[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 144 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11022-S11024]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       UNITED STATES-CHINA SUMMIT

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this weekend, Chinese President Jiang 
Zemin arrives in the United States for the first state visit by a 
Chinese official since 1985. As you know, China has been described by 
many experts as the No. 1 foreign policy challenge that the United 
States will face in the 21st century. Next week's summit will help set 
our course as we respond to that challenge.
  I have traveled to China six times since I first visited in 1983. 
Most recently, I traveled to Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong during the 
August recess where I met with numerous senior Chinese leaders, 
including the Chinese Foreign Minister.
  In my many visits and contacts, I have witnessed the enormous, and 
overall positive, changes that have taken place in China since the 
death of Mao. Yet, while China today is clearly not the China of the 
cultural revolution, neither is it a ``former Communist country,'' as 
President Clinton has suggested.
  As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I am 
especially interested in Chinese foreign and military policies and 
Chinese intelligence activities, particularly those that pose potential 
threats to vital American interests. Last month, I convened in the 
Intelligence Committee exhaustive hearings into Chinese threats to 
United States national security, including the reported Chinese plan to 
influence United States elections.
  I am well aware that there is no country that poses such risks, such 
opportunities, and such dilemmas for United States foreign and security 
policy. It is clear that China today, as an emerging economic and 
military power in the post-cold war, has the option, and increasingly 
the will, to challenge vital United States interests around the globe.
  It is equally clear that despite the demise of communism virtually 
everywhere around the globe, and despite China's extensive and 
impressive economic liberalization, the Chinese regime remains 
determined to maintain its repressive domestic political system.
  I will shortly address these issues in greater detail, but, first, I 
would like to make just a few general points.
  When President Clinton meets with President Jiang, he will have the 
opportunity to define the United States-China relationship in a way 
that defends vital United States interests and promotes the values upon 
which our country was founded, while recognizing at the same time 
legitimate Chinese interests and aspirations.
  But President Clinton, I believe, must make it clear that if China 
wishes to be accepted as a responsible world power, it must act as a 
responsible world power. If China wishes to work together to promote 
peace and stability in the region and the world at large, as President 
Jiang suggested in a press interview last weekend, it must not 
undermine peace and stability in Asia and around the world by reckless 
and aggressive actions. And President Jiang, I believe, is wrong when 
he invokes, for example, Einstein and the theory of relativity to 
justify China's refusal to comply with norms and ideals which, while 
not yet universal, are on the march worldwide.
  Relativity, as most of you know, is an immutable law of physics. 
Relativism is something altogether different, and it is not a concept 
to which we as Americans subscribe.
  President Clinton, I believe, must respectfully make it clear that 
the President of China is wrong when he says that ``democracy and human 
rights are relative concepts and not absolute and general.''
  Our Founding Fathers did not speak in relative terms when they wrote:

       We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are 
     created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with 
     certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, 
     Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these 
     rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their 
     just powers from the consent of the governed.

  The courageous demonstrators in Tiananmen Square echoed these ideals 
when they tried to peacefully exercise their right of consent. They 
adopted our Statue of Liberty as their symbol, and we saw it brutally 
destroyed by Chinese tanks on TV.
  In one final general point, we sometimes hear the refrain from the 
Chinese that they do not wish to be bound by sets of rules and norms 
that they had no say in creating.
  There are certain truths that are not limited by time and geography, 
and the ``inalienable Rights'' spoken of by the

[[Page S11023]]

Founding Fathers, I believe, are among them.
  Proliferation and security issues are very important. With the end of 
the cold war, and the end of the Soviet massive military threat that 
had provided the glue for the United States-China relationship since 
its beginning, China has increasingly been willing to challenge core 
United States interests, by the destabilizing proliferation of weapons 
technology, and by direct and indirect threats against United States 
friends and allies.
  In June of this year, the CIA's nonproliferation center reported that 
China was ``the most significant supplier of [weapons of mass 
destruction]-related goods and technology to foreign countries'' in the 
second half of 1996.
  China's sales of antiship cruise missiles, ballistic missile 
technology, chemical weapons, materials and nuclear technology to Iran, 
a hostile country whose military forces threaten United States 
interests in an area of vital national concern, directly endanger the 
lives of American soldiers, sailors and airmen, and, as we know, 
threaten our ability to defend our interests in the region.
  Further, these same weapons serve to intimidate our friends and our 
allies in the Persian Gulf region. The last time the United States was 
compelled to defend its interest in the region in Operation Desert 
Storm, we were able to create a coalition of friendly states, many of 
which were willing to accept the deployment of United States forces on 
their soil. Who can say, though, in the future that our allies would 
respond in the same way in a future conflict if they were faced by a 
credible threat of Iranian missiles bearing nuclear, chemical or 
biological warheads?
  The threat from Chinese technology sales is not limited, Mr. 
President, to weapons of mass destruction. Accurate, conventionally 
armed missiles, especially antiship cruise missiles like the C-802's 
that China has sold to Iran, pose a serious danger to United States 
forces. Remember the U.S.S. Stark. Bear in mind that the single 
greatest American loss of life in the Persian Gulf war occurred when an 
Iraqi Scud missile with a conventional payload struck a barracks in 
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
  It is difficult to speak of ``working together to promote peace and 
stability'' when, for example, China has reportedly supplied Iran with 
hundreds of missile guidance systems, and in the second half of 1996 
contributed ``a tremendous variety of assistance'' to Iran's missile 
program, according to the CIA.
  The transfer of nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan, despite 
repeated United States objections, jeopardizes the stability of South 
Asia and flies in the face of United States nonproliferation goals, 
even though it is less of a direct threat to United States forces. But 
by increasing the likelihood of a nuclear war that could kill millions 
of innocent people, China jeopardizes its claim to be seen as a 
responsible world power.
  It is in this context that we consider the administration's reported 
plans to announce the implementation of the 1985 United States-China 
Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation. This agreement cannot, by law, be 
implemented until the President certifies to Congress that China has 
met a number of conditions, notably, one, that effective measures are 
in place to ensure that any United States assistance is used for the 
intended peaceful activities; and, two, China has provided additional 
information on its nuclear nonproliferation policies, and that based on 
this and all other information, including intelligence information, 
China is not in violation of paragraph 2 of section 129 of the Atomic 
Energy Act which, among other things, bars United States nuclear 
assistance to any country that has assisted any other country to 
acquire nuclear capabilities and has failed to take sufficient steps to 
terminate such assistance.
  According to press reports, Mr. President, China has made or is 
willing to make a number of commitments in order to obtain this 
certification. United States diplomats are now in Beijing trying to 
nail down an agreement on these issues. And at this stage, after years 
of hair splitting and denying with respect to similar commitments in 
the past--hair splitting and denial, I might add, on the part of both 
Governments--these commitments must be, I believe, unambiguous and in 
writing if they are to convince the United States Congress.
  Just last week, China joined the Zangger Committee, which imposes 
some modest controls on nuclear exports. The administration also 
reportedly believes that China has complied with its May 1996 
commitment not to provide assistance to any unsafe- guarded nuclear 
facility.
  In addition, China has reportedly agreed to cease selling antiship 
cruise missiles to Iran. While agreement on nuclear cooperation is not 
conditioned on such transfers of advanced conventional weapons, it 
would certainly be difficult for the administration to argue for 
nuclear cooperation while China was continuing to sell advanced 
munitions that could be targeted on U.S. naval vessels protecting 
freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf.
  As a result of these actions, and other actions, administration 
officials believe they can make the statutorily required certification, 
if not at the summit, then in the foreseeable future. If and when such 
a certification is made, the Congress will have the opportunity to 
review and, if necessary, overturn this certification.
  As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I am asking the Director 
of Central Intelligence to provide the Intelligence Committee with the 
information upon which the administration would base its determination. 
The committee will also closely scrutinize this intelligence to ensure 
that it does support the administration's determination, whatever it 
is.
  But, Mr. President, without prejudging my decision, should the matter 
come before the Senate, I have the following concerns about early 
implementation of a nuclear agreement. It seems likely today, Mr. 
President, and for the immediate future that China lacks the military 
forces to seriously challenge the U.S. military power in the region.
  However, Mr. President, as the only great power whose defense 
spending has increased in recent years, China is acquiring advanced 
missile, naval, air, amphibious, and other forces capable of projecting 
power in East Asia and the Pacific region.
  In addition, Mr. President, the Chinese military apparently has 
learned the lessons of the American victory in the Persian Gulf war, 
which demonstrated the superiority of modern technology.
  Second, in its commitments to date, China has, in effect, agreed only 
to control sales to unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. This commitment 
sounds useful on its face, but it is potentially meaningless in 
countries like Iran and Pakistan that are reportedly pursuing a 
clandestine military program, because equipment, materiel, and know-how 
from safeguarded facilities can be transferred to other unsafeguarded 
facilities, as we all know.
  Third, Mr. President, the Congress will want to closely scrutinize 
the text of any commitments by the Chinese Government.
  In particular, I believe we must ascertain whether these recent 
promises are limited to halting any future cooperation or trade in 
strategic technology or, Mr. President, whether they also apply to 
ending existing contracts and transactions that have been ongoing.
  If they are only to apply to future activities, then I would be 
concerned that a whole host of ongoing and dangerous cooperative 
ventures between China and Iran and other countries would in effect be 
``grandfathered'' and thus not prohibited.
  Fourth, China must recognize that mere grudging compliance with the 
letter of its international agreements does not make China a 
responsible member of the world community. I believe, Mr. President, 
that China must go beyond a narrow reading of its obligations to 
demonstrate by actions as well as words that it accepts, as it has not 
done in the past, that the spread of dangerous and destabilizing 
military technologies is not in anyone's interest, including China's.
  China, I believe, should, therefore, cease its cooperation with all 
Iranian nuclear, missile, and other military programs, even if a 
particular transaction may be permissible under the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, the Missile Technology Control Regime, or other 
international legal agreements.

[[Page S11024]]

  I would like to know, Mr. President, how the Chinese foreign and 
military policy in Asia will work in the future.
  In the wake of the cold war, China, which for years viewed the U.S. 
presence in East Asia and the Western Pacific as a stabilizing force, 
now resents a security structure that is increasingly viewed as 
intended--to quote some of them--to ``contain'' China. Most 
troublesome, China has shown a willingness to pursue its goals in the 
region by the threat or use of force.
  Mr. President, as we were reminded in last year's Taiwan Straits 
crisis, Beijing has never renounced the use of force to reunify Taiwan 
with the mainland.
  President Clinton, I believe, will have an opportunity to have a 
serious discussion with the Chinese President about how bracketing 
Taiwan with missiles, followed by a thinly veiled threat against the 
United States, comports with his stated goals of ``maintaining peace 
and stability in the region and the world at large.''
  Our President also must make clear, I believe, our determination that 
the Taiwan issue be resolved peacefully so that China will never be 
tempted to resolve it by force.
  In addition, Mr. President, to tension over Taiwan, China has used 
and threatened force to enforce its other claims in the South China 
Sea. This undermines a lot of allies and friends.
  It seems likely that today and for the immediate future, Mr. 
President, China lacks the military forces to seriously challenge U.S. 
military power in the region. However, as the only great power whose 
defense spending has increased in recent years, China is certainly 
acquiring advanced missile, naval, air, amphibious and other forces 
capable of projecting power, as I reminded my colleagues just a few 
minutes ago.
  Mr. President, to speak of human rights in the area there, in 1996, 
in a damning and exhaustive report on Chinese human rights practices, 
the State Department concluded that ``almost all public dissent against 
the central authorities was silenced by intimidation, exile, or 
imposition of prison terms or administrative detention.''
  In addition to its suppression of political dissent, China continues 
to maintain a cruel and massive network of forced labor camps. They 
continue also an inhumane one-child policy, including forced abortion, 
repression of religious groups, use of forced labor, and ongoing 
repression in Tibet.
  President Clinton, I believe, must place President Jiang on notice 
that Americans are offended by the notion that human rights are 
``relative'' and that their practices fit within an acceptable 
definition of human dignity.
  I believe, Mr. President, we must ask ourselves, how much real 
progress can we make in our relationship with China as long as the 
regime feels compelled to stamp out every ounce of political dissent 
and believes that it cannot survive without the ``laogai'' labor camp 
system?
  Mr. President, on a somewhat more positive note, economic 
developments, both within China and between China and the United 
States, continue to generally move in the right direction. However, we 
encourage China to continue to take the painful but necessary steps to 
qualify China for membership in the World Trade Organization, notably 
in the area of opening China's markets. The sooner they do, I believe, 
the better off they will be.
  We are also encouraged to see some meaningful progress on the 
protection of intellectual property rights.
  Americans support China in its search for prosperity for its people. 
But we do not, Mr. President, support, and will not tolerate, attempts 
to build prosperity by ignoring the rules of international trade. Nor 
will Americans support prosperity built, even in part, on the backs of 
forced laborers or prosperity that is the result of a Faustian pact in 
which the Chinese people are forced to effectively surrender their 
political and human rights in return for economic growth.
  Mr. President, let me sum up and be clear on where I stand. I 
support, as most of us do, a strong United States-China relationship, 
and I have always done so. President Clinton can work with President 
Jiang to raise Sino-United States relations to a new high level, as the 
Chinese President has requested.
  But to truly protect American interests and reflect American values, 
this relationship cannot be based on ceremony alone. We cannot gloss 
over problems or sweep them under the rug or keep them unfulfilled--and 
unenforced--as promises.
  I believe, Mr. President, it must be based on responsible 
international behavior with respect to nonproliferation and on 
refraining from the threat or use of force. Our relationship must be 
based on steady and consistent progress toward political as well as 
economic freedom in China.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate majority 
leader is to be recognized.
  In his absence, the Chair recognizes the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I had wanted to take the floor to speak on 
the highway bill, but Mr. Chafee was here and he indicated he wanted to 
get the floor first. As he is the manager of the bill, I have no 
quarrel with that, so I will not speak on that subject at the moment. I 
also indicated I would expect to follow both leaders. Inasmuch as none 
of these aforementioned Senators is seeking recognition at this time, I 
have sought recognition and will speak briefly but not talk at the 
moment on the highway bill.

                          ____________________