[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 136 (Tuesday, September 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12605-S12608]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EAST ASIA

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, while we were out of session over the last 
three weeks there were a number of important developments in Asia--
specifically Vietnam, Cambodia and China --to which I, as the Chairman 
of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, would like to 
draw my colleagues' attention.
  First, the human rights situation in Vietnam continues to be of great 
concern. The weekend of August 12, barely a week after Secretary of 
State Christopher opened the newly-established U.S. embassy in Hanoi, a 
Vietnamese court convicted two Vietnamese-born U.S. citizens and seven 
Vietnamese nationals accused of being counter-revolutionaries and 
acting to ``overthrow the people's administration.'' The group, allied 
with the banned political party Tan Dai Viet, was apparently trying to 
organize a conference in Ho Chi Minh City (the former Saigon) to 
discuss human rights and democracy in Vietnam. After their first 
attempt failed, they tried to set up another meeting but were arrested 
10 days before it was held. Radio Hanoi Voice of Vietnam, in somewhat 
characteristic rhetoric, described their ``crimes'' as follows:

       Taking advantage of our party's renovation policy, they 
     used the pretext of democracy and human rights to distort the 
     truth of history, smear the Vietnamese communist party and 
     state, instigate bad elements at home, and contact hostile 
     forces abroad to feverishly oppose our state in an attempt to 
     set up a people-betraying and nation-harming regime. A check 
     of their personal backgrounds indicated that they spent 
     almost all their lives serving the enemy of our people and 
     giving a helping hand to the aggressors' attempts to oppose 
     our country.
       The administration warned them and used educational 
     measures on them after it discovered their sabotage scheme. 
     Nonetheless, they stubbornly contacted reactionary forces 
     abroad and carried on their scheme aimed at opposing and 
     overthrowing the people's administration. Their activities 
     posed a particular danger to society and was detrimental to 
     national security.

  Americans Nguyen Tan Tri and Tran Quang Liem received a 7-year and 4-
year prison sentence respectively.

  In addition, the Vietnamese government's persecution of Buddhist 
leaders continues unabated. On August 15, a Vietnamese court sentenced 
a leader of a banned Buddhist church to five years in prison for 
criticizing Communist rule and maintaining an independent (i.e., 
outside direct Communist control) Buddhist church. The court convicted 
Thich Quang Do, secretary general of the Unified Buddhist Church of 
Vietnam (UBCV), and five other activists in a 1-day trial. Thich Quang 
was accused of publishing a criticism of the Communist Party and 
sending two faxes to overseas Buddhists accusing the Vietnamese 
Government of obstructing a church-sponsored flood-relief mission in 
1994. The other five were arrested for participating in that mission.
  Vietnamese authorities also recently announced that the government 
would soon try the acting head of the UBCV Thich Huyen Quang, who is 
under house arrest at the Quang Phuoc Shrine in Quang Ngai; and Thich 
Long Tri, UBCV's third highest official, who is under house arrest at 
the Vien Giac Pagoda in Hoi An, Quang Nam. The announcement is 
especially ironic given that since last year the government has 
systematically denied that Thich Huyen had ever been placed under 
arrest. On December 29, the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry announced that 
reports of Thich Huyen's arrest were fabrications and that he had 
simply been ``moved to another pagoda at the requests of other monks.''
  Mr. President, these are not isolated incidents, but part of a 
systematic denial of even the most basic human rights on the part of 
the Vietnamese government. Let me list just a few others:

       Thich Tri Tuu, the senior monk of the Linh Mu pagoda in Hue 
     and a close disciple of the late Supreme Patriarch of the 
     UBCV, is serving a four-year sentence on charges of ``public 
     disorder'' at the Ba Sao prison camp, Nam Ha, Phu Ly 
     province, in conjunction with the May 1993 protest in Hue. At 
     the time of the demonstration, Thich Tri was being held in 
     police custody, and police refused to let Buddhist monks who 
     began the protests see him or talk to him. The crowd later 
     saw him slumped in the back of a police vehicle, stopped the 
     vehicle and extracted him from it--he had apparently 
     fainted. He was placed, unconscious, into a cyclo-pousse 
     which carried him back to his temple as the protest 
     continued and certain persons in the crowd set the police 
     vehicle on fire. Also still imprisoned at the Ba Sao camp 
     on public disorder charges stemming from this protest are 
     Thich Hai Tang and Thich Hai Thinh. Thich Hai Chanh was 
     released, but not allowed to return to his residence at 
     the Linh Mu pagoda in Hue and has been obliged to move to 
     a pagoda in Quang Tri province.
       Thich Hanh Duc, appointed by the state-sponsored church to 
     be abbot of the Son Linh Pagoda of Ba Ria-Vung Tau in 1982, 
     was arrested in July 1993 when police attempted to enter the 
     pagoda and a violent confrontation ensued. The Fatherland 
     Front and the provincial people's committee issued an 
     eviction order against Thich Hanh and other monks after the 
     senior monk publicly read an oration of Thich Huyen Quang and 
     expressed support for the restoration of the Unified Buddhist 
     Church. In February 1993, the provincial committee of the 
     state-sponsored church expelled him from the church for 
     ``violating the principles of Vietnamese Buddhism.'' Thich 
     Hanh Duc was ultimately sentenced to three years of 
     imprisonment for ``crimes against on-duty officials'' and 
     ``handing out documents hostile to the socialist government 
     of Vietnam;'' he was last known to be detained at the Phuoc 
     Co prison in Ba Ria-Vung Tau.
       Do Trung Hieu, formerly a Communist Party cadre in charge 
     of religious affairs in Ho Chi Minh City and now a private 
     businessman, was detained by police in Ho Chi Minh City on 
     June 14, 1995. Hieu had written and circulated an 
     autobiographical essay describing the Party's efforts to 
     dismantle the Unified Buddhist Church after the war out of 
     fear that its influence and following would spread throughout 
     Vietnam. Hieu has reportedly been transferred to Hanoi for 
     questioning, but his whereabouts have not been confirmed.
       Hoang Minh Chinh, a well-known communist intellectual, was 
     also detained in Hanoi on June 14 this year. This was his 
     third detention for criticizing Party policy; he had 
     previously been arrested for advocating ``revisionist'' lines 
     in 1967 and 1981. The cause of the latest detention appears 
     to be petitions he sent to the highest levels of the Party 
     demanding that his name be cleared for his previous jailings, 
     and his questioning the propriety of the constitutional 
     provision that enshrines the leading role of the Vietnam 
     Communist Party.
       Doan Thanh Liem, a law professor who was educated in the 
     United States, is serving a twelve-year sentence for 
     ``counter revolutionary propaganda''--that is, notes he had 
     prepared on constitutional reform. He was arrested in April 
     1990 for his association with Michael Morrow, Dick Hughes and 
     Don Luce. He knew all three Americans from his participation 
     in a well-known Saigon charity, the Shoeshine Boys. Liem, 
     held in the Ham Tan camp, has developed a serious pulmonary 
     condition in prison that is often associated with 
     tuberculosis. Senator Harkin's request to meet with Liem was 
     denied during his July 1995 visit.
       Nguyen Tri, also known as Truong Hung Thai, was sentenced 
     to eight years at the trial of Doan Thanh Liem for having 
     helped Liem purchase a typewriter and having received from 
     Liem two documents the official press described as ``anti-
     communist.''
       Doan Viet Hoat, one of Vietnam's most prominent political 
     prisoners, was transferred abruptly among three different 
     prisons last year, ending up in the Thanh Cam camp, a 
     facility for common criminals in a remote and malarial part 
     of Thanh Hoa province. Arrested in November 1990, Dr. Hoat 
     was given a fifteen-year sentence on charges of ``attempting 
     to overthrow the government'' for producing the reformist 
     newsletter Freedom Forum. His transfers seem to have come in 
     reaction to public statements which he has periodically been 
     able to release since his initial detention. The move to 
     Thanh Cam has isolated him from the outside world, and he is 
     allowed only limited communication with his family.
       Pham Duc Kham, also tried for the Freedom Forum affair, was 
     sentenced to sixteen years of imprisonment (later reduced to 
     just under twelve years) for his participation. He was 
     transferred in November 1994 from the Xuan Phuoc labor camp 
     in Phu Yen province 

[[Page S 12606]]
     to the Cam Thuy camp Number 5, not far from the Thanh Cam camp in a 
     remote part of Thanh Hoa province.
       Le Duc Vuong, tried for the Freedom Forum affair, was 
     sentenced to a five-year term. He was last known to be 
     performing hard labor at the A-20 camp in Xuan Phuoc.
       Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, an endocrinologist who was sentenced in 
     1991 to twenty years of imprisonment on charges of 
     ``attempting to overthrow the government'' for publicly 
     signing a declaration calling for political reform and 
     respect for human rights, is reported to be in fair health, 
     having received some medication for a kidney stone. He has 
     been held in isolation at Xuan Loc prison camp for nearly two 
     years, following the Vietnamese government's unwillingness to 
     allow our colleague Senator Robb to meet him.
       Do Van Thac was arrested with five other members of the 
     opposition Dai Viet Duy Dan (People's Party) on July 9, 1991. 
     In January 1992, a court in Hanoi sentenced Do Van Thac to 
     fourteen years' imprisonment--later commuted to twelve 
     years--on charges of ``attempting to overthrow the 
     government,'' apparently for circulating writings describing 
     the People's Party and calling for political and economic 
     reform.
       Vu Thanh, Dat Hai, Paul Nguyen Chau Dat, and five other 
     members of the Congregation of the Mother Co-Redemptrix 
     remain in prison. On May 15, 1987, these persons, along with 
     Father Dominic Tran Dinh Thu and approximately sixty other 
     Catholic clergy and laypersons were arrested when authorities 
     raided the compound of the order founded by Father Dominic. 
     During the raid, authorities seized rice stocks from the 
     community and religious literature, causing people from the 
     surrounding area to defend the congregation (and their rice 
     stocks) with improvised arms. Vu Thanh, Dat Hai, Paul Nguyen 
     Chau Dat and twenty others were tried on October 30, 1987 and 
     convicted of ``sowing disunity between the people and the 
     government.'' Vu Thanh Dat Hai was sentenced to ten years of 
     imprisonment and three years of suppression of civil rights, 
     and is now in the Long Khanh prison camp. Paul Nguyen Chau 
     Dat was given a twenty-year term, which he is also serving in 
     Long Khanh. Nguyen Van Thin Quan is serving a sixteen-year 
     sentence in the Ham tan camp; Mai Duc Chuong Nghi is serving 
     an eighteen-year term in a Thanh Hoa province labor camp; 
     Dinh Viet Hieu Thuc is serving a fourteen-year sentence in 
     the Long Khanh prison camp; Pham Ngoc Lien Tri is serving a 
     twenty-year term at the Long Khanh camp, and Nguyen Thien 
     Phung Huan is also serving a twenty-year term at Long Khanh.
       Pastor Nguyen Duc Loi and Pastor Nguyen Van Vui are 
     reported to have been arrested on November 20, 1994 when 
     proselytizing among the ethnic Hre minority in Quang Ngai 
     province. According to unconfirmed local sources, the two 
     have been accused of pursuing political activities under the 
     guise of religion, and after their arrest officials ordered 
     local Christians to cease all religious activities, including 
     prayer meetings.

  Mr. President, in all the controversy surrounding the Clinton 
administration's recent questionable decision to normalize relations 
with Vietnam, the emotional and unresolved POW-MIA issue, and the blind 
headlong rush of United States business to enter the expanding 
Vietnamese market regardless, I believe that some Americans have lost 
sight of an important fact: the Vietnamese Government is a textbook 
Communist dictatorship to which the idea of basic human rights is 
simply a nuisance. No amount of talk about their modernizing their 
economy or welcoming American investment will change that fact. I am 
already seriously disinclined to support the establishment of a United 
States ambassador in Hanoi, or the granting of most favored nation 
status or OPIC funding for Vietnam because, unlike the administration, 
I do not believe that the Vietnamese have been as forthcoming as they 
could be on the POW-MIA issue; their human rights record makes me even 
less so.
  Moving on to Cambodia, Mr. President, following closely on the 
unfortunate expulsion of Sam Rainsy from the Cambodian legislature the 
government of that country has once again taken steps which call into 
serious question its commitment to its nascent democracy. Over the past 
year and a half, the frequency of the government's mistreatment of the 
domestic media and its suppression of the freedoms we have embodied in 
our First Amendment has become alarming; journalists critical of the 
government have been arrested and prosecuted and newspapers have been 
shut down.
  Just recently, the government charged the Phnom Penh Post and Michael 
Hayes, its American publisher, with violations of Article LXII of the 
Cambodian Criminal Code and is seeking to fine the publisher and close 
down the paper. Article LXII provides for a fine and up to 3 years 
imprisonment for publishing false or falsely attributed information in 
bad faith and with malicious intent when the publication has disturbed 
or is likely to disturb the public peace. In order to convict, the 
government must prove all three elements--falsity, malicious intent, 
and public disturbance. The story in question is an article by Nate 
Thayer in the March 24/April 6 edition entitled ``Security Jitters 
While PM's Away.'' The article detailed alleged security threats and 
measures taken by the government while the two Prime Ministers 
attended  the April 1995 meeting of the country's principal aid donors. 
In reporting about the threats, Mr. Thayer clearly notes that many of 
the reported assertions were ``rumor'' or opinions or statements 
attributed to unnamed third parties. The article went on to cite 
``human rights officials'' as saying that recent government actions 
against the press, the U.N. Center for Human Rights, and M.P. Sam 
Rainsy are the beginning of an official effort to put an end to 
criticism of the government that leaders say undermines its image at 
home and abroad as a democratic country.

  Despite the fact that from the particulars of the case I doubt very 
much that the government could actually prove a violation of Art. LXII, 
they have decided to proceed with the case. The purpose of that 
decision is clearly is two-fold. First and foremost, there is the 
chilling effect bringing a criminal prosecution has on other like-
minded journalists; the threat of jail or a fine--even simply the 
threat of criminal litigation--can make even the most serious and 
accurate journalist skittish. The reason for picking on a foreign-owned 
paper is also clear; as a U.N. worker recently noted:

       The cases against the Khmer press are in a slightly 
     different category because they have been persecuted for 
     articles that are mostly opinion. The Phnom Penh Post and 
     other Western--style newspapers are more troubling to the 
     government because they deal with facts that can be proved 
     true. They bring to light the inner workings of government 
     and that bother [the government] far more than opinions that 
     are sometimes insulting.

  Second, the government seeks to use the law to discover the 
identities of Mr. Thayer's sources. To prevent the government from 
proving the first element of an Art. LXII offense in court--false 
attribution--Thayer would be forced to disclose his sources. Any forced 
compromise of journalistic sources severely curtails the ability of a 
free press to report on, and the people's right to be informed about, 
matters of public interest. This is especially true in instances 
involving such issues as government corruption, where the power of the 
wrongdoers makes those knowledgeable about the wrongdoing hesitant to 
come forward.
  This is far from being the only time that the Cambodian Government 
has initiated an Art. LXII prosecution on flimsy grounds. Two Cambodian 
journalists have already been convicted under that provision for 
articles that, in my view, plainly reported opinions--which are by 
definition subjective rather than objective--rather than facts. On May 
19, the editor of Oddom K'tek Khmer, Thun Bunly, was sentenced to a 
fine of R5,000,000 ($2,000) or one year in jail for printing a letter 
to the editor entitled ``Stop Barking Samdech Prime Ministers.'' The 
following day, Hen Vipheak was sentenced to a fine of R5,000,000 or two 
years in jail for a cartoon and satire of the three branches of 
government. Most recently, Thun Bunly was tried again, this time for 
expressing opinions highly critical of the government; he described 
certain government officials as greedy dictators. His paper was shut 
down and he was sentenced to a fine of R10,000,000 or two years in 
jail.
  Unfortunately, this blatant intimidation shows no signs of abating. 
Last week the Ministry of Information announced that the government is 
seeking prosecution on unspecified charges of between two and five 
newspapers. One of them, Samleng Yu Vachuon Khmer, has already received 
a court summons. In addition, the government has adopted a new press 
law that would allow criminal prosecutions where the published material 
affects national security and political stability--as nebulous a 
standard as I have seen--and permits the Ministries of the Interior and 
Information to confiscate publications they find objectionable or 
temporarily suspend publications without the 

[[Page S 12607]]
approval or oversight of an independent court. Although the measure has 
yet to be signed into law by King Sihanouk and therefore is not legally 
in effect, it is being used to bring charges against the media.
  The repeated pattern of these prosecutions, as well as the fact that 
all of the alleged offenders have all stepped on the government's toes, 
leads me and groups like Human Rights Watch/Asia to conclude that the 
government has embarked on a program of intimidation aimed at quelling 
its detractors. That perception is not helped by statements such as 
those by Prime Minister Prince Ranariddh last month that foreign 
newspapers are distorting the current situation in Cambodia and that 
the Western brand of democracy and freedom of the press is not 
applicable to Cambodia. The Prince needs to be reminded, however, that 
the freedoms embodied in the Paris Accords are not Western, but 
universal, and as such were supported by each of Cambodia's political 
parties. In addition, they are embodied in the International Covenant 
on Civil and Political Rights to which Cambodia is a signatory.
  The Cambodian Government may believe that no one is watching, or that 
no one outside Cambodia cares, or that their actions are somehow 
excused by the nascent nature of their democracy; they could not be 
more wrong. Mr. President, we and the other donor countries are 
watching and we care. It is precisely because Cambodia's democracy is 
in its infancy that it is impor- tant to avoid the tendency towards 
this type of abuse; otherwise, Cambodia risks institutionalizing the 
behavior. If the Cambodian Government is unwilling to protect these 
universally recognized rights, and to protect journalists and others 
who peacefully advocate dissenting political views, then we and the 
other donor nations will ensure that there is literally a price to be 
paid.
  Last, but certainly not least, there were a number of developments in 
China which are noteworthy. First, on the brighter side, there appears 
to have been a slight warming in our bilateral relationship. On August 
24, the Wuhan People's Court sentenced Harry Wu to a 15-year jail term 
and expelled him from the country, thus removing a serious obstacle to 
the  resumption of friendly relations between us. A number of 
encouraging signs have followed. The Chinese have indicated that they 
will be sending back to Washington their ambassador, Li Daoyu, who was 
recalled after our decision to admit Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui 
for a private visit. Having previously broken off all high-level 
governmental contacts, the Chinese agreed to a 3-day visit by United 
States Undersecretary of State Tarnoff to discuss a variety of 
bilateral issues. In addition, on September 1, Li Xilin, the Guangzhou 
Military Area Commander of the People's Liberation Army, attended a 
ceremony in Honolulu marking the 50th anniversary of the end of World 
War II as the representative of Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian. 
There is also talk of an October summit meeting between President 
Clinton and his Chinese counterpart Jiang Zemin. These contacts are 
important because they provide a venue for dialog and dialog keeps 
parties from misunderstanding each other.

  I am very pleased that it appears that the dip in our bilateral 
relationship has reached its nadir and is on the upswing. That is not 
to say, of course, that everything has returned to normal. Reports in 
the Chinese media, and statements from the Foreign Ministry, indicate 
that that government is still adhering to the unacceptable position 
that the United States is solely responsible for the current problems 
in Sino-U.S. relations; Washington should take all the blame for the 
problems. Mr. President, the PRC should be mindful of the adage that 
when you point the finger of blame at someone, three fingers are 
pointing back at you. If the Chinese were to indulge in one of their 
favorite political pastimes--self-criticism--then perhaps they would 
realize that it is they that may be at fault: their overreaction to 
President Lee's visit, technology transfers to Pakistan and Iran, 
failure to enforce its obligations in regards to intellectual property 
and arbitral conventions--the list goes on. The Chinese need to get 
over the blame game and get down to constructive dialog and 
constructive actions.
  Despite my generally optimistic feeling about the general trend in 
our relationship, however, there have been a number of developments 
there which are troubling to me. First, on August 17 China conducted 
its second underground nuclear test this year at its facility at Lop 
Nor--its fourth in the past 14 months. This test concerns me, and 
others, for the same reason as the proposed French tests in Mururoa; I 
believe that conducting these tests is damaging to international 
efforts to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In May of this 
year, the world's five acknowledged nuclear powers persuaded the rest 
of the world to extend indefinitely the Nuclear Non-proliferation 
Treaty. To win that consensus, the five countries promised to sign a 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT] by the end of the year. The 
continuation of Chinese testing though, only 4 months after China 
signed the agreement, calls into question that country's commitment to 
the CTBT and consequently undermines these international efforts to 
curb nuclear proliferation. What possible incentive do other nuclear 
countries have to refrain from testing if others continue to test?
  I am not alone in my disappointment at this decision. Many countries 
in the region, including Australia and Japan, have been very vocal in 
their opposition. In fact, on August 30 Japan announced it will freeze 
most of its grant aid--about $81.2 million in fiscal year 1995--because 
of China's testing. Foreign Minister Kono Yohei told a news conference: 
``We have decided to freeze aid to China with the exception of a 
portion that is provided for emergency relief measures and humanitarian 
aid--until China says it will stop nuclear tests.''
  I would hope that Beijing would reconsider this course, not because 
we disapprove, or other countries disapprove, but because of the 
benefits that will accrue to the world as a whole as a result.
  Another issue, Mr. President, is the unfortunate Chinese decision to 
deny a visa to Hong Kong political leader Martin Lee Chu-ming. Lee is 
the Chairman of the Democratic Party in Hong Kong, a principal voice of 
support for democracy in the colony; in that role, he has been a 
frequent critic of the communist government in Beijing. Lee needed the 
visa to attend the LawAsia conference in Beijing, to which he had been 
officially invited. But before he could apply, Zou Yu, the head of the 
local coordinating body the China Law Society, said there was no place 
[here] for people like him because he was one of the founding members 
of the subversive Hong Kong Alliance in Support of a Patriotic 
Democratic Movement. Ironically, Lee has a letter of invitation to the 
conference, which delegates had been told would be enough to have a 
visa issued on presentation, signed by Mr. Zou.
  Before I hear it from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, I will state at 
the outset that I fully recognize that who the PRC does or does not 
admit within its borders is purely an internal matter in which third 
countries have no right to interfere. Certainly, Lee's statements in 
support of democracy are not music to the senior cadres' ears and if 
they choose to exclude him on that basis so be it. However, I believe 
that it would have been in China's best interests to admit him. Such a 
move would have been greatly reassuring to Hong Kong--to both its 
citizenry and business interests--and would have gone a long way to 
bolster China's stature worldwide. As it stands though the Chinese move 
seems petty and vindictive, and calls into question both its post-1997 
commitment to the continuation of democracy in Hong Kong and its 
ability to impartially host international conferences.
  The PRC has a disturbing habit of seeking to host these conferences 
in an effort to boost  its international image, only to then heap a 
host of conditions on the attendees to ensure that nothing comes up at 
the conference which might embarrass China by, say, openly discussing 
its abysmal human rights record. The LawAsia Conference and Martin Lee 
are one example; another is the present U.N. women's conference in 
Beijing. When it became clear to the Chinese authorities that the 
participants in the conference's NGO forum are prone to spontaneous 
demonstrations and statements in support of a 

[[Page S 12608]]
variety of causes the regime finds threatening--democracy, opposition 
to coerced abortion, the role of women in society--the forum suddenly 
found itself moved a substantial distance outside Beijing to the small 
village of Huairou. The official reason was that the Beijing stadium 
originally planned to hold the forum was structurally unsound--despite 
the fact that only 2 weeks ago the Chinese held a major event there. 
The unofficial reason is clear to everyone; Chinese authorities are 
doing their best to make sure that the flood of delegates does not 
contaminate China or its citizenry with foreign ideas and open dialog.

  Official statements to the contrary aside, the Chinese are fooling no 
one. As the Chinese themselves are fond of saying: ``Actions speak 
louder than words.'' Once Beijing began to prepare for the conference, 
the patterns of isolating delegates and imposing censorship became 
clear. Delegates with views with which China disagrees were denied 
visas. Groups representing Tibetan and Taiwanese women were unfairly 
denied accreditation, lest they embarrass the host country. Thirty 
delegates from Niger were denied visas; ostensibly because their 
paperwork was not entirely in order, but more likely--as almost 
everyone believes--because Niger diplomatically recognizes Taiwan. 
Delegates who were allowed in were warned that Chinese customs 
officials would confiscate any printed material China deemed 
objectionable, including Bibles. Buses that were promised to run every 
20 minutes from Huairou to Beijing have dwindled to one per day, 
effectively isolating the delegates at Huairou even more. The U.N. 
designated ``newspaper of record'' for the forum--chronicling the 
meetings and seminars and reporting on the day's events--has been 
unable to publish because the Chinese firm with which they contracted 
is suddenly and inexplicably ``too busy with other printing work.''
  I think one of the especially telling examples of this trend is the 
creation of an ``official protest site'' for the conference. 
Predictably sited outside of Beijing in Huairou, the official spot is 
located on a middle-school athletic field within the confines of the 
forum, where an extra 5,000 police officers will be on duty. There, 
separated from the Chinese people by an artificially imposed chasm, the 
delegates are free to protest to their hearts content-with one 
exception. Vice Minister of Public Security Tian Qiyu has announced 
that ``Inside the site, NGO's are permitted to have demonstrations and 
processions, but these should not infringe on the sovereignty of the 
host country and should not slander or attack [its] leaders.'' In other 
words, say what you want just don't criticize China. So much for an 
open forum.
  The actions of the Chinese Government became so oppressive that they 
threatened to scuttle the entire forum. Complaints from a large number 
of delegates about the omnipresence of Chinese security police hovering 
over them grew with each passing day of the forum, and for good reason. 
Both uniformed and plainclothes police monitored meetings and 
discussions, and videotaped participants. Security officers have 
searched hotel rooms, followed delegates, rifled through personal 
papers and tried to restrict the movement of people who have come to 
take part in the conferences. On August 31, following a screening of a 
video about Tibet entitled ``Voices in Exile,'' police snatched the 
video cassette and attempted to confiscate it, only to have it snatched 
back by the attendees. Another group of delegates protesting China's 
treatment of Tibetan women were surrounded by Chinese plainclothes 
police and shouted down; one Canadian woman, the adoptive mother of a 
Tibetan child, was even physically assaulted. Although the Chinese 
denied such an assault took place, it was captured on video and 
broadcast here by CNN. A session held by Australian NGO's was disrupted 
when security officials seized microphones and video equipment and 
ordered the groups to disband; the Australian Government lodged a 
formal protest in response. In another incident, police tried to seize 
a Chinese woman who chatted with delegates on the street. When the 
woman was surrounded by delegates, though, the police retreated. The 
Chinese moves are especially galling because under the agreement signed 
by the Chinese the forum site is considered to be under U.N., rather 
than Chinese, jurisdiction for the duration of the conference, much 
like embassies are considered to be.
  Things got so bad that on September 3, the leaders of the forum 
issued an ultimatum to the Chinese demanding that China stop its heavy-
handed security measures by noon on that day. In response, the Chinese 
grudgingly replaced some uniformed officers with plainclothesmen and 
scaled back some of the surveillance. Despite the changes, though, 
clashes between police and delegates continue. Just this last weekend 
Islamic women demonstrators were physically prevented by police from 
marching out of the forum site into Huairou.
  Given this somewhat ironic Chinese penchant for actively seeking to 
host international conferences dealing with human rights and the free 
exchange of ideas only to trample those very rights, I would not be at 
all surprised if the next time the PRC seeks to host such a meeting the 
participants think twice; and the Chinese--although they will certainly 
try--will have no one to blame but themselves. As I have pointed out 
previously, if China wants to assume a place at the international 
table, then it must respect international rules and norms of behavior--
in trade, in diplomacy and military affairs, in nonproliferation, and 
not least in domestic practice.

                          ____________________