[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 65 (Monday, May 23, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  URGING REJECTION OF RENEWAL OF MOST-FAVORED-NATION STATUS FOR CHINA

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, the time of decision about whether or not to 
renew most-favored-nation [MFN] status for China is upon us. Although 
the Secretary of State has until June 3 to make his recommendation to 
President Clinton, all bets are that he will make the call in the next 
week just after Members leave town and just before his D-day trip to 
Europe.
  I stand before this body and the Nation today to urge President 
Clinton to stand behind his Executive order and revoke MFN in light of 
the new crackdown in China against religious and political dissent. No 
one disputes that the President's Executive order was clear, and no one 
disputes that there has been overall, significant regression instead of 
progress in human rights in China.
  Let us look at recent evidence.
  Only a week ago correspondent Lena Sun of the Post reported that--

       China amended its public order law to broaden the already 
     extensive powers of the police to detain and restrict the 
     activities of democracy and labor activist as well as 
     religious and national minority groups * * * new regulations 
     essentially give authorities the right to detain anyone they 
     regard as a threat to the socialist system.

  New regulations include:
  First, carrying out activities under the name of a social 
organization without registration;
  Second, organizing activities of superstitious sects and secret 
societies to disrupt public order;
  Third, disturbing public order and damaging people's health through 
religious activities;
  Fourth, stirring up conflicts between nationalities, hurting their 
unity and inciting separation of nationalities;
  Fifth, fabricating or distorting facts, spreading rumors or otherwise 
disrupting public order, or doing harm to the public interest through 
other means.

  About the same time these regulations came out, some Tibetan nuns 
received longer prison stays for singing patriotic songs while in 
detention.
  Then last Thursday, Human Rights Watch/Asia released a new report 
citing almost 500 previously unknown prisoners of conscience jailed for 
their involvement in the Tiananmen Square demonstration. Further, this 
seminal report details the ``charade'' ICRC prison inspection that was 
later canceled by Beijing. Inmates were allowed their first showers in 
a year, sick prisoners with ``unattractive appearances'' were moved, 
and window glass was partially installed in windows normally covered in 
paper.
  Yes, we are grateful for the release of some prominent Tiananmen 
leaders like Wang Juntao and Chun Ziming, but they are a drop in the 
bucket as China continues to arrest many more activists.
  On the categories in which the President stated we must see 
``overall, significant'' progress, we are clearly seeing ``overall, 
significant'' regression--leaving the administration claiming new 
Chinese promises to ``talks'' on Red Cross visits and ``talks'' about 
not jamming Voice of America broadcasts as purported progress in the 
categories that follow the two ``must do'' conditions.
  The two ``must do'' conditions for MFN renewal are: First, progress 
on resolving outstanding emigration cases; and, second, progress on 
tightening the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] on prohibition of 
forced labor exports from China.
  The Chinese have helped resolve limited emigration cases.
  In spite of the much-lauded progress on the MOU, the Chinese have 
only agreed to make a toothless agreement a bit less weak--leaving 
themselves plenty of turnaround time to sanitize prison labor camps 
before allowing visits by United States officials. I know some guys in 
Pyongyang and Baghdad who would love to sign up for that kind of 
inspection regime.
  Harry Wu just returned from a covert trip to China in which he 
visited 26 prisons, bringing back fresh evidence that the Chinese 
knowingly violate both the letter and the spirit of their agreement not 
to export forced labor products into China. He even implicated two U.S. 
companies which the prison factory officials admitted to be importers 
of their slave labor products.
  Purported progress on the MOU is clearly a sham.
  Many are urging the Clinton administration to cave in and to set up 
some ineffectual alternatives to revoking MFN like a new Sino-United 
States human rights commission and voluntary Sullivan Principles for 
United States businesses in China. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I 
submit that the new commission would only provide one more layer of 
bureaucracy for Chinese grandstanding and stalling. And the Sullivan 
Principles would clearly be voluntary because no U.S. business wants 
such restrictions in their deal-brokering with Beijing.
  Let us face it, trade is the only leverage that carries any true 
weight with the Chinese regime which is bolstered by our dollars--which 
make up almost 40 percent of their export market. And, in answer to the 
reply that MFN pressure has not achieved our desired result, I say that 
we have to date not revoked MFN. The lack of progress is probably due 
to mixed signals and idle threats the Chinese do not believe we'll 
carry out.
  I believe the real question is whether or not we'll honestly call 
Beijing's bluff and do the morally right thing: revoke MFN in light of 
continued Chinese repression. If we do not, I believe we will not only 
let many in China down who are hoping we will stand firm for democracy, 
but only lose our credibility with the dictators of Beijing and the 
entire region. The message is: make our commitments seem too painful to 
carry out, and we will cave.
  I close with a letter from the U.S. Catholic Conference which speaks 
more eloquently than I on this question:

         U.S. Catholic Conference, Department of Social 
           Development and World Peace,
                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 1994.
     Hon. Warren Christopher,
     Secretary of State,
     Washington, DC.
     Re: Religious Liberty in China.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: With a decision on U.S. policy towards 
     human rights policy in the People's Republic of China drawing 
     near, I am writing to express concern for the lack of 
     improvement, and in some cases serious deterioration, in 
     matter of religious liberty in China during the last year.
       This conference supported conditioning MFN for China on 
     human rights performance and we continue to insist that human 
     rights be an essential dimension of US foreign policy in our 
     relation to China. US policy must not ignore or downplay 
     abuses of human rights in the PRC.
       In deciding this complex issue, I urge you to be guided by 
     three criteria: (1) the assessment of China's human rights 
     policy must be honest and clear; (2) the US must continue to 
     hold China to the observance of international standards of 
     human rights and religious liberty, and (3) there must be a 
     real and significant price to be paid for violations of human 
     rights including offenses against religious liberty and the 
     rights of conscience.
       First, a word about the religious situation in China. While 
     we know the conditions of freedom and persecution in China 
     differ from region to region and there have been developments 
     recently which some regard as improvements, our information 
     is that new legislation has made life much more difficult for 
     believers at large. This is especially so for city dwellers. 
     Techniques vary, but there has been a significant rise in 
     harassment in recent months, including reports of new arrests 
     and other forms of detention for bishops and priests.
       Furthermore, for us as Catholics, for whom participation in 
     a universal church is an essential part of church life, 
     restrictions on the free interaction of the faithful in China 
     with those elsewhere is a grave impediment on religious 
     liberty. Lack of progress on normalization of relations 
     between the PRC and the Holy See is a symptom of a wider 
     phenomenon of prohibiting international church ties which 
     has intensified since government decrees last January.
       Religious liberty remains a primary human rights issue for 
     our episcopal conference. Just as we defended the rights of 
     Jews and Christians in the former Soviet Union during the 
     seventies and eighties, in the nineties we will stand by the 
     rights of Buddhists in Tibet and evangelicals as well as 
     Catholics in China. We sincerely hope the Administration will 
     stand with us on this issue. Firmness at this time will be 
     essential to the progress of human rights and democracy in 
     China today.
       There is no underestimating the significance and the 
     complexity of the practical decision facing the 
     Administration on Chinese human rights in coming weeks. For 
     the future of human rights and for the credibility of US 
     diplomacy, it is vitally important that whatever is done, the 
     Administration be clear and forthright about Chinese non-
     performance and evasion on these issues. No effort should be 
     made to find progress which is not there or to ignore serious 
     violations that continue to persist. There must be no 
     compromise with the truth.
       Furthermore, the continued maintenance of international 
     standards on human rights and liberty for China is absolutely 
     necessary. We would be alarmed and would vigorously oppose a 
     policy which diluted the standards to which the US would hold 
     China in the years ahead.
       As you decide on the penalty for past and current 
     performance, candidness about the record and a firm 
     commitment to human rights and religious liberty is essential 
     to an American policy which will have moral legitimacy. Trade 
     alone is not a human rights policy. A nation without values 
     must stand for something more. History gives ample evidence 
     of authoritarian, nationalist and fascist regimes where 
     business has and does flourish. The common good of humanity 
     requires that US policy stand up for the rights of those 
     victimized and oppressed by their own governments.
       Finally, the penalties for violations of human rights and 
     repression of religious liberty must be real and serious, not 
     symbolic and illusory. But we believe that some serious price 
     must be paid for violation of fundamental rights. Having said 
     we will hold China to this standard, we cannot abandon our 
     commitment.
       We look forward to hearing from you on this issue. The 
     President's deliberations and those of you and your 
     colleagues will be in our prayers.
           Sincerely yours,

                               Most Reverend Daniel P. Reilly,

                                    Bishop of Norwich (CT), Chair,
     USCC Committee on International Policy.

                          ____________________