[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 76 (Thursday, June 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5293-S5296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   CHINA'S MOST-FAVORED-NATION STATUS

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong 
opposition to the administration's proposal to renew most-favored-
nation status for China, and I rise as an original cosponsor of Senate 
Joint Resolution 31, the resolution of disapproval of MFN.
  First and foremost, I want to recognize my good friend and colleague 
from North Carolina, Senator Jesse Helms. Over the years, Senator Helms 
has dedicated himself to making this body and the American people aware 
of China's human rights record of abuse. I sincerely thank the Senator 
and his staff for their leadership on this very important issue.
  Mr. President, yesterday, June 4, 1997, was the eighth anniversary of 
the violence in Tiananmen Square. It has now been 8 years since the 
suppression of prodemocracy protests in China; 8 years since the 
killing of hundreds of unarmed civilians by the army in Beijing. In 
1989, we all watched with amazement as these courageous Chinese 
students marched in Tiananmen Square. Today, they are all gone.
  During their struggle, they defied the tanks, they looked to the 
United States for inspiration, they quoted our Declaration of 
Independence and, through it all, Mr. President, United States 
policymakers have responded that economic engagement would stop China's 
abuses of human rights. As far as I can tell, it is, in fact, profit 
projections that are primarily driving our foreign policy.

  How can the United States consider renewing MFN for China when the 
Chinese authorities still have taken no steps to publicly investigate 
the circumstances of the killings and bring to justice those found 
responsible for human rights violations? Instead, the families of 
victims and people attempting to gather information about those killed 
are themselves subjected to harassment and intimidation in a continuing 
attempt by authorities to conceal the facts of what occurred 8 years 
ago.
  The Chinese Government defines the 1989 protest as a 
``counterrevolutionary riot.'' I believe this definition has been used 
since 1989 to justify the imprisonment of many people who are the 
victims of human rights violations. Thousands of political prisoners--
thousands--arrested during the crackdown, including prisoners of 
conscience, are

[[Page S5294]]

believed to be imprisoned today. How can this Congress accept the 
administration's proposal to renew MFN for China? How can we stand here 
in good faith and look the other way? By turning a blind eye to this 
oppression in the interest of trade opportunities, I believe the United 
States is sending a clear and unmistakable message. It is the wrong 
message. The message to the Government of China is one of commendation 
rather than one of condemnation.
  It has been almost 3 years since the United States formally delinked 
American trade with China for its human rights performance of abuse. So 
I say to my colleagues, much has changed in China in the last 3 years, 
but the changes that have occurred in China have not been changes for 
the better. We now see a human rights situation in China that is worse 
by every measure--persecution of Christians, forced abortions, 
sterilizations of the mentally handicapped, kangaroo courts for 
Democratic dissenters, incarceration of political dissidents, and, Mr. 
President, the near extinction of the expression of any opinion 
contrary to that of the Communist regime.
  I am deeply concerned with the mounting campaign of religious 
persecutions waged by the rulers of China. Regarding China's 
deprivation of fundamental human rights and religious aspirations, 
continuing MFN to China is effectively equivalent to a policy of 
appeasement.
  The Roman Catholic Church has been made, for all practical purposes, 
illegal in China. Priests, bishops, and people of faith have been 
imprisoned and harassed. For example, Zheng Yunsu, the leader of a 
Jesus family, a Protestant community in Shadong Province, is one of 
many people who are behind bars simply for practicing their faith. He 
was arrested during a police raid on the community in 1992. He was 
later sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for disrupting public order 
and ``swindling.'' His four sons and other members of the group were 
also imprisoned. I believe that they are all prisoners of conscience.
  Mr. President, such persecutions of religious groups has followed a 
substantial religious revival in China over the past 15 years. In the 
Christian community, much of the expansion has been in religious groups 
that conduct their activities outside the Protestant and Catholic 
churches still recognized by the government, though they are greatly 
restricted.
  Many peaceful but unregistered religious gatherings have been raided 
by police, and those attending those services have been beaten, 
threatened, or detained, and many of those detained are required to pay 
heavy fines as a condition for their release. Those regarded as leaders 
are usually kept in custody and either sentenced to prison terms or 
administratively detained without charge, without trial. And this, Mr. 
President, is the regime to whom we would grant most-favored-nation 
status.
  In January 1994, two national regulations on religious activities 
came into force. Notably, Mr. President, they banned religious 
activities which undermine national unity and social stability. Under 
the broad rubric of these two regulations, any activity could be 
construed as undermining the Chinese Government and, therefore, 
constitute a threat punishable by arrest, prosecution, imprisonment and 
bodily harm.
  These regulations also require that all places of religious 
activities be registered with the authorities according to rules 
formulated by China's Religious Affairs Bureau, an innocuous-sounding 
agency. This means, in effect, that religious groups that do not have 
official approval may not obtain registration and that those involved 
in religious activities in unregistered places may be detained and 
punished. Provided in these new regulations are detention and criminal 
penalties for any violation. And this is the regime to whom we would 
grant normal trade relations and most-favored-nation status.
  During this past year, police raids on religious gatherings organized 
by independent groups have continued, with hundreds of Protestants and 
Catholics reportedly detained as a result. More than 300 Christians 
were reported to have been detained in what appears to be a crackdown 
by police on unregistered Protestant houses and churches. And this is 
the Government to whom we want to extend MFN.
  I believe there is evidence of an intensified Chinese repression of 
religious liberty. This repression ranges from ransacking homes in 
Tibet in search of banned pictures of the Dalai Lama to destroying or 
closing 18,000 Buddhist shrines last spring. Ministers, priests and 
monks are routinely arrested, imprisoned, tortured and sometimes killed 
for the mere expression of their faith. For example, let's take the 
case of Pastor Wong, who runs 40 evangelical churches. He was released 
in December after a fourth arrest for spreading the Gospel. This time, 
Mr. President, the government captors broke several of his fingers with 
pliers. This is the government to whom we would like to extend, again, 
MFN.
  I believe it is the obligation of the American Government to uphold 
the principles of democracy and freedom that we claim to espouse. By 
renewing MFN status to China, we are turning a blind eye to the 
oppressed in the interest of expanded trade opportunities. There must 
be some things that are even more important than the almighty dollar.
  Mr. President, in Paul Marshall's critically acclaimed book, ``Their 
Blood Cries Out,'' an authoritative book of religious persecutions 
around the globe, the case of Bishop Su is documented. During Bishop 
Su's 15 years in China's prison system, he was subjected to various 
forms of torture. One beating was so severe that the instrument of the 
beating actually splintered. Then the police ripped apart a wooden door 
frame and used it to continue the beating until it, too, disintegrated 
into splinters. The bishop was then hung by his wrists from a ceiling 
and beaten around the head.
  As appalling as this story is, in another encounter, this bishop was 
placed in a cell containing water at varying levels from ankle to hip 
deep where he was left for days unable to sit and unable to sleep. And, 
again, this is the regime to whom we would give most-favored-nation 
status.
  Every year, countless numbers of people are detained without charge 
in breach of the law or sentenced without trial to years of reeducation 
through labor at the discretion of police and local officials. For 
those who are charged, sentences are frequently imposed after unfair 
trials, with the verdict decided beforehand. In many cases, such 
verdicts even carry the death penalty.
  The Chinese legal system, like, I suppose, all legal systems, 
supports the established political and governmental institutions. 
However, it does not do so in a way that is consistent with the rule of 
law and fundamental human rights. The rule of law becomes subordinate 
to higher political goals, including the defeat of perceived political 
enemies within the nation of China.
  The vagueness and contradictory provisions of the law in China lead 
consistently to Chinese arbitrary enforcement and provides an open 
invitation to abuse of power. Repressive criminal legislation and the 
extensive system of administrative detention means that virtually 
anyone can be detained at the whim of individuals who happen to be in a 
position of power.
  As we discuss MFN for China, a vast array of laws and regulations 
continues to be used to detain or imprison political opponents or to 
warn political dissidents against opposition.
  The Chinese say over and over again that there are no political 
prisoners in China. Such an assertion is absurd on the surface and it 
flies in the face of overwhelming evidence. People are routinely 
imprisoned because of their political views or beliefs, but are 
categorized simply as counterrevolutionaries, administrative detainees, 
or criminals. In January 1995, for instance, a Ministry of Justice 
official was cited as stating that 2,678 prisoners convicted of 
counterrevolutionary offenses were currently in jail. I believe, Mr. 
President, that this figure represents only a fraction of the real 
number of political prisoners held in China today.

  Furthermore, I believe that this figure excludes many thousands of 
people who are jailed for political reasons but convicted of other 
offenses or held under various forms of administrative detention who 
have not even been charged or tried.
  We all know that grave human rights violations have continued in 
China

[[Page S5295]]

since 1995. They range from the arbitrary detention of people who 
peacefully express their views to gross violations of the physical 
integrity of the person and their very right to life. Dissent and any 
activity perceived as a threat to the established political order 
continues to be repressed.
  So as we debate MFN for China, thousands of political prisoners, 
including members of religious and ethnic groups, are in jail simply 
for expressing their views. Torture and ill-treatment continue to be 
common practices during arrest in police stations, detention centers, 
labor camps, prisons, and this often results in the death of these 
victims.
  It is my understanding, Mr. President, that at least a thousand 
people have been executed in China since the launch of a nationwide 
anticrime campaign in 1996. I call out to my colleagues that we must 
put pressure on China to stop these mass executions, many of which are 
carried out after only show trials.
  The political authorities in China have instructed the judiciary to 
speed up procedures to sentence offenders, including those liable to 
the death penalty. And I believe the result is untold miscarriages of 
justice.
  If we grant MFN to China in view of these practices, then we too are 
guilty of a miscarriage of justice. If we renew China's MFN status, as 
the administration wants us to, then I think we are derelict in our 
duty, this Congress' duty to uphold the principles of dignity and 
fundamental freedoms.
  If we really want to engage the Chinese, we have to show that we are 
willing to confront them when they break the rules. We have not done 
that. And we will not do that by granting them most-favored-nation 
status.
  For 4 consecutive years, from 1991 to 1995, the Chinese Government 
has successfully used a procedural motion to block any resolution 
critical of its human rights record being debated by the U.N. 
Commission on Human Rights. Mr. President, no government should be 
allowed to choose the extent to which it will abide by international 
human rights laws. No government should be allowed to manipulate human 
rights issues to further its political aims.
  Newspapers in early April reported that China has been selling Iran 
the components of chemical weapons for several years. This was one in 
an ongoing series of reports about the Chinese military. The Chinese 
are also said to be dealing in nuclear weapons with Pakistan, buying 
advanced jet aircraft from Russia, and contracting for Russian-made 
aircraft carriers equipped with surface-to-surface missiles.
  This is the nation, this is the government, this is the regime that 
we say, ``You deserve again to have most-favored-nation status 
renewed,'' a nation that has a growing military capacity, that is 
increasing its military defense spending, has an expansionist view of 
its own territorial goals and has snubbed us at every turn in our 
seeking conciliation and moderation in their foreign policy?
  It seems while the administration would like Congress to renew MFN to 
China, they were and are fully aware of China's supplying Iran, Iraq 
and other enemies of the United States with deadly weapons--
conventional, chemical, and nuclear.
  Robert Einhorn, Deputy Secretary of State for Nonproliferation, has 
recently stated:

       These dual-use, chemical-related transfers to Iran's 
     chemical weapons program indicates that, at minimum, China's 
     chemical export controls are not operating effectively enough 
     to ensure compliance with China's prospective obligation not 
     to assist anyone in any way to acquire chemical weapons.

  Mr. Einhorn has also confirmed reports that China has been providing 
Iran with advanced C-802 cruise missiles capable of threatening United 
States warships in the Persian Gulf. Moreover, Mr. President, he 
testified to a Senate panel that:

       We have information of discussions between Iran and China 
     about additional conventional weapons sales. We expect there 
     will be more.

  That is what our State Department is saying about China's export 
controls.
  Mr. President, as for still other reports that China has been running 
a brisk sale of mobile, nuclear-capable M-11 nuclear components to 
Pakistan--2 years after it pledged not to do so--Mr. Einhorn said those 
reports are, in fact, correct.

  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, can China, under the current 
regime, be trusted to honor its treaty obligations? If China, our 
partner in engagement under the Clinton administration policy of 
constructive engagement, if China, our partner in engagement, supplies 
Iran, Iraq, and other enemies of the United States with deadly weapons, 
what in reality does that make China?
  Mr. President, the biggest question of all in this year's MFN debate 
should be, is United States trade with China in effect subsidizing a 
military buildup that will soon threaten not only Taiwan, Japan, and 
China's other Asian neighbors, but even our own national security?
  Mr. President, militarily, the administration has sought to 
strengthen Taiwan. We have shipped Patriot missiles to Taiwan, and 
Taiwanese pilots are at this moment in the United States being trained 
to use the F-16 jet fighters that America has also pledged to send to 
our ally.
  When the Chinese in effect blockaded Taiwan during a missile-testing 
exercise off its coast in March of last year, the President--and I 
commend him--responded with a firm show of America's force dispatching 
the Independence in the area.
  I ask, why, even though we deplore the Chinese military buildup in 
diplomacy and counter it in strategy, do we continue to help to finance 
it in trade?
  Mr. President, these are some very serious questions that go 
unanswered by the administration in their attempt to renew MFN to 
China. I am very concerned with the administration's obvious neglect 
and disregard for the United States Department of State's ``China 
Country Report on Human Rights'' for 1996. Mr. President, the findings 
are absolutely horrific. I urge my colleagues to listen closely as I 
read one passage from this report. I quote:

       Overall in 1996, the Chinese authorities stepped up efforts 
     to cut off expressions of protest or criticism. All public 
     dissent against the party and government was effectively 
     silenced by intimidation, exile, the imposition of prison 
     terms, administrative detention, or house arrest. No 
     dissidents were known to be active at year's end.

  I repeat, ``No dissidents were known to be active at year's end.''
  I continue the report:

       Serious human rights abuses persist in minority areas, 
     including Tibet and Inner Mongolia. Controls on religion and 
     other fundamental freedoms in these areas have also 
     intensified.

  This report debunks the logic of engagement. We were told that the 
situation in China was going to get better. That is what I was told 
when I first came to Congress in 1993, that if we will grant MFN to 
China, if we will extend that again, that this policy of engagement 
would result in better human rights conditions in China. But they have 
not improved. The situation has only grown worse.
  I am astonished that the administration can justify renewal of MFN 
status for China, with what is provided in the report: the sale of 
women, religious persecution, forced abortions, forced sterilizations, 
continued disappearances of political rivals, et cetera. This important 
and vital report, overlooked by the administration, clearly states 
there are no free dissidents left in China today--not one, none.
  I understand the importance of trade. It is important to Arkansas. It 
is important to America. It is important to our farmers. It is 
important to our manufacturers. But, Mr. President, I am convinced 
either the President has not read the State Department's report and/or 
the administration has ignored its findings.
  Furthermore, China's human rights abuses, as described by the State 
Department, should be met with a heavy price, not a prize. Granting 
China special status only perpetuates their illegal and indecent 
actions toward the Chinese people.
  Some would say, you cannot talk that way about China. Some would say 
that this will offend China. But then Ronald Reagan had many critics 
when he called the Soviet Union the ``evil empire.'' Our goal is not to 
isolate China, but to awaken China to its inhumanity to its own people.
  Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I just want to make one more 
plea to my colleagues not to turn a blind eye to the oppressed in the 
interest of trade opportunities. I urge my

[[Page S5296]]

colleagues to stand up and voice their opposition to the treatment of 
the Chinese Government toward their own people. Mr. President, I urge 
this administration to rethink a narrowminded, nearsighted, and 
unengaging solution to human rights abuses.
  For 16 years--for 16 years--the United States has extended MFN status 
to China, and in doing so, we have tacitly endorsed everything from 
forced abortions to the sale of dangerous weapons to our enemies.
  I was talking to one of my colleagues early this week, and I told him 
that I have looked for 3 years for some scintilla of evidence that 
engagement has worked, I would like to vote for MFN, but I have not 
seen any evidence at all that this policy has improved the condition of 
the Chinese people or improved the human rights situation for those 
being oppressed in China. His response to me was, ``Tim, it takes 
time.''

  Mr. President, time has run out for the thousands and thousands, who, 
today, find themselves in prison, and the families who have lost loved 
ones because of the oppressive regime that rules China.
  The United States must stand for something once again. The debate is 
about more than dollars and cents. It is about our values as a nation. 
Others of my colleagues have said, ``Well, we can't tell them what to 
do domestically.'' I would simply raise the question that it seems to 
be that the evidence is mounting daily that they have sought to tell us 
what to do domestically through influencing American elections.
  Eight years ago, the world looked on in awe and admiration for those 
thousands of students who stood with courage in Tiananmen Square. 
Tiananmen Square must not become a haunting but fading memory to the 
world and to the American people.
  So I ask my colleagues this question: Does not a little part, a 
little piece of the soul of this Nation die every time we turn away and 
allow freedom to be extinguished anywhere on this globe?
  Let us make a difference. We must confront China's abuses. The price 
of not doing so is simply too high.

                          ____________________