U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–038PDF 2011

CONGRESSIONAL–EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON

CHINA: 2011 ANNUAL REPORT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 3, 2011

Serial No. 112–85

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Christopher Smith, chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China .................................................................................................. 5

The Honorable Tim Walz, ranking member, Congressional-Executive Commission on China ........................................................................................................ 7

Ms. Chai Ling, founder, All Girls Allowed (student leader, 1989 Tiananmen 

Square protests) ................................................................................................... 13

Mr. Bob Fu, president, China Aid .......................................................................... 21

Mr. John Kamm, chairman, The Dui Hua Foundation ........................................ 32

Mr. Bhuchung K. Tsering, vice president for special programs, International 

Campaign for Tibet .............................................................................................. 40

Sophie Richardson, Ph.D., China director, Human Rights Watch ...................... 45

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Tim Walz: Prepared statement ..................................................... 10

Ms. Chai Ling: Prepared statement ....................................................................... 15

Mr. Bob Fu: Prepared statement ............................................................................ 23

Mr. John Kamm: Prepared statement ................................................................... 34

Mr. Bhuchung K. Tsering: Prepared statement .................................................... 42

Sophie Richardson, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .................................................... 47

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 68

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 69

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 71

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Florida, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: Material 

submitted for the record ...................................................................................... 73

Mr. Bhuchung K. Tsering: Material submitted for the record ............................. 75

(1)

CONGRESSIONAL–EXECUTIVE COMMISSION 

ON CHINA: 2011 ANNUAL REPORT 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana RosLehtinen (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The committee will come to order. 

After recognizing myself and my good friend the ranking member 

for 7 minutes each for our opening statements, I will recognize the 

chairman and the ranking members of our Subcommittee on Asia 

and the Pacific for 3 minutes each for their statements. 

We will then hear from our witnesses. Thank you, gentlemen, for 

being with us. I would ask that you summarize your prepared 

statements in 5 minutes each before we move to the questions and 

answers with members under the 5-minute rule. And, without objection, the witnesses’ prepared statements will be made a part of 

the record. 

And members may have 5 days to insert statements and questions for the record subject to the length limitations and the rules. 

And, without objection, the written statement of Under Secretary 

of State Marie Otero will be made a part of the record. 

The Congressional-Executive Commission on China has recently 

issued its tenth annual report on China’s human rights and the 

rule of law developments. The report also marks a decade since 

China acceded to membership in the World Trade Organization, 

WTO, after being granted Permanent Normal Trade Relations, 

PNTR, with the United States the previous year. 

I opposed PNTR for China, given its abysmal human rights 

record, its unfair trade practices, and its disdain for the rule of law. 

Over a decade later, we can see that economic engagement with 

and trade liberalization for China did not produce political liberalization and, thus, granting PNTR in my view was a mistake. 

Documented in the Commission’s report is a clear picture of a 

China where human rights lawyers disappear, black jails illegally 

imprison those who seek to voice dissent, Falun Gong practitioners 

are mercilessly persecuted, and the internet is censored by the 

thought police. In just the past 12 months, Beijing has sought to 

disrupt the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony for Chinese dissident Liu 

Xiaobo; kept news of the Jasmine Revolution in the Middle East 

from the Chinese people; and disrupted a Christian service on 

Easter morning, the holiest day of the Christian calendar. 

2

The release of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi by 

the Burmese junta in late 2010 left Mr. Liu the sole imprisoned 

Nobel Peace Prize winner worldwide. He remains held in a Chinese 

jail offering silent testimony to Beijing’s repression. It appears that 

Beijing is adhering to the old Chinese adage of ‘‘kill the chicken to 

scare the monkey’’ by making Mr. Liu an example of what dire consequences await a person in China who is bold enough to speak out 

for democratic reform. 

The report also notes how the rights of ethnic groups in China 

are constantly trampled. Whether it is a Mongolian herder on the 

grasslands, a Tibetan monk praying in his monastery, or a Uyghur 

Muslim seeking fair and equal employment, all face the harsh 

backlash of Beijing’s oppression. 

In recent months, the desperation has intensified so greatly that 

several monks of Tibet and nuns have set themselves on fire to protest China’s rule in Tibet. Beijing’s ultimate goal continues to be 

to displace Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Mongolians in their traditional 

homelands with Han Chinese. 

While Mao once claimed that ‘‘women hold up half the sky,’’ the 

Commission report notes that ‘‘sexual harassment reportedly remains prevalent in China.’’ Trafficking for sexual exploitation, 

forced labor, forced marriage, remain, according to the report, a 

major impediment to the achievement of full equality for women. 

North Korean refugee women are particularly vulnerable to exploitation by China’s sex trade. 

It is imperative, given the exploitation of North Korean refugee 

women and children, that Beijing provide access to the U.N. High 

Commissioner for Refugees, to interview refugees in northeast 

China. And China must stop the forced repatriation of North Korean refugees at once and comply with its international obligations. 

The Commission’s report also chronicles how the so-called ‘‘workers’ paradise’’ of the People’s Republic of China has no respect for 

its people and a complete disdain for workers’ rights. Factory owners and local officials conspire to poison the environment of the 

people who live in the vicinity and to exploit the workers who labor 

in deprivation and filth, worthy of a Charles Dickens novel. Forced 

abortion mandated by a coercive one-child policy has led to a widening gender imbalance. 

Nor is China in any way closer to becoming a fair trading partner, as the countless unemployed Americans can readily affirm. 

The report points to ‘‘a lack of respect for the rule of law extended 

into the international arena, where China pursued domestic subsidies and industrial policies inconsistent with China’s commitments as a member of the World Trade Organization.’’ How can a 

ruling clique which causes human rights lawyers to disappear, 

which persecutes and tortures Falun Gong practitioners, which 

drives Tibetan monks to such despair that they set themselves on 

fire, and which hunts down North Korean refugees on its northeast 

frontier ever expect to be regarded as anything but a barbaric regime, certainly unworthy of the name responsible stakeholder? 

I welcome recommendations from our distinguished witnesses on 

follow-up actions for our Foreign Affairs Committee to take as a result of the conclusions that you have reached in your Commission’s 

report. Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us. 

3

I am now pleased to turn to my friend the ranking member for 

his opening remarks. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for 

calling this hearing. As you pointed out, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China was established in the year 2000 as part 

of the legislation that granted permanent normal trade relations to 

China. And it now plays a key role in tracking human rights conditions and the development of the rule of law in China. 

The Commission and the report that it issues every year serves 

as a valuable resource for not only Congress but for a much broader audience that wants to understand what is happening in China 

on these critical issues. 

Under the leadership of its two co-chairs, the distinguished and 

irrepressible representative Chris Smith and also distinguished 

and irrepressible Senator Sherrod Brown, the Commission’s recent 

report makes clear those human rights conditions in China remain 

a significant concern. 

While China’s remarkable economic progress over the past 30 

years has lifted millions of its citizens out of poverty, the unfortunate fact remains that these economic achievements have not led 

to commensurate gains in political freedoms and human rights for 

the Chinese people. 

The Commission’s report goes into great detail on a broad range 

of issues that are of vital importance, including freedom of expression, religious freedom, worker rights, rule of law, ethnic minorities, and democratic governance. The report notes that China’s 

record on human rights and rule of law has not improved but, instead, has worsened in some areas. 

Even more troubling, the report states that the Chinese Government has grown more assertive in the violation of human rights, 

disregarding the laws and international standards that it claims to 

uphold while tightening its grip on Chinese society. Specifically, 

the Commission’s report found that Chinese authorities instituted 

a major crackdown on internet and press freedom, starting last 

February, after the appearance of online calls for Jasmine protests 

in China following the outbreak of demonstrations in the Middle 

East and North Africa. 

In Tibet, Xinjiang, and other minority areas, China’s Government continued to promote policies threatening the viability of the 

language and culture of these groups. The report also notes that 

China implements industrial policies, which are inconsistent with 

its commitments as a member of the World Trade Organization 

and are incompatible with the rule of law. 

Promoting human rights and political freedom is a key tenet of 

U.S. foreign policy. And these universal values must remain a central focus in our relationship with Beijing. 

Some argue that emphasizing human rights conflicts with other 

priorities in our bilateral relationships: The currency issue, Iran, 

North Korea, trade, and many other issues. But as Americans, we 

must not simply check our morals at the door. 

Regrettably, China’s unelected leaders failed to recognize that 

greater human rights protections are also in China’s self-interest. 

Repression, as we have most recently seen in the Middle East, ultimately causes people to rebel against their oppressors. If there is 

4

one thing Chinese leaders care about most, it is domestic tranquility. Their current policies can only result in that which they 

fear the most: Domestic turmoil. Ultimately China’s international 

image and economic growth are dependent on developing a society 

based on the respect for the rule of law and the rights of the Chinese people. 

I look forward to the testimony of our colleagues, Congressmen 

Smith and Walz, and the panel that will follow them and in discussing ways with our witnesses that the United States can help 

improve the deplorable human rights situation in China. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Berman. 

Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman 

and Mr. Berman. I appreciate the leadership, both of you, demonstrated on this very important issue. 

Let’s just note right off the bat, today is not in any way a condemnation of the people of China. We, in fact, are today expressing 

our solidarity with the people of China who long for democracy and 

liberty, the people of China who want the same kind of rights that 

every person in this world is entitled to and that we as Americans 

believe is a gift from God and not something that is a gift from the 

state. 

What we have in China is the world’s worst human rights 

abuser. I don’t know any other regime that will take political prisoners, throw them into jail or take religious prisoners and throw 

them into jail, and execute them and sell their body parts. I don’t 

know any other regime that has made it as important to control 

the religious beliefs of their people than the Chinese regime of 

today. This does not have to be. 

We tried the strategy of, well, let’s make them wealthy and, thus, 

they will become less aggressive and more liberal. That has not 

worked. We should try to determine strategy that will help the people of China and secure the peace of the world. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Sires of New Jersey is recognized. 

Mr. SIRES. I just wanted to compliment you on holding this hearing. And I really want to compliment my colleagues for coming before this committee, especially my colleague from New Jersey, who 

has made this a lifelong battle. So I compliment you both and 

thank you for being before this committee. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Albio. 

Mr. Turner of New York is recognized. 

Mr. TURNER. I have nothing to say, Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, sir. 

Judge Poe? 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Some people might think because China’s economy has grown 

and all this talk about it being the next super power that the internal operation of China has changed. It has not. 

I am glad that we had this hearing today. China needs to be recognized for what they are: A socialist, Communist system. And it 

continues to be one. And it does not exercise the ability to allow 

5

freedom of religion. The only religion in China is the worship of the 

political leader in the political system. 

Organized religion is a threat. There are over 500 cases of political or religious imprisonment in China. The Chinese Government 

has cracked down on churches, encouraging a blacklist of church 

leaders that has grown up. One Chinese newspaper says that 

Protestants are even encouraged, forced to worship at governmentsanctioned churches. 

Freedom of religion is not granted by man. It is granted by God, 

no matter what one’s religious freedom. I hope we recognize that. 

And I agree with my friend Mr. Rohrabacher this is about the Chinese Government. It is not about the people of China, whom we 

stand up and hoping they may also exercise universal religious 

freedom that is given by the Creator, not by government. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Judge Poe. 

And now we are so pleased to welcome our first panel of witnesses from the Congressional-Executive Commission on China to 

discuss their 2011 annual report. First, we will hear from Chris 

Smith, the chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission 

on China. He has been a member since 2007. He has been a Member of Congress since ’81. Welcome, Chris, and another good friend, 

Tim Walz, the Ranking House Commissioner since 2007, the year 

he was elected to Congress. So thank you, Tim, for being with us 

also. 

And I remind you to keep your oral testimony to no more than 

5 minutes. And, without objection, your written testimony will be 

inserted in the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. So welcome. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER SMITH, 

CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON 

CHINA 

Mr. SMITH. And I want to join my friend, Congressman Walz, the 

ranking member. And on behalf of Sherrod Brown, the co-chair, we 

present this testimony. And thank you for convening this hearing. 

This year’s tenth annual human rights report by the Congressional-Executive Commission continues to be the most comprehensive heavily documented review and analysis of China’s worsening 

human rights record. 

The report’s 225 pages of analysis and recommendations followed 

by another 119 pages of meticulously researched endnotes paints 

an extremely dire, frightening picture of escalating human rights 

crimes, including torture, forced abortion, religious persecution, 

and ethnic discrimination committed with impunity by government 

personnel at all levels and an ubiquitous secret police. 

The report declares that ‘‘in areas of human rights and rule of 

law this year, China’s leaders have grown more assertive in their 

violations of rights, disregarding the very laws and international 

standards that they claim to uphold, thereby tightening their grip 

on Chinese society.’’

In a shift, the report notes that ‘‘China’s leaders no longer respond to criticism by simply denying that rights have been abused. 

6

Rather, they increasingly use the language of international laws to 

defend their actions.’’

Even in the highly visible, patently unjust incarceration of 2010 

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Liu Xiaobo, the report points out that 

the ‘‘Chinese authorities sought to defend their handling of the case 

as consistent with international law.’’ Of course, the big lie in Beijing completely collapsed under scrutiny. 

The U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded in 

May of this year that it was the Government of China that had violated international law in denying Liu’s right to free speech and his 

right to a fair trial. ‘‘Official rhetoric notwithstanding,’’ the report 

notes, ‘‘China’s human rights and rule of law have not improved 

and appear to be worsening in some areas.’’

Some of the profoundly troubling conclusions in the report—and 

I go into this much more in the longer version of my comments—

‘‘Beginning in February 2011, the Chinese police took the unusual 

step of ‘disappearing’ numerous lawyers in one of the harshest 

crackdowns in recent memory.’’

On coercive population control, the report found that ‘‘this year 

in official speeches and government reports, authorities used the 

phrase ’spare no efforts’ to signify intensified enforcement.’’ Of 

course, they continue to monitor women’s menstrual cycles and unauthorized children. In other words, the government says if a child 

is authorized or not. And if that child is not authorized, that child 

is forcibly aborted and that woman is so cruelly mistreated. And 

the report goes into great expansion on that cruelty toward women 

and children. 

Of course, the consequence, the missing children, the missing 

girls, I should say, according to the Commission is the highest sex 

ratio disparity in the entire world. 

It also talks about enforcement campaigns and the use in at least 

one area of man-on-man military tactics. They are using all-out efforts to mobilize the ending of the lives of these children and the 

cruelty meted out to those women. 

In my personal view, having combated this abuse since the early 

’80s, the Chinese population control program has and remains a 

weapon of mass destruction deployed by the government against its 

own women and children that is without parallel or precedent in 

all of history. 

The report also notes that the government continues to carry out 

a campaign against the Falun Gong and then against all of the various religious denominations: Catholic, Uyghurs, the Tibetan Buddhists. And it goes into great detail about how individuals who are 

not part of the officially licensed churches are repressed, incarcerated. 

One of the people spoken about in the report is Bishop Su of 

Baoding. I met with Bishop Su in the early 1990s. He was out of 

prison after spending decades of his life in prison. He was the 

kindest, most gentle man you ever want to meet. And he spoke 

about loving his captors and doing good to those who persecuted, 

in 1996 rearrested. We haven’t seen from him since. 

The report goes into great detail on workers’ rights, which are 

nonexistent, but notes that young people are increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo. Labor organizers continue to be arrested, 

7

detained, and abused. Yet, they keep coming back the way Lech 

Walesa did so greatly in Poland and others throughout the world. 

These men and women are amazing. And, yet, they find themselves 

in prison for trying to organize and get some kind of workers’ 

rights. 

Internet regulation and censorship have gotten worse. As Mr. 

Berman pointed out, there was a state Internet Information Office 

established in May 2011. The report concludes, ‘‘the total number 

of Web sites in China decreased dramatically as a result of’’ this. 

‘‘Authorities continued to have no tolerance for democracy advocates. Public security officers continued’’ their detention through 

what they call reform ‘‘through labor.’’

I was in one of those camps, Madam Chair, right after 

Tiananmen Square with Frank Wolf. They are gulags. They are 

concentration camps. And they can hold somebody up to 4 years in 

those camps. 

Finally, the Commission maintains the most extensive, highly reliable, up-to-date database on political prisoners and religious prisoners, some 6,623 as of September 1st prisoners of conscience. 

When members travel to China, when they meet with China lawmakers, when they meet with China officials, have that database 

with you. Give that to them. And say, ‘‘We want freedom for people 

like Chen Guangcheng, for Liu Xiaobo, Gao Zhisheng, and all of 

these other great men and women who are fighting the cause of 

human rights.’’

I thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you for 

making it your mission to point out the human rights abuses 

worldwide. You are a champion. Thank you so much. 

Tim Walz? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TIM WALZ, RANKING MEMBER, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking 

Member Berman and members of this committee. Thank you for 

holding this hearing on the report from the Congressional-Executive Commission on China but thank the two of you for being beacons and role models for all of us on the quest for human rights. 

A special thank you to, as you saw, our irrepressible and incredibly talented chairman. Chris Smith is someone I am proud to call 

a colleague and a friend and as are people around the world who 

are oppressed. Senator Sherrod Brown, who couldn’t be with us 

today, their bipartisan leadership is putting this Commission’s 

work to good use. And a special thank you to the talented staff, 

who makes it possible. 

The work of this Commission holds special significance for me. 

More than two decades ago, I taught high school in China. I was 

part of one of the first government-sanctioned groups of American 

high school teachers to teach in Chinese high schools. I developed 

a great admiration for and a close connection with the Chinese people. 

In my lifetime, I have witnessed the Chinese people make significant strides. Living standards have risen. Brave Chinese citizens 

are standing up for the rights of their fellow citizens. They are 

8

seeking to clean up their environment, improve working conditions, 

ensure the safety of their food. For that, the Chinese people deserve much credit and our support. 

We are here today, however, to assess the Chinese Government’s 

records on human rights and rule of law. And, unfortunately, the 

Chinese Government has fallen woefully short of the aspirations of 

their own people. The report assesses China based on China’s own 

laws and international standard that China has pledged to uphold. 

Across the 20 issue areas of the report, the Commission found 

much to be concerned about. One of the biggest concerns was China’s willingness to ignore the law when it suited them, especially 

to silence political dissent. 

The rights of freedom of expression and association were brutally 

suppressed beginning in February, following the Middle East protests and calls for protests within China. Most disturbing were the 

enforced disappearances of human rights lawyers, activists, and 

artists. These included the internationally renowned artists and 

rights advocate Ai Weiwei. Ai was kept at a secret location for 81 

days, accompanied by guards at all times. 

The report, our China Commission’s report, expresses particular 

concern regarding proposed changes to China’s criminal procedural 

law that would legalize these enforced disappearances. 

Other Chinese citizens continue to be held illegally, even after 

they were released from prison. This was highlighted in the case 

of Chen Guangcheng. Chen was known and many of you know as 

the self-trained lawyer who was blinded at a young age and became 

a tireless advocate for the disabled, for farmers, for victims of the 

brutal population-planning abuses. Local officials punished his activism by locking him up for more than 4 years on a charge of 

blocking traffic. 

Since his release in September 2010, officials kept him and his 

family under illegal arrest. They had beaten him and his wife. And 

they denied their 6-year-old daughter a chance to go to school. Chinese supporters of Chen, and journalists who have gone to visit 

him, have been beaten and detained. 

Tibetans, Uyghurs, and other ethnic minorities continue to struggle to maintain their religion, culture, and livelihoods amid an intense government pressure. Officials continue to discredit the Dalai 

Lama as a religious leader. No dialogue between the Dalai Lama 

and Chinese officials took place last year, the longest breaks in 

2002. The Chinese Government continues to prevent Catholics, 

Buddhists, Falun Gong practitioners, Muslims, Protestants from 

freely practicing their beliefs. 

Workers in China still do not enjoy their fundamental right to 

organize independent unions. Instead, they must rely on the Communist Party-controlled union to represent their interests. Without 

genuine labor representation, Chinese workers continue to face 

poor working conditions, harassment, and low wages. 

Commercially China continues to implement policies that are inconsistent with its commitments to the WTO. China continues to 

unfairly favor its domestic industries and exports through currency 

manipulation, industrial policies, and illegal subsidies. 

The report acknowledges the efforts of well-intentioned Chinese 

officials. The report cites potential for growth in areas such as a 

9

draft mental health law, programs to expand legal aid, and attempts to improve government transparency, but overall the report 

paints a sober picture. The Chinese Government still denies its citizens the basic universal rights of free speech, press, religion, and 

assembly. 

As this report illustrates, China’s respect for human rights and 

the rule of law has a direct impact on our lives. When China censors its press, we know less about the safety of food and products 

we buy from China. When China manipulates its currency and suppresses workers’ rights, Americans lose jobs. When China disregards the rule of law in its treatment of its own citizens, that 

raises serious question about China’s commitment to international 

agreements. But it isn’t just the impact it has on our lives. These 

rights are universal and ones that people everywhere, including all 

Chinese, are entitled to have. 

This report will not change China. Only the Chinese people will 

change China. But it is important for this Commission and this 

Congress to continue to speak out. While the Chinese Government 

works hard to remake its image in a positive light around the 

world, we must make sure the other side of the story is told. We 

must continue to signal to those in China who yearn and hope for 

reform from the imprisoned human rights activists to low-paid factory workers that the people of the United States support and 

stand with them. 

With that, I yield back, Madam Chairwoman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walz follows:]

10


71038f-1.eps
11


71038f-2.eps
12

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Tim. And I congratulate you for taking so much of your time that you give to this 

Commission. Both of you are to be commended for helping the people of China, and people everywhere, be able to live in a society 

where their rights are respected and their human worth is celebrated each and every day. 

So we thank you both for presenting the report to us. And we 

wish you Godspeed as you prepare the report for next year. We certainly hope that it is a better report than this dismal one. Thank 

you so much for sharing it with us. Thank you. 

And I now would like to welcome our second panel of witnesses. 

I first want to introduce Chai Ling, one of the leaders from the 

Tiananmen Square demonstrations of 1989. Who can forget the 

photos of the young female student with the microphone speaking 

truth to power during that long-ago spring? Thank you, Ms. Chai. 

I want to thank you also for providing me with an autographed 

copy of your recent book entitled A Heart for Freedom. It details 

your daring escape from China following the Tiananmen Square. 

Thank you so much. 

Since arriving to the United States via Hong Kong and Paris, 

Ms. Chai has earned an MBA degree from Harvard Business 

School and an MPA in public affairs from Princeton University, no 

slacker there. She is also the founder of All Girls Allowed, an organization dedicated to restoring life, value, and dignity to girls and 

mothers and to revealing the injustices of China’s coercive onechild policy. Welcome to our committee, Ms. Chai. 

Ms. LING. Well, thank you so much, Ms. Chairwoman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. And we will begin with 

you in a minute. 

Ms. LING. Okay. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I am just going to introduce the rest 

of the panel. We are also glad to see as a witness Bob Fu, another 

Tiananmen Square student leader and a strong advocate for religious freedom in China. As an underground church organizer following the Tiananmen Square massacre, Bob faced first imprisonment and then job loss. 

Bob and his pregnant wife were able to flee to Hong Kong in 

1996, before the British left, and made their way as refugees to the 

United States through the intervention of President Clinton. In the 

year 2002, Bob founded the China Aid Association to focus international attention on Beijing’s gross human rights violations directed against underground church Christians. Thank you so much, 

Bob, for being with us. 

Next we want to welcome John Kamm. Thank you, Mr. Kamm, 

a well-known advocate for human rights in China and the founder 

and chairman of Dui Hua Foundation. Since 1979, Mr. Kamm has 

made over 100 trips to Beijing related to human rights, specifically 

focusing on the treatment of prisoners and the conditions of the 

prisons. Mr. Kamm directs the project in human rights diplomacy 

at Stanford University and sits on the board of advisors of the 

Berkeley China Initiative. 

He has received numerous human rights awards, including the 

Eleanor Roosevelt Award for Human Rights from President George 

13

W. Bush in 2001. We are glad to have you here, Mr. Kamm. Welcome. 

We also have with us a real privilege, Mr. Bhuchung Tsering, 

vice president for special programs from the International Campaign for Tibet. Bhuchung is also a refugee from Chinese Communist oppression, having fled as a child to India in 1960 in the 

wake of the Chinese invasion of Tibet. 

He worked as a journalist in India before joining the Tibetan 

Government in exile in 1984. He came to the United States and 

joined the staff of the International Campaign for Tibet in 1995, 

where he oversaw overseas Chinese outreach and Tibetan empowerment programs. Welcome, Bhuchung. 

After I say the name five times, then I finally get it right. Thank 

you. Thank you for forgiving my mispronunciation. I have a difficult name, too. 

Lastly, the committee welcomes Sophie Richardson, the China director for Human Rights Watch. Dr. Richardson has published numerous articles on domestic Chinese political reform and democracy efforts and human rights issues in China, Hong Kong, Cambodia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam. She is also a commentator on Asian human rights issues, having appeared on CNN, 

BBC, and National Public Radio. Welcome, Dr. Richardson. 

I kindly remind our witnesses to keep your oral testimony to no 

more than 5 minutes. And, without objection, your written statements will be inserted into the record. 

So we will being with you. Thank you so much for being with us, 

Ms. Chai Ling. Thank you. 

Ms. LING. Thank you, Chairwoman. 

STATEMENT OF MS. CHAI LING, FOUNDER, ALL GIRLS ALLOWED (STUDENT LEADER, 1989 TIANANMEN SQUARE PROTESTS) 

Ms. LING. I am so honored to be here. I thank you and the ranking members of the committee and the CECC members for your excellent report. 

At All Girls Allowed, we are committed to restore life, value, dignity for girls and mothers in China to reveal injustice of China’s 

one-child policy, which is the largest crime against humanity on 

Earth today. It took place 30 years ago and had killed over 400 

million lives. And today, every day there are over 35,000 forced and 

coerced abortions are taking place. Every day over 500 women commit suicide. 

So, Chairwoman, I congratulate you and thank you for your courageous challenge to President Hu Jintao when he visited America 

in January. And among all the human rights abuses, this is the 

only one question, your challenge to him to end the one-child policy 

and forced abortions. Among all the human rights abuses, this is 

the only one area he chose to answer. And he said, ‘‘There are no 

forced abortions in China.’’ Our report shows that he lied in front 

of the whole world. And we have documented numerous amounts 

of cases throughout the past several decades of women who went 

through forced and coerced abortions. 

I want you to focus attention to the picture on the screen right 

now. The latest case involved Ma Jihong. You see she is standing 

14

there with her husband. October 14th she was working in the field 

at 9 o’clock a.m. She was pregnant with her second child. A group 

of Family Planning police went to grab her. She ran, ran into the 

cotton field. They caught her and brought her into the forced abortion clinics. 

By 9 o’clock p.m., her family was informed that she was dead 

with her 7-month-old baby. And by the time her family arrived, her 

eyes were still open. And her lips were purple. Both her and her 

baby were gone. You see, these are people making $1,500 a year, barely $2 a day, 

which is a third of the Chinese families, Chinese population—465 

million people—live in that level of poverty. And you look at the 

shack. That is the kind of conditions they are living. And these people are suffering. 

We also have cases like Ms. Ji Yeqing, who testified at the hearing on the 31st anniversary this year. And she went through two 

forced abortions. And after she went through the forced abortion in 

2007, the police sedated her. And during her unconsciousness, they 

enforced and placed an IUD so she could not have a baby again. 

And because the family realized she could no longer bear child or 

bear son for the family, they divorced her. 

And in the same hearing, there was another lady who testified. 

She endured five forced abortions in the ’90s. And every single 

time, she went to be given these kinds of procedures with no anesthesia. Imagine a woman’s body was opened up with no anesthesia 

and was just being cut into pieces. That is and should be defined 

as a torture under this one-child policy. 

So because of that reason, I would like to support the bill which, 

again, a hearing was taking place yesterday for H.R. 2121, the 

China Democracy Promotion Act. I believe once that bill is passed, 

that the Chinese leaders who are enforcing these kinds of human 

rights violations, abuses, and torture against their own people will 

be barring a visa to enter the United States. 

And because of that reason, we would like to ask that our report 

of the 350 names of the top-ranking officials in China among the 

major cities would be entered into the record and to be the first 

group to be——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Without objection, subject to the limitations in the rules, we will enter that into the record. 

Ms. LING. Thank you very much. 

We also have many cases documented in our All Girls Allowed 

annual report on China’s one-child policy with additional detailed 

cases of these victims. And so I would like that to be entered into 

the record as well. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Without objection, subject to the 

length limitations, yes. 

Ms. LING. Thank you very much. 

So recently there is a case of a 2-year-old girl who was ran over 

in China by two vans. And 18 members—it was a horrific crime on 

its own, but the worst is that 18 people stand by, did not do anything. 

So I urge the United States to end its current U.S.-China policy, 

which has put business profit, security reasons, and other interests 

above the basic human rights. It did not make China a better counVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:24 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\110311\71038 HFA PsN: SHIRL
15

try nor strengthen the United States. So let us not be the same as 

those 18 people who stand by, chose to do nothing. So I urge you 

to stand up, speak on behalf of those who are voiceless. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ling follows:]


71038a-1.eps
16


71038a-2.eps
17


71038a-3.eps
18


71038a-4.eps
19


71038a-5.eps
20


71038a-6.eps
21

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so very much, powerful testimony. And, yes, we see the H.R. 2122 filed by Mr. Smith, Mr. 

Wolf, Mr. Burton, and Mr. Rohrabacher. Thanks for bringing that 

to our attention. 

And this is her book, A Heart for Freedom and really is a remarkable story. And it has got the photograph of when you took 

that, the bullhorn, in Tiananmen Square. Congratulations. 

Ms. LING. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. A brave fight. Thank you. 

Ms. LING. You are welcome to include that in the congressional 

public record as well. [Laughter.] 

I don’t know if that is possible, but——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. That will definitely be subject to the 

length limitations. 

And three beautiful daughters. Congratulations. 

Ms. LING. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. They certainly wouldn’t be around in 

China. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Fu, we are also welcoming you to our committee. 

Mr. FU. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. BOB FU, PRESIDENT, CHINA AID 

Mr. FU. Thank you, Madam Chairman and the Honorable Ranking Member. And I also want to thank the members of the CECC 

and the leadership of Congressman Chris Smith and Senator 

Brown for their excellent work. 

In the first 10 months of 2011, religious freedom conditions in 

China continued to be poor. In fact, religious freedom conditions 

are at their lowest point since 1982, the year Deng Xiaoping officially ended the policy of eradicating religion. 

We have seen a hardening in the government’s attitude toward 

religion, and policy changes that were implemented well before the 

nascent Jasmine Revolution on February 2011 has accelerated 

since that time. 

At this time, the ruling Communist Party continues to see those 

who peacefully advocate for religious freedom, free speech, independent labor unions, ethnic minority rights, and democracy as the 

biggest threat to its authority and future power. 

The Chinese Government tolerates the practice of religion in a 

limited capacity within officially controlled organizations and has 

permitted some discussion about allowing faith-based charity work, 

but the fact remains that the government also seeks to control and 

repress any religion or religious group that refused to be totally 

controlled by the government as well as those with extensive foreign ties and those it regards as a potential threat to the Communist Party. This includes not only just the house church Protestants but other religious groups as well. As China’s influence and 

power grows, this pattern is unlikely to change and certainly not 

before the 2012 transfer of power to a new generation of senior 

leadership. 

Nonetheless, we do have a two-fold message that offers some 

hope, particularly if there is concerted, coordinated action from the 

United States and other governments on human rights. First, 

international attention matters and can make a difference. That is 

22

because it constrains what the Chinese Government does and how 

it uses its force against rights advocates. 

We have firsthand testimony from dissidents and prisoners that 

international attention improved their conditions and in some cases 

even protected them. Chinese security forces remain brutal, but for 

imprisoned dissidents and religious leaders, silence can mean 

death in Chinese prisons. 

I want to just introduce you. In today’s audience, there is a lady 

from China. She is the wife of a Chinese democracy advocate, Ms. 

Fung Xiao. And her husband was imprisoned for democracy work 

already for 8 years. And in February 19th, he was detained and arrested again for simply forwarding some Twitter messages. He did 

not even organize anything, just forwarding a few Twitter messages. And in the past 8 months, both his wife, Ms. Fung Xiao, and 

their 6-year-old son were denied any access to even visit their husband and their dad. 

And Ms. Fung Xiao coming here, of course, risking lots of things 

and quitting her job, just wants to make her voice to be known. So 

I would really ask Members of Congress and media to talk to her 

to let her know that her husband would not be forgotten. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. We welcome you to our committee. 

Thank you for your bravery. 

Mr. FU. Thank you. She is heading back to China tomorrow 

morning. 

Second, a growing rights consciousness is spreading across 

China, exemplified by courageous human rights lawyers, such as 

Gao Zhisheng, Chen Guangcheng, and many others, who challenge 

the Chinese Government corruption and human rights abuses. The 

growing netizen community in China is the main conduit by which 

this religious consciousness is, the rights consciousness is, spreading. The U.S. Government may be the only government that China 

cares to listen to, must stand firmly and publicly with those in 

China who are fighting peacefully for freedom and rights. These 

brave and patriotic souls are fighting for a future China that respects human rights and the rule of law. 

The United States should make religious freedom and freedom of 

expression on the internet priorities of the bilateral relationship. 

Together, those two rights will do more to improve U.S.-China relations than all of our trade, investments, and cooperation on shared 

security interests. 

I want you to also pay attention to the increasing propaganda 

campaign by the Chinese Government in the United States. Yesterday I was in Dallas after presenting a copy of the Bible to the 

President Bush, former President Bush, and First Lady Laura 

Bush as the freedom collection of his Presidential center. The Bible 

was hand-copied by the Chinese prisoners in the labor camps in 

order to read Bible. 

And then I found the Chinese Government actually orchestrated 

a so-called Bible exhibition campaign held already in Washington, 

DC, and Chicago and this week in Dallas and next week will be 

in the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and is nothing but political manipulation, lies. The tragic thing is our Americans—and 

I think should be awakened up—becomes sponsors, raising funds 

23

for this propaganda all over the U.S. What are they doing? Between those——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. FU. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fu follows:]


71038b-1.eps
24


71038b-2.eps
25


71038b-3.eps
26


71038b-4.eps
27


71038b-5.eps
28


71038b-6.eps
29


71038b-7.eps
30


71038b-8.eps
31


71038b-9.eps
32

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, powerful testimony. 

Mr. Kamm, welcome. 

Mr. KAMM. Thank you, Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN KAMM, CHAIRMAN, THE DUI HUA 

FOUNDATION 

Mr. KAMM. And I would like to commend you for holding this 

first-ever hearing on the report of the Congressional-Executive 

Commission on China. Thank you for inviting me. 

On August the 30th, the National People’s Congress posted on its 

Web site the text of a draft amended criminal procedure law. While 

it may be revised, it is expected to pass at the NPC meeting in 

March. 

There are several positive aspects to the amended criminal procedure law. I would point to, for instance, better treatment for juvenile offenders and women in prison. However, in one very important aspect, the amended criminal procedure law represents a step 

backwards, a step in the wrong direction. And that is in the treatment of those suspected of endangering state security. 

If passed, the draft amended criminal procedure law would complete a move underway for many years to create a dual track legal 

system: One for 99 percent of Chinese citizens suspected of committing crimes, rape, murder, and so on; and the other system for 

those suspected of committing crimes that threaten the Communist 

Party and the government’s grip on power. And the most serious 

of those crimes, though by no means the only crime, is endangering 

state security. 

Around the time that the CEEC report is issued, the Chinese 

Government, quite by coincidence I’m sure, releases statistics on 

the number of people arrested and indicted for endangering state 

security crimes in China as well as the number of trials. 

What do these numbers tell us? Well, for the third consecutive 

year, more than 1,000 people have been arrested, indicted, and 

tried for endangering state security. 

Now, in light of this high level of arrests and the virtual absence 

of any acts of clemency toward prisoners convicted of speech and 

association crimes, we now can say that there are more people in 

prison for committing political crimes than at any point since 1989. 

What can we say about these prisoners? First of all, more than half 

are ethnic minorities. I am basing this on a statement by the President of the High Court of Xinjiang. More than half of the state security trials in 2010 were held in Xinjiang. Seventy-five to eighty 

percent of endangering state security crimes are speech and association crimes. And the sentences are long. Acquittals are unheard 

of in these trials. 

Now, in the 2 minutes remaining, I would just like to quickly 

trace the route of a typical endangering state security suspect 

through this separate legal system. 

The new law provides for electronic monitoring of state security 

suspects. When they are detained, their families are rarely notified 

as this would ‘‘hinder the investigation.’’ The new criminal procedure law allows for putting state security detainees in non-residential surveillance. The combination of non-notification of the family 

33

and placement in a place other than the residence constitutes enforced disappearance under international law. Access to counsel is 

restricted. The case itself, the entire case, can be classified as a secret. And once that happens, the trial is closed, nor can there be 

any media coverage nor can even the family say anything about it. 

After conviction, the convicts are sent into prison. In prison, they 

are classified as so-called important prisoners. There is a code on 

their uniforms that tells people, anyone who looks at it, that they 

are a political prisoner. 

In prison, they almost never get sentence reductions nor paroles. 

We are not aware of a single case of a sentence reduction or parole 

in over 2 years for prisoners serving sentences for speech and association. After the sentence is complete, they have to serve a sentence of deprivation of political rights. And recently the Chinese 

Government has dusted off a long unknown set of regulations 

which allow for a special treatment during this period. 

I would like to say one more thing about state security detainees. 

And that is, despite the efforts of the Commission and human 

rights groups represented here, we know less than 10 percent of 

their names. In other words, 90 percent of their names we don’t 

know. We must continue to find their names and speak their 

names, remembering what Milan Kundera told us: That the struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kamm follows:]

34


71038c-1.eps
35


71038c-2.eps
36


71038c-3.eps
37


71038c-4.eps
38


71038c-5.eps
39


71038c-6.eps
40

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Powerful statement. Thank you so 

much. I had forgotten that statement. Say that again. 

Mr. KAMM. Excuse me? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Give me that phrase again. 

Mr. KAMM. Oh, yes. The struggle of man against power is the 

struggle of memory against forgetting. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Bhuchung Tsering? 

STATEMENT OF MR. BHUCHUNG K. TSERING, VICE PRESIDENT 

FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMS, INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 

TIBET 

Mr. TSERING. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Congressman Berman, and members of the committee. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Hold that a little bit closer to your 

mouth. 

Mr. TSERING. This hearing comes at a critical juncture in the 

modern history of Tibet. As, Madam Chairman, you yourself referred, Tibetans in unprecedented numbers have started resorting 

in their despair and some would say in their extraordinary courage 

and conviction to the most extreme form of protest imaginable: 

Self-immolation. Just today we received news of another Tibetan 

who committed self-immolation and who has died as a result of it. 

We value the work of the CECC and commend its annual report, 

not only for its rigor of its reporting but also for the breadth of its 

scope. 

I would like to comment on the CECC’s report by linking it to 

what is happening with Tibetans in Tibet today. With today’s development, 12 Tibetans have self-immolated since March 2009 and 

11 since March of this year. All but three of these were from the 

Kirti Monastery in Ngaba, a Tibetan region in Eastern Tibet. 

Why are these young Tibetans resorting to such grave actions? 

And why are they mostly clustered around Kirti Monastery? Much 

of the answers can be found in the annual report of the CECC. It 

talks of very many religious restrictions in Tibet today, including 

a rigorous campaign to discredit His Holiness the Dalai Lama. 

Similarly, the report highlights the fact that nine of ten Tibetan 

autonomous prefectural governments have issued or drafted regulatory measures to restrict religious actuators. On top of these restrictions, specifically the Ngaba region has been subjected to a severe security crackdown since the pan-Tibetan demonstrations of 

2008. 

Although the recent developments have drawn attention to Eastern Tibetan areas, the fact is that all over Tibet, the Tibetan people 

are experiencing a tense atmosphere. A climate of fear pervades in 

all Tibetan areas because of the misguided policies of the Chinese 

Government. 

The timing of today’s hearing is propitious. This afternoon, the 

elected head of the Central Tibetan Administration in Dharamsala, 

Dr. Lobsang Sangay, will be testifying before the Tom Lantos 

Human Rights Commission. Since the Dalai Lama relinquished his 

political role, the Kalon Tripa, as Dr. Sangay’s position is called, 

has assumed a much more important role. Dr. Sangay will also be 

joined by Kirti Rinpoche, the spiritual head of the Kirti Monastic 

41

community, where much of these immolations have taken place. 

And I urge members and all of you to attend this afternoon’s hearing. 

I would also like to request that the text of the testimonies of Dr. 

Sangay and Kirti Rinpoche be inserted in the record. 

As Members of Congress deal with the recommendation of today’s hearing, we would like to support all recommendations. Specifically we would also like to add three more recommendations 

based on our perception: First, update and strengthen the Tibetan 

Policy Act. 

The Tibetan Policy Act of 2002 is a comprehensive and pragmatic 

expression of congressional support for the Tibetan people. We urge 

the committee to explore further ways to strengthen the Act to take 

into account new developments in Tibetan politics, including development inside Tibet. 

Given Congress’ longstanding promotion of international religious freedom, the committee should explore whether the Tibetan 

Policy Act can be used to clarify U.S. policy on the succession or 

reincarnation of the Dalai Lama and issues that might have much 

consequences in the coming period. That act can also be updated 

to include legislature authorization and policy guidance for assistance for Tibetan refugee settlements. 

Second, promotion of the Tibetan-Chinese dialogue. The Congress 

should continue to send the strong message to China that it supports His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s initiative for a solution to the 

Tibetan issue through dialogue. And many Members of Congress 

have referred to this issue. 

Third, restrictions on Chinese delegations from or about Tibet. 

The State Department reports that three-quarters of diplomats’ requests to visit Tibetan areas are denied by the Chinese Government. 

On the other hand, here in the United States, Tibetan Americans 

are subjected to a racially discriminatory process when they apply 

for visas at the Chinese Embassy and consulates. And many of 

them do not get permission even after that. However, China is freely able to send delegations to the United States to denounce His 

Holiness the Dalai Lama and to spread its propaganda about Tibet. 

The Congress should look for ways to impose restrictions in a situation where the Chinese Government is not respecting the diplomatic principle of reciprocity. As an example, the State Department 

could be asked to deny visas to those people who had been involved 

with the current ongoing crackdown in Kirti Monastery and to get 

an explanation of the pretext or conditions under which monks 

have been removed and their current whereabouts. 

In conclusion, I once again appreciate the opportunity to testify 

here today and welcome the committee’s examination of the human 

rights in China and Tibet through its oversight of the CECC report. 

Thank you, ma’am. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tsering follows:]

42


71038e-1.eps
43


71038e-2.eps
44


71038e-3.eps
45

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. Thank you for 

testifying. 

Dr. Richardson, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF SOPHIE RICHARDSON, PH.D., CHINA 

DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much for having us, as always, 

to members of the committee, also to the CECC for producing another excellent report, and to my distinguished co-panelists. 

I was asked this morning to speak specifically about policy recommendations, although I strongly share many of the concerns 

that have been articulated, particularly about the immolations. So 

I would like to focus on four particular issues. 

First, I think there has never been a point in time when it is so 

clear that the securing of U.S. interests, broadly speaking, in China 

has a considerable bearing on securing human rights and the rule 

of law there. Given that, the U.S. needs to raise these concerns 

through diverse and coordinated actors, not just the usual suspects 

of the State Department. 

Doing so is more likely to produce results because it will address 

a broader spectrum of Chinese officials and indicate a seriousness 

of purpose by the U.S. While we do see more diverse agency representation in the bilateral human rights dialogue and the strategic and economic dialogue, that participation is not being put to 

discernible use between meetings. Nor are all of the relevant agencies given the opportunity and urged to assume an obligation to 

discuss human rights issues. 

Nearly 3 years into this administration, there is still no functional interagency working group on human rights issues that 

could coordinate such an effort, and critical opportunities are being 

missed as a result. 

We also continue to see cabinet members visit Beijing or receive 

their counterparts and fail to raise human rights issues. Attorney 

General Eric Holder is a laudable exception. There is a human 

rights issue in China for every U.S. agency and for every cabinet 

member. They must be tasked with raising those issues in every 

interaction with their Chinese counterparts. I think we should 

imagine what the world would be like if Mr. Smith got to sit in on 

every high-level interaction with the Chinese Government. 

Second, we cannot emphasize enough how much continuity matters when speaking about human rights issues with the Chinese 

Government. They are as attuned to what goes unsaid from one 

meeting to the next as they are to what is said or what is said differently and are eager for an opportunity to suggest that the U.S. 

has softened its stance. 

This administration initially turned in a distressingly weak performance on these issues, found its voice in late 2010, but now 

seems to be fading again. Secretary Clinton’s January 2011 speech 

and former Ambassador Huntsman’s strong and unapologetic remarks on human rights are fundamentally undermined when Vice 

President Biden and Ambassador Locke in September 2011 not 

only offer softer remarks but go so far as to suggest that the Chinese and the American people, not governments, have different 

views on human rights. 

46

It is equally unhelpful that many American officials continue to 

raise human rights following a disclaimer that it is a topic about 

which the two sides will disagree. In fact, there is strong popular 

support inside China for universal human rights. Simply put, the 

U.S. needs to get and stay on message. 

Third, American officials do themselves and human rights defenders in China little good when they merely say publicly that 

human rights were discussed with the Chinese Government, period, full stop, with no details. 

A statement just last week exemplifies this problem, ‘‘The two 

sides also discussed the South China Sea and human rights.’’ But 

what got discussed? Individual cases? Broader trends? The costs 

the U.S. would impose for noncompliance or regression? And what 

was the outcome? An account of topics discussed and outcomes not 

only serve to underscore U.S. concerns but enables other actors to 

amplify the message and judge progress or obstacles. 

Assistant Secretary Posner helped buck this trend when he spoke 

publicly after the last round in Beijing of the bilateral human 

rights dialogue, describing the Chinese Government’s responses to 

queries about individual cases as ‘‘having given no comfort.’’

Finally, while it is appropriate that the U.S. focuses some of its 

human rights diplomacy on the Chinese Government, this should 

not be to the exclusion of efforts directed at a much larger Chinese 

audience and at independent voices. The U.S. should put social 

media to better use, particularly by making very senior officials 

available regularly to communicate with people in China and do a 

better job of listening to and acknowledging a far broader audience, 

rather than placing the views of a decidedly unrepresentative government at the center of its thinking. 

President Obama should meet with former Chinese, Tibetan, and 

Uyghur political prisoners, as many people on this committee have, 

and publicly praise the countless acts of bravery against arbitrary 

rule that take place every day. U.S. officials manage in nearly 

every speech to reassure the Chinese Government that the U.S. 

‘‘welcomes a strong and prosperous and successful China.’’ Could 

those officials not offer comparable words of appreciation for those 

who are doing and risking the most to actually affect the rule of 

law, greater transparency, and decent governance? Short of having 

the Chinese Government react constructively to their concerns, 

what could be more empowering to those who struggle for what the 

U.S. says it wants in China than hearing the U.S. raise their concerns about human rights? 

Even the most determined U.S. policy on these issues may not 

yield immediate change from or with the Chinese Government, but 

long term, the messages will be absorbed and not least will immediately encourage those who are fighting every day here and now 

to protect their rights. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Richardson follows:]

47


71038d-1.eps
48


71038d-2.eps
49


71038d-3.eps
50


71038d-4.eps
51


71038d-5.eps
52


71038d-6.eps
53

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. Good policy recommendations. 

I will ask the first questions. I wanted to talk about the one-child 

policy. And Ms. Ling can answer or anyone else. You had pointed 

and we saw the photo of what had happened in one family’s struggle just a few weeks ago. And in the report, they highlight one 

case, a similar case, in October of last year, where local family 

planning officials in southern China kidnapped a woman. 

Ms. LING. Yes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. She was 8 months pregnant——

Ms. LING. Yes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN [continuing]. With her second child. 

They detained her for 40 hours——

Ms. LING. Yes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN [continuing]. Forcibly injected her with 

a substance that caused the fetus to be aborted. And during that 

time, the husband was not permitted to see her. And I wanted to 

ask you, how widespread are such coercive practices, the example 

that you showed us, the many examples in the report? 

And related to that, the population statistics, as you point out, 

clearly indicate a growing gender imbalance in China with a lack 

of female children and young women of marriageable age due to 

this coercive——

Ms. LING. Yes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN [continuing]. One-child policy that they 

say does not exist and their preference for male children. Many 

have termed the selective abortion of female fetuses as gendercide. 

Ms. LING. Yes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Why do you think that this is being 

done? Why don’t they realize that the obvious problems that they 

will be facing in the future in the increasing shortage of women 

and girls? And why don’t they alter their policy to at the very least 

for their own survival be able to stop this practice? 

Ms. LING. Yes. Thank you, Chairwoman, for this excellent question. First of all, CECC did an excellent report, the one-child policy 

abuses, including that case you mentioned. That was caught on 

Aljazeera’s TV. And the woman, who was 8 months pregnant, with 

her belly full—the baby was almost full term—was already injected 

with poison and was dead. That video is on All Girls Allowed’s Web 

site as well. 

And I, working with my lawyers, went to her aid afterwards. Unfortunately, we did not know beforehand. We learned after we intervened, that the government compensated them for some financial compensation and housing assistance. What I want to say is, 

affirming all of the panelists’ suggestions, is that when we speak 

out, China does cave in, does cooperate, does make improvements 

in human rights. 

The second thing regarding China’s current enlarging gender imbalance also shows and also confirmed by China’s recent census report that China has a large gender imbalance. For every six girls 

that are scheduled to be born, the number six girl will be aborted, 

or killed right after birth, or abandoned. And so, therefore, the 

number six boy would have grown up with no wife to marry. 

54

So after 30 years of this policy, China today has over 37 million 

single men, called single branches. As a result of this large amount 

of men who, you know, could not find a wife to marry, they become 

a major source for sex trafficking. Today 60 percent of the world’s 

trafficking takes place in China. 

And, in addition to that, China had our expert testify in June at 

the Ending Gendercide Coalition meeting. They believe China is on 

the verge of HIV and other sexual disease epidemic breakout because of that very reason, because the commercial sex industry is 

unregulated. 

The third thing is China has a rising problem with sex trafficking against young girls. We discovered in our report in Putian, 

one city has over 3 million residences, up to between 100,000 to 

600,000 people, might be the result of child bride trafficking. 

What has happened is that families are taking matters into their 

own hand. They go to the black market. They create the black markets to demand girls to be bought at ages as young as 3 years old 

to eight or nine. So All Girls Allowed volunteers were able to reunite 4 of these families in China, but every year there are over 

600,000 cases where children are trafficked, mostly women. 

You asked the question, why does China not take action to end 

this? Yes, we heard the All Women’s Federation and the central 

government’s Family Planning Committee, making noise about how 

they have got to eradicate this kind of gendercide. They are going 

to take the family who is going to bore their baby girls into serious 

punishment. But why have they not done this effectively, aggressively? 

For example, there is another way to do it, is to welcome baby 

girls to come in. All Girls Allowed has a baby shower program. For 

as little as $240 a year, $20 a month, we can work. We can save 

a baby girl and her mother and last year we were able to save 550 

baby girls. And these are the pictures. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Is that part of your——

Ms. LING. Yes, it is part of the report. And so it can be done. So 

we encourage U.S. to continue to do some of that. Just welcome 

baby girls. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

Ms. LING. And change the culture. But there’s an alarming trend, 

which we suspect is taking place. The government does not want 

to get rid of all the single man because these single man are a resource for potential military expansion together with its nationalism and ambition. And they never gave up to use military force 

to take over Taiwan. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Ms. LING. There could become a global threat to peace, to the 

U.S. and the world. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. That is true. Thank you so much. 

Thank you for that testimony. 

Mr. Berman is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And 

thank all of you for your testimony and a number of your recommendations. 

In some of your testimony, you contrast the Chinese Government 

and the Chinese people. Prime Minister Wen, called for political reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:24 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\110311\71038 HFA PsN: SHIRL
55

form in China and acknowledged the Chinese people’s need for democracy and freedom is irresistible. What do you think he meant 

by ‘‘political reform’’? 

Our general view of the Chinese Government is a totally topdown democratic centralism. Is there some debate within Chinese 

Government leadership circles about this irresistible need for greater democracy and freedom? What is your sense from following what 

the Chinese, what the Communist Party and the Chinese Government are doing on this? What did he mean? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I can try to take a stab at this. I think there’s 

a big asterisk at the end of that phrase, which is that he’s talking 

about democracy or political participation with Chinese characteristics, which means that the Chinese Communist Party remains in 

power and unchallenged. 

And by ‘‘political reform,’’ I think he means ways of resolving serious kinds and incidents of protest or unrest or grievances but not 

by offering up, for example, competitive elections. It does not by 

any stretch mean democracy in the way that you or I would understand it. It is about resolving isolated problems without really allowing genuine political participation. This is my interpretation. 

Mr. BERMAN. Did you want to just—because I have one more 

question. So if one of you could just speak? And then I want to ask 

my other question. 

Mr. FU. Okay. I think the observation is, of course, you know, 

maybe as an individual. As a leader, Premier Wen has the intention or wanted to advance some kind of political reform. But, of 

course, words need to meet with action. I think it is more fundamental to protect the control and dictatorship of the one-party political system as well as their economic interest of the——

Mr. BERMAN. So basically what you are really saying is he is saying that this is a maneuver to enhance the ability of the party to 

continue control, show a little leg or something, as part of a strategy of maintaining control? 

Mr. FU. Yes, like, you know, the government leader has been 

talking about, loudly about, the building of harmonious society. 

Mr. BERMAN. Right. 

Mr. FU. At the same time, the capital city of China, every week 

they are cracking down a church. 

Mr. BERMAN. Let me just see if I—on the internet, battle between the government censors and the people who are trying to circumvent that censorship. What is the most effective U.S. policy to 

help promote internet freedom in China? Do any of you have any 

thoughts about that? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I will take a stab at it. 

Mr. BERMAN. Sure. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, first of all, I think ensuring that U.S. 

companies are themselves not part of the problem, but, rather, a 

part of the solution I think making sure that the U.S. as part of 

its diplomacy is really engaging through these means and using it 

as a way of demonstrating the normalcy of people communicating 

with government officials, there have been various legislative attempts to push for greater internet freedom in China and other 

places. I think the current version of GOFA, which Mr. Smith 

started, includes a lot of the concerns that we have, both about how 

56

to characterize countries, how to sanction ones that restrict internet access. But I think demonstrating or leading by example should 

be at the core of the thinking. 

Mr. BERMAN. All right. I think my time has expired. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Berman. 

Mr. Rohrabacher, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight Investigations, is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I want to follow up on what Mr. Berman was just getting to. And 

that is the role played by U.S. corporations. If you could just give 

me very short answers? Because I have got a couple of other questions I would like to ask. 

Do you believe that American corporations that are now doing 

business in China have had a positive impact on the level of 

human rights, respect for human rights, by the government or have 

they, instead, created an impression that Americans don’t really 

care, thus having a negative impact? Just could you give a very, 

very short answer for each of you? 

Ms. LING. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Negative impact or a positive impact? Have 

American corporations given the impression that we Americans believe in this and, thus, the people they work with, at least the local 

officials, know that we stand for something different or have they, 

by and large, given the impression we don’t care about it and, thus, 

encouraged them to encourage local officials in the wrong direction? 

Ms. LING. Our understanding is the American corporations in 

China have not set a good example. And they basically, you know, 

came out with a dictatorship, making profit. As a result of that, 

America’s middle class and poor people are losing our jobs to 

China. And the rich people——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, no, no, no. I’m asking whether or not——

Ms. LING. Right. Sorry. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. American corporations have had 

a good impact on——

Ms. LING. Human rights. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. On, actually, enforcement of 

human rights or have they had a negative impact? 

Ms. LING. Negative impact. Sorry. 

Mr. FU. Much more negative than positive. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. More negative than positive? 

Mr. KAMM. In the area of civil and political rights, marginal at 

best. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Marginal at best? 

Mr. KAMM. I would say more on the negative side. 

Mr. TSERING. I would say more on the negative side. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I’m with John on this, more on the negative 

side with some marginal improvement, very marginal. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. What especially is true, Madam Chairman, with those corporations that sell electronic equipment or 

other types of equipment that permits the Chinese dictatorship to 

more efficiently oppress its own people and track down its opponents and those are things that we should be embarrassed as 

Americans that any of our citizens would stoop to that level. 

57

I would like to ask a question about the forced abortions. Did you 

say there were 400 million babies that have been forcibly aborted? 

Ms. LING. Yes. This is the number that was given by Chinese 

Government. They were boasting under the one-child policy, they 

were able——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So one needs to do something that will demonstrate the magnitude of what 400 million fetuses, 400 million 

human beings are all about. That is more than the population of 

our country. So it is probably the population of North America. And 

gone, dead, you know, snuffed out. People need to know the magnitude of this crime——

Ms. LING. Absolutely correct. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. Monstrous crime against humanity, not just against the women of China but all humanity. 

Now, how have women rights organizations in the United States 

responded to this massive crime against women? Have they played 

a positive role or have they, like our corporations, ignored this 

issue? 

Ms. LING. From our knowledge, they have done very little. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So are women’s rights organizations, the 

great bastion of liberal change in America, like our corporate leaders, not standing up for, what should be, the principles which they 

stand for? Do you agree with that? 

Mr. FU. Yes. I agree. 

Mr. KAMM. I would agree with that. 

Mr. TSERING. I would think so, yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes and no. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes or no? I can’t hear you. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. There are some organizations that have done 

some work on this issue, but it has certainly not—you know, I 

think if we are talking about 400 million people——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Ms. RICHARDSON [continuing]. It is not at least that order of 

magnitude. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You know, shame on us if we don’t live up 

to our own ideals. 

Finally, one last question for Mr. Tsering. Does your organization 

believe that—let me make sure I get the wording down for this 

question. In 1987, President Reagan signed into law a congressional resolution condemning China’s occupation of Tibet as a country. In 1991, another resolution was signed into law that stated 

that Tibet was an occupied country. Does your organization believe 

that what is going on in Tibet today is a violation of human rights 

of Chinese people who live in Tibet, meaning you’re Chinese, or is 

this a violation of your human rights as the people of Tibet, which 

is an occupied country? 

Mr. TSERING. I think if you look at history, it is categorically 

clear that Tibet is an occupied country. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So your organization believes that Tibet is 

another country that the rights of the people are being violated by 

foreign power? 

Mr. TSERING. Historically if you look at it, it is so. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Thank you very much. 

58

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Dana Rohrabacher. 

Mr. Higgins of New York is recognized. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Ling, I was noticing in your biography that you were a student leader in the Tiananmen Square uprising some 22 years ago. 

And I look at that as the precursor of what we have witnessed over 

the past year in the Arab world with a lot of uprisings there. It is 

often said that the two most powerful forces in the world today are 

youth and technology and that these uprisings are not about material things. They are about people that wanted to be treated as citizens and not subjects. 

I am curious to know from you. Twenty-two years ago we didn’t 

have Twitter. We really didn’t have Facebook. We didn’t have 

YouTube. We clearly had the internet but in its infancy. What was 

the means of communication to effectively organize—because, you 

know, today’s technology is used both for aspirational purposes but 

also for organizational purposes as well, what was the means of 

communication 22 years ago that brought so many young people 

into Tiananmen Square, particularly in the midst of a government 

that is very good at repression? 

Ms. LING. I was one of the key leaders of 1989’s movement. And 

I just recently finished my memoir 22 years later, A Heart for 

Freedom, to put all of these pieces together. What brought us together, what led to the crackdown, and what is the meaning and 

why? 

What brought us together is the desire to be free, the desire to 

create a better, peaceful China. What led to the crackdown was the 

government’s fear that they would lose control and the desire that 

they can do whatever to massacre their own people and they would 

be able to get away with that. And they were right for the most 

part. The rest of the world, you know, all screamed for a few years, 

went back to them, now do business, resumed diplomatic relationship, that is wrong. 

That was no mean to China. Yes, youth and technology are a key 

part, but ultimately is the heart for freedom, the desire for freedom 

placed by God into us. And that is what I learned. 

One recent example is that Canada’s strong condemnation of persecution of Falun Gong did not halt their corporation. In fact, it 

was followed by a new trade agreement expanding Canada’s grain 

export to China. 

So be strong. Be courageous. That is all I can say. And we are 

going to visit Europe next week. I will definitely present all the report we are doing today. We are creating. We are not stopping creating an international coalition effort to strengthen the human 

rights voices. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you for your courageous efforts. 

Ms. LING. Thank you. 

In China, through the massacre, God brought the best out of an 

evil situation. He is freeing China by bringing more and more people to come to know Him through Jesus. 

Mr. HIGGINS. You know, I understand the issue of emotion and 

the heart, but the tools of organization, the tools of collaboration 

are found in social media. 

59

Ms. LING. Yes. 

Mr. HIGGINS. And we see other parts of the world where people 

who feel oppressed are rising up using those tools, again both for 

aspirational purposes and organizational purposes. My question is, 

you know, you can ban all of these media outlets, but what the 

internet has allowed us to do today——

Ms. LING. Right. 

Mr. HIGGINS [continuing]. Is take something that is occurring in 

a very remote part of the world and put it on a global platform. 

Ms. LING. Absolutely. 

Mr. HIGGINS. And that gives you the ability again to organize to 

inspire. 

Ms. LING. Yes, yes. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Why haven’t the oppressed Chinese people been 

able to successfully utilize the social media to do a modern-day 

demonstration, much like you did 22 years ago in Tiananmen 

Square? 

Ms. LING. They are doing that. The cases from Aljazeera that 

were able to feature the woman with the forced abortion was exposed on China’s Twitter, through micro blogging in China. So 

those kinds of works are taking place. They are not clear yet, but 

it is still brooding. It is taking place. 

And I do want to advocate for Voice of America and Radio Free 

Asia. Those media in 1989 were instrumental to help bring the 

voice of freedom back to China. I give you an example. 

Four days after the massacre, when the whole world did not really know what happened at Beijing, I was on my way to escape. And 

when I saw the leaders were denying about the massacre, I made 

a radio tape and that radio tape was smuggled out of China before 

me and 2 days later when I was hiding inside China, I heard my 

own voice coming back through the Voice of America. 

I do believe we should continue leveraging the traditional media 

and the new media and to encourage the Chinese people to rise up, 

to collaborate. We also should remember that the Chinese Government is becoming much more sophisticated as well. And so our 

challenge is bigger. And that is why I believe fundamental spiritual 

beliefs and strength from the faith, knowing the God who will set 

China free will inspire people to put their lives at risk again to continue to search for freedom. And that day will come. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you. I am out of time, and I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. Turner of New York is recognized. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

We are fortunate to have two Tiananmen survivors here with us 

today. I would like to ask you how you feel about the lifting by the 

EU of the Tiananmen sanctions against China and what effect the 

human rights situation in that country will be. Also, what is the 

effect on morale, people who are striving for human rights with 

this apparently lifting of the sanctions? 

Mr. FU. Certainly, the lifting of the sanctions that has been 

upheld starting right after the Tiananmen massacre sent a very 

wrong signal, sent one signal to the Chinese dictators that after 

years of economic diplomacy, they can win, at least approval, from 

important international body. It sent the wrong signal to the ChiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:24 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\110311\71038 HFA PsN: SHIRL
60

nese people. Of course, that only maybe economic matters is the 

most important. 

I think the spirit, however, the spirit of the Chinese people for 

freedom is continuing to grow. And you have like the—every Sunday in the past 30 Sundays, one church, house church, in Beijing 

with 1,000 members, they lost their property to worship. And they 

have to go outdoors. 

So every Sunday there are deliveries, sometimes as many as 500. 

They risk their own lives because the guards, the security forces 

were right out the doors. So they climb the windows in the darkness, sometimes from Saturday, Friday night, hiding in the parks, 

hotel room, in order to go to the worship place to have altar worship. And so far in the past 30 weeks, already over 500 of the members were detained. All their church leaders, pastors, elders had 

been under house arrest without any freedom of movement. Yet, 

they are still doing it. 

And even the blind activist, you know, Chen Guangcheng, the 

government has mobilized maybe 200 or maybe even more hooligans or government hired guards tried to pick up the visitors. Yet, 

you know, every day now the netizens, they just keep going, keep 

going through picking up, but they are not discouraged. We think 

freedom will prevail. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Fu. Did you ever——

Ms. LING. Would you like my comments as well? Thank you. 

Mr. TURNER. I most certainly would. 

Ms. LING. Yes. Thank you. 

I do believe EU lifting the human rights ban is a huge mistake. 

And appeasement with evil does not work. It never worked in the 

past. It would not work with China. Rather, I wanted to point out 

when international communities stand up against China on basic 

human rights, instead of losing ground, they are gaining. 

Mr. TURNER. Just on a different note, not that many years ago, 

as a businessman, I thought prosperity would bring in democracy 

there, contact with the West, contact with Hong Kong. And, instead, what we have seen is a morphing economically from communism to fascism and keeping the worst elements of both philosophies. So keep up the fight. 

Ms. LING. Thank you very much. I am an entrepreneur myself. 

I completely agree with you. President Hu Yaobang, his death led 

to the movement in 1989. He was advocating for three reforms: Economical, political, and spiritual. I am glad to report back economically after the reform Deng Xiaoping wanted China to have this 

total rich and poor gap. 

Five thousand families own 70 percent of China’s wealth. And 

the other middle class people divide the other 20 percent. But 465 

million people live in extreme poverty. And they’re forgotten because the world only sees the glimpse and glare of the rich. 

And politically there are continued human rights abuses, very little, no political reform. But China has a vibrant faith movement on 

Earth today. That is the hope. 

Back 22 years ago, I did not understand what he meant by three 

reforms. Now I think that is a good recipe for a free China. So don’t 

give up. 

Mr. TURNER. Yes. 

61

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. TURNER. Keep educating us. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Connolly of Virginia is recognized. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And welcome to 

our panelists. 

Let me ask Mr. Fu and maybe Ms. Ling. What lessons do you 

think the Chinese Government has learned or taken away from its 

own experience with the Tiananmen Square tragedy? 

Ms. LING. The Chinese Government—so in doing my memoir, to 

research that, I wanted to understand what made Deng Xiaoping 

want to kill. He was terrified because he realized that Tiananmen 

was not just a student movement. It was an international force for 

democracy. If he did not stop that trend, China would be set free. 

In his mind this was making chaos. And so he had to use tanks. 

One raised questions about opposition, saying, ‘‘How would the 

international community react to it?’’ And he said, ‘‘Well, don’t 

worry about it. They will yell and scream for a few years. And then 

they will come back because we are such a big piece of meat. And 

they all want a piece of action off us.’’

And, unfortunately, his prediction was correct. So that is what 

happened in the past 22 years, both in the U.S.-China relationship 

and also the European-China relationships. That needs to be 

stopped. The Chinese Government has been rewarded for their brutality by us being silent, by us trading off human rights, human 

dignity, humanity with trade, with national security, all the other 

interests. And that did not make America stronger. We are a much 

weaker United States as a result of that. 

As Tocqueville said in 1831, America is great because it is good. 

Once it ceases its goodness, it will cease to be great. That is why 

I am so thankful today as the chairwoman is hosting this first ever 

CECC report hearing. It is so important to know that appeasement 

does not do America any good where the crossroads——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Ling, we are dealing with foreign policy here 

in the House Foreign Affairs Committee. And you used the word 

‘‘appeasement.’’ So what is the alternative? Would you have favored 

the severing of diplomatic relations and trade relations and economic relations between the United States and the People’s Republic of China over Tiananmen Square? 

Ms. LING. No, I would not favor totally abolishing our relationship, but I would favor when we go in, we come back to our staff 

according to a godly manner that is act justly, love, mercy, and 

walk humbly with our Lord, our God. The Chinese Government 

itself is finding their own faith. And the very fact they are having 

a Confucius statue right in front of Mao’s memorial is their own 

declaration that the communism ideology is dead. 

The Tiananmen massacre not only killed the faith of the Chinese 

people toward the ideology. It also killed their very own belief. So 

they are looking. They will look after people who really have true 

faith, have true value. Yet, what I would encourage us, is engage 

them on the dialogue, on the trade relationship, particularly on the 

trade relationships, to have a code of conduct in accordance with 

basic respect for human rights. Instead of just focusing on trade 

62

and profitability, that worsen the basic labor conditions, and 

human rights abuses, I would like to see U.S. pass a trade code of 

conduct law to require all companies, for example, to refuse——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Ms. LING [continuing]. And not tolerate fascism imposing the 

one-child policy and forced abortion. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you very much. 

Ms. LING. You’re welcome. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Ms. Richardson, my time is running out here. 

The Nobel Peace Prize last year was awarded to the imprisoned 

Chinese literary critic and dissident Liu Xiaobo. To what extent do 

you think that the award of that prize had an impact on the Chinese Government with respect to human rights observance, if any? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Oh, it made them nuts. They hated it. And the 

reaction it prompted I think really was extraordinary. And it demonstrated their true colors in the sense that what other government 

would dispatch a deputy foreign minister to Norway to try to intimidate the Norwegian Government and a nongovernmental organization into not doing this? You know, who would prevent so 

many people from going? Who would prevent the lawyer’s wife from 

going? Who would have locked this guy up? You know, I think it 

really sort of laid bare the way the government——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Of course, we had people in this country making 

fun of the fact that the President of the United States was the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, but that is a different issue we 

will talk about some other time. 

Go ahead. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. No. Just one or two other very quick points. I 

think part of what is being said here is that part of what our community often asks for is simply that human rights issues get the 

same kind and amount of attention as trade issues or security 

issues and that the U.S. be consistent in its discussion of human 

rights issues with China, as it is elsewhere. 

To me, it is astonishing that, for example, we are heading into 

a leadership transition in China. There is no discussion about 

whether there should be competitive elections. That is just off the 

table. 

You know, the new Tibetan prime minister in exile, it is true 

that the man may have only gotten 40,000 votes, but that is 40,000 

more votes than Hu Jintao ever got. And, you know, the U.S. does 

not step forward to recognize these attempts at democratic rule. 

You know, this is not a guy who has received an appropriate 

level of high-level attention. This is the kind of consistency in attention that we are asking for. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam 

Chairman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. Manzullo, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and 

the Pacific, is recognized. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you, Madam Chair, for calling this important hearing. 

The Congressional-Executive Commission on China, on which I 

have had the honor of serving as a commissioner for several years, 

is charged with the singular mission to improve and monitor 

63

human rights and development of rule of law in China. The Commission’s annual report is an important tool for human rights advocates around the world. It shows that there are over 5,600 people 

in prison in China for violating basic concepts of human rights. 

China’s progress on the rule of law development is equally lacking. 

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and as 

founder of the Manufacturing Caucus, time after time after time, 

manufacturers, many of which are in my district, come to my office 

showing the latest rip-off in intellectual property, sham court 

trials, et cetera. 

We are always asking the administration to do more to urge 

China to improve its human rights. I will be holding a hearing this 

month on the administration’s efforts to give China $4 million of 

taxpayers’ funding to help promote the use of clean energy technology in China. Some say American aid is as high as $300 million 

to China. Our subcommittee will be exploring that. This is the 

same time that our U.S. Trade Representative is fighting the case 

at the WTO against illegal Chinese Government subsidies in the 

clean energy sector. 

I am also very much appalled over the lack of basic freedom of 

worship in China. The Chinese Government itself is setting up a 

sham Catholic Church, not allowing the real Catholic Church the 

right to be governed by the Holy See; that is, the Pope, and also 

the uprooting of Protestant churches, dismantling of the home 

churches, et cetera. 

Pastor Fu, you mentioned in your testimony under conclusions 

and recommendations that the U.S. Commission on International 

Religious Freedom, which is a different commission than the Congressional-Executive Commission, has many excellent policy recommendations. I was looking at the recommendations of the Commission on International Freedom. One is the right of Catholics to 

recognize the authority of the Holy See in matters related to the 

practice of their faith, including the making of bishop appointments, the right of Protestants to worship free from state controls 

over doctrine, and to worship in unregistered house churches free 

from harassment, detention, and other abuses. I don’t even have 

time to mention what is going on with the Buddhists, Muslims, and 

other people in other faith communities. 

Pastor Fu, how do you see the United States Government trying 

to implement at least these two recommendations of the U.S. Commission on International Freedom? 

Mr. FU. I think the U.S. Government, especially the administration and Congress, should have, one, the China expert in the use 

of the Commission, Dr. Scott Flipse, described it as a Facebook policy, like transparent, consistent, coherent policy, on this issue, not 

this administration have under-the-table thing. That administration at one time, they have some talk about a little bit and the 

other administration maybe just using the human rights dialogue 

or doing something. 

I think this should be consistent policy and transparent to stand 

very clearly and state very clearly this is what the United States 

of America stands for. And every congressman or senator, every administration official or, you know, even the state officials when 

64

they visit China, they should talk a lot and clearly make this as 

a priority. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Well, Pastor Fu, I chaired the U.S.-China Interparliamentary Exchange for several years. We brought up these 

topics at the talks, and nothing would come of it. How much more 

forceful can this country be? 

Mr. FU. I do have specific recommendations, such as I think the 

U.S. Embassy and consulates in different cities should invite those, 

the internet activist leaders or democracy activists, or even active 

civil society builders or historic leaders, to have tea or, you know, 

the Chinese security forces always force them to have tea. But I 

think the U.S. Embassy officials and designated personnel should 

invite them to go in the Embassy parameter and regularly and 

publicly announce and even business leaders to let them mingle together to talk to each other. I think that will send a very strong 

signal. 

And another thing, when there is a rest for dissidence, like Mr. 

Teng Biao, his wife is here, Ms. Fung Xiao. Like that, if there is 

a case like that, I think the Embassy officials should make a formal request to attend a court hearing. And you prevent it from 

going, but I think the fact when the Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu 

Xiaobo’s trial was there, I think the European Union, the human 

rights officer, the U.S. Government officials were also—just in front 

of the Embassy, in front of the courtroom I think itself would send 

a strong signal of solidarity. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you, Pastor Fu. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Manzullo, for 

those questions. 

I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Rivera, my Florida colleague, who, similar to my district, represents so many constituents 

who understand what living in a Communist regime is like. Mr. Rivera? 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thank you for 

having this important hearing. 

I know we like to refer often to the Chinese leadership as Chinese officials or Chinese leaders. I am going to refer to them what 

I think is more appropriate and justified in light of what happened 

in Tiananmen Square, in light of what has happened historically 

in Tibet, in light of what has happened with the one-child policy 

as really the butchers of Beijing. 

And I would refer to a couple of incidents. For example, when 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her inaugural trip to Asia, 

when she met with some of the butchers of Beijing and she stated, 

‘‘It might be better to agree to disagree on human rights’’ as a perfect example of what you spoke of in terms of appeasement to tyrants and why that type of appeasement doesn’t work. 

It seems that perhaps with this administration, it has been more 

important to worry about our debt obligations to the butchers of 

Beijing than speak out against continued widespread human rights 

abuses. 

I know at a private dinner in January, I doubt very much whether President Obama when he met with the chief butcher of Beijing, 

Hu Jintao, whether he raised any of these important issues or Vice 

President Biden in his August trip to China, where he met with 

65

several of the butchers of Beijing focused more on the U.S. debt 

problem than he did on human rights issues. 

I think what we need to do is make sure and put the focus where 

it should be, on many issues that you have raised. And, in particular, I would like to ask a question regarding some of the activities of the butchers of Beijing with respect to Tibet and to Mr. 

Tsering specifically. There has been unrest, which has increased 

since 2008 in Tibetan ethnic areas under Beijing’s administration, 

which have taken a new tragic turn in the past year with the practice of self-immolation. 

Last week a monk reportedly became the tenth person this year 

to set himself on fire in protest of the Chinese occupation. Nine 

other Tibetans in their late teens and 20s, including 5 monks, 3 

former monks and a nun, have self-immolated since March, with 5 

or more of them dying from their injuries. 

The Miami Herald reported on November 1st that ‘‘The response 

so far by the Chinese Communist Party, the butchers of Beijing, 

has been to knuckle down even more.’’ Towns in the area are reportedly full of police. Internet access is shut off in many areas. 

Those suspected of sympathizing closely with activist monks are 

said to have disappeared. These protests seem directly connected to 

the suppression taking place at nearby Kirti Monastery, where 300 

monks were taken away earlier this year for reeducation and disappeared. Is this the case? And what do you know about this? 

Mr. TSERING. Congressman, that certainly is the case. And I 

have to go back. We learned that today yet another Tibetan had 

committed self-immolations. And she died as a result. 

I think there is no doubt that all of these are taking place because of the repressive policies of the Chinese Government in all 

Tibetan areas. And it is particularly so that in recent years, the 

Chinese policies have been restricting or even further limiting the 

small freedom that Tibetan people had to express themselves, their 

identity, their religion, their culture. 

And initially in the past, maybe before 10 years ago, some areas, 

like the areas where Kirti Monastery or in other areas, had relatively more flexible policy than the Tibetan Autonomous Region, 

which the Chinese call Tibet. But now the Chinese Government 

has sort of blanketly imposed restrictions all over Tibetan areas, 

even in nonpolitical matters, so much so that they affect the very 

life of the Tibetan people. And when people are forced to choose 

means like self-immolation, it shows that it is a desperate situation. 

Mr. RIVERA. Well, to continue that, with respect to relocation, 

there are indications that the protests broke out as a result of Chinese policy decisions designed to displace ethnic Tibetans in the 

area with Han Chinese settlers. Is this also an issue? 

Mr. TSERING. I cannot say that we have evidence to say this is 

the policy, but what is happening in Tibetan areas today is that 

more and more non-Tibetans, particularly the Han Chinese, are 

coming in, which in a way marginalizes the Tibetan society. And 

since the very identity of the Tibetan people is linked with our culture, our religion, when these freedoms are being curtailed on the 

one hand, and on the other hand, there are other players, so to say, 

in the society in which they live, it creates conflict with the situaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:24 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\110311\71038 HFA PsN: SHIRL
66

tion. And when the government doesn’t pay attention to it, it results in such consequences. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so very much for excellent 

panelists. Thank you for your powerful statements, for your policy 

recommendations. And I thank the audience also for staying with 

us and members of the press as well and members of our committee. With that, the committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(67)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

68

f


71038n.eps
69


71038m-1.eps
70

f


71038m-2.eps
71


71038h-1.eps
72

f


71038h-2.eps
73

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS


71038g-1.eps
74

f


71038g-2.eps
75

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MR. BHUCHUNG K. TSERING, VICE

PRESIDENT FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMS, INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR TIBET


71038i-1.eps
76


71038i-2.eps
77


71038i-3.eps
78


71038i-4.eps
79


71038i-5.eps
80


71038i-6.eps
81


71038i-7.eps
82


71038i-8.eps
83


71038i-9.eps
84


71038j-1.eps
85


71038j-2.eps
86


71038j-3.eps
87


71038j-4.eps
88


71038j-5.eps
89


71038j-6.eps
90

f


71038j-7.eps
91

[NOTE: Material submitted for the record by Ms. Chai Ling, founder, All Girls Allowed, is not reprinted here but is available in committee records.

Æ