[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINATION INTO THE ABUSE AND EXTRALEGAL DETENTION OF LEGAL ADVOCATE
CHEN GUANGCHENG AND HIS FAMILY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 1, 2011
__________
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
72-870 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
House
Senate
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, SHERROD BROWN, Ohio, Cochairman
Chairman MAX BAUCUS, Montana
FRANK WOLF, Virginia CARL LEVIN, Michigan
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
TIM WALZ, Minnesota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JAMES RISCH, Idaho
MICHAEL HONDA, California
EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
SETH D. HARRIS, Department of Labor
MARIA OTERO, Department of State
FRANCISCO J. SANCHEZ, Department of Commerce
KURT M. CAMPBELL, Department of State
NISHA DESAI BISWAL, U.S. Agency for International Development
Paul B. Protic, Staff Director
Lawrence T. Liu, Deputy Staff Director
(ii)
CO N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening statement of Hon. Chris Smith, a U.S. Representative from
New Jersey; Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on
China.......................................................... 1
Walz, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Representative from Minnesota; Ranking
Member, Congressional-Executive Commission on China............ 2
Chai Ling, Founder All Girls Allowed............................. 5
Cohen, Jerome A., Professor, New York University School of Law;
Co-director, U.S.-Asia Law Institute; and Adjunct Senior Fellow
for Asia Studies, Council on Foreign Relations................. 7
Hom, Sharon, Executive Director of Human Rights in China;
Professor of Law Emerita, City University of New York School of
Law............................................................ 13
Appendix
Prepared Statements
Chai, Ling....................................................... 38
Cohen, Jerome A.................................................. 40
Hom, Sharon...................................................... 43
Smith, Hon. Chris................................................ 49
Walz, Hon. Tim................................................... 50
7
EXAMINATION INTO THE ABUSE AND EXTRALEGAL DETENTION OF LEGAL ADVOCATE
CHEN GUANGCHENG AND HIS FAMILY
----------
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2011
Congressional-Executive
Commission on China,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m.,
in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Representative
Chris Smith, presiding.
Also present: Representative Tim Walz.
Also present: Abigail Story; Judy Wright; Kiel Downey; Anna
Brettell; and Paul Protic.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
FROM NEW JERSEY; CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION
ON CHINA
Chairman Smith. The hearing will come to order, and good
afternoon to everyone.
As we sit here in this room today, free to meet, free to
move, free to speak our minds, we are convening this emergency
hearing to examine the plight of an extraordinarily brave man
and his equally extraordinary and courageous wife, who in every
sense of the word are not free and are at grave risk of
additional harm, and even murder.
As we speak, we can only assume that self-taught lawyer
Chen Guangcheng, a heroic advocate on behalf of victims of
population control abuses, languishes with his wife, Yuan
Weijing and six-year-old daughter, locked inside their home in
a rural Shangdong province. However, we do not have the luxury
of certainty regarding Chen or his family's current whereabouts
or medical condition, as Chinese officials have used barbaric
methods to prevent all unauthorized persons from contacting or
visiting their village.
According to Andrew Jacobs of the New York Times, ``Paid
thugs repel visitors'', and ``journalists and European
diplomatics who have tried to see him have fared little
better.'' In a post on October 18th, Mr. Jacobs reports that
the trickle of would-be visitors has become a campaign,
Operation Free Chen Guangcheng. According to Peter Ford in
today's edition of the Christian Science Monitor, the violence
against human rights activists who travel to visit Chen
continues to escalate: ``'About seven or eight men rushed up to
me, kicked me to the ground, stole my cell phone, smashed my
ankle, and knocked me out', Liu recalled Tuesday, 'and the
police did nothing when I reported what had happened.'
Liu was one of a group of around 40 activists who were
attacked and beaten by more than 100 thugs on Sunday afternoon
outside the village of Dong Xigu in the Eastern province of
Shangdoing where Chen has been illegally locked up in his house
with his family since being released from jail in September of
last year.
"'I did not think the situation was so dark,' Liu said.
'There is no law in this area.' The violence marked the second
weekend in a row that unidentified thugs had violently broken
up efforts by human rights activists and ordinary citizens to
visit Chen in a burgeoning campaign to win his freedom.''
Chen Guangcheng's only crime that we know was of advocating
on behalf of his fellow Chinese citizens, including and
especially women and girls who had been victimized by forced
abortion and involuntary sterilization. When Chen investigated
and intervened with a class action suit on behalf of women in
Linyi City who suffered horrific abuse under China's One Child
per couple policy, he was arrested, detained, and tortured.
Blinded by a childhood disease, Chen Guangcheng began his
legal advocacy career in 1996, educating disabled citizens and
farmers about their rights. Decades later when local villagers
started coming to him with their stories of forced abortions
and forced sterilizations, Chen and his wife Yuan Weijing
documented these stories, later building briefs and lawsuits
against the officials involved.
Their efforts gained international news media attention in
2005 and it appears that was the straw that broke the camel's
back. Officials then began a barbaric campaign against Chen and
his family in 2005, and over the years have subjected them to
beatings, extralegal detention, numerous violations of their
rights under criminal procedure law, confiscation of their
personal belongings, 24-hour surveillance, and invasion of
their privacy, discontinuation of all forms of communication,
and even denial of education for their six-year-old daughter.
Chen Guangcheng served over four years in prison on trumped
up charges and was officially released in September of 2010.
However, the abuse he and his wife and his family have faced
has only worsened. Concern about Chen's health and well-being
is growing worldwide, and numerous activists and journalists
have made attempts in the past few months to visit Chen's
village, only to face large groups of hired thugs who savagely
beat them and steal their belongings.
Enough is enough. The cruelty and extreme violence against
Chen and his family brings dishonor to the Government of China,
and must end. Chen and his family must be free.
I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague, Mr.
Walz, for any comments he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM WALZ, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MINNESOTA; RANKING MEMBER, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION
ON CHINA
Representative Walz. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you for
your passion as an unswerving champion of human rights, both
here, China, and around the world. Also, a thank you to Senator
Brown for convening this extremely important hearing. I want to
thank each of our witnesses who are here today and truly
appreciate your attendance. I very much look forward to hearing
your remarks on this important issue.
Today we hold this hearing to recognize and to honor one of
China's most high-profile human rights activists. As you heard
Mr. Smith say, Chen Guangcheng, as a person, as an activist,
stands out as someone who exemplifies profound human courage
and an unswerving commitment to justice. Chen not only overcame
the hardships of being blinded at a young age, but succeeded in
becoming an inspiring legal advocate, one who has touched lives
not just in China, but around the world.
In his legal work, Chen exposed China's brutal application
of its population policies. He upheld the rights of the
disabled and fought on behalf of the victims of discrimination.
For his accomplishments, he wasn't rewarded. Rather, the
authorities sent him to prison for more than four years. Upon
conclusion of his sentence, he was not set free. Rather, he was
placed under an illegal form of house arrest that has precluded
Chen and his family from the freedoms and livelihood all just
systems must protect.
Chen and his family remain under illegal house arrest, and
even today the conditions of their detention are shrouded in
mystery. Police and violent thugs are stationed night and day
around the home to prevent anyone from accessing them. We know
that since Chen's release from prison in September of last year
he and his wife have reportedly suffered physical and mental
abuse at the hands of officials. Chen suffers from a digestive
disorder and reportedly has been denied medical treatment. His
daughter, now six, has only recently been allowed to attend
school, under the watchful eye of law enforcement officers.
Chen explained his circumstances in a videotape released in
February of this year, saying, ``I've come out of a small jail
and entered a bigger one.'' I followed China closely since, as
a young man over two decades ago, I taught high school in
Foshan, Guangdong province. I know China has announced notable
reforms and advancement in recent years. I applaud the
accomplishments of the Chinese people and recognize that some
in the Chinese Government advocate for greater rule of law. But
we cannot believe China is serious about the rule of law while
Chen Guangcheng and his family are being forcefully held and
abused.
We cannot believe China is serious about human rights while
it flagrantly violates its own laws and international human
rights commitments. We urge China today to end this ongoing
illegal detention and to free Chen and his family. We urge
China to stand on the side of those brave activists that have
traveled to Shandong province to inquire about Chen in the face
of violent reprisals and shameless threats.
We urge China to embrace Chen and other civil rights
activists and make room for these selfless heroes, the leaders
that all countries need for a stable society that respects
human rights and the rule of law. Finally, let us remind our
friends in China that all great nations achieve more through
open dialogue and free flow of information than through forced
silence.
I thank each of you for being here today to honor this man,
his family, and the many other advocates facing uncertain
punishments and unwarranted confinement. I thank those of you
who are sitting in this room that know that we each share a
responsibility to raise Chen's story and to voice our concerns
on behalf of Chinese advocates who remain detained in silence.
I yield back to you, Mr. Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Walz. Thank you
for your advocacy on behalf of human rights, especially in
China. I deeply appreciate you being here.
I'd like to now introduce our very distinguished witnesses.
But before I do, I ask that, without objection, the statement
by our Cochairman, Senator Sherrod Brown, will be made a part
of the record. He couldn't be with us here today, but he has
written a very strong opening statement and is with us in
spirit.
I'd like to introduce our very distinguished witnesses to
this hearing, beginning first with Chai Ling, founder of All
Girls Allowed. Chai Ling also serves as the founding president
and chief executive officer of Jenzabar, Inc., a higher
education software and services provider.
She holds an MBA from Harvard Business School, an MLA in
Public Affairs from Princeton University, a B.A. from Peking
University. Chai Ling also established the Jenzabar Foundation
and serves as one of its board members.
As we all know, Chai Ling was one of the most heroic
student leaders during the 1989 Tiananmen Square movement. She
was one of the most wanted by the Chinese dictatorship and
spoke out so eloquently during those days when so many of us
had great hopes that somehow China would matriculate from
dictatorship to a democracy. Chai Ling has previously been
named Glamour Woman of the Year, and nominated twice for the
Nobel Peace Price. Chai Ling's memoir, ``A Heart for Freedom'',
was published in 2011 and is a very, very riveting statement
about her life and the times she lived in, and the main
contributions she has made to the movement for human rights in
China.
We will then hear from Jerome Cohen, professor at New York
University School of Law, a co-director of U.S. Asia Law
Institute and Adjunct Senior Fellow for Asia Studies for the
Council on Foreign Relations. A professor at NYU School of Law
since 1990 and co-director of the Institute, he has served for
years as C.V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director of Asia Studies
at the Council of Foreign Relations, where he currently is an
adjunct senior fellow.
He introduced the teaching of Asian law into the curriculum
at Harvard Law School, where he taught from 1964 to 1979.
Professor Cohen retired as a partner at Paul, Wiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison at the end of 2000. In his law practice,
Professor Cohen represented many companies and individuals in
contract negotiations, as well as dispute resolution in various
Asian countries. He continues to serve as an arbiter in many
Asian legal disputes.
Professor Cohen has published several books on Chinese law,
including The Criminal Process in the People's Republic of
China, 1959-1963, People's China and International Law, and
Contract Laws of the People's Republic of China. He received
his B.A. Phi Beta Kappa from Yale College and graduated from
Yale Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Yale Law
Journal.
Then we'll hear from Sharon Hom. Sharon Hom is the
executive director of the Human Rights in China, professor of
law, City University of New York School of Law, and is a human
rights and media advocacy and strategic policy engagement with
NGOs--she leads that--governments, and multi-stakeholder
initiatives.
She has testified on a variety of human rights issues
before key domestic and international policymakers in the U.S.
and in the European Union, and government bodies. She has
appeared as a guest and commentator on broadcast programs
worldwide, and is frequently interviewed by and quoted in major
print media. She was named by Wall Street Journal as one of
2007's ``50 Women to Watch'' for their impact on business. Let
me also point out that she has taught law for 18 years,
including training judges, lawyers, and law teachers at eight
law schools in China over a 14-year period in the 1980s and
1990s.
She has published extensively on Chinese legal reforms,
trade, technology, and international human rights, including
chapters in Gender Equality, Citizenship, and Human Rights:
Controversies and Challenges in China and the Nordic Countries
in 2010, and China's Great Leap: The Beijing Games and Olympian
Human Rights Challenges in 2008.
She is co-author of Contracting Law, editor of Chinese
Women Traversing Diaspora: Memoirs, Essays, and Poetry, and co-
editor of Challenging China: Struggle and Hope in an Era of
Change.
A very, very distinguished panel to provide insights into
Chen and his family, and I'd like to now yield to Chai Ling for
her comments.
[The prepared statement of Senator Brown appears in the
appendix.]
STATEMENT OF CHAI LING, FOUNDER, ALL GIRLS ALLOWED
Ms. Chai Ling. Thank you, Chairman Smith. I'm really
honored to be here among all these distinguished witnesses to
testify on behalf of Chen Guangcheng. Thank you, Congressman
Walz, for your wonderful speech and support for Chen's case,
and thank you to all the CECC members for your wonderful
reports advocating on behalf of all the voiceless people in
China.
Chairman Smith, thank you again, especially for your 30
years of persistent effort to end China's cruel One-Child
Policy and massive genocide, in addition to many other human
rights abuses. The case of Chen Guangcheng is inexpressively as
grievous as you all stated, but today I will try to share the
most recent details in the most accurate way possible. I pray
one day he could be standing here, telling his own story to all
of us.
As you mentioned earlier, Chen Guangcheng is a blind
attorney who investigated incidents of forced abortions and
forced sterilizations by Linyi municipal authorities. Because
of his courageous finding and documentation of late-term
abortions and forced sterilizations--130,000 cases took place
in 2005 alone--to the media, for this very reason he was
arrested and imprisoned for four years and three months, but
was finally released in September 2010.
Since his release from prison, Chen has been kept under
illegal house arrest and denied medical treatment for serious
intestinal problems and deprived of all contact with the
outside world. Reporters and activists who have tried to visit
him have been rounded up and turned away as recently as two
days ago.
Recently, many more activists, including our workers who
are partners through Women's Rights in China of All Girls
Allowed, tried to visit him because we heard he had possibly
been killed. Until last week, we did not know whether he was
still even alive. When we tried to visit him in the past couple
of weeks, our volunteers in China were blocked and driven away.
The five activists were all disabled, and they wanted to visit
him on the International Day for the Blind, but they were
pushed around and their gifts were taken away by force. Their
van was followed by local mobs and was chased away over 100
kilometers before they were let go.
No one had heard about Chen's condition for months. Last
week, we finally received word concerning his situation from
one of our other partners at ChinaAid, a Midland, Texas-based
NGO that focuses on defending the persecuted church in China.
According to ChinaAid, in July, a brutal four-hour beating by
local authorities almost killed Chen and his wife. It was
witnessed by their elementary school-aged daughter. The couple
endured a similar brutal beating in February after they had
smuggled out a videotape documenting the shocking conditions of
their illegal house arrest following Chen's release from
prison.
The July beating occurred after a storm knocked out
equipment that authorities had installed in Chen's house to cut
off all their telecommunication contact with the outside world.
When the equipment was disabled, Chen was able to make phone
calls on July 25th. The calls were intercepted by authorities.
On July 28, Shuanghou town mayor Zhang Jian led a group of
people to Chen's home and beat and tortured the couple for four
hours. This is the sequence of events provided by the source
from ChinaAid: at 2 p.m., authorities cleared out everyone from
Chen's village. At 3 p.m., authorities conducted an exhaustive
search of Chen's home and found a phone card in a pile of
ashes.
At 4 p.m., authorities started the beating. Chen's screams
of pain were heard first while his wife, Yuan Wenjing, was
heard shouting angrily, along with their daughter, because of
his cries. After a while, Wenjing's screams of pain could be
heard as well from then until 8 p.m. The only sounds were
screams of pain.
Sometime later, a village doctor was permitted to give Chen
some cursory medical treatment. During the four-hour beating,
Chen's elderly mother, who lives with them, was prevented from
entering their home. When she was finally allowed to go in,
neighbors heard her burst into tears and her anguished cries,
described as ``gut-wrenching'' to hear, continued for a long
time.
According to the source, Jiang tortured Chen to try to get
him to tell how he got the phone card to make the call on July
25 and to reveal where he had hidden it. When Chen and his wife
refused to give any details, their house was ransacked until
the phone card was found in a pile of ashes. Then the mayor's
men viciously beat up Chen and his wife in the presence of
their daughter.
The source of the information asked, as a family men
themselves with parents and children, how could they inflict
such inhumane pain in the eyes or heart of the little girl?
Yes, activists in China have been beaten and sent away as well,
but many have taken the battle to the Internet and that is why
the current case is so extraordinary and important.
Chinese citizens are also speaking out online today, and
are particularly outraged by the communal punishment of the
whole Chen family. They pressured the government, particularly
on China's Twitter, called Sina Weibo. Users are posting photos
of themselves in dark glasses to honor Chen, similar to the
photos we took just before the hearing.
Authorities have blocked searches for Mr. Chen's name on
Weibo, and even deleted some posts by users, though most posts
about him and his case can be easily found through other means
of searching. The head of China's Internet watchdog last week
called for a strengthening of regulations over microblogs so
they can serve the works of the Party and the people.
According to the state-run Xinhua News Agency, authorities'
apparent decision to allow Mr. Chen's daughter to attend school
following weeks of growing online activism is breathing new
life into the Internet campaign to free him, despite this
online censorship. According to the Wall Street Journal, Mr.
Chen's case is a rare example where rights activists and
ordinary citizens alike are applying online pressure on the
government.
Yet, we know that a similar return to school of the
daughter of the missing lawyer Gao Zhisheng only added to the
pressures that battered her and did not presage release for her
courageous father. Chen's daughter is accompanied by security
agents to and from her classes.
In America, we teach our daughters, our children, to honor
police and to ask police officers for directions when they are
lost. These officers and officials help to keep us safe, to
keep the peace. But in China, when a man and his wife are
beaten senselessly in front of their own daughter by
authorities who should be protecting their rights, how do we
respond and what does our response say about our nation's
values? Recently in China a two-year-old child was run over by
a van in Forshan, a city in China.
The whole world watched the video footage of 18 people who
walked by the toddler as she lay in a pool of her own blood,
waiting for help, and wanted to know how these people could
walk by unaffected, not acting on her behalf, even though they
knew what had happened and that that baby needed help. Are we
any different? I am not speaking to the leaders here, but
speaking to those who are not present today during this
hearing. If we do not do what we must do as a Nation, are we
different from those 18 bystanders who left Yu-Yu to die? Are
we going to be the same people who take no action and watch
Chen and his wife and family die?
All Girls Allowed exists to restore life, value, and
dignity to women and girls in China and to reveal the injustice
of China's One Child policy. Our work is inspired by the love
of Jesus to sacrifice and to redeem humanity.
Today, on behalf of All Girls Allowed and of our partner
organizations, that is, Women's Rights in China, ChinaAid, and
Women's Rights Without Frontiers, we have four major requests
of our nation's leaders. The first, we urge President Obama to
urgently demand Chen Guangcheng and his family to be released
from house arrest and to be allowed to leave China to another
country. We appreciate that Secretary Clinton has mentioned him
by name in the past. The gravity of the current matter calls
for urgent, immediate action from our Commander-in-Chief.
Second, in addition, we continue to encourage the U.S.
Embassy to visit Chen Guangcheng and his family. A newly
arrived U.S. Embassy official in Beijing created a weblog
account recently. Within days of his first message last week, a
simple greeting and introduction of himself, the post was
overrun with nearly 2,000 comments, many of which expressed
support for Mr. Chen and criticism of the Chinese Government's
handling of this case. So there is general support from the
people, acting justly on behalf of Chen's case.
Third, we urge the U.S. State Department to work with EU
partners to also demand Mr. Chen's immediate release. Fourth,
we urge President Obama to deny visa requests to visit America
for all those who were, and are, involved in persecuting,
torturing, and harassing Chen and his family, including Mayor
Jian Jin, effective immediately.
As a nation, when we see evil and we know it is happening
clearly before our eyes, will we have the courage to speak out?
I say today that what we have been doing is not enough and is
not acceptable. We are not asking for our nation to invade
China, or even to rescue this poor man from death. But we are
asking America to stand and proclaim its very own belief loudly
as a testimony of truth and light in this darkness. Continuing
to allow this sort of brutality to go on by saying nothing is
the same as saying something loud and clear. Silence has been
deafening.
As I conclude my testimony, I would like to leave all of
you with the command that was given to us and teaches us what
to do in this kind of situation. In the Word it says,
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was
thirsty and you gave me something to drink; I was a stranger
and you invited me in; I needed clothes, and you clothed me; I
was sick, and you looked after me; I was in prison, and you
came to visit me. Then the righteous will answer him, Lord,
when did we see you hungry and feed or, and were thirsty and
give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and
invite you in, or needing clothes and clothed you? When did we
see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' The king will
reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least
of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.--Matthew
25:35-40.
I pray in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus, we will all
take action today for our brother and hero, Chen Guangcheng, to
bring him to safety and freedom.
Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Chai Ling, thank you so much for that very
eloquent statement and for your four points which you made so
eloquently as well.
Ms. Chai. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
Chairman Smith. I do appreciate it; we all do.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chai appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Smith. I'd like to now recognize Professor Cohen
and ask him to proceed.
STATEMENT OF JEROME A. COHEN, PROFESSOR, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW; CO-DIRECTOR, U.S.-ASIA LAW INSTITUTE; AND
ADJUNCT SENIOR FELLOW FOR ASIA STUDIES, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN
RELATIONS
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm grateful to you and
Mr. Walz and the Commission staff for giving us this
opportunity to discuss the case of my dear friends, Chen
Guangcheng and Yuan Weijing. I've known them for eight years.
Unfortunately, the last six years they have been incommunicado.
I want to say at the outset that in China, sometimes in this
country, progress toward the rule of law comes from tragedy.
Tragic events often wake up the people. It has happened in
China; I hope we won't have to wait for tragedy in the case of
Mr. Chen and Yuan Weijing.
Now, at the outset I want to address quickly three myths
that one often hears in connection with this case. One myth is
that cases like Chen's are very rare, these are just minor
blips on the radar screen. But that's not accurate. Human
rights lawyers, public interest lawyers, criminal defense
lawyers, people who take part in the defense of not only rights
of speech and association, et cetera, but who are also trying
to assert the rights of those involved in environmental
problems, forced housing demolition, health problems that they
want to take to court to vindicate their rights, all are
subject to one kind or other of severe sanction or pressure.
Most recently, Chen was involved, as Chai Ling has reminded
us, in an attempt to stop the abuses against not only women who
were being forced into sterilization and abortion, but also
their families. Tens of thousands of people were illegally
being locked up. When I last saw Chen, he was very pale, very
nervous, smoking constantly. I had never seen him so anxious:
he found it hard to sleep and was depressed about his inability
to get the courts in China or the administration in Beijing to
do anything about this tragedy.
But there are lots of people like him, and the fact is,
events are turning people--lawyers, defenders who never thought
of themselves as human rights advocates--into human rights
advocates because of the repression that they have confronted.
I cite in my opening remarks a number of examples. These are
all people I know, so I speak not only from the point of view
of a detached observer. I know these people and therefore am
involved with their fate.
A second myth that has circulated is that the central
government doesn't really know about this. Some say the central
government would never tolerate or condone such terrible
behavior by local officials. Well, that's just pat. I am glad
to see you have circulated an article I wrote in November 2005
in the Far Eastern Economic Review. It was an open letter to
the then-Minister of Public Security, Zhou Yongkang, asking
him, is this the way the government of a civilized country
wants to behave? At that point, Chen had not yet been
prosecuted, but the family, including him, had been locked up
at home.
Well, later there was reportedly a meeting of the central
authorities with the provincial and local authorities, and
instead of resulting in Chen's release, it resulted in his
criminal prosecution, a much more conventional form of
repression than the illegal home imprisonment to which they had
all been subjected.
It's impossible certainly today to say the central
authorities don't know what's going on. This is just what they
used to call ``one of Pretty Fannie's Ways.'' We can't take it
very seriously. Unfortunately, it's having very serious
consequences.
A third myth is that there must be some legal justification
for what is being done, even if it is an unpersuasive fig leaf.
But the fact is, none has come to light. We have not heard any
explanation of this really barbaric treatment of the Chens from
any government official. There was an opportunity just the
other day to offer an explanation. There was a press conference
in Beijing celebrating the release of a white paper that marked
all the legislative accomplishments of the Chinese Government.
I have here the October 28 China Daily, the English
language newspaper that's very prominent, and you see exactly
what they're telling us: 240 laws enacted by the end of August;
706 administrative regulations; 8,600 local regulations.
They're telling us of all the laws and regulations that they
have promulgated, and it's an impressive accomplishment.
But the problem is, if the police pay no attention, if the
local authorities pay no attention, if the hired thugs pay no
attention to all these rules, what does it mean? Well, this
relates to a question that you have asked: Why are they doing
this to the Chens? I think it's clear. It started out as a
local attack of vengeance against Chen, who was trying to
expose the illegal behavior of the officialdom involving forced
abortion and sterilization. He'd been a thorn in their side for
a long time with regard to many other official abuses.
Although that had won him considerable recognition abroad--
that is how I met him, he was a State Department guest in 2002,
visiting New York and Washington--but at home it made him an
irritant to local officials. The last straw, as was mentioned,
was the birth control violations he was revealing.
But there is a larger motive here. This is not merely local
vengeance, this is part of a national strategy of the Communist
Party and the central authorities for dealing with the current
situation where they're confronted by increasing unrest and
increasing domestic and foreign upset about lack of rule of law
in China that comes up in many different contexts.
Their new strategy is, on the one hand, to promulgate all
these laws, as they have. On the other hand, they're not going
to allow the laws to be enforced whenever it's inconvenient.
The way to make certain that they will not be enforced is to
suppress the only people capable of invoking these legal
protections--rights lawyers. If you don't allow the activities
of lawyers who know how to apply these increasingly complicated
laws, you don't have to worry that you're going to be called to
account. You don't have to worry that Party and government
autonomy is going to be challenged.
So on the one hand, the Party promulgates the laws. On the
other hand, it makes sure in informal as well as formal ways--
and the Chen case is one of the most glaring examples--that
those capable of using these laws to protect people will not be
able to do so. So it's a kind of best-of-both-worlds policy for
the Party. It reminds me very much of Shakespeare's Macbeth:
``They keep the word of promise to our ears, but break it to
our hope.'' That's what we see as the Party's legal strategy in
China today.
The other day at the press conference that released the
White Paper, the deputy director of the Legal Affairs
Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's
Congress, which is currently revising the criminal procedure
law in a very controversial fashion, was asked by a foreign
reporter about the legal basis for what is being done to Chen
Guangcheng and his family. He couldn't answer. Instead, he
contented himself with the generality, ``There's always a legal
basis for any sanctions we take against individuals in China.''
Apparently the government didn't have much confidence in
this important official's assertion, because right after the
conference this question and the answer were both eliminated
from the transcript and from the video broadcast. So the
Chinese people could not hear the statement that in China
``there's always a legal basis for any sanctions taken against
individuals.''
Well, what can be done? I'm glad you also have asked that
question. We're all concerned about it. I think many people
feel frustrated, not only those of us who are observing this
from abroad, but large numbers of people in China. I think the
case of Ai Weiwei recently demonstrated that foreign pressure
can be useful. Ai Weiwei, although still under limited
restraint, is now at last out of ``residential surveillance''
in the public security force's residence, and that's as a
result of the considerable foreign pressures that were
generated by the outrageous mistreatment of him.
I think this hearing today, and similar hearings like it in
all the democratic countries, can help to increase awareness
and useful pressure. Next year, 2012, there is going to be, as
you know, a selection of the new generation of Chinese leaders
for the next 10 years. It's possible--possible, not likely
perhaps, but possible--that among them there will be some
leaders who will see that the protection of human rights for
their own people can become a popular platform for reform. I
don't discount that possibility, even though one has to be
cautious in assessing it.
There are, of course, a lot of possibilities for
international organizations, foreign governments, NGOs,
educational institutions, ordinary people to make their views
known in the course of their associations and exchanges with
China. We should use those to express our concern for cases
like this. The U.S. Government has official human rights
dialogues with China, as other governments do, and the two
countries also have renewed their official legal experts'
dialogue. I think it's important that in these dialogues we
discuss concrete cases, individual cases, not merely general
principles, not merely improving the legislation. The question
is practice, not theory.
But the real solution, of course, lies in China. The
Chinese people hold the key. Even today many criminal justice
specialists in China still claim they don't know anything about
Chen Guangcheng's case. I think that for some experts that's
simply a defense against their inability to express themselves.
I think that for others it's quite true.
The Chinese Government tries to keep things extremely non-
transparent. That is the reason why they don't allow access to
Chen Guangcheng, why they don't want people to be able to
communicate with him. They know if this case becomes more
available to the Chinese people there will be increasing
pressures for change.
The Internet and social media offer the opportunity. For
example, disabled people, who may amount to 8 or 9 percent of
the Chinese population, a huge group, could make an impact.
Chen Guangcheng once told me that he thought that in his
Linyi City, a population of almost 11 million, roughly 10
percent of the population was disabled in some form. Now, you
can see, if that kind of community gets activated by knowledge,
this could make a difference. I use in my opening paper the
analogy of environmental protests in China. Environmentalists
have had a number of successes in China. By arranging for
large-scale ``strolls,'' they call it, peaceful walks through
their communities, whether in Xiamen, Shanghai, or Dalian, they
have had an impact. You can imagine, if the disabled people of
China were free to know the truth and express themselves, this
could be a peaceful form of support for Chen leading to his
release.
So what we're witnessing in China is something that could
become another landmark--I hope it will be a landmark without
tragedy--in progress toward the rule of law. Chen Guangcheng is
an especially unfortunate target for the abuse he is suffering
because he was one who always saw the importance of using legal
institutions, not defying them by going into the streets. He
wanted to alleviate many social grievances, providing an outlet
for them by going, according to law, to the county court in his
Yinan county.
Yet, he found himself increasingly frustrated by the
refusal of the court, under the control of the local
authorities who were the ones being sued, to take these cases.
One day he said to me in frustration, ``What do they want me to
do? Do they want me to go into the streets and lead a protest?
'' He said, ``I don't want to do that.'' It's supremely ironic
that they end up convicting him of supposedly interfering with
traffic and damaging public property. This was just a pretense.
My hope is that China will move toward the rule of law in
practice, as well as theory. I think this will alleviate a lot
of the rising social discontent in China. Last year, 2011, some
reports claim they may have had almost 180,000 public protests
and riots, many of them violent. This would be an incredible
statistic.
Every year, as far as we can tell--and it's hard to tell
because of the cloak of non-transparency--this number seems to
be rising. It seems to me that an enlightened leadership in
China would want to increase real harmony by processing these
grievances through legal institutions and not persecuting the
people who are capable of implementing the protections of the
law that should be carried out.
We have seen similar problems in Taiwan in the Chiang Kai-
Shek days, and in South Korea in the Park Choon-Hee days. But
later and wiser leaders, under increasing pressure, domestic
and international, opted for the democratic use of legal
institutions. We have seen greater social and political
stability in both Taiwan and South Korea since then. So that's
my hope for China, too. I look forward to Ms. Hom's statement
and to the discussion that will follow.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Smith. Professor Cohen, thank you so much for
your--I think for your law students, it must have been a real
treat to hear you lecture, because that was a very, very wide-
ranging, but very incisive, commentary, and also a road that
the Chinese Government should follow, an enlightened
government, as you pointed out. So we thank you on behalf of
the Commission for your testimony and for giving us your wise
insights.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Smith. Ms. Hom?
STATEMENT OF SHARON HOM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN
CHINA; PROFESSOR OF LAW EMERITA, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
SCHOOL OF LAW
Ms. Hom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Walz. Thank you
for convening this very important and timely hearing and on an
urgent situation.
I would like to move my written statement into the record
and not use the limited oral time to repeat the information
that has already been presented by Chai Ling and Professor
Cohen.
Chairman Smith. Without objection your statement, and all
the statements, will be made a part of the record.
Ms. Hom. Thank you.
It's very difficult to follow Professor Cohen, because no
one can follow Professor Cohen, who is one of the oldest
friends of the Chinese people--and a great inspirations for all
of us who work to advance human rights in China.
As already has been documented in the CECC report this year
and the U.S. State Department's human rights report for China,
human rights violations in China are ongoing, systematic, and
quite serious. While the focus of this hearing is on Chen
Guangcheng and related implications for rule of law, I want to
note the urgent situation of Tibetan monks and nuns who are
setting themselves on fire in desperate acts of protest against
the crackdowns on their religious and cultural freedoms.
I have been asked to focus on the persecution of Chen and
his family and the treatment of those who have attempted to
visit him, but I would like to add some highlights to what has
already been said--Chen Guangcheng's story is a well-known
story internationally, and inside China, especially among the
rights defenders community
A blind, self-taught, barefoot lawyer activist, Chen is a
vocal advocate for the disabled, land rights activists, and
victims of the coercive implementation of China's One-Child
Population Policy. His story is the struggle of one principled,
committed advocate for social justice who blew the whistle on
forced sterilizations and forced abortions in Linyi, and then
was subsequently violently targeted by the Chinese authorities.
The ordeal and the abuses that he and his family and his
lawyers suffered have been well-documented. Chen also served
the full four years and three months of his sentence, despite
the fact that back in November 2006, the UN Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention, a UN independent body of experts,
determined that Chen's detention was arbitrary, and contravened
the principles and norms set forth in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. The Working Group requested that the Chinese
Government take the necessary steps to remedy the situation and
bring its actions into conformity with the standards and
principles. However, the Chinese authorities failed to release
Chen or take any remedial actions in response to the decision
of the Working Group.
International expressions of support and concern for Chen
Guangcheng and his family have been and continue to be strong.
In fact, the United States and the European Union have called
for Chen's release throughout his four years and throughout the
ordeal of Chen and his family.
Beginning in 2005, numerous independent international human
rights experts also expressed concerns and sent urgent appeals
and letters of allegations to the Chinese authorities,
including the Special Rapporteurs on freedom of expression, on
violence against women, on torture, on independence of judges
and lawyers, and the Special Representative of the Secretary
General on human rights defenders from 2005, 2006 on continued
to send numerous requests for information and expressions of
concern to the Chinese Government.
Yet, despite all of these strong and ongoing concerns
expressed by the international community and the high profile
of Chen Guangcheng's case in the media, the local authorities
continue to allow thugs and plainclothes police to trample on
the rights of Chen and his family. This egregious disregard for
the rights of Chinese citizens protected by Chinese and
international human rights law is part of the continuing severe
crackdown on lawyers, activists, and rights defenders.
Chen's supporters, as Chai Ling has already referenced and
widely reported, include activists, writers, bloggers,
petitioners, and ordinary Chinese who have just been outraged
by reading about or hearing about the persecution of Chen and
his family, and who have attempted to visit him to show their
solidarity.
Last night, Human Rights in China [HRIC], issued a press
bulletin titled, ``Dozens of People Beaten While Attempting to
Visit Blind Legal Advocate Chen Guangcheng,'' detailing the
most recent abuse of Chen's supporters. Eyewitnesses told us
that over the weekend about 37 rights defenders and netizens
who attempted to visit Chen were beaten by around 100
unidentified individuals; many of these supporters were
seriously injured.
According to rights defender, petitioner, and activist who
resisted the One-Child Population Policy, Mao Hengfeng was
among those beaten and injured. She, and about 36 of these
individuals who attempted to visit Chen, were surrounded about
200 meters away from the village where Chen lives. Our written
statement lists the names of those who were injured.
However, Shanghai rights defender Jin Yuehua told HRIC that
when she and Shan Yajun tried to videotape the beatings, they
were almost hit by a police vehicle with a license plate number
that they did note with their cell phones, and another vehicle
without a license plate. After they called the emergency
hotline, four ambulances arrived but left without helping
anyone.
Another netizen, San Long Yong Shi, told HRIC that after
dialing the emergency hotline numerous times, several officers
did show up. The officers took Li Yu, Liu Ping, and Shan Yajuan
away, and since then their cell phones have been turned off. As
of the time of this hearing, we do not have any updates on any
contact with them.
According to San Long Yong Shi, more than 20 of the victims
went to the Linyi Municipal Public Security Bureau to report
and file the case yesterday. They asked the police to guarantee
their safety. San Long Yong Shi said that the vice director,
Mr. Xia--officer number 078171--met with the group and asked
them to report to the plainclothes police and special police
officers, and told them to get into the police vehicle. When
the group insisted on seeing his police identification before
getting into the vehicle, they were told, ``If you keep making
trouble we will wipe you out.''
However, although thugs may be beating, threatening, and
intimidating people, actually the authorities have been unable
to shut down the virtual spaces and the online campaigns
initiated in support of Chen. Feng Zhenghu's Free Chen
Guangcheng campaign, has generated more than 400 signatures.
Once the flood gates of truth are opened, it's very hard to try
to shut it down. The ``Travel to Shandong to Visit Chen
Guangcheng'' campaign has attracted now more than 100 visitors.
Another group of netizens are running the virtual campaign of
Hei Yanjing, the ``dark glasses'' campaign, that asks people to
express solidarity with Chen, to put on dark glasses, take a
photo, and upload it to this Web site. The links are noted in
my written testimony. So far, as of yesterday, more than 245
people have taken pictures of themselves in dark sunglasses and
submitted it to the Web site.
I want to close with some brief remarks on the role of the
international community and specifically reference the recent
example of Relativity Media which is filming its new
production, ``21 and Over'', a feature comedy film, in Linyi.
In HRIC's open letter sent yesterday to Relativity Media and
its partners, SAIF and IDG, we expressed our deep concern about
their apparent failure to do due diligence before selecting
Linyi as a filming location for a comedy film. We pointed out
that Linyi is indeed a historic city as proclaimed by Zhang
Shaojun, Linyi's Party secretary. But Linyi has entered into
the annals of history for something inglorious. It's a place
where the local authorities are responsible for egregious,
ongoing, and widely reported violations against one of the most
prominent human rights advocates.
We urged these companies to demonstrate their professed
commitment to human rights by concrete action, such as
terminating the filming of a comedy in a city of human rights
shame. We also urge them to raise these issues with the Linyi
Party secretary--who they have publicly said is a good friend--
and to raise their human rights concerns about the ongoing
persecution of Chen Guangcheng and his family, as well as the
violence and intimidation perpetrated against Chen's
supporters. In light of Congress and the administration's
broader concerns with the human rights impacts of U.S.-based
companies operating in China, we urge you to closely monitor
this situation and we thank the Commission for your ongoing
commitment to your critical mandate.
The severity of persecution and suffering endured by Chen
and his family and the efforts of the authorities to intimidate
his supporters are ongoing, even as we sit here today. The
urgent challenge remains to ensure the safety and freedom of
Chen, his family, and the respect for human rights for all the
people in China.
Yet, with China's economic, political, and soft power
influence, strengthened by its position in the current global
financial crisis, China continues to dismiss the human rights
pressures from the international community. Yet, China cannot
dismiss the growing pressure from its own people for
accountability and for justice. The courage, persistence, and
creativity of netizens and China's supporters are lights in
China's darkness. Our collective mission is to stand in
solidarity with them.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I look forward to
your questions, and most importantly to our discussion and
exchange about what can be done from here. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hom appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Smith. Ms. Hom, thank you so very much for your
testimony and for being back before the Congress to provide,
again, your very eloquent insights as well, a lifetime of
advocacy. The Commission is very much indebted to you today, as
well as in the past.
Let me ask a few questions. Do we have current knowledge of
Chen and his wife as to their well-being, as well as their
whereabouts? Are they totally isolated right now?
Ms. Hom. I think that what has been very clear from all the
media reports and from people that we have spoken to who have
attempted to visit Chen, is that the information that we're
getting report sounds from inside Chen's home. One of the
villagers who watched the beatings of the group of 37 who tried
to go over the weekend reported that they heard beatings inside
Chen's home. Although no one has confirmed or is able to
confirm reports of what's actually happening inside, I think
these reports should really raise very serious concerns.
Chairman Smith. Let me ask you, Chai Ling, you had
mentioned the importance--you had four points in your testimony
and the word ``urgent'', I think, undergirded each of those
points.
Ms. Chai. Yes.
Chairman Smith. That the Obama administration and U.S.
Embassy work with you and EU partners. My question is, in the
assessment of the panel, if you could each look at this, have
we, the U.S. Congress, the administration, our ambassador,
previous as well as Ambassador Locke, today, done enough to
raise the case of Chen? Has there been, to your knowledge, a
visit or attempted visit by U.S. Embassy personnel to his home?
Ms. Chai. If we apply enough pressure collectively, in
unity, I believe that Chen Guangcheng can be released to
freedom. So because he is suffering this continuous torture and
beatings and his health condition continues to deteriorate in
isolation, we do believe the time to act is now, and we must
act.
Mr. Cohen. There is a rumor that it was possible for an
American diplomat, secretly, to get to Chen and his family. I
don't know if that's accurate or not. Because of the non-
transparency, it's hard to say anything more than what has been
said. Many foreign diplomats, journalists, and others have
tried to get there, but they've been treated just as badly as
domestic people who, fortunately--a small group, at least--keep
trying.
The problem with U.S. Government pressure is it may be,
among the various possibilities we've mentioned, the least
effective, I would say for two reasons. One, our own well-known
violations of human rights in a number of prominent respects
deny us the standing we used to have when we tried to preach to
foreign governments.
Also, we have, since China's entry into the WTO, as you
know, lost our maximum leverage over China concerning its human
rights violations. Before China was approved by the Congress
for entry into the WTO, every year there would be congressional
review of China's human rights record in order for China to
continue its most-favored-nation status in the United States.
China's WTO entry also required congressional approval. I have
been involved in human rights cases, one as recently as the
year 2000, where it was China's eagerness to get your approval
for entry into the WTO that led to the victim's release. The
case of the Dickinson College librarian, Mr. Song Yongyi, was
the most recent example.
I was involved with Senator Arlen Specter in that case, and
the Chinese well knew--we made it clear--that Congress would be
unlikely to approve their WTO entry as long as Mr. Song, a
resident of Pennsylvania, which was Mr. Specter's state,
remained in illegal captivity.
So the problem since China's WTO entry has been, and that
has led to your Commission's establishment, how can public
opinion and other governmental and non-government influences be
used to stimulate protection for Chinese people whose rights
have been abused?
In another case, the case of an American businessman named
Xue Feng, who is still locked up in China, every month our
then-ambassador, Jon Huntsman, or his deputy, Bob Goldberg,
would go to visit Xue, as the U.S.-China bilateral consular
agreement permitted. I've never seen more extraordinary,
consistent pressure than that. I admired what our diplomats
did. But Xue Feng is still there. It may be that overt U.S.
intervention, although desirable, is the least effective of
various pressures we should employ.
What seems to be more effective is the popular outcry, and
that's what we witnessed in the Ai Weiwei case. In that case,
the international artistic community, which had previously had
only goodwill toward China, came up with 143,000 signatures on
a petition to free Ai Weiwei. That made an impression on the
Chinese Government, which wants a ``soft power'' reputation.
That's why they've been establishing Confucius institutes in
the United States and in many other countries, especially
universities.
Well, you don't get soft power when you've mobilized the
world's artistic community against you because you've behaved
in an indecent way toward one of the world's most prominent
artists.
So I think it may be the power of foreign public opinion.
It may be the power of organizations, including NGOs and
others, that may be even more important than overt U.S.
Government concern for concrete cases. The U.S. Government's
public concern for concrete cases worked well in the 1990s.
Since China's entry into the WTO in the last 11, 12 years,
however, we have not seen that being very effective.
Yet, we have no choice. We can't expect our government not
to pay attention to these cases, and we need its help. But I
think it is going to also take an improvement in our own
official human rights conduct. I think one of the most profound
things ever said was by Robert Burns, the Scottish poet who
wrote, ``Oh, would the Lord, this giftie gie us, to see
ourselves as others see us.'' So it can't be ``do as we say,
not as we do.'' It's a complicated question, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you.
Ms. Hom. We have seen over the last 30 years that overt
U.S. pressure, by and large, has not been as effective as one
would hope. But I do think, notwithstanding that, it is
extremely important at the highest level, that the U.S.
Government, both Congress and the Administration, continue to
send strong messages because those messages actually get
broadcasted back in a kind of round-trip translation/media
circulation loop. Despite official censorship efforts, these
messages get translated into Chinese, disseminated through the
Internet and blogosphere, and they do have a ripple effect
supporting defenders.
On a pragmatic level, I think that the United States and
other Western democracies need to reinstitute a more effective
and transparent sharing of information and strategies--the EU
is in the middle of a process right now of once again--
rethinking its China policy engagement because, frankly, they
must know that it's not working to advance concrete progress.
So I think this is a good moment to reach out and try to
strategize concretely about how the United States and the
European Union can perhaps coordinate effectively, though the
EU is in a worse situation than the United States, as the EU is
knocking on China's doors for help with its sovereign debt
problem. I believe that someone in the Administration was
quoted quite recently as saying, ``It's hard to be tough with
your banker.''
I would say that we have to be tough with the banker
because the recent Wall Street financial crises have shown,
that not being tough with ``the banker'' will open everyone,
the 99 percent of the rest of us, to the risks of corruption,
greed, bad behavior, and consequences of a total lack of
accountability. I think any exchange for short-term benefits
ignores at our peril the longer term picture and the need for a
sustainable relationship.
I wanted to also piggyback on what Professor Cohen was
saying about soft power. We don't have a lot of leverage
outside of China, but we do have one point of leverage--soft
power--that seems to be just not used and I don't understand
why. It's incomprehensible. Because, to the Chinese regime,
cultural soft power is extremely important. Why else would they
invest the enormous amount of resources it has invested into
its big propaganda campaign--translated into English more
benignly as an advertising campaign, or public relations.
One example: The investment in one of the largest multi-
media signs in Times Square for Xinhua, China's official news
agency--just beneath the Prudential billboard and above the
Samsung and Coca-Cola signs. The People's Daily has also moved
into the Empire State Building, which they reported widely in
the Chinese media. They've invested broadly in expanding the
number of Confucius Institutes, along with exerting control
over the curriculum, so when Chinese history is taught in the
Confucius Institutes you will see black holes for certain
periods like the 1989 Democracy Movement, et cetera. These are
some of the ways in which China is deploying its soft power and
enormous resources to culture, education, and media outlets,
including more than 33 foreign media outlets, to promote a
positive China story. So why is the international community
allowing China this cost-free deployment of soft power without
any push-back, without any conditions, without any critical
scrutiny?
If you saw a map of how many Confucius Institutes are in
this country, you would be shocked. Perhaps not. Many of the
Confucius Institutes are hosted at institutions of higher
learning, think tanks, or cultural institutions. Perhaps they
really ought to report on the funding sources and Chinese
Government conditions on their programs, cultural exchanges,
and curriculum. I think that would be a useful follow-up.
Chairman Smith. So let me ask you, with regards to, you
mentioned the overt may not work, or has not worked since the
1990s. I would respectfully argue the overt efforts on human
rights have never been tried. We have done it in a marginal
way. I remember when President Bill Clinton linked most favored
nation status to human rights observance and the benchmarks
that were laid out in his executive order couldn't have been
more ennobling, more comprehensive than they were.
Within weeks of setting out that executive order--and by
the way, parenthetically, we had the votes, at least we
believed we did, both in the House and the Senate to take away
most favored nation status from China because--you know, I was
working very closely with the former Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi, and others. There was a bipartisan consensus that China
needed to be held to account on human rights.
In came this executive order, which in a way put a
tourniquet on that legislative effort, and then within weeks,
and certainly within months, I went halfway through the review
period and I was told in China by a deputy foreign minister
that--and I had a signature sheet of 100 members, bipartisan
members saying, we're with Bill Clinton. He will stand firm.
If, by sometime in May, significant progress is not made in
human rights, most favored nation status is a goner.
They practically laughed at me in China, believing that
there was no way that Clinton would hold firm. Sure enough, in
May 1994, late on a Friday afternoon, he literally ripped up
the executive order and said, we are de-linking human rights
with MFN.
So I would respectfully argue that we have not even tried.
They judged us as believing that profits trumped human rights
and have behaved accordingly. If there was a reversal on human
rights in the most profound of ways, in my opinion, it happened
in May of 1994 when Clinton de-linked human rights. It was
exacerbated by statements made thereafter that were always
lukewarm. So we, in my opinion, have never tried the overt. We
have made statements and then we draw back.
My hope is, and I believe this Commission has an
opportunity, to assert a more robust effort on human rights,
knowing that they may initially be repelled by it--they being
the Chinese--knowing that Wei Jinxiang once told me in Beijing,
and then right where you're sitting, Professor Cohen, when he
testified after being released, having been pummeled almost to
death by the dictatorship, that he said, when you are quiet or
coddling--these are my words, but he spoke very closely aligned
with that--when you kowtow to the dictatorship, they beat us
more in the prison. But when you're tough and transparent and
predictable, they beat us less.
I would argue, judging by what Chai Ling had said, calling
on the Obama Administration to raise these issues in the most
profound way as non-negotiable, that these are things we care
deeply about. Yes, we care about trade. Where will China--and
Tom Lantos used to love to say this.
Where will the Chinese Government find a market for its
Christmas toys and all the things that they sell here,
including high-tech gadgetry so we don't have to be so worried
about the fact that they have $1.2 trillion worth of our debt
because they have to use our markets and that's how they keep
their economy thriving, if that's what you want to call it, by
exports? So we have real leverage, we just haven't used it.
I would respectfully also say, and you might want to
comment on this, when Hu Jintao was here, I had asked Secretary
Clinton, what was raised, human rights, behind closed doors, if
anything? Was Chen Guangcheng's case raised in a way that is
meaningful, not as an asterisk somewhere on page 4 on a set of
talking points? We've got to be serious about human rights, and
I know you three are. You've spent your whole lives on it.
But I would hope our government, for once, would be serious
and hopefully that bipartisan coalition that we've had in the
past will re-emerge to say we're really serious about fighting
for democracy. You don't have to worry about copyright
infringement if they get the human rights piece right. You
don't have to worry about exporting revolution or projecting
power if they get the human rights piece right. So I do believe
this is a peace issue as well.
But I don't think we've even tried. As you said, Professor
Cohen, I thought your point was well taken, that somehow it's a
myth that the higher echelon, the central authorities don't
know. It reminds me of something that was said during World War
II. If only the Fuhrer knew what was going on in the gas
chambers. Well, the central government does know.
Hu Jintao does know, as does the rest of the ruling elite.
And not only do they turn a blind eye, they are part and parcel
of the effort to repress. So I don't think we, in all candor
and seriousness, and with respect, have ever done the overt. We
make a statement and we retreat. I'm hoping that this
Commission will be a light. It certainly has very, very
professional staff who, when we produce, as we did recently,
our report on human rights, it is heavily footnoted, heavily
documented, and the Chinese know that we're speaking truth to
power as a Commission.
So, I would just, before going to my good friend and
colleague, just ask, has the Human Rights Council and the other
important human rights apparatuses of the United Nations, the
High Commissioner for Human Rights, raised the issue of Chen
Guangcheng by name? Has Bankai Moon raised it to the Chinese
officials?
Ms. Hom. Representative Smith, maybe the adjective we
should be using is not overt, but what we should really be
focusing on is whether the action is principled, unequivocal,
without sending mixed messages, and not behind closed doors. I
think we can quibble on ``overt,'' but I think the real problem
is that it's not unequivocal, transparent, and principled.
I think one problem with mixed messaging can be seen when
Secretary Clinton first went to China. The Chinese were
listening quite closely to the messages delivered and the
official media Chinese headlines declared ``U.S. Says Human
Rights Not on Table.'' I don't think the United States has
fully recovered from that initial message.
I wanted to say something about a practical suggestion for
a legislative initiative that might be explored. Last year, the
Chinese Communist authorities issued a directive regarding the
disclosure of all assets domestically or abroad of Party
officials and their families. The problem is, that the assets
of most of the high Party officials, and the over 70 million
Party members, are often ill-gotten gains that are invested in
property, business, et cetera abroad. In fact, some Chinese
studies indicate that the United States is one of the top
destinations. So this corruption and outflow of money is an
interesting problem--one that the Communist Party sees as a
problem, too. Wouldn't this be an interesting example for
cross-border enforcement?
Mr. Cohen. On your point, Mr. Chairman, about the Human
Rights Council of the United Nations, as distinguished from the
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the former is, of course,
a highly political institution in which many of the
participants have their own very serious human rights problems
and there's a kind of alliance of the anti-democratic
governments that makes it hard for us to take as effective
action as we should.
I am glad that you emphasize the fact that our highest
officials haven't, on a continuous basis, done all that they
can on human rights. I think that's true. I'm also glad that
Sharon Hom pointed out the continuing necessity for U.S.
Government action. In my own remarks, I was trying merely to
point out that we shouldn't exaggerate the impact that we've
had when we've made overt government interventions.
I think to be really effective such protests have to be
accompanied not only by UN organization activities, but also a
lot of these more unofficial NGO and spontaneous popular
petitions and educational efforts, plus committee hearings like
this. I think it's got to be an overall package. I think then
the Chinese Government will be more likely to show a favorable
response.
I don't think--and you've said the same thing, I believe--
that we have to be so worried about the fact that the Chinese
are bankrolling our economy and now negotiating with Europe to
participate to a greater extent in Europe's economy. They're
doing it for self-interest. If there's a market collapse in
Europe, if there's a collapse in the United States, China's
huge export markets on which its leaders are so dependent for
their own political survival will also disappear. So this is
self-interest.
Of course, it's harder to influence China's leaders than in
the past, not only because of the country's WTO entry. There is
greater confidence in China now. Occasionally one thinks
there's a certain arrogance that we normally associate with
some of the western powers, including ourselves. There's a
rising nationalism in China, a greater confidence among the
young people. People of 25 often have a different attitude from
people who are 45. We have to take account of that also.
But I think we obviously have to continue to use all the
pressures we can. Yet, as I said in my opening statement, the
real key is in China, and the newest development and the one
that is up for grabs, the outcome of which is unclear, is, how
effective will be the government's efforts to control blogging,
social media, and the Internet?
Some people are very confident China will never, despite
all its dictatorial efforts, succeed in controlling them. Other
people feel, by and large, the government is going to be able
to keep up with the challenges. It's an open question, but what
we see now is the possibility for the first time of people
expressing themselves much more freely than they have since
1979 when there was a brief period of several months before
Deng Xiaoping made his trip to the United States when people
were quite free in Beijing, at least.
I was living there then and it was almost frighteningly
free from November 1978 to February 1979. But once Deng came
back from the United States and once China went to war with
Vietnam, and he wanted to moderate the enthusiasm of the
Chinese people for things American, we have seen all this
repression recur. I think we now are entering a new period, and
my hope is that the Internet and the social media will make
possible very positive, but peaceful, developments.
Ms. Hom. Can I add a quick comment? On the weibos, the
microblogs, that's absolutely right and it's an ongoing battle.
But you're talking about bloggers, some with followers of 1
million, 5 million, 10 million followers. So if they, as in the
case of Chen Guangcheng's supporters, upload a weibo post, and
it gets re-tweeted, that means even if it's taken down, which
they often are, by the time it's taken down, 15 minutes, 20
minutes later, 20 million people might have already read it.
This is why I think it's not only impossible to shut it down,
even if it is shut down, the information has already been
disseminated.
But I did not address, Mr. Chairman, your question about
the Human Rights Council. In their urgent appeals and what they
call Letters of Allegation, each of the special rapporteurs
that I mentioned in my written statement did specifically
inquire about Chen Guangcheng's situation. The Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention's decision on Chen Guangcheng should be
required reading because of its extensive and detailed record
on his case.
However, when these human rights mechanisms report to the
Human Rights Council, there is, of course, debate. The not-so-
rights-respecting countries will protest, but the fact remains
that the final reports are part of the public records of the
Human Rights Council. One example of how China tries to censor
what is in a final human rights report: After China's review
before one of the UN treaty bodies, the Committee Against
Torture [CAT] in 2008, the CAT issued its final report. China
filed one of the first formal protests and demanded certain
language to be taken out of the experts' report. The language
they wanted deleted as inappropriate in a UN report was what it
referred to as the ``so-called 1989 Democracy Movement,'' and
the term ``crackdown.'' But the CAT Committee did not remove
the ``offending'' language.
So in the international arena, these independent experts
need to hold the line, and for them to be supported, but it
also requires them to speak up. The United States, even as an
observer state at the Human Rights Council, did not even sign
up during the universal periodic review of China. The U.S.
absence and silence was clearly noted.
Ms. Chai. Yes. Chairman Smith, I just want to echo what you
stated earlier, that the U.S. presidential level has lacked a
strong, consistent human rights policy toward China. I would
absolutely agree with your statement. I even want to take it
further. This is not just an issue of the current Obama
Administration. It involves the same kind of policy as
demonstrated by the Clinton Administration and, together with
even the Bush Administration. George W.'s Administration was
much more courageous toward China's faith-based movement, but
on human rights there wasn't really an improvement. So this is
a consistent 22-year U.S.-China policy.
As I was finishing my memoir, ``A Heart for Freedom,'' I
went back and tried to understand this relationship. On the
night of the June 4 massacre in 1989, I was one of the key
student leaders. We were the last 5,000 students. We were told
a rumor, saying that if we stayed until 6 a.m. in the morning
the United States may intervene to stop China's brutality once
and for all and China can be set free, so we waited and risked
our lives and eventually the students were given a chance to
leave and the majority voted to leave.
So I had to escape for 10 months and finally came to
America. I came to find Ambassador Levy, who was U.S.
Ambassador at that time in Beijing during the massacre, and I
wanted to know from him directly, did the United States have
any plan to intervene or do anything to stop what the Chinese
leaders were doing through the massacre? He immediately said
that rumor was an absolute lie, not at all. Then there was a
time I met him around 1994, 1995. I went on and said, ``Why? ''
It was a private meeting. He just said, ``It's far away and
because they don't care.'' I was heartbroken.
I believe that one sentence summarized the entire U.S.-
China policy in the past 22 years, and that's exactly why Deng
Xiaoping believed he could use a massacre against his own
people and scare the public away, because when I had researched
why he used this massacre to kill his own people, how dare he,
why did he have such courage to do that, he said ``We, China,
is a big fat piece of meat. The United States, the Western
countries, they're going to scream and kick for a few years and
then they are going to come back because they each want a piece
of us. Just wait, let it get its household in order. We can
wait them out.'' And he was right. For the longest time I was
devastated when I learned this reality.
That was a reality, I believe--you know, Sharon, you
correctly described, and so did Professor Cohen--that after so
many U.S. NGOs, human rights organizations, UN organizations,
advocated for various dissidents and in persecution situations,
most of them do not end up in freedom or release. China can
continue to do whatever they want to do and it's simply
because, unfortunately, the U.S. Wall Street is selling souls
to China.
The dictatorship wants to maintain the current trade, the
current profitability. I have so many friends who do business
in China. They do not approve of or support what we are doing
because they do not want to rob the chance to make more money.
Then you see the American poor people, the middle class, who
are losing our jobs to China.
What should the United States have done? It should have
done what President Reagan did in 1988 with South Korea.
Ambassador Levy's memoir, when I read it, was really moving. He
wrote, in 1988 when he was ambassador in South Korea, South
Korea was having the same kind of situation with dissidents
demonstrating, protesting toward freedom.
The leaders at that time of South Korea were at a
crossroads. They could go crack down on the movement or they
could go ahead and let them be set free. Ambassador Levy was
able to obtain a letter from President Reagan and he went in
courageously and warned the leader of South Korea that if they
were to take brutal actions, there would be severe
consequences.
As a result of that, South Korea was let free and they have
freedom today. I believe, if the United States, in 1989, had
taken a very different approach, if President Reagan had been
in office, we would see a different China and we would have a
different U.S.-China relationship.
We cannot rewrite history today, but we can determine how
we will act differently tomorrow and we can take different
action today. That is why I'm here. I think starting from Chen
Guangcheng's case, it is important for us to take a different
stand.
Mr. Cohen. I wonder whether I could say a few words just to
broaden the discussion about what strategies might work and
what might not work for the next couple of years.
First of all, I think it is important to understand there
is a quiet struggle under way in Beijing now about how to
revise the criminal procedure laws in ways that will either
enhance protection of the rights of suspects and defendants or
expand the powers of the police and other law enforcement
agencies.
Of course, the upper hand is in the hands of the police
because it's the Chinese Communist Party Political-Legal
Commission that controls all legal institutions, starting with
the legislature and including the courts, the police, the
prosecutors, the justice bureaus, the legal profession, et
cetera.
Now, that commission, until the autumn of 2012, is headed
by Zhou Yongkang, who used to be the Minister of Public
Security. He's been promoted in recent years to the Standing
Committee of the Politburo, and he's the head of the Political-
Legal Commission. He's pursued a tough line. I don't think we
can expect that the people who are fighting for greater civil
liberties, greater protections against the kind of suffering
that Chen Guangcheng and many others have endured, are likely
to come out of this law reform with very significant progress,
but it's going to be a mixed kind of bag. But then China gets a
new leadership a year from now and the question is, will there
be any new leaders more likely to be sympathetic to a genuine
rule of law in China?
In 1956, no one anticipated what Khruschev did in
introducing de-Stalinization. He had been a running dog of
Stalin and people didn't expect that he would make public the
abuses of Stalin, the humiliations that even he and others
suffered. In 1990, although Gorbachev had gone to law school,
nobody realized that, when he became top dog in the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, he would try to engineer the reforms
he did. So, we have to be alert to the possibility of change at
the top, because China is changing.
The key is the middle class that has been mentioned. The
other day, in discussing a potential bursting of the real
estate bubble in China, a very good reporter in the Financial
Times, Jamil Anderlini , pointed out that a bursting of the
real estate bubble would deprive the Party of its strongest
support, the strongest support being the middle class that has
benefited from the Party's policies. Thus there is a real
question in terms of which way the middle class will go.
There have also been signs that the middle class is getting
a little restive with the Party policy on which they have
depended and which they have supported. Traditionally, in
Western Europe and in the United States, we associate the
rising middle class with greater demands for human rights.
In China, it hasn't gone that way. Many of us hoped, 25
years ago, 30 years ago, it would go that way. We see until now
the middle class is the best supporter of the Communist Party
and they have been taken into the Party, and the business elite
have been taken in. But it may be, especially if there's an
adverse economic turndown in China, that the middle class will
become increasingly demanding for the kinds of improvements in
the rule of law that we support.
Representative Walz. Well, thank you all for your
incredibly insightful and passionate depiction of what's
happening and helping us try and understand what's going on. I
couldn't agree more. The Chairman and I were just discussing, I
had written on my sheet here at the top, 1994 MFN, and some of
the changes I think many of us--my time in China was cut being
there in 1989, 1990, and 1991.
I am very interested, coming to this Commission, too, I
think the Chairman mentioned something. I certainly associate
myself with his remarks on this. But the importance of this
Commission. I gravitated to this Commission. I think first and
foremost, too, is I have a profound respect for the Chinese
people and culture and want to see--I think all of us do--if
there is an ability as us as people, and I think this House
especially, a representative of the people, get this right.
I think, Mr. Cohen, you hit on something. I think it does
trouble a lot of Americans, this idea of lecturing other
countries on human rights when we certainly have our past
transgressions that are pretty apparent. But I think the
difference is, if there's transgressions, I think the spirit of
the American people to get this right on human rights is still
very strong and I think no matter what's happened in the past
to move forward to get there, and I do think it's important to
have that, to reach that critical mass of where people care--
and it gets frustrating at a time of economic turmoil. People
turn inwards more. People worry about it.
The number-one call to my office is, let's just cut foreign
aid and we could balance the budget. It's as simple as that.
But there's a deeper belief there, worrying about our own. I
think human rights has that ability to show, and I think the
quote, Chai Ling, that you mentioned, is we're all in this
together, especially on human rights.
So the question I'm going to ask--well, I guess I'm trying
to have you help me understand this. You're getting at it. I'm
trying to understand where the Chinese people are in this. I
say that because I watched a very strange phenomenon after
Tiananmen Square of this. I know it's a part of--and don't get
me wrong. Having lived in China, and I said I traveled there
maybe several dozen times, but every time I go I know less. I'm
one trip away from knowing nothing about China, so I don't want
to go back. But I watched it afterwards and this quest for
stability, preservation, or maintenance is so strong. I watched
good people justify that you and your friends went too far, the
cultural revolution was still a fresh, open wound, and that.
So my question I guess I'm trying to get to is, is watching
the Chinese Government, this latest central committee plenum,
focusing heavily on cultural reform, this--and I'm a cultural
geographer. Watching them try and change this, Mr. Cohen, you
were hitting on this, the middle class and where they feel on
this. These are the same people that, in 1990, were seeing
positive changes that were saying, the students asked for too
much, too fast. We don't think what happened to them was right,
but they were upsetting the stability.
Is that the way these folks like Chen are viewed still by
the bulk of the Chinese people? Is that at the core of this,
why there isn't a larger momentum? I'm just trying to get at
this to see where the change is effected from.
Mr. Cohen. Well, you have put your finger on the difference
between our situation and the way we handle human rights
transgressions and the situation in China. The big difference
is a free media. When a New York policeman beats somebody up
arbitrarily, that appears in the paper the next day and it
starts a political-legal process that often leads to change,
even though sometimes it takes a long time. In China, it's the
non-transparency that really inhibits that happening. To the
extent things become transparent, the Chinese do have to take
certain measures.
Now, your question here is very hard for us to answer
because of the controls on knowing, what do the Chinese people
think? We're not the beneficiaries of all kinds of polls that
take the pulse of the Chinese people. There is some social
science work being done, a little bit in cooperation with
foreign social scientists. But we don't have the access to much
data.
Nevertheless, in impressionistic fashion, we get a lot of
insight. I think Chinese society is changing fast, and we don't
know the direction the dominant groups will take. I think it's
up for grabs and I don't think one can assume China, in the
next decade, is going to continue this meteoric economic
development because I think they're becoming victims of their
own success. The fact that there is so much socio-economic
change is creating more and more tension, more and more
unresolved problems. People definitely long for the stability
and harmony that is associated with Confucius, rightly or
wrongly, but that doesn't mean they will get it.
Representative Walz. Right.
Mr. Cohen. But the fact is, although they remember the
``Cultural Revolution'' and even the ``Great Leap Forward'' and
all the enormous starvation of the late 1950s and early 1960s,
new generations take that less seriously but they take more
seriously their immediate frustrations and difficulties. So a
lot depends on where the economy goes, to what extent China's
leaders pursue the right economic course, to what extent
they're hurt by what is taking place abroad in terms of
economic and other changes.
There is a lot more openness today than there was, but
repression remains heavy. I can understand why the leaders just
want to finish their term in a quiet way. The quickest way to
assure that is to hit people over the head and keep things
quiet, but it accumulates the frustrations. And we have seen in
other countries that too-rapid modernization produces change
that gets out of control.
Iran could be cited as an example of that in the 1970s,
leading to what happened in 1979. The leaders of China are very
sophisticated people. They've had people at their central party
school and elsewhere studying the transformation of one-party
states, what the options are, what's happened in South Korea
and Taiwan compared to what's happened in Indonesia, Mexico,
and Malaysia and other places. There is ferment in China, a lot
more potential possibility for change, but that change could be
good and the change could be bad.
Representative Walz. Just one second, Professor. I'm
struggling with this too because I think we're trying to
understand that. I guess my concern is, and it's why I'm very
appreciative of this Commission, is where else is that
happening in our government, are we thinking ahead, are we
planning for that, trying to see what that transformation will
look like. I am concerned on two levels here.
I'm concerned on the individual level for that child in Mr.
Chen's household, making sure that we're doing right and that
we're standing up and saying that we will do what's necessary,
even if it's economically not beneficial to us to do the right
thing. But I'm also seeing what you're getting at: where can we
be most effective? Having a Congressman from Minnesota and New
Jersey lecturing, if that's the way it's viewed, as being
detrimental, I certainly don't want to do that.
But I want to make it very clear that my constituents in
Southern Minnesota care about that child because her father
spoke out for things that are universally accepted as basic
human rights. So that's where we're struggling in the advice
you're giving us. I think those are all incredibly important
concepts. I'm just not convinced--maybe you can help me with
this--that we're thinking the same way, of what this outcome--
what's the end game in this, and what can we do to foster that
end game to be positive? So, Professor Hom?
Ms. Hom. Thank you. I totally associate with Professor
Cohen's comments that China is really fast changing, and in
part not only that it is the victim of its own success; it is
that those real victims who paid and are paying the cost of
China's economic success are not willing to keep paying those
costs, because that economic success miracle was built on the
backs of workers and low wages and human rights violations, and
that is just all exploding because it is not sustainable.
On the bigger question about, where is this very complex,
dynamic picture of the Chinese people heading, I want to say
three things as observations as well as suggestions for
strategic direction. First, the middle class. What we're
actually seeing is that the middle class may be realizing that
things are not so good, especially as it is impacted by
corruption or too fast and unsustainable growth.
For example, the Shanghai high-speed train crash is very
illustrative. Why? Who can afford to take the expensive, high-
speed rails? It's the middle class. It's not migrant workers on
those expensive high-speed trains. Within seconds and minutes
after the crash, photos of people seriously injured were
already circulating on the Internet.
But hours later, the official media was still not reporting
the seriousness of the crash or the injuries. They weren't
reporting the truth. When the middle class, comfortable,
thinking they were safe, find themselves hurt, followed by
official coverups and lies, directly related to corruption, you
can see the growing anger. Similarly, the tragic incident of
the two-year-old that Chai Ling raised, generated a diverse
weibo discussion also reflected debates on fundamental
questions asking: Who are we? What kind of people are we? And
not only saying that we can be better than this, some posts
actually saying don't blame the Communist Party, don't blame
the Cultural Revolution for producing us like this. They said
we have to step up, take responsibility, and be the kind of
people we should be. I was so encouraged by these fundamental
questions that go to the nature of what China's society and
people will be, and these questions are being asked by the
Chinese people.
Finally, there is an as yet not fully understood role for
Hong Kong. As a Hong Kong Chinese, I think Hong Kong has not
really been sufficiently strategized. Hong Kong now has over 10
million mainland people going in and out every year. Some of
the prominent bloggers, newspaper editors, writers, poets, and
activists, mainlanders, are now based in Hong Kong. Why?
Because it offers more freedom to operate and the proximity of
home in the mainland.
I was back in Hong Kong in June and September. In June,
sitting in Victoria Park with over 130,000 people including
mainland visitors listening to Ding Ziling, the spokesperson
for the Tiananmen Mothers, delivering her audio message, saying
what could not be said in Beijing, suggests the power and
potential of Hong Kong as a space for mainland students,
business people, tourists, visiting scholars, journalists. If
you visit Human Rights in China's You Tube channel at
www.youtube.com/hrichina, you can view our newly launched
series--``Word on the Street,'' including the first video--``Is
Hong Kong the tail that wags the dog? '' We got some really
interesting answers.
On the question of stability versus human rights, I myself
have been challenged by former Chinese colleagues and students
who say in a public setting, perhaps because they have to,
demanding that I answer if you have to choose stability or
human rights, what would you choose? I say it's not a choice
because there's no stability without human rights, just like
there's no real effective counterterrorism measures if human
rights are violated. But this message now is actually being
grasped by ordinary Chinese people.
They're seeing that the Chinese national policy of weiran,
this control policy, is not producing stability. Invoking
stability is actually an excuse for not dealing with the
fundamental causes of social unrest--corruption, lack of access
to housing, jobs and healthcare, and a safe non-toxic
environment. Invoking stability to the hundreds of millions who
are suffering from these problems, is just not as persuasive as
it was 30 years ago and I think that is encouraging.
Representative Walz. That's good.
Mr. Cohen. I just wanted to say, that's a wonderful
statement Sharon has made. I would only emphasize the profound
unhappiness of many, many people in China about corruption,
corruption of high officials, of low officials whom they come
in daily contact with. I think the most profound feeling that
we share with the Chinese is the desire for equal treatment. We
can understand that, equal justice under law. There is a
profound sense in China that there is not equal justice.
Representative Walz. Well, I think both of you, those are
very profound statements. Chai Ling, I will come to you in just
a second on this. I think that is transformative, I think in
the long run, of seeing China, of where it will be into the
future instead of in this town again, as a lot of false
choices. Sharon, as you said, it's either/or, and we know
that's not the case. It's either Dragonslayer, or Panda Hugger,
whatever it will be. The reality is dealing with it as this
relationship becomes more sophisticated over time and becomes
more intertwined for us to get it right.
I find it kind of interesting. As a member of Congress, I
don't think we can take ourselves too seriously, our influence;
every time they do a public approval poll or something it lets
us know. But I found it very interesting, after I was appointed
to this committee, most of my contacts with friends in China
stopped. Do you find that surprising? These were good, long-
term, decades-long friendships. I certainly don't pursue it
because I don't want to put anybody in a bad position, but I
find that interesting. It also reinforces my belief maybe we're
doing something here. So I don't know what you think, how that
would--a coincidence. Could be they just don't like me, I
suppose.
Mr. Cohen. I think the work of this Commission is
indispensable. I think the reports that you do, the hearings
that you hold, we can't find anywhere else in the U.S.
Government or in State governments. The other commission that
was created by Congress, of course, deals with other major
problems including political and military as well as economic
security. Its work, although crucial, does not promote the
understanding of China in terms of society, human rights, et
cetera, to the same extent as your commission makes possible.
So, although you're not a substitute for the ability to deny
China access to our market that the Congress used to have,
you're doing very important, fundamental work.
Representative Walz. Chai Ling, if you'd like to follow up.
I'm sorry. It's not often we have three wonderful panelists
here. I want to bounce as many things off you as I can.
Ms. Chai. Oh, totally. I have really been enjoying
Professor Cohen and Sharon's wonderful insight and report. I am
excited when I hear that you were in China from 1988 to 1989 or
1990. I'd love to know what you were doing. But anyway----
Representative Walz. I would add on that, I was also from
Foshan, so the video that made its way around hit me very
deeply because I have a lot of friends. I know that's not the
people who live there. Good, good people.
Ms. Chai. Yes.
Representative Walz. Sorry to interrupt you.
Ms. Chai. Oh, no. This is great. So I know people who were
in China in those years that share a very strong bond. I also
understand the emotion you experience when you go back to see
the Chinese friends you built at that time. It was a systematic
and methodical denial of who they were, what actually happened
at Tiananmen, the nature, the spirit of Tiananmen, and that's
what happened to me. It was the most lonely and painful
experience to see my dear friends' and comrades' betrayal,
selling out for business and going back to China to do business
and all that, alongside an open attack in the media or through
all kinds of situations to defame the spirit of Tiananmen.
That's why it took me 22 years to finish my memoir, because
I did not understand why, why this was happening, why all these
things I experienced so intimately and so powerfully, so real,
so true, and that genuine love, support, and courage all
started being denied. Later on when I finally came to Jesus, I
understood, even Peter denied Jesus three times. It makes
sense. Good people can do the wrong things at the wrong time.
Someday they will be restored to be a hero again. I want to
share with you the framework I learned when I went back to do
the research, how to understand China in a better way, and then
I want to go back to say, so in the case what would be better--
U.S.-China relationship would help facilitate a free and fair
China sooner.
In 1989, the death of Hu Yaobong led to the student
movement. Hu Yaobong was the one who was famous for advocating
for three reforms. At that time as a young student, I did not
understand what he was talking about. He advocated for
economic, political, and spiritual reform. So now, looking
back, we can see that Xiaoxi Yong, the premier who eventually
was sentenced to house imprisonment for his disagreement with
Deng Xiaping's massacre decision, he advocated for two reforms,
that is, political and economic. Am I okay? Just a few more
minutes? Thank you.
But Deng Xiaoping only wanted one reform, and that is
economic reform. That is what China has today. We can see, even
though every day we hear a lot of insight and we know the
generous statistics that tell us the picture of what this
economic reform had led to, especially the massive amount of
corruption, supposedly a small amount of people around a number
of 5,000 Chinese families control 70 percent of China's wealth
and its political power and military power. The middle class
divides up this other 27 percent.
A third of the Chinese population, 465 million people, live
under $2 a day. Those extremely poor people are forgotten in
the shadow of China's power and wealth, and that's what's
happening to China today. That is the singular economic reform
that led to a nation in this kind of situation.
The political reform is equivalent to none. There is no
freedom in the media, there is no rule of law. When I finished
at Princeton, when I finished from Harvard Business School, I
thought, wow, we really need to push for political reform. Once
we have that, China will be free. For the longest time I lived
with this constant frustration, and now I see we need more than
that to really free this nation, and that is the true and
fundamental spiritual reform. I do not know if Hu Jaobong knew
what he was talking about, but that is what China is in search
of and hungry for today. But China is achieving spiritual
reform, as over 10 percent of China's population are coming to
Jesus. That's really a powerful revolution.
In my last page of my book, when I pray and say, ``God,
where were you on the night of June 4, where were you,'' I
write about how He gave me the answer. He was right there with
the students and He's there, right there today with the Chinese
people. That is a powerful movement.
Dr. Tim Keller, who leads amazing American churches in the
United States visited Beijing. The table was surrounded by
people and they said he asked, ``What happened to the Tiananmen
generation? '' The feedback was, a third of those people went
to become believers and serve the country, a third went to
business for stability and other things, and a third are still
confused, trying to figure it out. So that may in a way
summarize what is happening to China.
So under today's Chinese society, because of the lack of
rule of law, lack of a free media, lack of fundamental
spiritual reform and transformation and this massive wealth gap
between the rich and poor, and China has also in addition
suffering the largest crime against humanity, the largest human
rights abuses that are taking place every day under the One-
Child Policy. Every day, over 35,000 forced and coerced
abortions are taking place. That is, every hour there is a
Tiananmen massacre, and it's ongoing. It's not stopping until
we do something to stop it. Five hundred women commit suicide
every single day.
For every six girls that are scheduled to be born, the
sixth girl will never make it. Every sixth boy will grow up and
have no wife to marry. Today, China has 37 million single men
and they have become a major driver for sex trafficking and
domestic civil unrest, and potentially for global war. Those
are the base that fuel this nationalism. So that leads me to
why we, the United States, need to care. Not only do we need to
care, we need to take immediate, urgent, decisive and
persistent action because if we do not, China's today and
China's past will become our future. We are already losing our
liberty piece by piece. We are already hearing in the media and
politics, everybody is talking about China as powerful, China
controlling our debt.
I guess I want to echo Chairman Smith's words. If we make a
quota saying China no longer can sell or buy U.S. Treasury
bills, let's see who really has the true power. If we put a
tariff on China exports to the United States, let's see what's
going to happen. If we really take a firm stand, like President
Reagan did, on democracy, on freedom, to help in China, I
believe America would become a much stronger America and China
will become a better China as a result of our actions.
I do want to conclude my statement by reminding us of the
Frenchman, de Tocqueville, after he studied America in 1831. He
left this amazing warning to America, that America is great
because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good,
America will cease to be great. We are at this very critical
juncture now that America will potentially be--and it's already
being talked about that America is--in decline. Are we ever
going to reverse that trend to see us to be great? I urge you
to take action. I also encourage you that someday those people
who are denied Tiananmen will come back.
Representative Walz. Thank you all very much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again.
Chairman Smith. Well, thank you very much.
I'd like to now yield to Abigail Story, who is Senior
Research Associate and Manager of Special Projects for our
Commission for any questions you might have.
Ms. Story. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Walz, for your interest in Chen Guangcheng's case specifically,
and for your interest in the development of human rights and
the rule of law in China.
My question is actually for any of you who choose to take
it. I'd like to go back to Chen Guangcheng's case specifically
and what's happening to his family--not just to Chen
Guangcheng, but also to his wife, Yuan Weijing, and their six-
year-old daughter, not to mention their young son who is not
able to live with them and is living with his grandparents.
Some people may call this an extreme case similar to that
of Gao Zhisheng, the lawyer who has been disappeared since
April 2010. Some may call these extreme, but I have to wonder
what the other rights defense lawyers in China are thinking
when they see these cases all across social media, as we've
been talking about these online campaigns, they're seeing
what's happening not just to Chen, but also to his family. You
have to wonder if they're thinking, ``What if I take a stand,
what will happen to my family? ''
My question is, what does this mean for the development of
the rule of law in China if China's lawyers are not able to
practice freely without fear of the impact on their lives and
the lives of their family members?
Mr. Cohen. It's an excellent question and it reminds me
that I haven't stressed today one of the more unfortunate
aspects that the Chen case demonstrates, which is collective
punishment. The rights lawyers, the criminal defense lawyers,
and the public interest lawyers are not only themselves
suffering and intimidated, but also their families are
suffering and often threatened.
One of the reasons for the silence in the months after
their release from illegal captivity this year of many of my
friends in the human rights area has been veiled and not-so-
veiled threats against their spouses and their children, and
this is against the background of past discrimination against
family members that gives credibility to those threats.
I mentioned in my report--I didn't because of time in my
introduction--the case, for example, of Shanghai's former
lawyer Zheng Enchong. This man had no idea of becoming a human
rights lawyer. He was just asked by people in Shanghai to give
them legal help in trying to overturn the illegal conspiracy
between government officials and real estate developers that
had led to the forced removal from their homes and destruction
of their houses of a lot of people.
But because he undertook that, Mr. Zheng immediately got
into a series of difficulties, including three years in prison.
He came out in 2006 and he has been really confined to his
apartment since then. There's no legal basis for this
oppression. Also, his daughter was told, ``You've got no
future. You can't go to the university you wanted to go to in
Shanghai, you might as well leave,'' and she left. She's been
in New York ever since. She didn't know English. She was not
one of these people who intended to study abroad. She is
struggling to survive financially. Now she can't even have
contact with her parents indirectly. For a while she was able
to have indirect contact with the family. So this is another
example of collective punishment.
We are celebrating this year the 100th anniversary of the
overthrow of the Manchu [Qing] Dynasty, the end of the
millennial Imperial era. The question is, in the last 100
years, what has been accomplished in the quest for justice in
China? Well, one of the immediate consequences of the end of
the empire was the abolition of collective punishment. No
longer would somebody convicted of a political crime see his
children and his parents and his other family members suffer
and even be exterminated with him. That was considered
inconsistent with the demands of the civilized world that China
wanted to enter.
But what we're seeing today is a resurrection in practice,
not in law, of collective punishment. That is a sad thing and
we have to understand that, if you want to intimidate someone,
usually the best way is not to threaten that person, but his
loved ones.
Chairman Smith. Thank you very much, Abigail.
Anything else you would like to add before we conclude the
hearing? Ms. Hom?
Ms. Hom. I think that the strategic questions are the kinds
of discussions that need to continue. The CECC has done
excellent work on reporting and monitoring the rule of law and
human rights situation in China, including the preparation of
the annual reports. I have been at a number of CEEC hearings,
and where I think we need to focus is on talking about strategy
in a more nuanced, sophisticated way and not as simple choices,
and recognize that there are multiple levels of actions. But
one thing I think everyone can do in this room, and Professor
Cohen and I will start, is that everyone should go to the
virtual campaign Web site for ``Dark Glasses Portrait,'' put on
dark sunglasses, take a photo, and post it----
Chairman Smith. Absolutely.
Ms. Hom [continuing].--And join the more than 242 people
who have already done so. Professor Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. It's even good for our eyes.
Ms. Hom. I think that we can each make small gestures and
we also need to continue to develop together more
sophisticated, long-term strategies. Everyone who has
sunglasses should put them on now.
Mr. Cohen. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, we're very grateful
for this extended opportunity. We know how valuable time is in
the Congress, and we thank you for your organization and
intelligent chairing of this session and good questions, and
also the able help of the staff. It is all in a good cause. I
hope you can convince many of your colleagues to expand their
interest in China and the vigor with which they support human
rights.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Professor.
Ms. Chai. Yes, Chairman Smith. I just want to thank you
again for your consistent fight to improve China's human
rights, including ending the one-child policy. I do see that
the day for China to be free is near, and so therefore we
should continue to preserve with hope and confidence. I do have
two strategic suggestions in addition to this very symbolic,
important gesture.
One, is tomorrow there will be a hearing on H.R. 2121,
China's Democracy Promotion Act. Once that bill is passed--
again Chairman Smith has drafted that bill--that would bar all
Chinese leaders at all levels who are persecuting its own
people on human rights violations, from religious freedom, to
One-Child Policy, to taking away property, and all that. So I
think that is a very important step. A similar bill worked in
Burma very effectively, and in many other countries. I believe
this is a very important milestone bill that needs a full court
press to move forward to make that happen.
The second one, I do want to echo. Sharon, you suggested a
lot of corrupt Chinese officials own assets that are somehow
stored in America. Professor Cohen, the law profession has a
lot of lawyers in this country. A suggestion has been made that
the victims of Chinese human rights abuses can take action
through a legal statute in this country to go after those
officials and even potentially seize their properties in this
country. I encourage--I'm not in the legal profession myself,
but I encourage other expertise on that front to take action as
well. I believe if we all take action in this way, in addition
to the social media, we'll see a change. Thank you very much
again.
Chairman Smith. Thank you so much.
I'll just conclude by--I will actually be sitting on this
side of the dais tomorrow. I'll be joining Chai Ling before the
Judiciary Committee as a witness on behalf of H.R. 2121, a bill
that I've introduced. And for the record, it was patterned
after the Belarus Democracy Act, which I authored in 2004, to
hold Lukashenko's barbaric regime in Belarus to account using
every tool we could possibly think of, including denying visas
to those people who are complicit in human rights abuse.
The idea behind this bill, for those who are part of the
forced abortion policy, the torture regime, and all of the
crushing of political parties, as well as those who seek a
labor party, obviously the apparatus in China has crushed
independent trade unions comprehensively. Those who are part of
that human rights abuse crime or crimes, the President would be
empowered, through the Secretary of State, to deny a visa to
that individual and lists would be promulgated that would
contain the names of people who have been part of those crimes.
Being on that list means you don't come to the United States of
America. Of course there would be a waiver if it was in the
national interest or for the purposes of promoting human
rights, but we would hope that waiver would be used sparingly.
Very importantly, Lamar Smith, chairman of the full
Judiciary Committee, is one of our very distinguished co-
sponsors. It's a bipartisan bill. Our hope is, like with the
Belarus Democracy Act but on a much grander scale--this is
China--the legislation will move, will be enacted, and will be
used in a very calibrated and focused and targeted way to hold
to account those who commit these heinous crimes. So thank you,
Chai Ling, for bringing that up. Again, thank you to our very
distinguished witnesses for your extraordinary work.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:47 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements
----------