[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 89 (Monday, June 23, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1295-E1296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                   VALUABLE INSIGHT ON THE MFN ISSUE

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 23, 1997

  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit the following into the 
Congressional Record. The first is an excellent response from the 
Reverend Daniel Su on extending most-favored-nation trade status to 
China. Rev. Daniel Su, a Chinese Christian, has lived in China and has 
valuable insight on the MFN issue. As Reverend Su states in his letter, 
``To sacrifice ourselves for the sake of principles is heroic, but to 
sacrifice other people for our principles is insensitive.'' With this 
letter, Reverend Su is responding to an open letter on China's 
persecution of Christians written by Gary Bauer, president of Family 
Research Council. I am submitting a letter from Mr. Bauer also. Thank 
you, Mr. Speaker.

        A Response to the ``Open Letter'' by G. Bauer and Others

                           (By Daniel B. Su)


                        I. An Overall Response:

       This Open Letter as well as other anti-MFN efforts are 
     valuable in that they remind us of the important principles 
     such as freedom and human dignity. They enhance the public 
     awareness of China's human rights situation thus creating 
     more pressure on Beijing and making the message of the MFN 
     debate even stronger. It also gives the US government greater 
     bargaining power with Beijing. NGOs should continue to speak 
     out; the louder, the better.
       However the Letter miscalculates the overall impact if the 
     MFN should be revoked. Revocation would create more problems 
     than what it may solve. It defies all logics that Beijing 
     government would turn around and improve its human rights 
     situation if it were humiliated with its loss of MFN.
       The Letter scores high in preaching moral principals, but 
     we need to make one important distinction: To sacrifice 
     ourselves for the sake of principles is heroic, but to 
     sacrifice other people for our principles is insensitive--to 
     say the least.
       We all deplore the gross human rights violation in China. 
     But the Letter does not want to address the most important 
     question in this serious debate: Will revoking China's MFN 
     improve or worsen its human rights situation and religious 
     freedom? By avoiding this serious question and relying more 
     on emotional appeal, the Letter becomes less serious and 
     relevant.
       While the views of those who signed the Letter should be 
     respected, we also notice that many other well respected 
     Christian leaders' names are not on it. And that in itself is 
     a reflection of the healthy diversity among Christian 
     leaders' opinions over the MFN issue.


 II. Specific Responses To the Letters' Arguments (page and paragraph 
                         numbers in brackets):

       [p. 1, par.2]: We may agree that many Christian leaders may 
     not think it appropriate to voice their pro-MFN views in 
     public, but let's not underestimate the integrity of those 
     who do speak our. Missions leaders understand China better; 
     that is why they tend to favor renewing China's MFN.
       [p. 1, par.3]: We agree that the US should and could have 
     engaged China in a more effective way to improve its human 
     rights; relying on trade and other current policies is not 
     enough. On the other hand, our ideals need to be tempered 
     with a sense of realism. The US leverage is limited; contrary 
     to our wishes, the US government is not able to solve all the 
     problems of the world. After all, we live in a fallen world 
     where all countries have fallen short of the higher 
     standards.
       [p. 1, par.4]: We should continue to be the voice for the 
     voiceless in China despite Beijing's threats, for the 
     persecuted find strength and consolation in knowing that we 
     care and are speaking up for them. However, on the abortion 
     issue, unless the US government first outlaws abortion on its 
     own land, it has no moral authority to teach other nations 
     how to do abortion. (The NGOs are better qualified to do the 
     job.) The US and China differ only in how abortion is 
     achieved, but in both cases does it not end up depriving the 
     baby's inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of 
     happiness? Let's pray for the day when the US regains its 
     moral ground to address such issues.
       [p. 1, par.5]: A serious warning should be given to those 
     who try to exploit the plight of Chinese Christians and make 
     them look like the archenemy of the Beijing government. 
     What's at stake here is the cause of Christ and
       [p. 1, par.5]: A serious warning should be given to those 
     who try to exploit the plight of Chinese Christians and make 
     them look like the archenemy of the Beijing government. 
     What's at stake here is the cause of Christ and the lives of 
     many Chinese Christians! China's Christians are simple 
     religious people who do not have a political agenda, and they 
     despise those who try to put a political label on them. There 
     is indeed a serious danger that the arguments made by the 
     Letter may be sized upon by those China bashers and new hawks 
     whose only interest is to make an enemy out of China--now 
     that the Soviet enemy is no more--and to demand sacrifices 
     from American people.
       [p.2, par.1] With the fall of communism, it may well be the 
     panic reaction of some elite intellectuals to suggest 
     ``strangling the baby [the church] while it is still in the 
     manger,'' yet we still need to be truthful enough to 
     acknowledge that the current Beijing government policy is 
     only to control and contain the growing church, thus allowing 
     for some limited freedom.
       [p.2, par.2] NGOs should be commended for speaking up for 
     the Chinese persecuted.
       [p.2, par.3] Of course, things can be much worse in China--
     anyone who understands China knows that. Christian gatherings 
     of worship could have been forced to close totally; those 
     political dissidents in jail today could have been executed; 
     dissidents could have been sentenced to 15 years instead of 
     5; families of the prisoners could have faced much more 
     harassment and discrimination.
       [p.2, par.4] While we protest against the inhumane 
     treatment of Pastor Wong, we can agree that this is an 
     exceptional case rather than the rule. We all know that 
     technology cuts both ways. While the Chinese police become 
     better equipped, Chinese Christians and political dissidents 
     also benefit from having access to computers, copying and fax 
     machines, Internet, and so on, making it difficult for police 
     to control people.
       [p.2, par.5] It sent a wrong message to Beijing and Chinese 
     people when President Clinton declared to delink human rights 
     concerns from the MFN. However, revoking China's MFN can only 
     backfire.
       [p.3, par.1] Let's quit making the US the model to all 
     nations and instead take an honest look at reality. The US is 
     part of the fallen world where we see rampant abortions, 
     racial tension and violent crimes, partisan spirit and 
     demogarchy in politics, divisions and scandals within the 
     church, consumerism and hedonism in society, and alarming 
     moral decay in culture. Christian leaders should know better 
     than to display the US as a model. Let's make a distinction 
     between the United States and Christian faith. The early 
     America did share biblical aspirations for justice, equality, 
     and human dignity, but such aspirations are Christian, not 
     American. Though America's sins, past and present, in no way 
     justify Beijing's abuse of power, they do help keep us 
     humble, don't they?


                            III. Conclusion

       China today is in a critical stage. It can either evolve 
     into a more open and democratic nation or an enemy to the US. 
     If the Soviet Union could evolve into a democracy, why can't 
     China? Let's not be like the pessimists who say things won't 
     change; instead, let's work to turn possibilities into 
     realities. What's crucially needed today is for American 
     leaders to unite in formulating a con-

[[Page E1296]]

     sistent, comprehensive China policy that helps China get on 
     the right track without turning it into an enemy. That is a 
     moral obligation the leaders owe to America and America's 
     children.
       [Rev. Daniel B. Su is from China and now works in the US as 
     the assistant to the president, China Outreach Ministries, 
     Inc., Fairfax, Virginia]


     
                                  ____
            Open Letter on China's Persecution of Christians

       Dear Members of Congress: Recently, letters have circulated 
     on Capitol Hill from some groups and leaders involved in 
     missions in China. These letters urge Members not to vote to 
     revoke China's Most-Favored Nation (MFN) trade status. They 
     cite potential dangers to the missions if the U.S. responds 
     to Bejing's terrible record on human rights, national 
     security and workers' rights.
       There are points of agreement between us and those missions 
     organizations. We can agree, for example, to put no 
     individual at risk of retaliation. We should take great care 
     in dealing with a regime that has demonstrated its 
     willingness to settle disagreements with tanks and with 
     bullets in the back of the head. We can also agree that those 
     Christians directly involved in work in China are not 
     necessarily the ones to lead the fight against MFN. They may 
     be too close to the situation for prudence or safety to 
     permit open opposition to the regime.
       But the letters make other arguments. They suggest that a 
     forceful response by the United States government to what 
     everyone acknowledges is an appalling Chinese government 
     record would be counter-productive. We cannot accept those 
     arguments. As deeply as we respect Christian missionaries in 
     China and throughout the world, we must disagree with a 
     policy which allows China's rulers to manipulate the United 
     States of America simply by threatening reprisals against 
     these innocent, godly people. It is a form of hostage-taking.
       For the U.S. to surrender to such threats would be to 
     assure that Bejing will use threats whenever Americans cry 
     out against the cruelty and injustice of the communist 
     Chinese regime. Should we all keep silent about China's 
     massive campaign of forced abortions and compulsory 
     sterilizations? Should we avoid criticizing China's use of 
     slave labor in the Laogai? Should we turn aside from China's 
     latest violations of chemical weapons agreements, including 
     shipments to Iran of poison gas? Is the United States truly 
     the leader of the Free World? Or are we merely the ``moneybag 
     democracy'' the Chinese rulers contemptuously call us?
       There is a real danger that the arguments made by some 
     U.S.-based missions may be seized upon by those whose only 
     interest in China is profits. Some multi-national 
     corporations have allowed the brutal Chinese birth control 
     policies to be run in their factories. Some have also 
     accommodated Chinese repression by banning religion in the 
     workplace. And some have exploited prison laborers.
       We wholeheartedly support missions throughout the world, 
     and especially in China. We think it's necessary, however, to 
     take a clear-eyed view of the conduct of the Chinese 
     government. While missionaries seek no conflict with the 
     government, the reality is that China's rulers do not view 
     Christians so benignly.
       Paul Marshall, in his well-received book ``There Blood 
     Cries Out,'' describes the attitude of China's elites. ``In 
     1992, the Chinese state-run press noted that `the church 
     played an important role in the change` in Eastern Europe and 
     warned, `if China does not want such a scene to be repeated 
     in its land, it must strangle the baby while it is still in 
     the manger.''
       We are proud to note the consistent and principled stance 
     of the U.S. Catholic Conference in opposing MFN for China. 
     Catholics are brutally repressed in China, as are 
     Evangelicals, Muslims and Buddhists. But the USCC has never 
     allowed Beijing's threats to deter it from its duty to speak 
     up for the oppressed. Nor should we.
       We know that we are not on ``the front line'' in 
     confronting Chinese repression. Because we have a freedom to 
     speak out that is not granted to those on the Mainland, we 
     must use our God-given freedom to speak out for those who 
     cannot speak for themselves. When it is argued that the 
     situation will be worsened if America takes action, we must 
     ask candidly, how can it be worse for the Chinese dissidents? 
     Our own State Department reports that all dissidents have 
     been either expelled, jailed of killed.
       We rejoice in the fact that American missionaries hold U.S. 
     passports. We pray that a strong United States will help to 
     safeguard our fellow Americans' lives while they do the 
     Lord's work in China. But Chinese Christians are not so 
     protected. For Pastor Wong, leader of 40 Evangelical 
     churches, MFN has brought no benefits. He has been arrested 
     four times for spreading the Gospel. The last time he was 
     jailed, his fingers were broken with pliers. While Vice 
     President Gore was preparing to visit Beijing in March, 
     Chinese secret police invaded the apartment of Roman Catholic 
     Bishop Fan Zhongliang in Shanghi, seizing Bibles and other 
     religious articles. The move against the nation's highest 
     Catholic prelate was clearly intended to intimidate millions 
     of faithful Chinese Catholics. MFN has only made the Chinese 
     police more efficient in denying basic human rights to Bishop 
     Fan and his flock.
       President Clinton's 1994 ``delinking'' of trade and human 
     rights concerns has actually increased repression in China. 
     Now, even if missionaries plant churches, the Chinese secret 
     police can disrupt them. This view is affirmed by New York 
     editor A.M. Rosenthal. He has written:
       Knowing Washington would not endanger trade with China, 
     even though it is mountainously in China's favor, Beijing 
     increased political oppression in China and Tibet--and its 
     sales of missiles, nuclear material and chemical weaponry.
       Rosenthal refers to the president as Beijing's 
     ``prisoner.'' Let us assure, by our steadfastness, that the 
     rest of us do not wear such claims.
       From the beginning of this debate, we have recognized that 
     the argument over MFN is not just about what kind of country 
     China is, it is also a dispute about what kind of country 
     America is. We believe Americans have a moral obligation to 
     stand up for human rights, for the rule of law and for the 
     rights of workers. We know, from long and tragic experience 
     in this blood-stained century, that a regime which brutalizes 
     its own people is virtually certain to threaten its 
     neighbors.
           Sincerely yours,
         Gary L. Bauer, President, Family Research Council; Ralph 
           E. Reed, Executive Director, Christian Coalition; Rev. 
           Richard John Neuhaus, President, Institute for 
           Religious and Public Life; Keith A. Fournier, Esq., 
           President, Catholic Alliance; D. James Kennedy, 
           President, Coral Ridge Ministries; Joseph M.C. Kung, 
           President, Cardinal Kung Foundation; James C. Dobson, 
           Ph.D., President, Focus on the Family; Phyllis 
           Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum; Chuck Colson, 
           President, Prison Fellowship Ministries; Gov. Robert P. 
           Casey, Chairman, Campaign for the American Family; 
           Steve Suits, South Carolina Family Policy Council; 
           William Donohue, President, Catholic League for Civil 
           and Religious Rights.
         Richard D. Land, President, Christian Life Commission; 
           Steven W. Mosher, President, Population Research 
           Institute; Gerard Bradley, Professor, Notre Dame Law 
           School; John DiIulio, Professor, Princeton University; 
           Robert P. George, Professor, Princeton University; John 
           Davies, President, Free the Fathers; Kent Ostrander, 
           Director, The Family Foundation (KY); Matt Daniels, 
           Executive Director, Massachusetts Family Institute.
         Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, President, American Family 
           Association; Deal W. Hudson, Publisher & Editor, Crisis 
           Magazine; Bernard Dobranski, Dean, Columbus Law School; 
           Rev. Steven Snyder, President, International Christian 
           Concern; Ann Buwalda, Director, Jubilee Campaign; P. 
           George Tryfiates, Executive Director, The Family 
           Foundation (VA); Randy Hicks, Executive Director, 
           Georgia Family Council; Marvin L. Munyon, President, 
           Family Research Institute (WI).
         William T. Devlin, Executive Director, Philadelphia 
           Family Policy Council; William Held, Executive 
           Director, Oklahoma Family Council; William A. Smith, 
           President, Indiana Family Institute; Thomas McMillen, 
           Executive Director, Rocky Mountain Family Council; 
           Michael Heath, Executive Director, Christian Civic 
           League of Maine; David M. Payne, Executive Director, 
           Kansas Family Research Institute; Gary Palmer, 
           President, Alabama Family Alliance.
         Jerry Cox, President, Arkansas Family Council; Dennis 
           Mansfield, Executive Director, Idaho Family Forum; 
           Michael Howden, Executive Director, Oregon Center for 
           Family Policy; William Horn, President, Iowa Family 
           Policy Center; Joseph E. Clark, Executive Director, 
           Illinois Family Institute; John H. Paulton, Executive 
           Director, South Dakota Family Policy Council; Mike 
           Harris, President, Michigan Family Forum.

           

                          ____________________