[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 8519-8520]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




THE 2006 COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES AND THE PROMOTION OF 
                  HUMAN RIGHTS IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 29, 2007

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, this morning the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs held a hearing on the recently-released 2006 Country 
Reports on Human Rights Practices prepared by the Department of State. 
Over the past three decades, we have seen a steady increase in the 
quality, candor, and scope of the annual Country Reports on Human 
Rights Practices. In fighting the plague of human rights abuse, 
sunlight is often the best disinfectant. On the whole, the Country 
Reports shine brightly into some very dark corners. We owe a debt of 
gratitude to the men and women of the Department of State who work so 
hard to compile them.
  Although we do not claim to be perfect and are ourselves subject to 
the universal ideals we espouse, the United States continues to be the 
world's most prominent champion of fundamental human rights.
  This Congress, I have re-introduced the Global Online Freedom Act of 
2007 which seeks to promote and defend human rights related to this 
increasingly influential communication medium. I am pleased to note 
that the State Department has already implemented one of the action 
items of this proposed legislation by including important additional 
information in the Country Reports, such as the domestic legal 
authority for internet restrictions and penalties imposed for the 
exercise of free speech via the Internet. This information is critical 
to efforts to address Internet repression in countries like Vietnam, 
China, Tunisia, and Belarus, and to convince governments that free 
speech restrictions are contrary to their national interests.
  It is worth noting that most of the major human rights efforts 
undertaken by the United States Government in recent decades--including 
the Country Reports themselves--have been the result of Congressional 
mandates: The Jackson-Vanik Amendment; The International Religious 
Freedom Act; the Torture Victims Relief Act; the Lautenberg Amendment; 
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act; the North Korean Human Rights 
Act. These were Congressional initiatives undertaken in the face of 
skepticism--and sometimes outright opposition--by the Executive branch.
  For example, I recall when then-Assistant Secretary Shattuck appeared 
before my subcommittee 10 years ago to oppose the International 
Religious Freedom Act. He argued that he was ``particularly concerned'' 
that the bill would ``harm the very people it seeks to help'' because 
it would ``legislate a hierarchy of human rights into our laws'' that 
could ``severely damage our efforts to ensure that all aspects of basic 
civil and political rights . . . are protected.'' Not surprisingly, 
this doomsday prophecy did not come to pass.
  To the contrary, once such issues have been forced by legislation, 
the Executive branch eventually internalizes, and sometimes

[[Page 8520]]

embraces, those human rights priorities. For example, religious freedom 
and trafficking are now mainstream policy priorities that receive far 
more international attention and action than they did before the laws 
were on the books. Other mandates are embraced more slowly, such as the 
refugee title of the North Korean Human Rights Act, which has not yet 
been adequately implemented.
  There are many countries where the seriousness of human rights 
violations deserves condemnation, including Zimbabwe with its recent 
horrific crackdown on the political opposition, North Korea, Eritrea, 
Belarus, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Ethiopia and Iran. The Report 
provides disturbing details about how these countries in particular--
though not exclusively--continue to thwart universal principles of 
respect for fundamental human rights. However, I will limit myself to 
focusing the spotlight on three human rights violators in particular--
China, Sudan, and Vietnam.
  This year's report repeats the assessment of prior years that the 
Chinese Government's human rights record ``remained poor,'' but even 
when many of us thought the situation could not get much worse, it adds 
that the Chinese record ``in certain areas deteriorated.'' One of those 
areas often ignored or downplayed by the international community is the 
appalling lengths to which the government will go to enforce its one-
child per couple limit.
  The Chinese government has a long record of oppressing its people, 
especially women, through its population control program. Beijing does 
not deny levying huge fines against people who have children the State 
deems illegal. In fact, at a hearing that I chaired several years ago, 
Secretary Dewey testified that ``couples who give birth to an 
unapproved child are likely to be assessed a social compensation fee, 
which can range from one-half the local average annual household income 
to as much as ten times that level.'' Indeed this is a horrific 
government that decides which children are legal and which are 
illegal--that is, which children will be allowed to live and which will 
not.
  These acts are truly a crime against humanity executed in conjunction 
with the UNFPA. The UNFPA has funded, provided crucial technical 
support and, most importantly, provided cover for massive crimes 
against humanity of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization. Tens 
of millions of children have been slaughtered--their mothers robbed of 
their children by the State. This barbaric policy makes brothers and 
sisters illegal, and makes women the pawns of the population control 
cadres.
  This barbaric policy has now given rise to a new problem for China. 
An article published in the Guardian several years ago, stated that 
China could find itself dealing with as many as 40 million single men 
by the year 2020 because of the one child policy. According to the 
article Li Weixiong, a population advisor to the Chinese government, 
said a cultural preference for boys was creating an artificial 
disparity between the number of boys and girls representing ``a serious 
threat to building a well-off society.'' He also said that the lack of 
women in China will lead to a dramatic rise in prostitution and the 
trafficking of women. ``This is by no means a sensational prediction,'' 
he stated.
  On that point Mr. Li is right. In fact, the combined effect of the 
birth limitation policies and the traditional preference for male 
children resulted in the disproportionate abortion of female unborn 
children at a rate of 116.9 to 100 overall, and a shocking 151.9 to 100 
for second pregnancies. As a direct result of these ongoing crimes 
against humanity, China today is missing millions of girls--girls who 
were murdered in the womb simply because they are girls. A couple of 
years ago, the State Department suggested that as many as 100 million 
girls of all ages are missing--that is to say, they should be alive and 
well and are not, a direct consequence of the government's one-child 
policy. This gendercide constitutes one of humanity's worst blights, 
and a far greater peril to peace and security than is being credited at 
this time.
  The world is all too aware of the continuing genocide in Sudan, 
appropriately identified as such in the Country Reports. Current 
reports estimate that the conflicts in Darfur and in Southern Sudan 
have resulted in the deaths of close to 2.4 million people and left 
over 4 million others either internally displaced or as refugees. When 
confronted with such numbers, one must also take into account the 
attending human rights violations, including the abuse of children, 
extensive trafficking in persons, and the acts of torture and violence 
against women.
  Just two weeks ago, on March 14th, I introduced a House resolution 
calling on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to 
immediately and unconditionally release several political prisoners and 
prisoners of conscience who have been arrested in a recent wave of 
government oppression. One of those individuals specifically mentioned 
in the resolution is Father Nguyen Van Ly, who has already spent over 
13 years in prison since 1983 for his advocacy of religious freedom and 
democracy in Vietnam. Tomorrow, Fr. Ly will be given a kangaroo trial 
for exercising his fundamental human rights, and he faces 20 years in 
prison in the likely event that he is convicted.
  This is a case worthy of our particular attention as the Vietnamese 
Government audaciously resumed its past oppression of human rights 
after Congress agreed to Vietnam becoming an official member of the 
World Trade Organization in December 2006. A focus of to day's hearing 
was the promotion of human rights in U.S. foreign policy, and it is 
important to keep in mind that those of us in Congress play an 
important role in our country's foreign policy. While substantial 
criticism was leveled during the hearing at the Administration for its 
shortcomings in promoting and defending human rights, those of us in 
Congress should also look in the mirror and ask what priority we give 
to human rights, both individually and as an institution.

                          ____________________