[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 56 (Monday, April 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4276-S4278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON CHINA
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, 100 years from now, I have no doubt
that when historians look back, the remarkable rise of China as a world
power will be considered one of the most important international events
in the latter half of the 20th century. Even more than the tragic war
in Bosnia, more than the fragile attempts at peace in the Middle East,
more than the collapse of the Soviet Union, I believe that China's
ascendance as a great power and its impact as such--and the content and
quality of the United States relationship with China--will shape the
direction of global history in the Pacific century.
In recent months, Sino-American relations have reached perhaps their
lowest level since President Nixon's historic trip to China in 1972.
Our relationship has been plagued by tensions in nearly every area in
which we interact--trade, nuclear nonproliferation, concerns about
Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Tibet to name just a few. But most often the
Sino-American relationship has been buffeted by clashing visions of
human rights. And it is that which I wish to speak about today.
Last month, the State Department issued its annual report on human
rights which contained a highly critical section on China. Having read
the report and the attendant media coverage that interpreted its
contents, I wish to address what I perceive to be a number of grave
misjudgments and, frankly, a double standard in American foreign policy
when it comes to China.
Let me begin with some examples of that double standard. The
liberation of Kuwait following the Persian Gulf war is viewed as a
triumph of freedom and a high point in recent American foreign policy.
Yet, how many Americans are aware of the fact that upon their return
the Kuwaitis expelled thousands of Palestinians and denied repatriation
of thousands more who had fled during the war for their suspected--and
I say suspected--support of Iraq. Before the war, there were over
400,000 Palestinians in Kuwait. Now there are 33,000, according to the
Human Rights Watch/Middle East.
What happened to them, and who cares? At times, it seemed that there
was more attention in the American press given to the number of wives
of certain members of the Kuwaiti royal family than of how many
Palestinians were expelled in political reprisal.
There has been, however, some media coverage and American criticism
of Russia's brutal suppression of Chechnya's move toward independence.
The Russian military decimated the city of Grozny with tremendous loss
of life among civilians and the Chechnyan rebels alike. And the battle
goes on today. Conservative estimates are that 30,000 people have been
killed. Yet, our President just visited Russia, and our relations with
Russia have never been better.
The cover story in the April 22 Washington Post puts America's blind
eye in perspective: ``Clinton, Yeltsin Gloss Over Chechen War.''
. . . [the two leaders] declared their admiration for each
other and brushed off criticism of Russia's war against
Chechen separatists.
Our relationship with the former Soviet Union is of such
unquestionable importance that, muted criticism aside, American support
of the Russian President has never really been in question. So how can
China's importance be any the less?
Recent tragic events in Liberia, where an unknown number of people
have been killed, is only the latest slaughter to emerge from that
continent. Not long ago, the news media recounted the massacre of
hundreds of thousands of Tutsi and Hutus in Rwanda, and the regime of
Gen. Sani Abacha in Nigeria continues to suppress political dissent
with lethal force. And yet, each of these countries enjoys the most-
favored-nation trading status with the United States.
Even some of our closest allies have deeply flawed human rights
records.
In Egypt, a legitimate effort to crack down on Islamic extremists has
at times crossed the line into abuse, such as extended detention
without charge, torture, and even summary executions.
In Brazil police just 2 weeks ago killed 19 people who were
protesting the slow pace of land reform.
Turkey, a close NATO ally, has made considerable progress on human
rights in recent years, but freedom of expression is still suppressed,
torture is still widespread, and there have been numerous documented
cases of the excessive use of force against the Kurds in recent years,
about which we are all familiar.
I do not mean to suggest that human rights should not occupy an
important place in our Nation's foreign policy. In each of the cases
cited above we have, rightly, protested to the governments involved and
worked with them to improve their human rights records.
The status of human rights in the countries I have just mentioned is
or has been questionable, yet our relations with them do not fluctuate
wildly based on human rights violations. We are able to recognize that
the United States also has other important interests that must be taken
into account, and we must constantly weigh these interests and values
as we try to construct an effective foreign policy.
No one, for example, would suggest that we cut off relations with
Kuwait, Russia, Egypt, Brazil, or Turkey based solely upon their record
of human rights abuses. The United States simply has too many security,
diplomatic, economic and other interest at stake to contemplate such a
course of action.
And yet, that is exactly the case with what is probably our most
important bilateral relationship in the world today.
Fundamental to the instability in the relationship between the United
States and China is the lack of any conceptual framework or long-term
strategy on the part of the United States for dealing with China.
Instead, U.S. policy has been reactive and event-driven, responding to
whatever happens to be the current revelation--generally about human
rights. Each time we lurch from crisis to crisis, we call into question
our entire relationship with China.
A whole host of events has contributed to the current deterioration
in Sino-American relations, but it is important to recognize the role
played by the media in this process.
I recognize that the Chinese government does not treat the
international press well. But virtually everything we read, hear or see
in the American press about China is negative. Yes, there is much that
happens in China that is worthy of scrutiny and criticism, but there is
also much that is positive as well, and it is largely ignored. The real
danger in this is Americans know so little about China. They know only
what they read and, particularly since Tiananmen, most of it is
negative.
The most blatant example of this unbalanced reportage of China was
evident when the State Department released its human rights report last
month. I read the newspapers. The coverage of the section on China was
100 percent negative.
Then I read the report itself, and I am deeply troubled by what can
only be described as America's blind eye when it comes to China.
Let me read you some of the press coverage following the release of
the
[[Page S4277]]
State Department's Human Rights report.
China's economic reforms have failed to alter the
government's pattern of systematic disregard for basic human
rights, according to the State Department's annual report . .
.--Washington Post (3/6/96).
The State Department outlined Wednesday what it described
as a nightmarish human rights situation in China. . .--Dallas
Morning News (3/7/96).
The U.S. report released Wednesday found Chinese
authorities guilty of widespread and well-documented human
rights abuses--San Francisco Examiner (3/7/96)
China Dismal on Human Rights, U.S. Admits--Chicago Tribune
(3/7/96).
Reading these articles, one could only conclude that there have been
virtually no changes or improvements on human rights in China in
decades, save for a modest increase in the standard of living among
some.
But anyone who has any knowledge of China can see that in fact
dramatic changes have taken place in that country over the course of
the last 20 years, and that those changes, by their very nature, have
opened the door to major improvements in human rights.
Let me read you sections of the unbound version of the State
Department's report supplied to the Foreign Relations Committee that
were not widely reported on:
On page 3 it notes that:
In many respects, Chinese society continued to open up:
greater disposable income, looser ideological controls, and
freer access to outside sources of information have led to
greater room for individual choice, more diversity in
cultural life, and increased media reporting.
On page 13 it says that:
Economic liberalization is creating diverse employment
opportunities and introducing market forces into the economy,
thus loosening governmental monitoring and regulation of
personal and family life, particularly in rural areas.
On page 9 it notes that, ``Chinese legal scholars and lawyers
acknowledge the need for legal reform,'' and notes that development
toward a system of due process--the most fundamental guarantee for
human rights is due process of law--a system of due process and other
legal reforms are under way.
For example, an experimental trial system tested in 1994
has now been approved for use in Shanghai and for most civil
cases. The new system introduces an adversarial element into
trials by giving attorneys more responsibility for presenting
evidence and arguing facts.
On page 5 it says:
In December 1994, China enacted a new prison law designed,
in part, to improve treatment of detainees and respect for
their legal rights.
Farther down on the same page it says:
In February, the National People's Congress passed three
new laws designed to professionalize judges, prosecutors, and
policemen.
On page 2:
In October the Ministry of Justice promulgated implementing
regulations for 1994 legislation that allows citizens to sue
government agencies for malfeasance and to collect damages.
Where do we see any of this reported? We do not.
Page 3:
The Government has also drafted a lawyers law that would
clarify the nature of the attorney-client relationship,
improve professional standards, separate most lawyers from
state employment, and improve the ability of citizens to
defend their legal interests.
The report also cites some positive development in religious freedoms
in China. On page 19, it says:
After forcefully suppressing all religious observances and
closing all seminaries during the 1966 to 1976 cultural
revolution, the government began in the late 1970's to
restore or replace damaged or confiscated churches, temples,
mosques and monasteries and allowed seminaries to reopen.
According to the government, there are now 68,000 religious
sites in China and 48 religious colleges. The government has
also adopted a policy of returning confiscated church
property.
Where is any of that reported?
On page 17, the report cites the growth and development of two
specific areas of a freer press:
Despite official admonitions, China's lively tabloid sector
continued to expand in 1995. Radio talk shows remained
popular and, while generally avoiding politically sensitive
subjects, they provided opportunities for citizens to air
grievances about public issues.
The report characterizes a nascent movement toward democracy in China
on page 24:
Direct election for basic level or village government is
legally sanctioned for all China's 1 million villages.
Foreign observers estimate that more than one-third of
China's 900 million rural residents--which is three times the
population of the United States--have already participated in
elections for local leaders. . . Successful village elections
have included campaigning, platforms and use of secret
ballots. . . There were credible reports that candidates most
favored by the authorities were defeated in some local,
village elections.
Where is this reported?
And although the Chinese Government, like any government, is
reluctant to accept criticism of its human rights record, on page 25,
the report notes that:
Since 1991, the government has promoted limited academic
study and discussion of concepts of human rights. Research
institutes in Shanghai and Beijing, including the Chinese
Academy of Social Sciences, has organized symposia on human
rights, established human rights research centers, and
visited other countries to study human rights practices in
those nations.
Some may view these changes as modest and limited in scope, and
perhaps they may be, but one has only to look back 30 years to the
Cultural Revolution to understand how enormous these changes truly are.
We must understand these changes in context: China is a nation which
has been ruled by man for 5,000 years, by emperors in the most despotic
system, by the national government in the most despotic manner.
Changing to the rule of law will not happen overnight or even in a
decade, but it is happening.
Thirty years ago--just 30 years ago--20 to 30 million people died
during the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. Millions lost
their jobs, their families and were falsely imprisoned. The human
rights and political situation in China has changed dramatically for
the better over the last 20 years.
When I first went to China in 1979, shortly after the end of the
Cultural Revolution, no one would talk freely. You could not have a
political conversation. It was a totally centrally controlled
government. Now all of that has changed.
So change in a country as huge as this, as different as this, where
the urban eastern cities are very different from the isolated western
areas, does not happen overnight, and sometimes it is even difficult to
evaluate it on a year-to-year basis.
As I think recent history and this State Department report indicates,
China is changing and Americans need to recognize this. They need to
know it and they need to encourage China's continued modernization.
I should note for those in this body who consider themselves to be
friends of Taiwan, as I do also, that the Taiwan whose democracy we
celebrate in 1996 was not so very long ago considered to be one of the
most egregious violators of human rights, during which we kept all
contact with Taiwan.
Beginning on February 28, 1947, thousands of political dissidents
were killed and imprisoned by the nationalist government on Taiwan in a
matter of weeks--the infamous ``2-28 incident.''
In 1948, a state of emergency was declared allowing the President to
rule by decree, and from 1950 to 1987, Taiwan was ruled by martial law.
During this time, it is estimated that over 10,000 civilian cases were
tried in military courts. Citizens were subjected to constant
surveillance, individual rights and freedoms were compromised, and
political opposition was silenced.
To our credit, during this same period, the United States engaged
Taiwan politically and economically, working to encourage the growth of
democracy. Today, Taiwan is a democracy.
To be sure, China has a long way to go, but China is growing so
rapidly--with a 10-percent annual growth in gross domestic product.
Today, China, as an export power, is where Japan was in 1980, the 11th
largest exporter in the world, and it is growing much more rapidly than
Japan was growing.
To this end, the report also contains a number of constructive
suggestions that I feel we should seek to develop as we encourage China
to modernize. I believe we should work with the Chinese to develop
national legislation governing organ donations, so as to bring to an
end any question about current policies, but work with them, engage
with them, discuss with them, counsel with them.
We should encourage the Chinese to let the International Committee of
the Red Cross monitor prisoners to assure
[[Page S4278]]
that their rights, under these new Chinese laws just now going in
place, are not being abused. We should encourage the Chinese to allow
the establishment of truly independent Chinese nongovernmental
organizations to monitor and discuss the human rights situation.
I also add to this list the development of a legal system that
guarantees an independent judiciary, due process of law, and new civil
and criminal codes. This will do more in protecting and advancing human
rights than any other single thing the United States can do, and the
Chinese have asked for help in this regard.
In releasing the report, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy
and Human Rights, John Shattuck, stated at the press conference on
March 6:
There is no question that economic integration enhances
human rights.
As Secretary Shattuck also stated, isolating China will not enhance
human rights--just the opposite. The continued improvement in the
economic well-being of China's citizens is critical to the continued
growth of human rights. And continued trade with the United States is
critical for the continued development of China's economy.
I do not mean to suggest that the free market by itself will improve
human rights records. Assistant Secretary Shattuck once again was so
right when he said--and I quote--
Economic growth is not in and of itself the ultimate
sufficient condition for the full flowering of human rights.
We must also pursue other forms of engagement with China.
So it is in this context that I urge my colleagues to read in full
the State Department's human rights report on China, but to do so not
with a jaundiced eye and a focus only on those areas that still require
improvement, but with a sense of appreciation for how far in 20 short
years China has come, and with continued United States engagement, how
much farther China can go in the next 20 years.
That is our challenge today. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, under the previous order I am to be
recognized during morning business for a period of 90 minutes. I ask
unanimous consent that during this period I be permitted to yield
portions of my time to other Members without losing my right to the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________