential court-mediated settlement. The same
day, local media reported that the Shanghai Public Health Bureau had
stipulated that HBV testing would no longer be routine for prospective
employees and that the city's medical examination forms were being
modified accordingly. The bureau added that prospective employees could
only be tested for HBV if the examinee requested it or if the employer
proved that the job advertised was legally off-limits to people with
HBV. China has an estimated 130 million carriers of the HBV virus, so
these lawsuit-driven reforms have a huge potential impact.
Earlier, on May 18, 2007, the Ministry for Labor and Social
Security and the Ministry for Public Health issued a joint circular,
``Regarding Views on the Protection of HBV Carriers' Right to
Employment,'' clearly stipulating that apart from specific industries
where national laws, administrative regulations and Ministry of Health
regulations have identified a higher risk of transmission of HBV,
employers cannot refuse to hire, and cannot dismiss, employees on the
basis of their HBV status. The Employment Promotion Law, which went
into effect on January 1, 2008, further stipulates that employers
``cannot reject applicants on the basis of their carrying an infectious
disease.''
KEEPING THE SUPPORT AND GOOD WILL OF THE PEOPLE
It is clear that the Chinese Government has, to some extent, been
more willing than in previous years to listen to its citizens when they
voice dissatisfaction and grievances, and to make changes to the law
designed to enhance and safeguard their legal rights. In the wake of
the terrible earthquake of May 12 this year, the government has
garnered a tremendous amount of good will from the Chinese people. It
is imperative that Beijing maintains and utilizes that good will by
making sure its citizens are included in the future development of
civil society. In other words, the government must seek to strike a
better balance between the need for economic growth and the interests
of social justice.
In the area of labor rights, this means workers exercising their
rights by establishing genuinely representative labor organizations and
participating in collective bargaining with management. On an
individual level, workers must be encouraged and assisted to use the
existing and wide-ranging canon of labor legislation in China to demand
mediation or arbitration or to bring law suits against employers for
violations of their rights. In addition, the active support and
involvement of civil rights groups in defending workers rights will be
crucial in the development of a functioning civil society in China.
Several questions remain. How can China establish the nuts and
bolts of a genuine collective bargaining system? Will that system allow
workers to negotiate wage agreements that reflect the true value of
their labor and not just--as tends to be the case today--the legally
mandated minimum wage? Will the ACFTU embrace the system or simply sit
on the fence, an increasing irrelevance to the real issues?
The Chinese Government has a historic opportunity to create a
system of peaceful negotiation between labor and management in which
both sides respect each other, the negotiation process and the
resultant legal contract. If it has the vision and courage to do so,
Beijing will take a significant step toward realizing its own goal of
creating a ``harmonious society,'' one in which citizens not only have
confidence in and respect for the law, but also are active participants
in the legal process and play a role in promoting greater social
justice for all.
______
Prepared Statement of Wang Tiancheng
JUNE 18, 2008
In 1978, Deng Xiaoping initiated China's ``Reform and Opening Up.''
One of the most important aspects of reform is the strengthening of the
construction of the legal system. In the past 30 years, the primary
reflections of progress in the legal domain have been in the following
three areas: First, the formulation of a large number of laws and the
establishment of a relatively complete body of laws that covers a
variety of fields. In the era of Mao Zedong, China only had a small
number of laws. Today it is already becoming difficult to clearly
calculate exactly how many laws and regulations there really are.
Second, the fostering of over a million talented legal specialists and
the establishment of an approximately 140,000-person-strong contingent
of lawyers. With the exception of the lowest levels of courts (that is
to say, the county-level courts), the majority of other courts' judges
have now received higher education in legal disciplines. Third, the
successive establishment of many law schools and legal departments. Up
to today, there are already 600 such schools and departments. It is
becoming more and more difficult for graduates of law schools and
departments to find work.
The above progress is related to active promotion by the
government. There has been additional progress, but it is in no way the
result of active government promotion. However, I believe it will have
a significant influence on future legal reform. This is the change in
thinking of legal researchers and educators, as well as the thinking of
Chinese society as a whole. Jurists' thinking is increasingly
liberalized, and there are more and more people who dare to candidly
express their thoughts. In the past 30 years, jurists have performed a
special role in the improvement of Chinese legislation and certain
laws, and I believe this sort of role will continue.
However, as long as the one-party autocratic political system does
not change, one should not overestimate jurists' role in future Chinese
legal reform. Jurists can facilitate some small changes and repairs to
Chinese law, but will not be able to make it develop into a free body
of law.
In the legal domain, China faces three very serious problems: one,
there exists a set of laws and systems which deprive citizens of basic
human rights and freedoms; two, the judiciary is not independent and is
controlled by the Communist Party and administrative departments;
three, the government, as the enforcement mechanism, does not receive
outside supervision. These three issues are all products of the one-
party autocratic political system.
The largest obstacle to China establishing rule of law and ensuring
human rights is the one-party autocratic political system. How to
facilitate this kind of transformation of the political system is the
crux of the issue. I certainly don't believe that small changes to
Chinese law, effected in dribs and drabs, will eventually lead to the
democratization of China. However, I believe that criticizing the
Chinese laws and institutions that oppose human rights, and creating
pressure from public opinion, is beneficial to accelerating the arrival
of democratization.
I think the greatest impetuses for accelerating the reform of
Chinese law in the direction of guaranteeing human rights are the
people within China's dissatisfaction with reality and the gradual
increase in their desire and call for democracy, human rights, and rule
of law. At the same time, pressure from the international community is
also extremely important.
From a viewpoint of ensuring fundamental human rights and
facilitating a transformation to democracy, I hereby raise the
following suggestions to each respected Member of Congress:
First, urge the Chinese Government to ratify the United Nations'
``International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'' The Chinese
Government already signed this convention in 1998, but 10 years have
passed and it has still not been ratified. If the Chinese Government
ratified this convention, you could then take the next step and request
that it amend or abolish the laws that conflict with the convention.
Second, you not only need to follow individual cases where the
Chinese Government infringes on human rights, you also need to monitor
the relevant legal articles and texts and point out where they are in
opposition with human rights. If the laws and system do not change, the
Chinese Government's softening or changing in certain individual cases
does not indicate improvement in the state of human rights, because
similar incidents involving human rights infringement will still occur.
Third, please monitor with particular focus the following laws and
institutions that are in opposition to human rights:
1. The assembly and demonstration law. This law was passed in
October 1989, which was four months after the June 4th
massacre. According to this law, assemblies and demonstrations
must first obtain police approval. In reality, the freedom of
assembly and demonstration has been abolished.
2. The provision in the Criminal Law related to the crimes of
plotting to subvert state power and inciting subversion of
state power. The PRC Criminal Law does not have the use of
violence or propagating the use of violence as a
prerequisite for engaging in this type of crime. All the people
who have been penalized under these charges were those who
published expressions of opinion criticizing the government, or
were people exercising their right to freedom of association
and demonstration.
3. The ``Regulations on Religious Affairs'' issued by China's
State Council. These regulations were passed in 2004, and they
endowed the government with the power to interfere with
religious groups and religious activities, the main purpose of
which was to suppress the rapid expansion of Christianity
within China in the past few years.
4. The Reeducation Through Labor system. This is a kind of
forced labor punishment which deprives people of their personal
liberties. In fact, it is no different than being sentenced to
prison, but it does not go through a trial in a court of law,
and the police agencies are the sole decisionmakers. This has
already been going on in China for decades. Mao Zedong used it
in the past to persecute hundreds of thousands of so-called
``rightists.'' Today, every level of government in China
frequently uses it to persecute dissidents, Falun Gong
practitioners, Christian preachers, and an immense number of
petitioners.
5. The state of detention centers. In China, once a person
enters a detention center, he is completely cut off from the
world. His family cannot go to visit him, and it is difficult
for his lawyer to see him. No one knows what the police might
do to him. And yet, the most important stage in the criminal
procedure is exactly this stage. The police will interrogate
him time and again. The trial in a court of law is often just a
formality.
Fourth, urge the Chinese Government to establish an effective
system for investigating constitutional violations. This is, to
establish a constitutional court or to allow ordinary courts to accept
cases concerning the Constitution, to investigate whether laws or
administrative orders violate the Constitution, and to provide citizens
with the new possibility of safeguarding their rights. The PRC
Constitution promises various basic human rights and freedoms, but the
legal and regulatory system nullifies them.
Finally, I have one last statement: having the Chinese Government
accept these criticisms and demands is certainly not easy, but I
believe that unremitting criticism and pressure might eventually obtain
results, and benefit the facilitation of
democratization in China.
______
Prepared Statement of Xiao Qiang
The Rise of Rights Consciousness and Citizen Participation on the
Chinese Internet
JUNE 18, 2008
Chairman Sander Levin, Co-Chair Byron L. Dorgan and Distinguished
Commission members, my name is XIAO Qiang. I am the Director of the
China Internet Project and founder of the online news portal China
Digital Times at the Graduate School of Journalism of UC-Berkeley. It
is a privilege for me to be speaking in front of this important
commission, and alongside my distinguished fellow panelists. My talk
today will focus on the rise of rights consciousness and citizen
participation on the Chinese Internet, despite the Chinese Government's
intensified control in this regard.
First, let me start with some basic facts on the development of the
Internet and related wireless technologies in China.
By the end of 2007, the number of Internet users in the country had
rocketed to 200 million, gaining 73 million new users in just 12
months, according to the government-run China Internet Network
Information Center (CNNIC).
According to the CNNIC's statistics, Chinese Internet users are
very young: about 51 percent of them are under age 25, and 70.6 percent
of them are under age 30. The Internet population is also relatively
well-educated, with more than 40 percent holding college or university
degrees. Their education level contributes to the degree to which they
participate in public affairs online.
The rise of blogging, instant messaging, and social networking
services such as QQ, and search engine and RSS aggregation tools such
as Baidu (www.baidu.com) and Zhuaxia (www.zhuaxia.com), have given
Chinese netizens an unprecedented capacity for communication. Internet
Bulletin Board Systems (BBSs) play a particularly important role in
Chinese Internet life. According to research data from the beginning of
2008, 80 percent of Chinese sites are running their own BBSs and the
total daily page views are over 1 billion, with 10 million posts
published every day. By the end of 2007, China had more than 1.3
million BBSs.
At the same time, blogging activities have also exploded. Like BBS,
blogging also has a very low entry cost--anyone with Internet access
can open a blog on a hosting service. According to CNNIC, ``By the end
of November 2007, the number of blog spaces has reached 72.82 million
in China, and with 47 million blog writers, it is reaching one-fourth
of the total netizens.'' While most posts are personal, an increasing
number of bloggers writing about public affairs have become opinion
leaders in their local communities.
In addition to BBSs and blogs, chat rooms and instant messaging
services such as QQ or MSN are also extremely popular online
applications. A research report by Analysys International on China's
Instant Messaging Market reveals that in the third quarter of 2007,
active accounts of Chinese users numbered 388 million, with QQ being
the most popular, and the highest number of users online at the same
time reached 19.5 million. These instant messaging services play a
crucial role to connect Internet users, communicate information, and
coordinate actions through social networks. Finally, new photo and
video sharing sites such as Yuku and Tudou are the fastest growing
online applications. According to Peng Bo, deputy director of the State
Council Information Office, ``Eighty percent of China's 210 million
Internet users have used these services.'' The richness of images,
video, and sound online has created a powerful media space where
millions of users can themselves be
content producers, distributors, and the audience.
I have given testimonies before this commission on the state
censorship and propaganda mechanisms over the Internet in the past. In
general, the Chinese Party-state has been quite effective in
controlling the political impact of the Internet by developing a multi-
layered strategy to control Internet content and monitor online
activities at every level of Internet service and content networks.
However, beneath the surface of these constantly increasing and
intensified control measures, there is a rising level of public
information and awareness in Chinese society. Today, my presentation
will focus on examples and analysis of an emerging social and political
phenomenon.
First, let me start with three examples in 2007:
(1) Defending Rights: Chongqing Nail House
A property dispute that erupted in Chongqing in 2007 provides a
window into how this process works. On February 26, 2007, a netizen
from Chongqing posted a distinct photograph of a two-story house,
sticking up like a giant nail in the middle of a construction site.
Within days, all major BBSs posted this photo with questions and
commentaries from netizens. The house, whose owners were refusing to
relocate to make way for a new development, was soon named by netizens
as ``China's Most Incredible Nail House.''
Because the image was quite dramatic and touched upon the common
problem of urban construction, property rights, and forced evictions,
official media soon jumped on the story. The house owners were
successful and articulate entrepreneurs, who became media celebrities
for their stand. The story broke just as the National People's Congress
was passing a new property rights law that purports to protect
individual homeowners, so the official media turned the story into a
sample case under the new law, framing it as a middle-class couple
standing against a powerful alliance of local officials and developers.
The story soon became the hottest story on China's Internet.
Sina.com, China's largest Internet portal, offered a monetary award for
digital images and videos that caught the developments in the story.
Mop.com, one of the most popular online forums ran a real-time
monitoring page. When the local court reached a verdict that the couple
must leave their house or be forcibly removed, the husband carried a
huge red banner reading ``defending human rights according the law'' in
front of media cameras. His actions gained empathy from a public
frustrated by their feelings of powerlessness in the face of business
and government interests, and therefore generated huge online support.
Facing heated public opinion, the local court
delayed their eviction so days after the deadline, the house still
stood in the public eye.
The central government weighed in to limit reporting on this topic
after the couple disobeyed the court order and refused to move. As
journalists for official media were no longer allowed to report the
story, many netizens took on the reporters' role to cover it, using
digital cameras and cell phones to follow the fate of the house and
keep the story alive. Despite the reporting ban, many print and
broadcast media continued to run commentaries and discussions on this
case, exploring its relationship to the Property Law. Under public
pressure, the developer finally settled the case and compensated the
couple for their property, which was eventually destroyed. The case
vividly illustrated the pressure faced by local officials when millions
of individuals come together through the Internet, especially when the
official media also comes on board.
(2) Hunting Down Injustice: Shanxi Brick Kilns
Often government control over a story is not a black-and-white
issue, as there can be official reasons to acknowledge some elements of
a story while censoring others. A good example of this dynamic is the
expose of widespread slave labor in brick kilns in Shanxi Province. The
story started with a group of fathers from Henan Province who ventured
to Shanxi Province to rescue their children, who had been abducted and
illegally forced to work as slaves. After rescuing around 40 of an
estimated 2,000 children, the fathers' efforts were obstructed by the
local police, who, it was later discovered, were in alliance with the
kiln owners. After obtaining no response from the government, the
fathers published a moving open letter on June 7, 2007, on Tianya Club,
one of the most-viewed Chinese online forums. The letter spread through
the Chinese blogosphere and ignited national outrage. Reports in the
official media followed and soon top Party officials including General
Secretary Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao publicly expressed their
concern over the issue.
After the top leadership weighed in on the case, local and central
Chinese media carried waves of horrifying stories about the brick
kilns. The Internet further circulated the media reports, bloggers'
comments and analysis, and photos of missing children, and the public
began asking more and more critical questions about how this could
happen in 21st century China. Investigations into the case soon
revealed that local Party officials and police profited from such
kidnapping and slavery operations. Facing the rising public questioning
over the root of slave labor in China, the Internet Bureau of the CCP
Central Office of External Communication sent out the following notice
to all ``External Communication Offices'' and ``Central and Local Main
News Websites'' on June 15, 2007:
Regarding the Shanxi ``illegal brick kilns'' event, all
websites should reinforce positive propaganda, put more
emphasis on the forceful measures that the central and local
governments have already taken, and close the comment function
in the related news reports. The management of the interactive
communication tools, such as online forums, blogs, and instant
messages, should also be strengthened. Harmful information that
uses this event to attack the party and the government should
be deleted as soon as possible. All local external
communication offices should enhance their instruction,
supervision and inspection, and concretely implement the
related management measures.
While trying to keep online public opinion under control on one
hand, the central government also took action against kiln owners and
officials who had been implicated in the slavery, sending 35,000 police
officers to raid 7,500 kiln sites and penalizing 95 local officials.
The state also turned the incident into a positive public
relations ploy, publicly displaying their response to the specific
crimes that had been committed, while suppressing other sharper critics
and persistent investigations into the related deeper societal
problems.
(3) Silenced: Ant Farmers Protest
While the cases above demonstrate the weaknesses in the official
Internet censorship, we should not forget that the government is still
able to exert almost near control over information distributed online
in particularly sensitive cases where officials make that a priority.
In November 2007, 10,000 people demonstrated in front of local
government offices in Shenyang, Liaoning Province, against a corrupt
pyramid scheme, through which up to a million people, mostly poor or
unemployed workers, had invested their life savings but received
nothing when the company went bankrupt. The story was politically
sensitive because the company, Yilishen, had ties with powerful
officials including Bo Xilai, the former governor of Liaoning Province
and current Minister of Commerce, as well as because of the mass
protests that it inspired. The central government quickly imposed a
complete news blackout on reporting about the incident. For a period,
news about the scheme and subsequent protests could not be found
through searches on the Chinese Internet. Once the foreign media began
covering the case, those news reports found their way back into online
forums, but were censored before they could be distributed in a mass
way that reached the mainstream of Internet users.
The examples of the Chongqing nail house and the Shanxi brick kilns
point to early signs of a changing dynamic: First, the stories
initially broke online, and were later carried by the traditional
media. In this process, thousands, sometime hundreds of thousands of
public-minded bloggers and some journalists also played a critical role
in amplifying these messages. Second, despite government censorship
efforts, the sheer speed and number of messages and Internet posts
distributed made it impossible for censors to stay ahead of the game.
The timing gap between the information cascade and top down censorship
instructions was key, as was the gap in control between central and
local authorities, which in these cases allowed local events to become
national news and make it into the centrally-controlled media. Once
sensitive stories are carried by the official media, the Internet plays
a role of amplifying and keeping stories alive, thus creating a big
public event. Yet the Yilishen story also shows us that when it is a
political priority, the central government still has the means and the
will to exert almost complete control over information online.
Now, I would like to provide some analysis on the political impact
of such online phenomenon.
Beijing-based Internet expert, Hu Yong, has written: ``Since
ordinary people now have the means to express themselves, `public
opinion' has finally emerged in Chinese society. Since China never had
mechanisms to accurately detect and reflect public opinion, blogs and
BBSs have become an effective route to form and communicate such public
opinions of the society.''
For those both in and outside of the government who want to see
deeper and more fundamental political change, the rising online public
participation is an indicator that the rules of the political game in
China have started to change. Xiao Shu, a commentator in Southern
Weekend magazine has written about this process:
The process is . . . to discover public events, follow public
events, publicize the truth of those public events, and the
logic behind and value within those events; for the public to
discuss, form a consensus in the society, and then change the
current rules of the game according to such consensus.
. . . Through SARS reporting we have established a new
principle, which is that information must be public when there
are matters of public security in such a crisis. Through the
Chongqing Nail House event we are also changing the current
rules of the game of building and evictions. Through Xiamen PX
we are also changing a rule of the game, this time is to
establish the following principle: before major public projects
undergo construction, all people who would be affected by such
a project must be consulted, and their permission granted.
CONCLUSION
The CCP's censorship of both traditional media and the Internet is
certain to continue. However, the rise of online public opinion shows
that the Party-state can no longer have total control of the mass media
and information environment. The Internet is already one of the most
influential media spaces in Chinese society--no less than traditional
forms of print or broadcasting media. Furthermore, through online
social networks and virtual communities, cyberspace has become a
substantial communication platform to aggregate information and
coordinate collective actions.
What we have seen is an emerging pattern of public opinion and
citizenry participation, which represents a power shift in Chinese
society, as recent news events, from the Chongqing nail house, to slave
labor in the Shanxi brick kilns vividly demonstrated. The Internet
allows the increasing number of netizens to propagate, comment on and
promote certain topics (albeit limited) from a local platform to the
national stage, and many such ``public events'' now play a role in
promoting human rights, freedom of expression, rule of law, and
government accountability.
Furthermore, some of China's more outspoken media such as Southern
Metropolis Daily or Southern Weekend are also actively expressing much
more liberal political ideas and pushing the envelope whenever they
have a chance. Before the Internet, such reform-minded discourse was
often vulnerable in the face of the domination of CCP's hegemonic
propaganda. Now, however, as these more liberal elements within the
established media converge with independent, grassroots critical voices
online, they create a substantial force that is slowly eroding the
party's ideological and
social control.
As we have also learned from the series of news events leading up
to the Beijing Olympics--from protest riots and the government
crackdown in Tibet, the rise of nationalism among Chinese inside and
outside the country in response to international human rights
criticism, and the tragic Sichuan Earthquake and the unprecedented
response to it from the Chinese Government, media and citizens--
information and communication technologies are playing a critical role
in facilitating social and political action in China. The Chinese
Internet is still a highly contested space. The
authoritarian CCP regime is learning to be more responsive and adaptive
in this new environment. Likewise, the Internet has also become a
training ground for citizen participation in public affairs. This
process could have profound and far-reaching consequences within China,
as well as for China's emerging role in the global community.
______
Prepared Statement of Xiqiu ``Bob'' Fu
China's Persecution of Protestant Christians During the Approach of the
Beijing 2008 Olympic Games
JUNE 18, 2008
INTRODUCTION
The approach of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games has been accompanied
by a significant deterioration in religious freedom for China's
unregistered Protestant Church, also known as the house church. At the
end of 2007 President Hu Jintao made statements that China has a policy
of religious freedom. However, in May 2008, two independent sources
informed China Aid Association (CAA) that the Ministry of Public
Security has received funding from the Chinese Central Government to
increase its campaign of eradicating house churches throughout China.
Abhorrent abuse of religious believers continues, and regular raids of
Christian meetings take place. Persecution includes the largest mass-
sentencing of house church leaders in 25 years, a level of expulsion of
foreign Christians not seen since the 1950s, and targeted repression of
the Chinese House Church Alliance. Also, reports have been received of
planned intensified persecution, with greater control and prevention of
large Christian gatherings also anticipated: it is further feared that
harsher persecution will take place after the Olympics.
It is vital for Western analysts to realize the destructive
control--contrary to rhetoric otherwise--wielded by the Chinese
Government in religious matters, and to recognize the extent to which
this recent crackdown has permeated into various aspects of society.
This report focuses on increased persecution especially in Xinjiang
Province and Beijing, and on the restrictive measures affecting
business, foreigners in China, and even individuals offering aid to
earthquake survivors. Furthermore, the misuse of the legal system as
demonstrated in numerous cases serves to highlight the deterioration in
the rule of law in China. Another important development is that many
Chinese independent religious groups including house churches are
welcoming everyone--including the Chinese president, foreign statesmen,
and diplomats--to attend their services. Understanding this development
is vital to overcoming misunderstandings or unfounded fear by some
Western diplomats and governments: the Chinese themselves do not fear
to simply attend (so what fear do the western visitors have?), while
persecution continues as a strong, underlying current to active
participants. Western recognition of the increased religious
persecution surrounding the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games is a key factor
for reversing the current trend, and it is encouraged that the
recommendations included in this report be used in dialogue with China.
BACKGROUND
The Restricted Official Churches: China permits the operation of
the official, registered churches. This government-sanctioned
organization, called the Three Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM), suffers
restrictions on selection and training of clergy, location of venues,
publications, finances and relationships with Christians abroad. There
are also restrictions on working with certain classes of people,
including those under age 18. Religious education in government-
sanctioned seminaries is severely restricted.
The Persecution of the Unregistered Church: Because of the
atheistic government's control of TSPM churches, most Christians choose
to worship in unregistered churches. However, those belonging to
unregistered, and therefore illegal, groups can face many difficulties,
including being harassed, humiliated, fined, tortured, imprisoned and
subjected to forced labor. Physical assault has left Christians
injured, hospitalized and disabled. Meetings have been forcefully
dispersed, unofficial church buildings destroyed and property
confiscated. New government regulations that came into force in March
2005 renewed the drive to enforce registration. Because their faith is
not recognized as belonging to an official religion, members of
unregistered churches can be classified as cults, along with less
conventional groups, and can therefore come under particular attack and
be subjected to harsh penalties.
The Limitation of Bibles and Christian Literature: The Chinese
Government allows only The Amity Foundation in Nanjing to print Bibles
and a limited selection of Christian materials. These Bibles are
distributed only through the TSPM churches, making it difficult for
house church Christians to obtain Bibles and other Christian materials.
It is illegal to sell Bibles at public bookstores and other public
facilities. Amity's production is insufficient to meet the needs of the
burgeoning Christian population.\1\ Pastors who have printed Bibles and
Christian literature to fill the unmet needs have been arrested and
imprisoned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Precise figures for religious believers in China are impossible
to obtain. Estimates of house church figures range from 40 million to
over 100 million. In January 2007 CAA issued news that a reliable
source had informed that Mr. Ye Xiaowen, the director of the State
Administration for Religious Affairs, had stated in two internal
meetings at Beijing University and the Chinese Academy of Social
Science that there are now 130 million Christians in China, including
20 million Catholics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRENDS OF THE PRE-OLYMPIC CRACKDOWN
Overall Increased Persecution: In assessing persecution trends, CAA
reported a rise of 18.5 percent in the numbers of Christians persecuted
last year compared with the previous year, and an increase of 30.4
percent in persecution cases. The analysis highlighted the level of
persecution occurring in urban areas, reporting that just under 60
percent of persecution cases occurred in such areas. The assessment
also highlighted the ongoing targeting of house church leaders, with
415 reported arrests of such leaders last year.
Persecution Specific to Xinjiang: In April 2008, CAA reported that
Chinese Government officials had launched a strategic campaign, called
the ``Anti-illegal Christian Activities Campaign,'' against house
church members in Xinjiang. While both Han and Uyghur Christians have
been targeted, the plight of the minority Uyghur Christian population
is especially harsh as they face persecution on the grounds of both
their unusual religious faith and the broader ethnic persecution of the
Uyghur people in Xinjiang. Even the limited religious freedoms
protected elsewhere in China are further restricted in Xinjiang and
there have been repeated arrests and mistreatment of Christians in
Xinjiang over an extended period. Of particular concern is the use of
national security and separatism charges against religious believers,
even as recently as May 2008.
Persecution of Unregistered Churches in Beijing: During May 2008,
significant measures were taken against key unregistered churches in
Beijing. Chinese house churches have long suffered persecution, but
this is believed to be the first time that authorities have cracked
down systematically on these Beijing churches which have members from
among the more educated and wealthy strata of society who have greater
awareness of their rights. (These churches generally meet in urban
areas and were previously tolerated, even though operating with certain
restrictions.) Three recent instances of such persecution follow:
On May 9, 2008, Pastor Dong Yutao, a leader of one of
Beijing's largest house churches, was arrested while on his way
to collect a shipment of Bibles. The Beijing Public Security
Bureau (PSB) placed him under criminal detention for receiving
illegally printed Bibles and religious literature.
On May 11, 2008, policemen and detectives broke into the
regular worship service at Beijing's Shouwang Church. A plain-
clothed law enforcement officer showed his identification from
Haidian District Bureau of Ethnic and Religious Affairs and
ordered the church to stop its activities. Members of the
church were ordered to leave the premises as the gathering was
illegal.
On May 25, 2008, various house church gathering sites
connected to the 1,000-strong Beijing Gospel Church were raided
by officials from 4 different government agencies, including
the Bureau of Ethnic and Religious Affairs. Officials forcibly
entered and searched the homes of house church members without
presenting search warrants or proper documentation and
proceeded to confiscate religious materials. Some of those
targeted sustained minor injuries from violence by the
officials. Victims of the attacks described the incident in an
open letter to government officials in which they cite various
laws which have been breached.
Increased Measures To Prevent Property Rentals to Unregistered
Groups: Many house churches were already being pressured to stop
gathering or to leave Beijing by September 2007 when CAA reported a new
restriction as described by Beijing Evening News on September 5: per
direction of the Beijing Municipal PSB, police were to conduct
inspection, and to warn owners of rental properties that they should on
their own initiative refuse to rent their properties to ``five types of
prospective tenants,'' including people who are accused of engaging in
the so-called ``illegal religious activities.'' According to numerous
reports received from CAA, many house churches in Beijing were
pressured to stop gathering or to leave Beijing. House church leaders
in Beijing identified the move as a new tactic to persecute the house
churches before the Beijing Olympics.
Prohibition of Religious Groups at the Olympics: According to
disclosures which CAA received from reliable internal Chinese
Government sources, the Ministry of Public Security of the Chinese
Government issued a general nationwide order in April 2007 that all
those from China and overseas who will participate in the Olympic
Games, including athletes, media and sponsors, are to be strictly
checked. The Ministry of Public Security also secretly issued a
document entitled ``Notice on Strict Background Check on Applicants for
the Olympic Games and the Test Events.'' In the 11-category blacklist,
the third category is ``Religious extremists and religious
infiltrators.'' The categories are further divided into 43 groups and
Category Three includes the following:
1. Members of illegal religious organizations both in China
and abroad.
2. Members who have been caught by the Chinese authorities
for engaging in religious activities.
3. People who have given illegal sermons.
4. People who illegally distribute religious publications and
video/audio materials.
5. People who have illegally established both in China and
abroad religious organizations, institutions, schools, sermon
sites and other religious entities. The restrictions also apply
to those wishing to attend the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.
Forced Labor for Olympic Products: While in prison, Beijing house
church leader Pastor Cai Zhuohua was forced to work 10 to 12 hours a
day making soccer balls for the Olympics. Pastor Zhuohua was released
in September 2007 after serving three years of imprisonment for
``illegal business practices'' for production of Christian literature.
Rise in Persecution of Foreign Christians: China has conducted the
largest expulsion of foreign Christians since the 1950s when all
foreign missionaries were expelled. In a campaign termed ``Operation
Typhoon No. 5,'' over 100 foreign Christians had been arrested,
interrogated and expelled from China by the end of 2007. Most were from
the West, but Koreans and those of other nationalities were also
targeted. Seventy foreigners with secular business operations were
expelled from Xinjiang alone. CAA reports an 833 percent increase in
such expulsions compared with the previous year. Amongst the firms
targeted was the British company Jirehouse which ran an operation in
Xinjiang. The company's Project Manager, Alimujinag Yimiti, a Uyghur
Christian, was accused of engaging in illegal religious activities and
tried on May 27, 2008, for endangering national security.
Persecution of Christian Publishers: A further trend relates to the
treatment of those involved with Christian publications. There have
been a series of cases where those involved in producing Christian
literature have been accused of illegal business practices. Beijing
church leaders Pastor Cai Zhuohua and Mr. Shi Weihan have both been
targeted in this manner.
Prevention of Aid: Although China's house church Christians have a
strong desire to provide social support and humanitarian aid in China,
authorities prevent them from carrying out such work. Government
officials have refused aid from house church Christians to help the
earthquake survivors in Sichuan Province and even arrested house church
members who have volunteered to help those affected by the disaster.
Among the cases was the arrest of three Christians in Sichuan Province
on May 31, while they were carrying out relief work. On June 1, police
raided a house church meting in Henan Province and interrogated
participants about which church members would be taking donations to
the earthquake affected area. Six members were held in detention under
the charge of sending money to a disaster area in the name of a house
church. Police and religious affairs officials stated they would not
release them until they each paid a 1,000 yuan fine. The restriction on
religious believers seeking to help survivors has been highlighted in
The Wall Street Journal.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121208455251929967.html or
http://chinaaid.org/2008/05/30/chinaaid-relief-effort-reported-by-wall-
street-journal-christian-groups-step-delicately-in-sichuan/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exploitation in the Exercise of Law: CAA continues to receive
reports from numerous provinces of individuals targeted for their
peaceful practice of their Christian faith.\3\ Despite the religious
nature of their actions, some Christians are subjected to criminal
detention and face such charges as ``endangering national security''
and ``inciting separatism.'' They have faced further difficulty to
rightful legal representation when their lawyers are withheld or
harassed. Experiences of inhumane and violent treatment while in
detention is consistently reported, including report of prisoners with
serious medical conditions not receiving requested medical treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Specific cases are presented in report at http://chinaaid.org/
pdf/Pre-Olympic--China--Persecution--Report--in--English--June2008.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Following his visit to China in 1994, the United Nations Special
Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance\4\ made a number of recommendations
which would assist in bringing China's religious law and practice into
line with international standards. These recommendations are from an
authoritative impartial source and China should be urged to implement
them. They include the recommendations that China should:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The title of the Special Rapporteur has since been changed to
Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
Provide an explicit guarantee of the right to manifest
religion and, accordingly, amend the pertinent legal texts, including
Article 36 of the Constitution, to provide constitutional guarantees of
religious liberty that accord with the definition of religious freedom
provided in the 1981 Declaration.
Adopt a specific provision clearly stating that persons
under the age of 18 have the right to freedom of belief, in accordance
with China's obligations under the 1989 United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child, particularly those arising under Article 14.
Adopt a text explicitly recognizing the right to freedom
of belief for everyone, including members of the communist party and
other socio-political organizations.
Abandon the practice of distinguishing between ``normal''
and ``abnormal'' religious activities and respect the right of all
individuals to freely follow their chosen belief, without interference,
subject only to the limitations laid out in international standards,
most notably in Article 1(3) of the 1981 Declaration, namely only those
that are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety,
order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of
others.
Release all those detained for religious reasons.
Provide human rights training, particularly on religious
freedom, to state officials and judges.
Post the principal texts on religious freedom in the
relevant administrative services concerned, compile and distribute a
compendium of texts on religious freedom together with implementation
instructions, distribute human rights materials to religious
organizations and inform citizens and organizations of appeal
procedures available in the event of refusal to register religious
organizations.
Provide education on religious freedom, including at the
university level.
In addition it is recommended that China:
Recognize the right of freedom to choose any religion,
including those outside the official organizations and the five
recognized religions.
Rescind the registration system in its present form so
that it is no longer a mechanism for controlling religious activity.
Cease the policy of imposing penalties, including
administrative and criminal detention, fines, confiscation of property
and destruction of premises, for religious behavior.
Establish a dialogue with representatives of the house
churches, as requested in the appeal issued by house church leaders on
August 22, 1998.
Maintain follow-up contact with the Special Rapporteur on
Freedom of Religion or Belief.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/religion/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and amend legislation and practice to conform to the rights laid
out therein.
Implement effective protection for religious believers
from arbitrary detention and abuse by officials and address the
impunity of officials who abuse individuals and groups due to their
religious beliefs.
Allow the free movement of religious materials and
personnel into and within the country.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sander Levin, a U.S. Representative From
Michigan, Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China
JUNE 18, 2008
Nearly six decades ago, in 1949, Mao Zedong spoke near Tiananmen
and announced that ``the Chinese people have stood up.'' The world took
note.
Nearly two decades ago, on June 4, 1989, the Chinese people stood
up again at Tiananmen, but China's leaders ordered them to stand down.
Many defied that order, choosing instead to remain faithful to their
aspirations. We all remember how China responded. The world took note.
Less than one decade ago, On July 13, 2001, the Chinese people
stood at Tiananmen again, this time to celebrate the success of
Beijing's bid to host the 2008 Olympic Summer Games. China's leaders
made a number of very concrete commitments in connection with Beijing's
bid, including commitments to hasten progress in human rights and the
rule of law, and they repeatedly promised the world that China would
fulfill these commitments in the period leading up to the Olympic
Summer Games. The world took note.
The world takes note that China's leaders repeatedly tell the world
that the Chinese people stand and speak, but at the same time
repeatedly shows the world that those of its citizens who most
vigorously display fidelity to the aspirations of the Chinese people to
remain standing and to speak freely are silenced.
This Commission was created by Congress and the President in 2000
to monitor and report on China's compliance with international human
rights standards and the development of the rule of law. A hearing held
by this Commission in February of this year documented and examined the
commitments that China has made in connection with its Olympics bid and
its preparations for the 2008 Summer Games.
I draw your attention to this booklet which contains a full
transcript of the hearing, as well as full witness statements and other
useful resources. Please be sure to take a copy from the table in the
back, or download the pdf version from the Commission's web site,
www.cecc.gov. There you will read in detail how China committed to
progress on press freedom, on the environment, on basic human rights,
on openness in general, and in many other areas. You will see why it is
reasonable to say that the record remains highly disappointing.
I should say that the new Regulations on Open Government
Information may be one possible exception--I say ``possible'' because
implementation of this new measure, though potentially promising, is
still in the very early stages.
Nonetheless it remains unclear at this time what factors will set
the course of China's future legal development. And that is why we are
doubly privileged to listen today to four people whose commitment to
the development of the rule of law in China has been unwavering.
And let me make clear that, by the "rule of law," I mean true rule
of law, not documents stamped with the word "law" that officials then
allow to become so divorced from effective implementation that the
distinction between the promulgation of law and the making of
propaganda becomes meaningless. For that appears to be exactly what has
occurred in many areas of the law in China. It is a growing concern in
no small part because it places the credibility of three decades legal
and regulatory reform at ever-increasing risk.
In its last Annual Report, this Commission noted four factors that
appeared to be highly influential in determining the course of China's
future legal development.
First, China's leaders' increasing intolerance of
citizen activism.
Second, increasing, and increasingly obvious,
manipulation of law for politically expedient purposes.
Third, a concerted effort to ensure that sensitive
disputes do not enter legal channels, thereby insulating the
Central government from the backlash of national policy
problems.
Fourth, the growing impact outside of China of its
domestic problems of implementation.
Let me also note that the Commission's 2007 Annual Report
explicitly noted that ``the impact of emergencies'' and China's
response to emergencies
will both shape and be shaped by China's rule of law reforms.
Because their impact on the course of rule of law in China is
expected to be large, these developments are covered here in
added detail.
That was nearly six months before the Tibetan protests, and eight
months before the recent earthquake. Of course the emergencies to which
the Report referred were not these (it discussed food safety, product
quality and climate change), but the notion that emergencies per se
would become a major element structuring the course of China's future
legal development was a significant observation.
Today I would ask our panelists to tell us from their own first
hand experience the factors that we should keep in mind as we evaluate
the status of rule of law issues in China and their impact on creating
an atmosphere of progress for China's citizens.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Byron Dorgan, a U.S. Senator From North
Dakota, Co-Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China
JUNE 18, 2008
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine China's legal
development. For three decades now, China has engaged in legal reform.
But it seems to be at a stand still, and it is unclear at this point
whether that means it has stalled or is at a turning point.
Why does it appear to be at a stand still?
Well, first, the massive earthquake that tragically killed and
injured tens of
thousands of people, too many of them children. Second, the violent
crackdown that began in March continues in Tibetan areas. Beijing has
closed off most Tibetan areas, and detained or expelled journalists.
Finally, the Summer Olympic Games are fast approaching. Hosting the
Olympic Games has highlighted some of Beijing's achievements. We don't
and shouldn't deny them that. But even more it has highlighted
Beijing's terrible record on human rights and the environment. As the
Olympic torch circled the globe, Beijing's Olympic dream became a
public-relations nightmare.
These three events are having an enormous impact on many areas in
China, including legal reform and human rights. And that is why we are
here today.
At the Commission's February hearing on the Olympics, I submitted
for the record a list of political prisoners. Here is an update on just
one: Hu Jia, a courageous activist, was jailed last December by Chinese
authorities for comments he made at a European Parliament hearing. His
comments were critical of China's hosting the Olympics. At the time of
the CECC hearing, his wife and 4-month-old daughter had been under
house arrest for several months. In April, he was sentenced to three
and a half years in prison for ``inciting subversion of state power.''
Hu has severe health problems. His request to be released on bail for
medical treatment was denied in June. His wife and baby remain under
constant surveillance, and face harassment.
Every country that has hosted the Olympics has had its critics--
both at home and abroad. China has dissenting voices too on the
Olympics--like Hu Jia. But instead of being tolerant, it has hit back
hard with a combo punch of intimidation and
imprisonment.
The Commission is dedicated to understanding these events on a deep
level. For that reason, we have called four prominent Tiananmen Square
activists and now internationally renowned figures in human rights and
rule of low in China. We hope they will address two straightforward
questions:
What factors are most likely to determine the course of
China's legal development in the coming year and beyond?
What factors do Western analysts more frequently tend to
overlook or misinterpret?
I would ask each of our witnesses to highlight for us the factors
that, in each of your varied experiences, and unique perspectives this
Commission should focus on in order to most effectively understand the
course that China's legal development is taking and will take as events
unfold.
It would be helpful if you would focus specifically on steps China
has taken to: combat corruption and to maintain popular support for
further reform, prospects for the enforcement of worker rights,
collective bargaining, and labor unions.
I would also ask that you comment on the regulation of religious
life and of minorities, and trends in pre-Olympic crackdown.
Finally, I would also ask each of our witnesses to make a. point
also of identifying for us the one or two factors that, in your
experience, Western analysts most frequently overlook, misunderstand,
or plainly misinterpret. Your complete candor will be most helpful and
appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a U.S. Representative From
Pennsylvania, Member, Congressional-Executive Commission on China
JUNE 18, 2008
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing on What
Will Drive China's Future Legal Development? Reports From the Field. I
remain disturbed about the negative trends on human rights issues in
China prior to the Olympic Gaines in August. Many thought the Chinese
government would understand that with a brighter spotlight on its
treatment of its citizens, the officials would take this opportunity to
allow for more freedom for journalists, lawyers and human rights
advocates. There were positive steps in relation to allowing reporting
on the tragic earthquake in China, and this led to much international
sympathy and humanitarian and disaster assistance.However, the general
trends are disturbing as there is increased harassment of religious
leaders and practitioners and others. Case in point is the May 21, 2008
recording of Chinese consulate official Mr. Peng Keyu describing his
and other officials' role in organizing, in the United States, protests
against and harassment of Falun Gong members. While this particular
instance focused on Falun Gong, I have received reports of other
Chinese religious believers or political activists inside the United
States being harassed and. threatened by Chinese government officials.
It is indeed a problem when Chinese officials harass their own citizens
at home and in a nation like ours where rule of law is established--
it's even more disturbing when the Chinese government hacks the
computers of Members of Congress who focus on raising awareness of
human rights violations within China. That does not bode well for the
positive treatment of the average Chinese citizen who wishes to
peacefully express his or her social, political or religious views.
In our previous hearing, I mentioned being encouraged and
discouraged during countless cycles of two steps forward and then three
steps backward in terms of the Chinese government's respect for the
Chinese people. Sadly, since our February hearing, nothing has really
changed. I continue to receive numerous reports about Chinese
officials' actions against North Korean refugees, Uyghur Muslims in
Xinjiang Province, child laborers, Tibetans, Catholics loyal to the
Vatican, and Protestant house church leaders and congregants. In fact,
on June 1, 2008, government officials detained nine house church
congregants in Henan for providing funds to help victims of the
earthquake, and in late May, security officials confiscated a bank
card, a mini-van, Bibles and Christian literature from a house church
seminary. It does not appear the Chinese security officials are
interested in maintaining any facade of treating religious believers
with respect. There are additional reports, including from China. Aid
Association, that the ``Ministry of Public Security has received
funding from the Chinese Central Government to increase its campaign of
eradicating house churches throughout China.'' Even further, this
morning I received a report that a senior house church leader, Mr.
Zhang Mingxuan, and his interpreter were detained today as they
traveled to meet with an official from the European Union; Pastor Zhang
has been beaten, arrested, and imprisoned 12 times by Chinese security
officials.
It takes great courage and leadership to challenge the Chinese
government's
actions and attitudes, even more so when the officials break their own
laws. Yesterday, the National Endowment for Democracy held an event to
honor ``Chinese workers, lawyers, and writers working to advance
democratic values and fundamental rights within China.'' Recipients of
the NED award included Chen Guangcheng, Teng Biao, Li Heping, Li
Baiguang, Zhang Jianhong, Yao Fuxing, and Hu Shigen. These individuals,
our witnesses today, and others who cannot be named, are true heroes as
they seek to make a better today and tomorrow for the people of China.
I look forward to hearing from our very distinguished witnesses and
receiving their insights and recommendations on steps the U.S.
Government should take to further support the fundamental rights of the
Chinese people.