[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 13 (Monday, February 14, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H346-H351]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERMANENT MOST FAVORED NATION TRADING STATUS FOR CHINA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I rise because of my concern about
granting permanent normal trade relations to China.
Mr. Speaker, there are good people on both sides of this issue and as
we consider granting China MFN; we need to be honest in our debate.
Yesterday, the New York Times had an article written by Joseph Kahn
with the headline, ``Executives Make Trade With
[[Page H347]]
China a Moral Issue.'' This article describes how some members of the
business community in Florida approached one of our colleagues saying
that passing MFN was a moral issue, that extending normal trade status
to China is a moral necessity.
Mr. Speaker, this could be a dangerous line of reasoning for those
who favor granting China MFN, particularly given China's human rights
record.
In light of what so many Chinese citizens face at the hands of the
Chinese Government, the term ``moral'' is of concern.
There are now at least eight Roman Catholic bishops being held in
prison. Here is a picture of one of those, Bishop Jia. He had been
arrested on August 15, 1999, been arrested to prevent him from
conducting mass on an important Roman Catholic feast. He is 66 years
old, has been in jail in a Chinese labor camp for 20 years.
I will tell the gentleman from Florida, this is a moral issue.
Just a few days ago, the Chinese Government arrested another Roman
Catholic bishop, surrounding him late in the night by 150 policemen.
Scores of Roman Catholic laymen were arrested. This is a moral issue.
Countless Protestant house church leaders have been arrested and
imprisoned simply for practicing their faith. Here is a photo of Pastor
Li showing the police grabbing him and taking him off to jail. He has
been in and out of prison since 1983. This is a moral issue.
I have been to China. I have been to Tiananmen Square and seen where
the tanks have rolled over the people and flattened them in the wake. I
have been to Beijing Prison Number One where Tiananmen Square
demonstrators were working on socks to export to United States. This, I
would tell the gentleman from Florida, is a moral issue.
I visited Tibet several years ago. In Tibet the Chinese have raped
and pillaged that peaceful country, committing untold atrocities upon
the Tibetan population. Scores of Buddhist monks and nuns are in prison
because of their faith. This is a moral issue. There are more prison
labor camps in China now than there were when Solzhenitzen wrote the
book ``Gulag Archipelago.'' This is a moral issue.
The Muslims in China are being persecuted daily and no one speaks
out. This is a moral issue.
As a Member of Congress, I am able to attend various national
security briefings that I cannot go into here on the House, but I can
say that the Chinese military presents fundamental dangers to the West
and to our men and women in the armed services. We need to tread very
carefully in our actions which give aid to the Chinese military and the
government and who knows what the future may hold where the battle
lines could be drawn. This is a moral issue.
The People's Liberation Army are dumping assault weapons into the
United States that are killing women and children. This is a moral
issue.
{time} 1245
So I would say that the Clinton administration and others in support
of MFN should be careful in crafting their arguments in support of MFN
by using moral language. This administration has done little or nothing
to speak up with regard to China's human rights, going so far as to
actually meet with the Chinese officials in Tiananmen Square. This
administration has done nothing in many of these areas.
So, in closing, there are good people on both sides of the issue in
this Congress who care deeply about this. The Congress is split,
however. I would say we need to focus on the real moral issues; the
persecution of the Roman Catholics, the persecution of the Protestants,
the persecution of the Buddhists in Tibet, the persecution of the
Muslims, the prison labor camps, and the threat to our national
security. These are moral issues.
I would say to those gentlemen, have they written the State
Department to ask that the pastor be released? Have they written the
State Department to say, please, let the bishop out; he has been in
jail for 20 years? My sense is they have not. And this, I would tell my
colleagues on both sides of the issue, this is the moral issue that
this Congress will have to face.
Every segment of the United States is opposed to granting MFN for
China until there is improvement on human rights because the American
people care deeply about these moral issues.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record additional information
regarding this subject.
Tibet--A First Hand Look--August 9-13, 1997
(By Representative Frank R. Wolf)
introduction
I recently returned from a journey to Tibet where I visited
during the period August 9-13, 1997. Accompanied by a member
of my staff and by another Western man fluent in Tibetan and
steeped in its culture, history and religion, we traveled
with U.S. passports and on tourist visas issued by the
government of China. At no time was I asked nor did I make
known that I was a Member of Congress. Had I done so, I am
sure that my visit would not have been approved just as other
Members of Congress requesting permission to visit Tibet have
been turned down.
No sitting Member of the U.S. House of Representatives has
visited Tibet since China began in 1959 its relentless (and
largely successful) effort to squeeze the life and very soul
out of this country, its culture and its people. Only three
U.S. Senators have visited Tibet in the last several decades
and they were closely shepherded by the Chinese. Aside from
U.S. ambassadors in Beijing and Assistant Secretary of State
John Shattuck, I am unaware of visits by senior officials
from any presidential administration during these years.
To be sure, an approved delegation visit to Tibet would not
likely be all that revealing since frank conversations with
individuals could not take place. I cannot think of another
place in the world where a tighter lid is kept on open
discussion. Government agents, spies and video cameras guard
against personal outside contact. Offenders, even suspected
offenders, are dealt with quickly and brutally.
human rights protection
My interest in Tibet and the driving force behind my visit
centers on work to help in stopping religious persecution and
protecting basic human rights. In 1996, the House passed
three measures concerning these issues, one specifically
relating to Tibet. This year I introduced H.R. 1685, the
Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997, which
contains specific provisions relating to Tibetan Buddhism. It
has over 100 cosponsors. These are areas about which I and
others care very deeply.
In Tibet humane progress is not even inching along and
repressed people live under unspeakable brutal conditions in
the dim shadows of international awareness. I want the world
to know what is going on in Tibet. When people know, they
will demand that China change its policy of boot-heel
subjugation and end what one monk I met termed ``cultural
genocide.''
I found that the PRC has a near-perfect record of vicious,
immediate and unrelenting reprisals against the merest
whisper of Tibetan dissent. I met with monks, men and women
on the street and others who risked their personal safety and
well-being to steal a few moments alone with me to tell me
how bad conditions are in Tibet and to petition help and
support from the West.
tibet on the map
Tibet is known as the roof of the world and, indeed it is.
The Tibetan plain rises above 12,000 feet. At night, with
skies so clear, more stars beam down on the observer than one
can imagine. Beneath this roof is the former home of the
Dalai Lama, the religious leader who ruled the country from
the impressive Potala Palace in the capital of Lhasa. In
1959, when China commenced a relentless program to erase
Tibet from the pages of history, the Dalai Lama left his
homeland for India where he and countless other Tibetans who
followed remain in exile today.
Tibet is about the geographic size of western Europe with a
Tibetan population of around six million. It has been
estimated that in the past two decades nearly one million
Tibetans have been killed, starved or tortured. At the same
time the PRC has undertaken a program of mass infusion of
Chinese people who probably now outnumber Tibetans in their
own country. There are no valid census data, but some
estimate that in the capital of Lhasa there are about 160,000
Chinese and only about 100,000 Tibetans. The difference in
numbers may be less startling in remote areas but the
inescapable conclusion is that China is swallowing Tibet.
Stores, hotels, bazaars, businesses and tradesmen are
largely Chinese. Storefront signs bear large Chinese
writing beneath much smaller Tibetan inscriptions. Driving
out from Lhasa, one encounters as many Chinese villagers,
shepherds, farmers, construction workers and travelers as
Tibetan. In short, Tibet is disappearing.
Tibet lies along the border of Bhutan, Nepal, India and
Pakistan and is rich in resources including agriculture,
timber and minerals. Its importance to China is both
strategic and economic. China seems certain to maintain its
death grip on this land and strives to do so behind sealed
doors. There is no independent press in Tibet. I did not see
a single newspaper or magazine available to the people.
Television is extremely limited and tightly controlled by the
PRC. Outside press is not welcome and not allowed. Only
[[Page H348]]
Voice of America, to which virtually all Tibetans listen, and
Radio Free Asia, which is relatively new, beam information
into Tibet. Nothing goes the other way except slips of
information carried out by occasional tourists and visitors.
tibet up close
What do the Tibetan people say? Before my trip I was told
that individuals would seek me out as an obvious Western
visitor to hear their story. I was also told this was very
dangerous to them; that informers were everywhere and being
caught talking to a westerner was a guaranteed ticket to
prison and more. Frankly, I was skeptical that anyone would
approach us. I was wrong. Someone took advantage of almost
every opportunity for a guarded word or two.
During our first encounter with a Tibetan who realized we
were westerners and one of us was fluent in Tibetan, we found
that he could not contain himself. ``Many are in jail, most
for political reasons.'' We saw Drapchi prison, which is off
the beaten path in a slum area. Guards in pairs were ever
present.
We saw the Sangyip prison complex and then Gusta prison.
Prisons seem to be a growth industry in Tibet. We told the
Tibetan not to take chances. He said it is so important that
we see these places that he didn't care and we continued on
what had become a nightmare tour. We passed the main security
bureau, the intelligence headquarters and then the prison
bureau, each heavily guarded. All the while we heard about
monks and nuns and common men and women who were dragged away
to prison and tortured. He said, ``Don't worry about me at
all,'' and continued to tell of the torture to which
prisoners were subjected.
They are routinely beaten with sticks and kicked and poked
with electric sticks (cattle prods with a huge electric
charge). Political prisoners are isolated from the general
prison population and kept in unlighted and unheated areas
with no sanitary or medical facilities and almost no food or
water.
He added that the people have no rights. They cannot talk
freely. Even though Tibetans view the Dalai Lama as their
spiritual and political leader, they are forbidden to show
their love for him. Possessing a picture of the Dalai Lama is
an offense which could draw harsh and brutal punishment and
imprisonment. ``We (Tibetans) must have permission from the
Chinese to do everything,'' he said. ``We can do nothing on
our own.''
He further said, ``The Chinese say we have freedom of
religion but it is a life. Despite the Chinese saying that
Tibetans have freedom, there are no freedoms--not even one.
Everything is controlled by the Chinese and we are repressed.
We listen to Voice of America say that the West supports
Tibet, yet they continue doing business with China. That
doesn't help. Tibet feels left out and ignored.''
``The Dalai Lama has asked America and Taiwan for help,''
he continued. ``Please help the Dalai Lama because we are
being ruined. The Chinese send Tibetan children to China for
education and teach them Chinese ways. Tibet is disappearing
little by little. The Tibetan language is being increasingly
de-emphasized in schools and our culture is being wiped
out.''
All this from one man telling of his agony and the agony of
his people. Yet, he ended by saying, ``I am not afraid.
Someday the sun will again shine in Tibet.'' Throughout, we
found overwhelming support for and faith in the Dalai Lama by
every single Tibetan with whom we had contact.
religious persecution
We visited numerous monasteries where monks, nuns and
others sought us out. Their stories amplified what we had
already learned. Every monastery we visited was tightly
controlled by a small group of resident Chinese overseers.
Every report was heard told of a dramatic reduction in the
number of monks at each monastery. Many were imprisoned for
not turning their back on the Dalai Lama or even refusing to
give up pictures of him. Young monks under 15 (it was
possible to enter a monastery as young as 6 years of age)
were turned out. Since the cultural revolution many
monasteries had been largely destroyed. Rebuilding has
been painfully slow.
The slightest resistance to Chinese interference was met by
the harshest punishment. It was common to hear reports of
monks being imprisoned, many during ``reeducation'' which
involves turning one's back on the Dalai Lama. Imprisonment
is for a long time. Imprisonment means years of brutal
beatings with infrequent visitors from the outside. And when
imprisonment finally ends, monks are expelled from their
monastery and exiled to their home village. Many try to
escape to India or Nepal. Many do not make it.
We were told on several occasions that all monks are
afraid. When asked what message they would like me to take
back to America, I was told to say that they are not allowed
to practice their religion and that the people are suffering
greatly. Their biggest hope is to be free from China. One
said, ``Please help us. Please help the Dalai Lama.'' He said
if he were overheard talking to us he would immediately be
put in prison for four or five years.
Other monks voiced their concern with not being free to
practice their religion. Hundreds have been imprisoned simply
for not removing pictures of the Dalai Lama from places of
worship. Their prayers are restricted and they have few
opportunities to talk away from the overseers, even in the
monastery.
From monasteries all around Lhasa and the surrounding area,
the message was the same. I am reluctant to be too specific
in describing conversations because I do not want them traced
back to a specific monk or person. To do so would be to
impose a heavy sentence and punishment on someone already
suffering an unbelievable burden.
At one place we met a woman at worship. When she realized
we were American, she burst forth. As she talked she began
sobbing. Tears poured down her face as she told us of
conditions. She said, ``Lhasa may be beautiful on the outside
but, inside, it is ugly. We are not allowed to practice what
we want to practice. Senior monks are gone and there are no
replacements and they are our teachers.''
Asked for a message to America, she said, ``Please help us.
Please help the Dalai Lama. When there is pressure from the
West, things loosen up a bit before returning to as before.
Please have America help us.''
Every single person with whom we spoke had positive
feelings toward America. We were always given a thumbs up or
a smile or a comment such as, ``America is great.'' People
would not stop talking to us, even when their safety was
threatened. Sometimes we had to turn away just to keep them
from being seen talking with us. Some even risked exposure by
gesturing to us from roof tops to meet with them.
the chinese stranglehold
China's assault on the city, the countryside and the
environment has been no less harsh than its assault on the
people. Tibetan areas in Lhasa are being demolished and
replaced with smaller and more confined structures with the
remaining space given over to Chinese uses. The area at the
base of the Potala Palace has been completely leveled and a
new open space similar to Tiananmen Square has been created.
Forests are being leveled and many have seen convoys of
trucks piled with timber moving north into China.
This is not a pretty picture. The glowing reports of
progress from Beijing or Shanghai where business is booming,
skyscrapers are rising and industry, education and the
standard of living are all soaring has a false ring when
heard from the plain of Tibet.
America and the rest of the free world must do more to urge
China to back off from its clear goal to plunder Tibet. The
true story of Tibet is not being told. Aside from a
courageous few journalists working largely on their own, the
real story about Tibet is not reaching our ears. America and
others must strive for more open coverage.
The U.S. government's policy seems to be based solely on
economics; to open more and more markets with China and to
ignore every other aspect of responsible behavior. The
American people need to hear this message about Tibet.
Knowing the real story, I believe the American public will
decide that we need to do better and that we can do better. I
hope this report is a beginning.
The clock is ticking for Tibet. If nothing is done, a
country, its people, religion and culture will continue to
grow fainter and fainter and could one day disappear. That
would indeed be a tragedy. As one who visited a Soviet prison
camp during the cold war (Perm Camp 35) and Romania before
and immediately after the overthrow of the ruthless Ceausescu
regime to see things first-hand, I believe conditions in
Tibet are even more brutal. There are no restraints on
Tibet's Chinese overseers. They are the accuser, judge, jury,
prison warden and sometimes executioner rolled into one.
Punishment is arbitrary, swift, vicious and totally without
mercy and without recourse.
____
Congressional Delegation to the Soviet Union and Perm Labor Camp 35,
U.S. Representatives Frank Wolf and Chris Smith, August 4-11, 1989--
Final Report Delegation Findings and Follow-up, October 1989
This report provides a brief account of the findings of the
Wolf/Smith delegation to the USSR, outlines our joint follow-
up initiatives, and offers recommendations for U.S. officials
and non-government organizations and activists interested in
the progress of legal and penal reforms, prison and labor
camp conditions, and the status of alleged political
prisoners.
Purpose of the trip: Inspection visit to Perm Labor Camp 35
and substantive discussions on legal and penal reforms and
human rights. U.S. Reps. Frank Wolf and Chris Smith,
accompanied by Richard Stephenson of the U.S. State
Department, interviewed 23 of the 38 inmates reportedly still
in Perm 35 at the time of the trip, and one inmate at the
Perm investigation prison.
Background and Findings
Perm 35, a Soviet correctional labor camp known for its
severe conditions and mistreatment of prisoners, including
prisoners of conscience, was the principal focus of our
delegation. Marking the first time any U.S. or Western
official has been allowed into a Soviet ``political'' labor
camp, the trip's findings served to confirm and amplify much
of the existing documentation on camp conditions and the
existence of many prisoners believed to be incarcerated for
basically political activities.
Helsinki Watch, Amnesty International, and others,
including former prisoners themselves, provided background
information for this trip. Many well-known political
prisoners have been confined in the Perm Camp
[[Page H349]]
complex, which now includes only Perm 35: Natan Sharansky,
Professor Yuri Orlov, Alexander Ginsburg, Deacon Vladimir
Rusak, Father Alfonsas Svarinskas, and many others.
Interviews with prisoners ranged from 5-40 minutes, all in
the presence of camp administrators and an official of the
Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD). We viewed
punishment cells and other areas of the camp and were
permitted to take photographs and videotape much of the camp
and our interviews with prisoners.
The broader purpose of the delegation was to discuss Soviet
progress toward legal reforms advancing the ``rule of law''
in Soviet society. That is, our discussions focused on the
need to institutionalize the positive changes occurring in
Soviet human rights practices, open up the Soviet prison and
labor camp system to greater scrutiny, and establish due
process. We held discussions with Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (MFA) officials on legal reforms, including the
critically important draft laws on ``freedom of
conscience'' (whose principal impact will be upon
religious communities), draft laws on emigration, and
reform of the Soviet criminal code. The delegation
questioned representatives of the Procurator General and
Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) regarding the Soviet
penal system.
As members of the U.S. Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission), we emphasized
that our interest in proposed Soviet legislation is to find
indications that changes are systemic and not simply
arbitrary. We reminded Soviet officials of the importance
which the American people place on respect for fundamental
human rights like freedom of speech, peaceful assembly and
the right to publish and organize independent groups. While
not presuming to ``teach'' this to the Soviets, we spoke
about the lasting impression such changes would make on the
American people. For religious believers, in particular, a
well-written law on conscience will offer legal recourse
should local authorities decide to be heavy-handed. With
respect to the 1991 Human Rights Conference in Moscow, we
stressed that the adoption and implementation of laws
guaranteeing freedom of conscience will have a direct bearing
on U.S. support and enthusiasm for the Conference.
The rights of religious believers, including those in
prison, was our major concern in meetings with the MVD,
Council on Religious Affairs and religious officials,
including the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians/
Baptists (Baptist Union). We also spoke with activists and
dissidents in the religious communities, including former
prisoners, to find their perspective on the present situation
for religious communities in the USSR.
Our visit to Perm Labor Camp 35 was a key element in the
overall equation of assessing Soviet human rights
performance. The Soviet ``gulag'' (Russian acronym for the
Soviet labor camp system) remains a stark symbol of ``old
thinking'' in a country where political reform and dissent
are coming into the open. Glasnost, or openness, has failed
thus far to penetrate into the gulag, either to change
conditions in the labor camps or to impact penal procedures
which have led to systematically cruel and unusual
punishment. It is important to recognize that the lingering
fear of incarceration in the Soviet gulag threatens to hold
hostage any meaningful reforms in Soviet society. Bringing
``glasnost to the gulag'' is an important step the Soviets
can take to deal with concerns that President Mikhail
Gorbachev's reforms might be reversed or undermined.
We have urged the Soviets to begin a process of opening up
prisons and labor camps to independent human rights monitors,
both Westerners and Soviet citizens. We have encouraged human
rights organizations to request access to prisons and labor
camps. And finally, we pressed the Soviets to permit visits
by clergymen and to allow religious literature into prisons
and labor camps.
Our foremost concern remains the plight of the 24 prisoners
whom we met in Perm 35. They have endured severe conditions
and several of them are already counted by the United States
among the nearly one hundred remaining suspected political
prisoners in the Soviet Union. U.S. human rights policy has
long embraced advocacy for individual prisoners' cases, a
practice rooted in American values recognizing the inherent
dignity and rights of each human being.
Our evaluation of the Perm 35 cases in question is based on
the claims of several inmates that they are political
prisoners, the documentation of human rights groups which
support those claims, and the findings from our interviews.
Our conclusion is that, regardless of any dispute over these
definitions of political prisoners, most of these prisoners
would not be prosecuted for similar ``crimes'' today, or
their offenses would be treated far less severely. In view of
the excessive punishment endured by these prisoners, we have
called on the Soviets to reexamine their cases in the context
of ``new political thinking'' and release them on
humanitarian grounds.
findings on perm camp 35
The prisoners and camp conditions
Mikhail Kazachkov has spent nearly 200 days of his 14-year
incarceration in punishment cells, up to 15 days at a time in
the ``shizo'' cell.
We were given a rare glimpse of the infamous ``shizo.''
Veterans of the Soviet gulag have provided vivid accounts of
this notorious four-by-eight-foot cell. It contains a wooden
plank fastened to the wall on which to sleep, with no bedding
or blankets, and a cement stump on which to sit. The cell,
and the punishment, is designed to make the natural cold of a
Soviet labor camp that much more severe--that is, the
unbearable, cold temperature is used as torture. Prisoners
complained that it is difficult to sleep on the hard,
narrow plank. The walls are made of a rough pointed-like
concrete, which scrapes and cuts prisoners who might lean
or sleep up against it.
We had to insist that Kazachkov be offered the opportunity
to speak to us. He had been moved from Perm 35 to the Perm
investigation prison shortly before our visit. While
describing some instances of physical abuse in Perm 35,
Kazachkov explained that general-purpose beatings were no
longer a regular occurrence in Perm 35. Kazachkov suffered an
injured arm in trying to resist a forced head-shaving, a
practice which he described as a widespread form of
humiliation against Soviet prisoners.
Kazachkov, imprisoned in 1975 one week after applying to
emigrate, recently led eight other inmates at Perm 35 in a
work strike to protect unsafe working conditions. Together
these prisoners formed a Helsinki/Vienna human rights
monitoring group in Perm 35. Through completely within their
rights under the Helsinki Accords and the 1989 Vienna
agreement ``to promote the Helsinki process,'' camp
authorities used harsh measures to stop them. Just three
weeks after our visit, Kazachkov was singled out for his role
in the protest. He was put on trial for ``refusal to work''
and sentenced to serve the next three years of his 18 and
one-half year term in the more severe regime of Chistopol
Prison.
We interviewed 23 inmates in Perm Labor Camp 35 who
requested to meet with us. A theme running through their
stories emphasized the conditions and treatment of prisoners
in the camp: long periods of isolation in punishment cells,
severe cold used as torture, and being cut off from family
and friends due to routinely intercepted mail and arbitrarily
canceled visits. We were never allowed to meet alone with any
prisoners. Prisoners gave their side of the story boldly and
bravely, several of them condemning the abuses of the KGB and
camp officials in their very presence. Many, though not all,
of the 24 inmates we met (those in Perm 35 plus Kazachkov)
claimed to be political prisoners. Many of the prisoners
expressed thanks to those in the West who had written letters
to Soviet officials on their behalf and to them personally.
We sought and received assurances beforehand from Soviet
officials in the Procuracy, Ministry of Internal Affairs and
the camp that no retribution would be brought against any
prisoner. We repeated this Soviet promise loudly during
meetings with many prisoners. The prisoners told us there had
been reprisals against some who met with New York Times
reported A.M. Rosenthal during his visit to Perm 35 in
December 1988 (the first visit by any Westerner to a labor
camp). Some prisoners said that they understood reprisals
were a possible consequence of speaking to us; however, we
continued to stress that assurances had been given by the
Soviets that there would be no reprisals. One prisoner simply
said, ``there is nothing more they can do to us.''
Most of the Perm 35 cases demand a review by the Soviets,
including the following:
Oleg Mikhailov said that he was put in ``shizo'' simply for
requesting to meet with Rosenthal. Mikhailov was imprisoned
in 1979 on charges of ``treason to the motherland'' and
``anti-Soviet agitation'' for preparing to steal and escape
the country in a cropduster plane. He condemned the Soviets
for their treatment of prisoners. Although one and one-half
years of internal exile remain on his sentence, the Soviets
have stated that the system of exile has been abolished.
Mikhailov is due to be released October 21.
Byelorussian Christian Alexander Goldovich was charged with
``treason'' for attempting to flee across the Black Sea in a
rubber raft, and carrying pictures allegedly depicting how
bad life is in the Soviet Union. Goldovich admits to having
the pictures, which the Soviets charged was secret
information, and explains that they were snapshots of his
apartment.
Goldovich is a physicist. Arrested April 21, 1985.
Sentenced December 2, 1985, to 15 years strict-regimen labor
camp and 5 years exile on charges including treason (Article
64), anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda (Article 70) and
leaking government secrets. Accused of attempting to escape
from the USSR and intending to leak secret information. To be
released April 2005.
Goldovich had requested a Bible during the Rosenthal visit
to Perm 35. He was denied one by camp authorities. We gave
him a Bible and offered Bibles to any other prisoners who
wanted one--all but two did. The Soviets assured us they
would be allowed to keep them. Several times, he thanked
people in the West for writing on his behalf. Asked whether
there is any glasnost in the Perm camp, he replied, ``No,
not in the smallest degree.'' Goldovich's case has been
raised continually with the Soviets.
Ukrainian Bohdan Klimchak attempted to flee from the USSR
to Iran carrying his science fiction short stories, which he
intended to publish abroad. After nine days in Iran, he was
returned to Soviet custody. His writings were deemed
``nationalistic,'' and he was arrested in November 1978 and
sentenced to 15 years strict-regimen labor camp
[[Page H350]]
and five years exile. His sentence was reduced under amnesty
and Klimchak was due to be released in September 1989 (end of
exile around March 1992). Convicted under Articles 64
(``treason'') and 70 (``anti-Soviet agitation and
propaganda'') of Soviet criminal code.
Ruslan Ketenchiyev, a lathe worker, was arrested August 27,
1982, charged with ``treason,'' and sentenced to 10 years
strict-regimen labor camp. Ketenchiyev tried to contact
American journalists and U.S. embassy personnel in order to
emigrate to the West. Instead of the American diplomat he
expected to meet, a disguised KGB agent entrapped him and he
was prosecuted on treason charges. His sentence reduced under
amnesty, Ketenchiyev is due to be released January 21, 1990.
Ketenchiyev told us of terrible conditions and various
punishment methods in Perm 35, including the well-documented
use of cold in punishment cells. He particularly noted the
lack of medical care in the camp. Responding to prisoners'
formal complaints about the extreme cold, camp doctors
declared the temperature in punishment cells to be
sufficiently warm.
Leonid Lubman, an economist and electronics engineer, was
arrested August 29, 1977, charged with ``treason,'' and
sentenced to 13 years strict regimen labor camp. He is
scheduled to be released on August 29, 1990. Lubman compiled
a manuscript providing 30 profiles of corrupt officials and
attempted to send it abroad.
Lubman may have become mentally disturbed in labor camp and
suffers from chronic headaches and stomach ailments. He
looked well over his 50 years and spoke much slower than the
others we met. He said the authorities have an interest in
not releasing him because he has learned the methods of his
incarcerators. He described some sort of torture, which
sounded like electrical shock and exposure to infrared waves.
He said he was punished after the December 1988 visit by
Rosenthal to Perm 35.
Resolving the Perm 35 cases
Many of the acts committed by those in Perm 35 would not
have been considered crimes under Gorbachev. Although the
Soviets frequently contend these prisoners are criminals,
Soviet officials have repeatedly declined to open their
files. They refused to open the files to us, although the
U.S. State Department has provided court records and case
files to the Soviets on disputed U.S. cases. The exception
was a brief look at Kazachkov's file when Procuracy official
Alexander Korshunov sought to refute charges of punishment
made by Mikhail Kazachkov. When the open file revealed a
picture of a head-shaved Kazachkov, it was quickly snapped
shut.
Prior to the signing of the Vienna Concluding Document, in
December 1988, Mikhail Gorbachev declared at the United
Nations that there are no longer any persons in prison
``sentenced for their political or religious convictions.''
However, the release of remaining political prisoners was
made a condition for U.S. agreement in Vienna to schedule a
Helsinki follow-up conference in Moscow in 1991. The Vienna
agreement was signed in January 1989. The Soviets
subsequently agreed to a process of review for most of nearly
one hundred prisoners remaining on U.S. political prisoner
lists. Many of these ``disputed cases'' are the cases of
those we met in Perm 35.
The prisoners who remain in Perm 35 are held under
basically three charges: attempting to flee the country
(including hijacking, in some cases); war crimes; and
espionage. Many languish under Article 64 of the Soviet
criminal code, ``treason'' in combination with more clearcut
political offenses like Article 70, ``anti-Soviet agitation
and propaganda.''
Soviet officials claim they hold no political prisoners
because all who were sentenced exclusively under one of the
four purely political criminal code articles (like Article
70, those used to prosecute free speech, peaceful assembly,
etc.) have been released in amnesties under Gorbachev.
Prosecution on charges of treason for the forbidden
activities of the Brezhnev era no longer makes sense in
today's Soviet Union. Article 64 was interpreted far too
broadly under Soviet law and used to threaten prisoners with
capital punishment and to extract testimony before they have
even seen a lawyer. Those who landed in Perm 35 for acts of
violence related to hijack attempts, or other acts of
violence, are not political prisoners, although cruel
punishment should not be simply excused in their cases
either. It is high time, however, for review of the excessive
punishment meted out for nonviolent ``crimes'' that would not
be prosecuted today, or would be treated far less seriously.
We conveyed to the Soviets that it was in the interests of
all sides for these cases not to linger beyond preparations
for the Vienna Follow-up Meeting at Copenhagen in 1990.
Should they linger until the already controversial Moscow
Human Rights Conference in 1991, the Soviets would face a
great embarrassment.
While these prisoners' cases remain unresolved, we sensed
from our discussions the Soviets' desire to be cleared of the
charges that political prisoners remain. Therefore, we call
on the Soviets to reexamine these cases in view of their
``new political thinking'' and release them on humanitarian
grounds.
prospects for legal and penal reforms
To the Soviets' credit, the kind of access we were granted
to Perm 35 would have been unthinkable even months ago. The
Soviets have closed down two political labor camps in the
vicinity of Perm 35 for lack of need as a result of prisoner
amnesties. Soviet authorities say that they have removed
hundreds of camp guards responsible for past human rights
abuses. Officials of the Soviet Procuracy, as well as the new
Supreme Soviet legislature, have talked about penal reforms.
The highest ranking Soviet procurator supervising Legality in
Correctional Facilities, Yuri Khitrin, admitted to us that it
was necessary to discuss ``humanizing'' the Soviet penal
system.
These statements would bode well for the prospect of
reform. However, the practical impact on prison and labor
camp conditions has thus far been minimal, and the Soviets
have publicly stated few commitments to improve or
reconstitute their gulag practices. On the other hand, the
Soviets have promised for more than two years to institute
legal reform which will decriminalize political dissent.
We discussed legal reforms with officials of the Council on
Religious Affairs. Deputy Minister Alexander Ivolgin
explained to us that they were reluctant to discuss a draft
of ``laws on conscience'' which we put before them--one of
two thus far published. Ivolgin claimed that the new law on
religious groups had not yet been formally drafted for
consideration by the Supreme Soviet. An official from CRA's
legal office, Tatyana Belokopitova, offered a very
disappointing response on the question of requiring
registration of religious groups. The latest proposal would
establish the right of ``judicial person'' (legal recourse)
only for religious groups who submit to registering with
central religious authorities. This proposal would fail to
resolve either the present lack of legal rights for all
churches or the desire of many believers not to register--it
would instead pit these concerns against each other.
In a meeting with First Deputy Foreign Minister Anatoly
Adamishin, the question of new religious laws was side-
stepped by referring us to the Council on Religious Affairs.
However, Mr. Adamishin assured us that the Supreme Soviet
would place a high priority on new religious laws during its
fall session. He was less optimistic about action on draft
emigration (exit/entry) legislation. In general, Adamishin
declared that economic and constitutional reforms would take
precedent over both matters. On freedom of conscience,
Adamishin commented, ``We used to have a problem in regards
to freedom of conscience, but we never had a total absence of
religious freedom. The freedom to perform religious rites was
always allowed, so we are not starting from scratch.''
Regarding penal reforms, there appears to be a much tougher
hill to climb. We met with a panel of procurators and
investigators from the All-Union Procuracy and Ministry of
Internal Affairs who denied our references to the arduous
conditions in prisons and labor camps. We encountered a
Soviet willingness to discuss ``rule of law'' questions, even
while some observations caused a degree of discomfort:
prosecutors bring charges only with sufficient evidence for a
presumption of guilt; they are held responsible for
``losing'' cases; and all trial attorneys are answerable to
the Procurator General.
We raised the issue of establishing due process for charges
brought while prisoners are serving sentences--no sooner had
we left than Mikhail Kazachkov was victimized for such
pitfalls in the Soviet system. We identified those issues
raised by former prisoners: cruel punishments,
malnourishment, inadequate medical care, severe
restrictions on family visits. We were assured that draft
legislation excludes provisions which disallowed family
visits in the past. In addition, we were told that the
Procuracy now shares the responsibility for supervision of
correctional facilities with public commissions under the
new Supreme Soviet which guarantee ``law, legality and
order.''
The Soviets indicated openness to future visits to prisons
and labor camps by official and non-official groups. Mr.
Khitrin offered agreement in principle to a follow-up visit
by Director of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Mr. Michael
Quinlan, and Chairman of Prison Fellowship International, Mr.
Charles Colson. We mentioned that groups such as Amnesty
International, Helsinki Watch and the International Red Cross
should be permitted access to prisoners in prisons and labor
camps to monitor and report on conditions. We advocated on
behalf of independent Soviet monitors who wish to have access
to correctional facilities.
Finally, we received assurance that prisoners could have
Bibles and other religious literature and that clergy would
be allowed to visit. Both have been forbidden in law and
practice in the past. Khitrin told us that a decision had
been made that from now on ``all correctional labor colonies
will have Bibles in necessary quantities and permit ministers
of faith to visit.'' We urged the Soviets to put such
commitments into practice by granting requests to visit
prisons and camps.
follow-up and recommendations
Release of Perm 35 prisoners
We have an obligation to work for the immediate release of
all remaining Perm prisoners on humanitarian grounds. The
Soviets are obligated to release all political prisoners in
compliance with their commitments under the Helsinki Final
Act and Vienna Concluding Document. In addition, one criteria
for agreeing to the Moscow Human
[[Page H351]]
Rights Conference was the release of all political prisoners.
While Soviet authorities have raised questions in connection
with many of these cases, we as members of the Helinski
Commission have argued that the burden of proof is on the
Soviets to prove the individuals in question are criminals.
We have initiated or recommended the following action on
behalf of remaining prisoners, including those in Perm 35:
(1) We have publicly called on the Soviets to release all
those in Perm 35 convicted for nonviolent acts. We believe
that in view of the excessive and cruel punishment these
prisoners have suffered, a positive Soviet response would
signal a truly humanitarian gesture.
(2) We have written Secretary of State James Baker to urge
him to continue the practice of raising individual cases at
the highest levels in U.S.-Soviet dialogue.
(3) We have discussed Soviet reforms and the status of
prisoners with Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence
Eagleburger, urging that human rights remain a top priority
in U.S.-Soviet relations. While Soviet human rights
improvements have occurred, we should continue identifying
problems that persist and pressing our concerns while the
Soviets seem willing to discuss and respond to them.
(4) We have urged human rights groups to advocate the
immediate release of political prisoners.
(5) We urge concerned Westerners to reinvigorate campaigns
on behalf of these prisoners, including letter-writing to
Soviet officials, camp authorities and to the prisoners
themselves.
Advancing glasnost to the gulag
The Soviets should begin a process of opening up prisons
and labor camps to interested individuals and human rights
groups. Only by following our inspection visit by
permitting further visits will the Soviets make progress
in erasing the Stalinist stigma of the gulag.
(1) We have urged Westerners and human rights organizations
to request to visit prisons and labor camps and meet with
prisoners in order to report on conditions.
(2) We have urged members of the media, particularly the
Moscow press corps, to make visits and report on prisons and
labor camps. Since our visit, a few members of the media have
been granted access to camps.
(3) We have helped to secure official Soviet approval for
the visit of Bureau of Prisons Director, Michael Quinlin, and
Prison Fellowship International chairman, Charles Colson, to
visit several prisons and labor camps in the USSR and discuss
reforms and ways to reduced crime and recidivism in that
country.
(4) We have urged that Western Leaders and human rights
groups advocate on behalf of Soviet citizens who wish to
visit prisons and labor camps, including clergy to perform
rites or offer pastoral counsel.
(5) We have raised these concerns in congressional
hearings, and support Helsinki Commission hearing to focus on
conditions in the Soviet gulag.
Reforms
(1) We have shared our findings on the progress of legal
reforms--including ``freedom on conscience,'' freedom of
emigration, and criminal code revisions--with prominent non-
government organizations and urge their continued vigilence
in encouraging further institutionalization of basic freedoms
and that such laws be consistent with international law and
with CSCE commitments.
(2) We have raised concerns about Soviet legal reforms in
recent hearings sponsored by the Congressional Human Rights
Caucus and, in the past, in CSCE hearings.
(3) We have expressed our support to Soviet and American
officials for programs developed in a human rights framework
to promote Soviet Progress on ``rule of law'' issues and in
other areas where U.S. expertise is helpful and welcomed by
the Soviets.
prisoners met at perm 35
Following is the list of prisoners (not all of them are
necessarily political prisoners) who spoke with Reps. Wolf
and Smith at Perm Labor Camp 35 in August 1989. For more
information on these prisoners and their cases, please
contact Helsinki Commission (U.S. Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, House Annex 2, Room 237, Washington,
DC 20515).
Mailing address for prisoners (Moscow post office box):
SSSR, RSFSR, S. Moskva uchr. 5110/VS, Last name, First
initial.
Aleksandr Goldovich, Ruslan Ketenchiyev, Bogdan Klimchak,
Lenoid Lubman, Viktor Makarov, Nikolay Nukradze, Aleksandr
Rasskazov, Mikhailov Kazachkov, Valery Smirnov, Oleg
Mikhaylov, and Igor Mogil'nikov.
Yuriy Pavlov, Aleksandr Udachin, Arnol'd Anderson, Maksim
Ivanov, Vyacheslav Cherepanov, Vadim Arenberg, Vladimir
Potashov, Akhmet Kolpakbayev, Anatoliy Filatov, Igor
Fedotkin, Vladimir Tishchenkov, Viktor Olinsnevich, and
Unidentified Central Asian.
Acknowledgment: We wish to thank Richard Stephenson, Soviet
Desk Officer at the State Department, who accompanied us on
the trip to Perm 35, providing translation and other
assistance.
____________________