[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 24, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1360-E1361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    COMMUNIST CHINA DOES NOT BELONG IN THE CIVILIZED CLUB OF NATIONS

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 24, 1996

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record an 
article by Jessica Mathews from the Washington Post of July 22 entitled 
``Beijing Pulls a Fast One.'' The article describes an act of duplicity 
that is remarkable even against the low standards of behavior for which 
the Communist dictatorship in Beijing is notorious.
  According to the article, the Communist Chinese Government pressured 
the IMF to include a Chinese national working at the Fund, Hong Yang, 
on a delegation to Beijing. Just after arriving, Hong Yang was whisked 
off by Communist Chinese authorities and tried and convicted on 
possibly trumped up bribery charges.
  Whether or not Hong Yang was guilty, Beijing, as Ms. Matthews puts it 
``abused the mutual trust among members and institution that an 
international organization needs in order to operate.''
  Which leads me to ask, Mr. Speaker, why is this totalitarian regime 
in the IMF at all? And why are we seriously considering letting them 
into the WTO and the G-7? And why is the rest of the world, led by the 
United States, loaning this tyrannical government over $4 billion a 
year? Are there any standards whatsoever for inclusion in these groups 
other than economic ones?
  I say there must be. When considering Communist China's admission to 
the WTO and G-7, when considering the next Export-Import Bank 
guarantee, and when considering the next international loan to this 
regime, we must remember who we are really dealing with. We must 
remember the intimidation of Taiwan. We must remember the drive for 
regional military hegemony. We must remember the countless examples of 
irresponsible and dangerous weapons proliferation. We must remember the 
piracy of American intellectual property.
  And we must remember, as this article displays yet again, the 
fundamentally duplicitous, dictatorial and abusive nature of this 
regime.

                        Beijing Pulls a Fast One

                          (By Jessica Mathews)

       The case of Hong Yang and the International Monetary Fund 
     casts a harsh light on China's attitude toward the community 
     of nations and the leading role therein that it believes it 
     deserves. The incident should influence international 
     strategy to engage the Asian giant.
       Hong worked at China's central bank when he was recommended 
     for a one-year training stint at the IMF. Late last year the 
     Chinese government ``pressured'' (the IMF's word) the fund to 
     include him on a delegation for an annual discussion of 
     China's economic policies in Beijing.
       Normally, the IMF does not include citizens of the country 
     being visited on such a delegation. Moreover, Hong was far 
     too junior for such a role. However, the fund acquiesced. 
     Shortly after the group arrived in Beijing Hong disappeared, 
     arrested on a charge of having taken a bribe while at the 
     central bank. In March he was tried and after a highly 
     unusual six-week delay, he was sentenced to 11 years in 
     prison late last month.
       The next day, several hundred staff members held a silent 
     vigil at the IMF's Washington headquarters demanding a 
     stiffer response from the fund. The staff association issued 
     a press release decrying China for having ``violated the 
     standard of conduct'' expected of IMF members and calling on 
     it to ``void the decision'' against Hong.
       The IMF had, in fact, been practicing active, though 
     extremely quiet, diplomacy. It had retained a lawyer for Hong 
     and had extended his contract so that he remained its 
     employee. The long delay before sentencing and the prison 
     term instead of execution--a frequent outcome in such cases--
     may have been the result of its protests.
       Sources at the fund and its sister institution, the World 
     Bank, and at the State Department now suggest--though not 
     explicitly and never for attribution--that Hong was guilty. 
     If so, it is hard to explain why he would have willingly 
     returned to Beijing when he and his family were safely in 
     Washington.
       His guilt or innocence may never be known and are, in any 
     case, beside the point. What is clear is that China framed 
     the IMF. It is not merely individual nations--even the likes 
     of the United States and Germany--that Beijing feels it can 
     deal with on its own terms. China has shown itself ready to 
     violate commitments under international agreements from the 
     missile control regime and the nonproliferation treaty to 
     promises to halt the piracy of intellectual property. At the 
     World Bank China is borrowing so much that leverage has 
     shifted from lender to borrower. Until now, though, no 
     country--including the confirmed outlaws--had dared mess with 
     the IMF.
       Whether the fund should have smelled something fishy and 
     refused to include Hong on the delegation, or whether it 
     could have done more after the arrest, are matters for Monday 
     morning quarterbacks. What nothing can disguise is the red 
     mark on the institution's face from the stinging--and 
     seemingly gratuitous--slap Beijing has dealt it. Why not, 
     after all, wait until Hong returned from his IMF service to 
     arrest him?
       Beijing may have done nothing illegal in duping the fund, 
     but it certainly abused the mutual trust among members and 
     institution that an international organization needs in order 
     to operate. Evidently, China believes that its size and 
     economic clout entitle it to its own rules of behavior.
       The next steps up the ladder of international status for 
     China are membership in the World Trade Organization and 
     initiation into the G-7, the club of world economic powers. 
     China still has a long way to go to meet even the clearly 
     defined economic criteria for WTO membership. The Hong case 
     adds to already substantial doubts that China will abide by 
     what it agrees to.
       The episode also suggests that recent proposals to include 
     Beijing in an expanded G-7 are premature. The G-7 concept 
     linking economic power and democratic principles may be 
     elastic enough to include uncertain and lightly imperfect 
     democracies, but it cannot stretch far enough to encompass a 
     country openly disdainful of international comity without 
     breaking.
       Businesses, too, have to consider the implications. If an 
     international employee--carrying a United Nations laissez-
     passer, though not diplomatic immunity--can be snatched, the 
     same could certainly happen to a foreign investor's employee.
       One of the most curious aspects of the Hong story is the 
     lack of attention it has received. China experts and human 
     rights activists are puzzled by how little they have been 
     able to discover. The IMF is known to be a tight-lipped 
     institution, but in today's world few secrets can be kept 
     this well. As the case unfolds, one of the questions to be 
     explored is whether this one should have been kept under such 
     close wraps.
       Did the IMF ask national governments, which share an 
     interest in the integrity of international institutions, to 
     press Beijing? Did it ask other international organizations? 
     Would the pressure of public opinion have helped or hurt 
     Hong? How should a similar incident be handled in the future?
       There is, finally, a message here for those who principally 
     blame the United States for the many recent difficulties in 
     the U.S.-Chinese relationship. There is a pattern of behavior 
     emerging for which responsibility rests in Beijing. 
     Demonizing China will gain the United States nothing. Neither 
     will blinking at facts.

[[Page E1361]]



            EXTENDING MOST-FAVORED-NATION STATUS TO ROMANIA

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 16, 1996

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
House voting to extend permanently MFN for Romania, H.R. 3161. Romania 
has just completed, after three rounds, its election of local officials 
throughout the country, and national elections are now set for early 
November. I strongly believe that the House should consider the 
legislation before us only after Romania's national elections.
  There are a number of issues, from freedom of the media and rights of 
the minorities to democratic reform, which remain unresolved. Romania 
enjoys all the benefits of MFN under the current semiannual review 
process, and granting permanent MFN now will remove this important 
review of these remaining issues of concern and the conduct of the 
upcoming elections. Mr. Speaker, we all know that within a democratic 
system, the political will to address outstanding problems is always 
greater during an election season. Let the 105th Congress consider this 
issue after Romania's national elections.
  The current MFN review process has served as a helpful opportunity to 
gauge Romania's democratic reform and their respect for human rights. 
Freedom of the media, for example, continues to be a concern. Under 
Romanian law, individuals who are convicted of insulting or defaming 
public officials can be subjected to prison terms. The Romanian Senate 
recently passed legislation which would increase these criminal 
penalties if the insults are committed in the written or audiovisual 
press. This type of potential liability, in my opinion, has a chilling 
effect on the media.
  Mr. Speaker, the Government of Romania should ensure absolutely the 
freedom of the media--at all times--but particularly during the heat of 
election campaigns. Unfavorable commentary by the media regarding 
government officials should not be viewed as a threat to national 
security and result in calls for restrictions on those who dare to 
criticize. I was dismayed by the reaction of the chairman of the ruling 
party in Romania to critical news reports filed by the local BBC 
correspondent during the recent local election campaign. Chairman 
Adrian Nastase, who is also President of the Romanian Chamber of 
Deputies, attacked the BBC for its critical reporting and called on the 
national licensing agency to review that respected international news 
organization's right to rebroadcast on local Romanian radio stations.
  Minority rights continue to be of concern. Ethnic minorities face 
certain restrictions to their receiving, at the higher levels in 
particular, instruction in their native language, and a law was passed 
which now limits the taking of college entrance exams solely in 
Romanian. This law was not implemented this year but the law remains on 
the books. And official obstacles remain which prevent the restoration 
of the Hungarian university in Cluj.
  Human rights are best protected by governments which must answer to 
their electorate. As with any fledgling democracy, the campaign season 
for the just completed local elections and the conduct of the national 
elections in the fall are particularly important tests for Romania's 
commitment to freedom of the press, their conduct of orderly, free, and 
fair elections, and their provision for domestic observers for the 
national elections. Reports from objective election observers clearly 
indicate that the conduct of the local elections did not allay the 
potential problems which had been raised by NGO's. The most serious 
concerns included widespread, gross inaccuracy of the voter lists; 
significant logistical problems which arise when campaign periods are 
truncated; and uneven interpretation of the election law by local 
officials with no central election bureau to serve as arbiter, which 
contributed to inconsistencies around the country and even a lack of 
trust in the system.
  In my view, Mr. Speaker, projecting a vote in the U.S. Congress on 
the political landscape of Romania would certainly be seen as a 
congressional judgment on Romania's current political leaders. The vote 
tallies of the recently held local elections indicate strong, 
grassroots support for the opposition parties. In fact, the ruling 
Party of Social Democracy in Romania and the opposition Democratic 
Convention of Romania [CDR] received about equal percentages of the 
vote in the mayors' races. The CDR and other opposition parties, 
including representatives of the Hungarian minority, significantly out-
polled the ruling party in country, city, and mayoral races in many 
regions. Mr. Speaker, this is a political environment in which every 
issue, especially closely watched foreign policy issues such as 
Romania's MFN status with the United States, affects the voters' 
perception of the effectiveness of the ruling party.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a number of areas in which the Romanian 
Government could take timely and constructive steps to ensure that the 
national elections are conducted in a way which garners confidence in 
the electoral process. I hope and expect that the Government of Romania 
will make every effort to ensure that the national elections in 
November are conducted on the basis of up-to-date, accurate voting 
lists in each locality, backed up by consistent and uniform 
interpretation of the election law by local officials. In my view, the 
establishment of a permanent, professional election bureau would ensure 
such consistency and accuracy, and go a long way toward enhancing voter 
confidence in the system.
  Finally, it is unclear at this time whether domestic election 
observers will be permitted at the polling stations in November. A one-
time provision for local observers was made during the 1992 national 
elections, however this authorization has not been renewed. Mr. 
Speaker, in my view domestic as well as international observers are 
crucial to ensuring the conduct of free and fair elections. Domestic 
observers play a positive role in enhancing public confidence in the 
electoral process and the experience of election monitoring gives 
ordinary Romanian citizens an opportunity to develop skills and 
experience applicable to other aspects of democratic citizenship.
  I am hopeful and expectant that Romania's next leaders will be chosen 
through elections which will be free, fair and representative, and that 
the protection of human rights will continue to improve under the newly 
elected government. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3161 
today. The people of Romania have had the benefits of MFN since 1992. 
Making the judgement about the transition to permanent status should be 
undertaken only after these critical elections are completed in 
November.

                          ____________________