[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E300-E301]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 CLINTON POLICIES ON HUMAN RIGHTS MARRED BY INCONSISTENCY, FLIP-FLOPS, 
                                WEAKNESS

                                 ______


                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 8, 1995
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is particularly fitting that 
the first hearing of the new Subcommittee on International Operations 
and Human Rights, which was held last February 2, was for the purpose 
of receiving and beginning to analyze the 1994 Country Reports on Human 
Rights Practices.
  The subcommittee, which I chair, is an amalgamation of two Foreign 
Affairs subcommittees from the previous Congress. In addition to our 
substantial legislative responsibilities, including the crafting of the 
Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, 
last week's proceeding marked the beginning of an extensive series of 
hearings, briefings, and reports by the Subcommittee on Human Rights 
and humanitarian concerns around the globe.
  I am delighted to have my good friend Tom Lantos serving as ranking 
members of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human 
Rights. Previously, Tom had chaired the Subcommittee on National 
Security, International Organizations, and Human Rights and was 
eminently fair, consistent, and effective. During my 15 years in 
Congress, I have had the privilege to fight alongside Tom in numerous 
human rights battles from Romania to the former U.S.S.R. to the 
People's Republic of China.
  It is my intention and sincere hope to leave no stone unturned in the 
attempt to expose, scrutinize, and seek remedies for man's inhumanity 
to man, wherever and however it occurs. In like manner, our 
subcommittee will endeavor to recognize and encourage improvements in 
human rights practices. Above all, I will insist that objectivity, 
fairness, and the pursuit of trust be at the core of our work.
  In the weeks and months ahead, the subcommittee will explore policy 
options designed to mitigate the seemingly endless suffering and abuse 
endured by so many.
  In my view, the Country Reports are among the most important work the 
Department of State does. They allow the United States Government an 
opportunity to bear witness, to reassert fundamental principles, and 
also to examine its own conscience about whether its foreign policy 
comports with these principles.
  Mr. Speaker, let me make some general observations about human 
rights.
  First, the very idea of human rights presupposes that certain rights 
are fundamental, universal, and inalienable: they are too important to 
be taken away or circumscribed by governments.
  Second, the United States has a commitment to human rights that is 
unique in the history of the world. It is no accident that the signers 
of our Declaration of Independence rested their resistance to tyranny 
not on tradition, self-interest, or the balance of power, but on the 
conviction that all human beings are ``endowed by their Creator with 
certain inalienable rights.'' More recently, President Ronald Reagan 
reminded us that it is the destiny of the United States to be a 
``shining city on a hill,'' a living monument to the idea of freedom.
  Human rights are indivisible, mutually reinforcing, and all-
inclusive. Human rights cannot be abridged on account of race, color, 
creed, gender, age, or condition of dependency. Inclusiveness means 
everyone, and perhaps especially the inconvenient: the unborn child, or 
the dissent, or the believer in another religious tradition.
  The right to life, religion, speech, assembly, and due process are 
the pillars of a free, sane, and compassionate society. The moral 
character and depth of soul of any society is measured not by its 
military might, technological prowess, athletic excellence or GDP, but 
on how well or poorly it treats its weakest and most vulnerable 
members.
  It is particularly ironic that the subordination of human rights to 
other concerns, such as trade, immigration control, or congenial 
relations with other governments, is often justified on the ground that 
these are U.S. interests. This formulation misses the point: the most 
important U.S. interest is the promotion of freedom and of decency. We 
are strong enough and prosperous enough that we have no need to accept 
blood money, or to send refugees back to persecution, or to seek our
 alliances among regimes that murder and torture their own people.

  Immediately prior to Thursday's hearing I received portions of the 
reports and had the opportunity to read the findings concerning about 
10 countries. I have some reservations concerning certain portions of 
the reports, which I would like to state briefly.
  First, I hope that in the State Department's effort to keep pace with 
what it calls ``the changing nature of human rights problems,'' you do 
not lose sight of the fact that some rights are fundamental. Every year 
the reports seem to tell us more about the extent to which various 
societies have developed such institutions as collective bargaining and 
one-person-one-vote democracy. I do not mean to suggest that these 
things are not important. They are. They tell us much about a society. 
However, we must not allow their presence or absence to deflect 
attention from extrajudicial killing, torture, and imprisonment on 
account of religious or political beliefs.
  Second, and even more troubling, on some issues in some countries the 
1994 reports seem to acknowledge, yet minimize, human rights abuses. In 
a few cases the reports seem almost to suggest excuses or 
justifications for such abuses. At least three instances of this 
forgiving approach involve cases in which the foreign policy of the 
present administration has also given too little attention to egregious 
and well-documented human rights abuses. I refer to the harsh measures 
taken by the Chinese Government against those, especially women, who 
resist its coercive population control program, and by both China and 
Cuba against people who try to escape from these countries.
  Finally, the reports raise deep concerns about the half-hearted and 
inconsistent human rights policy of the present administration. On 
ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and the brutal killings in Chechnya, the 
reports fully state the extent of the human rights abuses. 
Unfortunately, the administration has not given sufficient weight to 
these abuses in formulating its policy toward the nations in question. 
Human rights appears not to have been the primary concern.


                china: forced abortion and sterilization

  The 1994 report acknowledges that forced abortions have been reported 
in China. Indeed, it acknowledges that ``most people still depend on 
their government-linked work unit for permission to have a child,'' and 
that the ``highly intrusive one child family planning policy * * * 
relies on * * * propaganda, and economic incentives, as well as more 
coercive measures including psychological pressure and economic 
penalties * * * [including] fines, withholding of social services, 
demotion, and other administrative punishments such as loss of 
employment * * *. The report also clearly states that ``penalties for 
excess births can be levied against local officials and the mothers' 
work units * * * providing multiple sources of pressure * * *.''
  The report, however, then seems to accept blindly and uncritically 
the Chinese Government's oft-stated lie that ``physical compulsion to 
submit to abortion or sterilization is not authorized'' by the 
government. This is the same story the Chinese Government has been 
telling for years. The 1994 report also continues--as in past years--to 
suggest that the one-child policy is not even enforced in rural areas 
of the country. This ignores the 1991 country-wide tightening of 
enforcement of the coercive population control program. The pervasive 
use of forced abortion and sterilization, particularly since 1991, has 
been well documented by demographers, dissidents, journalists, and 
human rights activists. Most recently, a series of articles in the New 
York Times in April 1993 showed clearly that forced abortion in China 
is not rare, not limited to economic coercion or social pressure, not 
confined only to urban areas or to certain parts of the country, and 
definitely not unauthorized by those in power.
  The report, as in past years, also seems to excuse the excesses of 
the brutal People's Republic of China policy by pointing with alarm to 
the size of China's population and with evident approval to the general 
thrust of the regime's effort to minimize population growth.
  Forced abortion was properly construed to be a crime against humanity 
at the Nuremberg war trials. Today it is employed with chilling 
effectiveness and unbearable pain upon women in the People's Republic 
of China. Women in China are required to obtain
 a birth coupon before conceiving a child. Chinese women are hounded by 
the population control police, and even their menstrual cycles are 
publicly monitored as one means of ensuring compliance.

  The 1993 New York Times articles pointed out that the People's 
Republic of China authorities, when they discover an unauthorized 
pregnancy--that is, an illegal child--normally apply a daily dose of 
threats and browbeating. They wear the woman down and eventually, if 
she does not succumb, she is physically forced to have the abortion.
  [[Page E301]] The 1994 report also barely mentions the brutal 
eugenics policy under which the People's Republic of China regime has 
undertaken to reduce the number of defective persons. In December 1993 
the Chinese Government issued a draft law on eugenics that would 
nationalize discrimination against the handicapped. That law is now 
going into effect. This policy of forced abortions against handicapped 
children, and forced sterilization against parents who simply do not 
measure up in the eyes of the state, is eerily reminiscent of Nazi 
Germany.


              CHINA: REPRISALS AGAINST FORCED REPATRIATES

  The report on China also states that escapees who are forcibly 
repatriated ``are often detained for a short time to determine identity 
and any past criminal record or involvement with smuggling 
activities.'' The report adds that ``[a]s a deterrent and to recover 
local costs incurred during the repatriation, the authorities in some 
areas levy a fine of $1,000 or more on returnees.''
  This appears to be a deliberate attempt to put government reprisals 
against escapees in the most favorable possible light--perhaps because 
these reprisals have frequently been conducted against people who were 
forcibly repatriated by the United States Government. The report fails 
to mention that a $1,000 fine amounts to several times the per capita 
income in rural areas of China. A fine of this amount is a clear 
indication that the People's Republic of China regime regards these 
people as its enemies, not as routine offenders. Nor does the report 
say what happens to people who are unable to pay these oppressive 
fines. Newspaper reports during 1993 state that hundreds of people 
repatriated by the United States have been imprisoned for more than a 
brief period and have been forced to serve on prison work gangs. The 
report does not say whether any of these people remained incarcerated 
during 1994.


             CUBA: MASSACRES OF PEOPLE ATTEMPTING TO ESCAPE

  Similarly, the report on Cuba describes two well-documented instances 
in which the Cuban Border Guard deliberately killed people who were 
trying to flee the country. These are the sinking of the Olympia and of 
the 13th of March. The report goes on to state, however, that there 
have been no reports of such killings since the September 9 Clinton-
Castro immigration agreement. The reports do not state how we would 
know whether such killings have taken place since the agreement, or 
what steps--if any--we have taken to make sure they do not. Rather, it 
leaves the clear impression--without any supporting evidence--that the 
Castro regime quickly changed its ways upon signing the agreement.


  Other countries: disconnect between human rights concerns and u.s. 
                             foreign policy

  I have already stated my concern about the incongruity between the 
well-documented human rights abuses in Bosnia and Chechnya and our 
policies toward those countries. The 1994 reports confirm the 
atrocities in these countries: in Bosnia, concentration camps, routine 
torture, and rape as an instrument of government policy; in Chechnya, 
the killing of thousands of civilians and the destruction of hospitals 
and an orphanage. The director of the Washington office of Amnesty 
International has commented that the administration's policy toward 
Chechnya amounted to giving Russia a green light to commit the 
brutality that is so well documented by the report. I raised this same 
concern last month to an administration official who testified before 
the Helsinki Commission, which I chair. He dismissed it out of hand. 
This is part of an unfortunate pattern: After an initial period of 
encouraging rhetoric, the Clinton administration's human rights record 
has been marked by broken promises, weakness, retreat, inconsistency, 
and missed opportunities.
  There is a similar incongruity between the administration's new 
friendship with the Government of North Korea and the 1994 report about 
the situation on the ground in that country. This is
 a rogue government that not only detains an estimated 150,000 
political prisoners in concentration camps, but, also kidnaps citizens 
of other nations and causes them to disappear. The reports also state 
that ``Political prisoners, opponents of the regime, repatriated 
defectors, and others * * * have been summarily executed.'' This is the 
regime to which the administration, amid much self-congratulation, 
recently arranged a $4 billion multilateral aid package.

  Other abuses, well documented in the 1994 reports, to which our 
Government's response has been inadequate or nonexistent include the 
``extrajudicial executions, torture, and reprisal killings'' by Indian 
security forces fighting separatist insurgents in Kashmir, and the 
brutal persecution of Christian missionaries and others by the 
Government of Sudan.


                               Conclusion

  Future country condition reports will be far more useful to congress, 
to the executive, and to the American people if they take care never to 
understate the extent of human rights abuses--especially when a 
thorough and honest account of such abuses might compel the 
reconsideration of United States Government policy toward the 
perpetrators. We must also work together to ensure that these reports 
are not just published and then forgotten. Rather, they must be 
regarded by those who conduct our foreign relations as an indispensable 
guidebook for a foreign policy worthy of the United States.


                          ____________________