U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

65–151CC WASHINGTON : 2000

HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA AND TIBET

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2000

Serial No. 106–114

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

PETER T. KING, New York

MATT SALMON, Arizona

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

GROVER JOSEPH REES, Subcommittee Staff Director

DOUGLAS C. ANDERSON, Counsel

PETER HICKEY, Democratic Staff Director

NICOLLE A. SESTRIC, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

WITNESSES

The Honorable Arlen Spector, a United States Senator from the State of

Pennsylvania ........................................................................................................ 1

Mr. Xiao Qiang, Executive Director, Human Rights in China ............................ 8

Mr. Song Yong Yi, Librarian and Researcher, Dickinson College, former detainee in China ..................................................................................................... 10

Mr. Bhuchung Tsering, Director, International Campaign for Tibet .................. 12

Mr. John J. Sweeney, President, The American Federation of Labor-Congress

of Industrial Organizations, AFL–CIO ............................................................... 14

Mr. Harry Wu, President, Laogai Research Institute, former detainee in

China ..................................................................................................................... 18

Ms. Reyila Abudureyim, Daughter of Rebiya Kadeer, Uighur Muslim detainee

in China ................................................................................................................ 22

Ms. Tracey Zhao, Falun Gong Practitioner, former detainee in China ............... 23

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Hon. Christopher H. Smith, a U.S. Representative in Congress from the

State of New Jersey, Chairman, Subcommittee in International Operations

and Human Rights ............................................................................................... 36

Mr. Xiao Qiang ......................................................................................................... 40

Mr. Song Yong Yi ..................................................................................................... 43

Mr. Bhuchung Tsering ............................................................................................ 45

Mr. John J. Sweeney ............................................................................................... 49

Mr. Harry Wu .......................................................................................................... 52

Ms. Reyila Abudureyim ........................................................................................... 57

Ms. Tracey Zhao ....................................................................................................... 67

(1)

HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA AND TIBET

THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2000,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND

HUMAN RIGHTS, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in room

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith

(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Smith and Goodling.

Also present: Representative Wolf and Senator Spector.

Mr. SMITH. [presiding] The Subcommittee will come to order. I

would like to welcome to the Subcommittee Senator Arlen Spector,

who will have to depart momentarily for some votes that will be

taking place on the Senate Floor, but we’re very pleased to have

him here and I yield to the distinguished senator from Pennsylvania.

Senator Spector.

STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTOR, A UNITED STATES

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Senator SPECTOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I begin

by commending you for holding these very important hearings and

I appreciate an opportunity to address the Committee very briefly.

We’re scheduled to vote on the Senate side at 2:15. I’ve appeared

here today to talk about Mr. Yongyi Song who is a librarian from

Dickinson College, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, who was detained by

the People’s Republic of China when he was traveling there doing

educational research work.

Song was born in Taiwan. He has been a resident of Pennsylvania for some 10 years and was on the verge of getting his citizenship, which was scheduled for September 1999. I’m delighted to say

that, since returning, he has been sworn in as a citizen. He was

taken into custody because he was gathering documents about the

Cultural Revolution. He is a scholar and he is a librarian, he has

published extensively on the subject. In the name of academic freedom and basic human decency, there was absolutely no reason to

take Mr. Song into custody.

Then, on Christmas Eve, criminal charges were filed against him

that were very vague and spurious in nature. They did release his

wife, Helen, who returned to the United States. My office had

interceded to try to help. I compliment the State Department,

which was very active in trying to work through the issue. SecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:05 Jul 07, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 65151.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
2

retary of State Albright was personally involved and a great deal

was done.

I requested a meeting with the PRC Ambassador to the United

States. On the morning that that meeting was held, the Friday

morning, I had a little preliminary word that Song had been released. It was quite a U.S. homecoming at the Philadelphia International Airport the following Saturday when he was released.

I think that this hearing and the activities of the Congress are

very important in elevating the issue of human rights, and to say

the People’s Republic of China is difficult to deal with is the understatement of the decade.

When I talked with the PRC Ambassador to the United States,

I got a little lecture on not interfering in domestic matters in

China. I responded with a little lecture about human rights, and

commented about the importance that the People’s Republic of

China was and how much the United States wanted good relations

with the PRC, but had problems with what was happening in Taiwan and missile sales to Pakistan and Tiananmen Square and

human rights, but we respected the power and growth of the Nation of 1,200,000,000 people. The Ambassador quickly corrected me:

1,250,000,000. I had left out 50 million people in my statement of

their population.

But I think that the PRC did notice the resolutions filed, the congressional resolution with sponsors, and our statements that if

China wanted to be admitted to the community of nations on permanent status with the most favored status, World Trade Organization, that they would have to face up to some basic concepts of

due process of law.

For the record, I made no deals. I only have one vote, but it is

still a free and uninhibited vote as to what I will do when those

issues come up.

But I do commend what you’re doing here, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Wolf has joined the panel and others who have worked

very hard on this issue. So I’m delighted to see Mr. Song at my side

and I know his wife is even more delighted to see Mr. Song at her

side. Thank you for what you’re doing and thank you for yielding

me a few minutes.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Senator, for your comments.

We are all so delighted to see Mr. Song here. It just underscores

the reason for this hearing, which as I will go into in much detail,

is to chronicle the abuses, their pervasiveness, and the fact that we

do have levers that, if used prudently, could lead to thousands of

Mr. Songs getting released. So we do thank you for taking the time

to come over here. We do appreciate it very much.

Senator SPECTOR. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH. I’m very pleased to be convening this hearing on

human rights in China and Tibet, as depicted in the State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, which was released last Friday. This Subcommittee will hold a worldwide hearing on the Country Reports next Wednesday, March 8, but the

gross and systematic human rights violations committed by Beijing

regime during the last year are so egregious that they require a

separate hearing for an in-depth analysis of their nature, scope,

and possible solutions.

3

I am happy to say that the Country Report on human rights in

China is honest, extensive, and hard-hitting. Sadly, this is because

there is so much to hit. This year’s report is about 14,000 words

longer than last year’s. It confirms that, during 1999, the already

despicable behavior of the Chinese communist regime has gotten

worse in virtually every category of human rights concern. In the

words of the State Department, ‘‘The Chinese Government’s poor

human rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the year. It

continued to commit widespread and well-documented human

rights abuses.’’

The quotations that follow are the administration’s own words,

as taken from the new Country Reports. ‘‘The government intensified efforts to suppress dissent’’ such that ‘‘almost all dissident activity effectively was halted.’’ The crackdown against political opposition, ‘‘broadened and intensified during the year.’’

Regarding the freedom of religion and conscience, ‘‘The government continued to restrict freedom of religion and intensified controls on some unregistered churches.’’ The Report notes that, ‘‘Religious services were broken up and church leaders or adherents

were harassed and, at times, fined, detained, beaten, and tortured.’’

‘‘Police closed many underground mosques, temples, seminaries,

Catholic churches, and Protestant house churches. Some were destroyed.’’

During the past year, ‘‘Tibetan Buddhists and Muslim Uighurs

came under increasing pressure’’ and ‘‘Tibetan Buddhism came

under increasing attack.’’ As part of a massive crackdown, ‘‘Tens of

thousands of Falun Gong members were reported detained in outdoor stadiums. An unknown number of members who refused to recant their beliefs remain detained. Others are serving prison or reeducation-through-labor sentences.’’ In addition, ‘‘There were credible reports of beatings and deaths of Falun Gong practitioners in

detention who refused to recant their beliefs.’’

There was also a chilling report that the 10-year-old Panchen

Lama, who has been in detention for almost 4 years now, had died

in government custody. The Chinese government denies this report,

but because they refuse to allow anyone to see the child, there is

no way to know whether or not they are lying.

Remember, the Country Report covers only 1999. During the last

2 months, several Falun Gong leaders have been sentenced to long

prison sentences. Just 3 weeks ago, approximately 150 agents converged to arrest an 80-year-old Catholic Archbishop, John Yang

Shudao, of Fujian Province.

The report also notes the Chinese regime’s, ‘‘Violence against

women, including coercive family planning practices, which sometimes include forced abortion and forced sterilization.’’ During the

past year, ‘‘there was a significant increase in the number of couples undergoing sterilization procedures after giving birth to two

children in at least one inland province,’’. In another province,

newly promulgated rules state flatly that ‘‘unplanned pregnancies

must be aborted immediately,’’. A quote from the Report.

The Report details increased repression of minorities. It states

that, and I quote again, ‘‘Authorities have cracked down harshly on

suspected Uighur nationalists and independent Muslim religious

leaders.’’ It notes numerous summary executions and thousands of

4

arbitrary detentions of Uighurs in Xinjiang. In addition, ‘‘The rate

at which Tibetan political prisoners are dying in detention or soon

after their release, demonstrably as a result of treatment while in

detention, is increasing.’’ So they’re dying upon their release and

they’re dying while in detention.

The Report makes clear that Beijing, ‘‘continued to restrict tightly worker’s rights.’’ ‘‘Independent trade unions are illegal’’ and ‘‘The

government continued its effort to stamp out illegal union activity,

including through detention or arrest of labor activists.’’ Chinese

authorities ‘‘have been uncooperative,’’ in the words of the Country

Reports, in fulfilling their obligations under the U.S.-China prison

labor Memorandum of Understanding.

The United States renewed numerous inspection requests, dating

all the way back to 1992, to inspect facilities suspected of producing slave-made goods. However, according to the State Department, ‘‘The Ministry of Justice did not respond to any of these requests during the year.’’ The reason for their nonresponse is no

mystery. The report makes clear that ‘‘forced labor is a serious

problem, particularly in penal institutions.’’

Finally, the Report states that ‘‘trafficking in persons,’’ and this

is the word of the State Department, ‘‘and the abduction of women

for trafficking are serious problems.’’ It notes evidence of complicity

in trafficking by ‘‘local officials, as well as the police and the military.’’ The Chinese government rarely imposes effective punishment on the traffickers. Instead, it punishes the victims by imposing ‘‘fines for illegal immigration’’ and sometimes ‘‘a term in a reeducation-through-labor camp’’ against trafficked persons who are

repatriated to China.

Let me say, parenthetically, earlier today we had a press conference with a number of individuals, including James B. Hoffa,

the president of the Teamsters Union. One of the points that he

made and one of the followup actions that we took was to drive

down in a Teamsters truck to Charlene Barchevsky’s office to deliver the Country Reports on human rights practices. Because,

frankly, I don’t think her office has read it. If they did, they would

come to some very, very different conclusions regarding our policies

vis-a-vis the People’s Republic of China.

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses today,

not only about some of the details of these atrocities, but also about

what the United States can do to put an end to them.

Two suggestions come readily to mind. First, the administration

has announced that it will lead the effort for a tough resolution on

China at this year’s session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission

in Geneva. This effort is led by Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy Harold Koh, who is an effective and committed public

servant. But the administration must ensure that the Geneva effort

is not ghettoized in the DRL bureau.

If the administration really cares about winning on this, then it

must ensure that every desk officer in the State Department, every

Ambassador and every political officer in every one of our embassies, makes clear to their interlocutors in foreign governments that

the resolution is a top priority in the United States policy and that

we urgently need their government’s vote in the Human Rights

Commission.

5

Even more important, Beijing’s regression on human rights puts

a spotlight on the administration’s horrendous timing in proposing

to give permanent Most Favored Nation status to the PRC. Remember the question this year is not whether or not we will grant

another 1-year extension of MFN. Rather, the administration has

asked Congress to sign away, once and for all time, our right to

ever object to MFN for the Beijing regime.

A couple of years ago, the official name of MFN was changed to

‘‘normal trade relations,’’ to spare Members of Congress from having to vote in broad daylight for a policy that still legally entitles

Beijing to ‘‘most favored’’ status under our customs and our trade

laws. But even after this emergency cosmetic surgery, MFN or

NTR is still such an embarrassment that many of its fondest supporters would prefer never to have to vote on it again.

But when it comes to the rights of political and religious dissenters, of workers, of torture victims, of women and their unborn

children, the annual vote on MFN is critically important leverage.

At an appearance before this Subcommittee shortly after his expulsion from China, former prisoner of conscience Wei Jingsheng testified that before an important vote in the U.S. Congress, such as

the annual MFN vote, the beatings and the torture of political prisoners tended to be less frequent and less severe. After the vote,

once Beijing had gotten what it wanted, the beatings and the torture got worse again.

Similarly, a Uighur Muslim woman from Xinjiang Province testified that our annual MFN review even helps the Chinese provincial

authorities in that distant province decide whether to kill people or

to let them live. In response to demonstrations sparked by China’s

arrest of Muslim leaders during Ramadan, she stated that Beijing

waited until after the MFN vote before it staged public executions

of seven Uighurs and sentenced 23 others to prison terms. Giving

it up with permanent MFN means losing all leverage at trying to

mitigate this horrific behavior.

Mr. SMITH. I would like to yield to my good friend from Pennsylvania, a Senior Member of the International Relations Committee

and chairman of his own Full Committee for any comments he

might have.

Mr. GOODLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I specifically want to

welcome Mr. Song. We had a joyous occasion Sunday a week ago.

Not only happy to see him back on Dickinson College campus

where he’s a librarian, but also to see him sworn in as a United

States citizen. He has learned firsthand how important individual

freedoms and rights are and how quickly they can be taken away.

So it was just a great experience to be there and witness him being

sworn in as a citizen of the United States.

The tragedy, of course, was that we couldn’t seem to get the Administration to do anything. In fact, the Secretary of State pretty

much indicated that they don’t deal with individuals and, furthermore, he’s not a citizen. He was supposed to have been a citizen

in September. They prevented him from becoming a citizen in September when that was supposed to happen.

So, welcome back. I look forward to hearing your testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Goodling, thank you very much.

6

Mr. Wolf.

Mr. WOLF. I just want to thank Mr. Smith for having the hearing

and the witnesses for being here. I’m going to have to leave at 3.

Everything that Mr. Smith said is true. The persecution of the

Catholic church in China is horrible. The persecution of the Protestant Evangelical church is horrible. The persecution of Muslims is

horrible and very few people heard Mr. Smith mention it. Very few

people ever speak out for the Muslims that are going through a little hell over there.

In Tibet, where I visited 2 years ago, what the Tibetan community is going through is unbelievable. I don’t see how this Administration can remain silent, just looking at what’s taken place. When

we spoke to the monks and we spoke to the nuns of the torture and

the abuse which has taken place, it is unbelievable, with the selling

of organs and the other things that are going on.

So I think it’s important that Mr. Smith is having this hearing.

This is really what America is about. When I look at the latest poll

that was done by Peter Hart, 75 percent of America, the American

people, are opposed to granting MFN. As Mr. Smith said, if you

read the Country Report, and the State Department did a good job

of putting it together, no one can read that without being just really worked up.

This administration has lost its way. They have a fundamentally

amoral policy, bordering on an immoral policy, on this issue. I wonder what the President is thinking as he leaves his last term. His

record will go down as one of the worst human rights records in

the history of modern times for a presidency. His record in Sudan

is miserable. His record in Rwanda was even more miserable. His

record in East Timor was horrible. His record in Sierra Leone

today is horrible. His record in China is absolutely horrible. This

administration has catered to the worst instincts that I have seen.

So I am just pleased that Mr. Smith is here having this hearing

to get the word out. You have been successful. The word has

reached the American people. Now it has to reach the opinion leaders and those who serve good men and women to both sides of the

aisle in the Congress, that we will never grant permanent MFN

until the jails are open in Lhasa and they can leave and the jails

are open in the Tiananmen Square demonstrators, some of whom

have been there since 1989, can get out. That the Muslims can be

treated fairly and the organized Catholic church can be recognized.

The house church leaders can operate.

None of these people are really a threat to the Chinese government. Not one Tibetan that I spoke said anything negative about

the Chinese government. They want to worship the Dalai Lama.

They want to have their freedom. So if we keep just pushing and

pushing and pushing, ultimately the same thing that happened in

the Soviet Union will happen in China. In fact, China must have

found Ceausescu’s playbook. Ceausescu, who was head of the barbaric government in Romania did basically what China is doing to

its own population. What took place in the Soviet Union will take

place in China. I believe that before Mr. Smith and Mr. Goodling

and myself, before we leave this earth, we will see freedom and liberty in China.

7

So I appreciate Mr. Smith having the hearing and all of you who

seem to show up at these events. You are making a difference. You

have won the battle with the American people if we can just convince the people that represent them. I’ve given up on this administration. But on the next administration and the people that represent them on both parties, we can win this battle and have freedom. So thank you, Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Wolf. Let me introduce

our distinguished witnesses today, beginning with Xiao Qiang, who

has served as Executive Director of Human Rights in China, a New

York-based NGO, since April 1991. Studying in the United States

at the time, he returned to China 2 days after the Tiananmen

Square massacre to provide aid and support to the victims and

their families. Previously the deputy director of the Independent

Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars, Mr. Xiao is also the

North American representative of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights

NGO Facilitating Team.

Second, Bhuchung Tsering is the director of the International

Campaign for Tibet. Born in Tibet, he grew up with the Tibetan

exile community in India where his family fled to escape Communist Chinese forces. For over 10 years, Mr. Tsering worked as

part of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile in India, including a year

spent in Geneva in connection with the Tibetan initiative at the

U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

John J. Sweeney, who is flying back from California and will be

here shortly, was elected president of the AFL–CIO in 1995 in the

first contested election in AFL–CIO history. He is currently serving

his second term at the helm of that 13 million-member organization. At the time of his election, Mr. Sweeney was serving his

fourth term as president of the Service Employees International

Union and he had been an AFL–CIO Vice President since 1980. A

published author and the married father of two children, he currently resides in Washington and will be speaking I believe very

strongly on labor rights in the PRC.

Harry Wu, the Executive Director of the Laogai Research Foundation, spent 19 years in 12 different forced-labor camps in China

because of his criticism of the Communist Party. When he was finally released in 1979, Mr. Wu left China and came to the U.S. in

1985. In the summer of 1995, Mr. Wu was arrested by the Chinese

government and convicted for stealing state secrets. He was sentenced to 15 years, but expelled from China as the result of an extensive international campaign launched on his behalf. The author

of several books, Mr. Wu established the Laogai Research Foundation in 1992.

Reyila Abdureyim is the daughter of Rebiya Kadeer, a prominent

Uighur Muslim businesswoman who was arrested by Chinese authorities on her way to meet with a research delegation from the

U.S. Congress last August. The continuing detention of Ms. Kadeer,

her son, and her secretary is featured in the State Department’s recently released Country Report on Human Rights practices. Ms.

Abdureyim currently lives in Oklahoma, along with her father, Ms.

Kadeer’s husband, and four younger siblings.

Song Yongyi is a librarian and head of technical services at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania. Born in Shanghai, China and perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:05 Jul 07, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 65151.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
8

secuted during the Cultural Revolution, Mr. Song has been a permanent resident of the U.S. since 1989. Last summer he and his

wife Helen traveled to China so that he could conduct research on

the Cultural Revolution. On August 7, they were seized by Chinese

agents, separated, and interrogated. His wife was allowed to leave

China on November 16 after much intercession. On January 29, he

was released. Two weeks ago, he was sworn in as an American citizen.

Finally, Tracy Zhao was born in Beijing, China, but came to the

United States in 1990 and became a U.S. citizen in 1996. A flight

attendant and a Falun Dafa practitioner, Ms. Zhao traveled to

China last month to observe the situation of the Falun Gong in

China. On February 4, she was detained by Chinese agents and

held for 8 days.

I look forward to the testimony of our witness. Mr. Qiang, if you

could begin.

STATEMENT OF XIAO QIANG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HUMAN

RIGHTS IN CHINA

Mr. QIANG. I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Smith, for your

leadership in promoting human rights around the world. I want to

thank Mr. Goodling, Mr. Wolf, for your support for Chinese people’s

struggle for freedom.

Let me start to say, Human Rights in China, which has a research office in Hong Kong and an extensive network in virtually

every Chinese city, verified and confirmed the State Department

report of 1999 on the Chinese human rights situation. We support

the conclusion, which is the grim truth, that this past year has

seen the most ruthless suppression of dissent in China since the

crackdown of the 1989 democracy movement.

The freedom of expression, association, and assembling have

been routinely violated, despite the fact that these rights are enshrined in China’s own constitution. Other ongoing violations of

human rights include arbitrary detention, political and religious

imprisonment, widespread failure to enforce laws protecting the

rights of the workers and women, suppression of religious freedom,

and the use of physical and psychological coercion in the implementation of the population control policy.

Beginning in the fall of 1998, the Chinese government broadened

and intensified its crackdown against the China Democracy Party

and at least 200 China Democracy members have been arrested

and detained since that time. By year’s end, almost all of the key

members of the China Democracy Party were imprisoned and facing some of the longest prison terms handed down to dissidents in

the past decade. In 1 week in August alone, China Democracy

Party member Liu Xianbin, She Wanbao, Zha Jianguo, and Gao

Hongming were sentenced to prison terms of 13, 12, 9, and 8 years,

respectively.

Moreover, in the past year, tens of thousands of members of the

outlawed Falun Gong spiritual group have been arrested and detained and hundreds of others were sentenced to administrative detention in labor camps under Reeducation Through Labor. Several

Falun Gong leaders were sentenced to long prison terms in late DeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:05 Jul 07, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 65151.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
9

cember, including the 18-year sentence meted out to Li Chang, a

59-year-old official in the Public Security Ministry.

These prisoners and detainees are subject to deplorable conditions and are frequently denied access to proper health care. Indeed, just 2 days ago, He Xintong, the wife of China Democracy

Party founder Xu Wenli, began a hunger strike to protest prison

authorities’ refusal to allow her to bring medicine to her husband

last year. Xu Wenli suffers from hepatitis and Xu Wenli is currently 14 months into a 13-year prison term imposed for supposedly, quote, ‘‘endangering state security.’’

Mr. Chairman, over a decade after the June Fourth massacre

and the subsequent nationwide wave of repression, hundreds of

citizens remain in prison for participating in the peaceful protests

and hundreds more remain in exile. Moreover, the families of June

Fourth victims and those injured in the massacre continue to be

subject to harassment and persecution, including prohibition from

public mourning of their loved ones and prevention from receiving

purely humanitarian assistance from abroad.

The families submitted a petition almost 10 months ago requesting a criminal investigation into the June Fourth massacre and the

former premiere Li Pong’s role in perpetrating the massacre, but

the government authorities have not even bothered to respond to

this petition. Actually, to add insult to injury, Li Pong has been selected to represent China in the United Nations millennial assembling in New York next September, despite the fact that he is commonly known as the butcher of Beijing.

While we support the State Department documentation of human

rights violations in China, the salient question remains: What can

and should the United States do as the leader of the free world to

promote a true respect for and adherence to universally recognized

human rights standards in China? The key, I believe, as the chairman just said, lies in the country’s response to two matters of immediate concern: the resolution condemning for its human rights

record at the upcoming United Nations Human Rights Commission

in Geneva and permanent, Normal Trade Relations.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, the United States is to be commended

for sponsoring the China resolution at this year’s commission meeting. In order for the resolution to be effective, it must be passed.

As Executive Director of Human Rights in China, it is my sincere

hope that the United States will actively seek support from other

commission members from Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa

to ensure passage of the resolution. I further respectfully urge Congress to write to President Clinton emphasizing the urgent need to

promote the resolution from the highest level of the U.S. Government.

In addition to the resolution, permanent Normal Trade Relations

is the most congressional debate on United States-China relations.

In the eagerness to build trade relations with China, it is crucial

that China’s human rights situation remains the focal point of the

PNTR debate.

Prior to 1994, the United States had set certain conditions that

China was required to meet to renew its Most Favored Nation status. These conditions included taking steps toward implementing

the standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human

10

Rights; releasing and providing an acceptable accounting of political and religious prisoners; allowing access to prisons by international humanitarian and human rights organizations; protecting

Tibet’s religious and cultural heritage; and permitting international

radio and television broadcasts into China.

Yet, today, 6 years after trade and human rights were officially

delinked, these rudimentary conditions have not been met. On the

contrary, it is all too apparent that they have markedly deteriorated. The United States must face up to this fact and match its

efforts to make China a more reliable trading partner with other

genuine initiatives to increase the pressure on human rights.

Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Qiang, thank you very much for your excellent

testimony and for the insights over the years that you have provided to this Subcommittee, to the Full Committee, and to the Congress.

I’d like to ask Mr. Song if he could present his testimony at this

point. Mr. Goodling is in a debate later on tonight and is very

much interested in hearing what you have to say, as we all are.

STATEMENT OF SONG YONG YI, LIBRARIAN AND RESEARCHER, DICKINSON COLLEGE, FORMER DETAINEE IN

CHINA

Mr. SONG. Chairman, Mr. Goodling, and other Congressmen. I’m

honored to be here to testify at the hearing on ‘‘Human Rights in

China and Tibet.’’ As a new American citizen, I’m also very glad

to be here as a witness to serve my Congress and my country.

My testimony will be based strictly upon my personal experience

in China’s prison for about 6 months from last August through this

January. During my ordeal there, I have witnessed how the Chinese secret police deprive us scholars of the academic freedom for

historical research and how China’s problematic legal system violate Chinese citizens’ basic human rights as well. At that time, I

was still a Chinese citizen.

I traveled to China last July to conduct my normal academic research on China’s Cultural Revolution, which was from 1966 to

1976. On the early morning, very early, about 1:00 a.m. of August

7, China’s state security agents detained my wife, Helen Yao, and

me in a hotel. They put me and my wife separately into the Detention Center of Beijing bureau of State Security. According to the

Chinese Criminal Procedure Law, we had legal rights to hire and

to see our lawyer as soon as we were detained and the Bureau

should have notified our relatives in Bejing within 24 hours. Unfortunately, none of above happened by that law.

First, the secret policemen told us they did not allow us to hire

or see any lawyer.

Second, they started to inform my brother in Beijing about our

detainment after 3 days, i.e. after 72 hours. Even though, after 72

hours, why they informed my brother in Beijing? Because my

brother went to the police station in Beijing City, and put my name

and my wife’s name on the missing person’s list. Also, my brother

tried to reach a major newspaper, put our photographs as missing

people on the advertisements. They had to inform my brother about

our detainment.

11

The first night after detainment, we both, my wife Helen and me,

asked these secret agents why did they detain us? We thought we

did nothing wrong. Reading many books about CCP’s court or

about CCP’s intent, they first detain innocent people. They only

turn to question to your side. For instance, I asked them: Why?

They just say, ‘‘You should know. Where is here? Here is Bureau

of Beijing National Security. You are not easily getting in. You are

also not easily getting out. At that time, the Deputy Director of the

Bureau said clearly to me: ‘‘Mr. Song, you may spend your lifetime

in China.’’ You may never come back to the U.S. if you don’t cooperate with us.

When she asked them why they detained her, they just simply

answered ‘‘because you are Mr. Song’s wife.’’ my wife was never involved in my research. She knew nothing about my research. When

they released my wife on November 16, 1999, the secret policemen

also forced her to sign a written statement of repentance, but she

wrote her comments about her reservations on the statement.

Because of lack of evidence, China’s secret police changed my

criminal charge following their inclination during the whole 6

months of my custody. All of those ridiculous charges were even

against the Criminal Law of China. First, they decribed my research on Cultural Revolution as cover steps the boundary. [They]

do not allow any scholar to cross. ‘‘So my academic study, had ideologically become a great danger to China’s national security.’’ However, the new China’s Criminal Law indicates very clearly that

there is no ideological crime in China any more.

Second, they charged me for ‘‘stealing state secrets’’ based upon

the published material I collected in China at free market and used

bookstore these materials are Red Guard newspapers and handbills, were publicly provided in China during the Cultural Revolution 33 years ago and are still openly available now. When they

want to get a judgment of reclassification of those materials, their

application was even rejected by China’s Secrecy Bureau.

Finally, they accused me of ‘‘providing intelligence to foreigners.’’

They re-classified these published materials as ‘‘intelligence,’’ since

there is never a clear definition in China’s Criminal Law of the

term ‘‘intelligence’’. So they used this kind of very vague words to

charge an innocent scholar. Upon this laughable charge, they formally arrested me on December 24, 1999.

In every interrogation, I argued with those policemen in every interrogation. On each of the charges, every time. I won. However,

these secret agents told me that, they would still sentence me on

the upcoming trial, though they always fell silent on finding themselves defeated in argument.

Under the pressure from U.S. Congress, the State Department,

China’s studies scholars across the world, Dickinson College Community, as well as all American people, Chinese government finally

released me on January 28 and dropped all criminal charges

against me. Before I boarded the Northwest airplane, a young officer told me, that I was unfortunately, a hostage being exchanged

for WTO. My answer is, how shameful it is for a Chinese government to obtain favorable trade status by using a Chinese as hostage. So their main purpose for releasing me is very clear.

12

The results of my release shows China is currently not as isolated as 33 years ago in the Cultural Revolution period, and Chinese government could no longer disregard international pressures

on the human rights. But my painful experience also absolutely

evidenced that China’s legal system has so many problems and

there is still a long and bumpy way to go for the China’s government’s human rights record to improve.

Thank you again, Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Song, thank you very much for your testimony.

It is so good to have you back.

Let me ask Bhuchung Tsering if he would make his presentation

at this point.

STATEMENT OF BHUCHUNG TSERING, DIRECTOR,

INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR TIBET

Mr. TSERING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving

me this opportunity and I would like to request that my full statement be placed on the record.

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, your full statement will be made

a part of the record.

Mr. TSERING. Thank you.

The Tibet section of the State Department Human Rights Report

this year depicts a good effort to describe in detail the situation in

Tibet. The Report provides significantly more detail about human

rights abuses, not just in the Tibet Autonomous Region, but also

in Tibetan areas outside of it. In the previous report, the scope was

limited to the development inside the Tibet Autonomous Region,

thereby neglecting more than half of the traditional Tibetan areas

where a majority of Tibetans live.

Then 1999 saw the tightening of state control over every sphere

of Tibetan life. Over 100 Tibetans were arrested in 1999, according

to one report coming out from Tibet, for peacefully expressing their

beliefs. A Tibetan surrogate program, Voice of Tibet, broadcast

from Norway, reported the expansion of several prisons in Tibet

where political prisoners are believe to be detained.

Mr. Chairman, according to one estimate, there are currently

over 600 documented political prisoners and prisoners of conscience

in Tibet. The India-based Tibetan Center for Human Rights and

Democracy has done a good job in documenting the case stories of

some of these political prisoners.

The situation of the 10-year-old Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi

Nyima, is of utmost concern to us. The State Department report

does not take up the case strongly and clearly. Rather, there is an

apparent attempt to equate the status of the Panchen Lama with

the boy, Gyaltsen Norbu, that the Chinese government has appointed. The recognition of the Panchen Lama is a deeply spiritual

process and the United States should be categorical in respecting

the position of the Tibetan people. China has no rights whatsoever

in the process of identifying Tibetan lamas.

Agya Rinpoche, a very senior Tibetan lama who held prominent

political and religious positions at the national level in China

sought asylum in the United States 1 year back because he could

not support the Chinese religious policy toward Tibet, particularly

on the issue of the recognition of the Panchen Lama. Today, Agiya

13

Rinpoche received asylum in this country and is writing his autobiography, which may contain much information on the true nature

of China’s religious policy toward Tibet.

The report also merely mentions in two sentences the dramatic

escape of the Gyalwa Karmapa, another prominent Tibetan Buddhist leader, from Tibet. This escape by the 14-year-old Karmapa

symbolizes the mental state of Tibetans in Tibet. During his firstever public address in Dharamsala, the Karmapa said on February

19, that, ‘‘Over the last two or three decades, Tibet has suffered

great losses. Tibetan religion and culture have reached the point of

complete destruction’’.

Mr. Chairman, the escape of Agya Rinpoche and that of

Karmapa are clear evidence of the fact that even those Tibetans

who care to or who choose to cooperate with the Chinese authorities know that the Chinese attitude toward Tibetan religion and

culture is dangerous and antagonistic.

It is no the 5th year of incarceration of Tibetan music scholar

Ngawang Choephel. China has not even consented to allow his

mother her legal right of visitation of her son in prison, even

though the United States has made this request on her behalf.

I also want to draw your attention to PetroChina, China’s stateowned oil company, which is going public on the New York Stock

Exchange. We fear that the money raised would be used to build

a major pipeline in Tibet, where a controversial proposed World

Bank project is being planned. This project is extremely damaging

to Tibetans, both in terms of human rights, but also environmental

and social concerns are there.

The report also refers to the opening of Internet service in Tibet,

but fails to mention that its censored and people feel extremely reluctant to use it for many purposes. Internet users in Tibet do not

have access to independent sites on Tibet. Most sites, including

that of the International Campaign for Tibet as well as the Tibetan

Government-in-Exile, cannot be logged on by Internet users in

Tibet.

This is the situation in Tibet today. So, while the report does

highlight some of these, it does not provide a solution to what can

we do for the situation there? So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to

join you and my previous speakers in pointing out that there are

two ways in which the United States can act and act strongly to

followup on the report that it has done.

First, keep Normal Trade Relations annual instead of permanent. The United States should look at its human rights report as

a strong reminder of why the administration should abandon its efforts to secure permanent Normal Trade status with China and

keep its annual review process.

Second, the United States should followup on its announcement

of raising the issue of China’s human rights practices at the

Human Rights Commission in Geneva. The United States should

take up this at the highest level and actively embark on a diplomatic effort to see the passage of its China resolution in Geneva.

Abandoning the effort to secure a permanent NTR would show to

Europe and other countries that the United States is consistent in

its stated commitment to censure China at the United Nations

Human Rights Commission.

14

Finally, Mr. Chairman, human rights violations in Tibet are

merely symptoms of a bigger problem, which is political. Unless political issues are addressed, we cannot expect the human rights situation in Tibet to improve. The United States has a policy of encouraging unconditional negotiations between the Tibetan leadership and the Chinese leadership. This policy needs to be more actively implemented.

Mr. Chairman, once again I thank you for this privilege of testifying today and, on behalf of the Tibetan people, I would like to

thank you and the Members of Congress for your continued support

to us.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much for that testimony. Your comments earlier at the press conference were very well-taken and,

hopefully, will be listened to very carefully by all concerned, especially Members of Congress who will voting soon on the MFN issue.

Our next witness will be John Sweeney. As I indicated earlier,

he is the president of the AFL–CIO, a 13 million-member organization. I think it’s significant that in appearing today, he and his organization are trying to make the case to get the information out

to the American public and to Members of Congress that human

rights and workers’ rights are nonexistent in the PRC. Hopefully,

we will collectively be able to break down the ignorance factor,

which is very much in evidence.

As I said earlier, Mr. Hoffa, Harry Wu, and I delivered the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices to Charlene Barchevsky

earlier in the day. We also asked that the President himself take

a look at his own State Department Country Reports on Human

Rights Practices. Because, frankly, I don’t think they’ve read it. I

don’t think they have sat down and read the very information prepared by their administration. The left hand apparently doesn’t

know what the right hand is doing. It wouldn’t be the first time

that that has happened. But our hope is that an honest read of the

human rights situation in China will lead any reasonable man or

woman to the conclusion that we cannot aid and abet these kinds

of heinous practices.

Mr. Sweeney, you’re next up and you’re very welcome to be here

before the Subcommittee. We look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. SWEENEY, PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR-CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL

ORGANIZATIONS, AFL–CIO

Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Members of this

Committee, for the opportunity to express the views of the AFL–

CIO about the human and worker rights situation in China.

This is an extremely important and timely discussion, given the

intensifying debate in Congress over whether the United States

should grant China Permanent Normal Trade Relations status and

the recent release of the report which you’ve referred to, the State

Department’s Annual Country Report on China’s Human Rights

Record for 1999.

The State Department Report, all 110 pages of it, is staggering

in its scope and its breadth. It confirms once again that China is

one of the worst offenders of human rights in the world. China is

a country that does not tolerate political dissent or free speech. It

15

uses executions and torture to maintain order, persecutes religious

minorities, and violates workers’ rights.

As the State Department reports, China’s human rights record is

getting worse, not better, having deteriorated markedly throughout

this year as the government intensified efforts to suppress dissent.

This has occurred as China’s corporate apologists in the United

States have intensified their campaign to provide the regime with

all the benefits of globalization while holding it accountable to not

even a minimum standard of civil behavior nor even the commitments it has made in the past.

China, which has not yet ratified the two United Nations’ covenants on human rights which it had agreed to sign before President Clinton’s trip to China in 1998, has broken every agreement

it has signed with the United States over the past 10 years. Chinese government officials are already saying they have no intentions of complying with the agreement they signed with the United

States only 3 months ago.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, China has undertaken dramatic economic reforms during the past decade which has

resulted in a significant improvement in the standard of living for

some citizens, but for millions of Chinese workers, the past few

years have been the leanest of the post-Mao era. Workers are responding in growing numbers. Worker protests over layoffs and

plant shutdowns; over the nonpayment of wages, severance pay,

and pensions; and over the massive corruption of their factory

bosses and the local party bosses are a daily occurrence all over the

country.

Such protests have become a fact of daily Chinese life. For the

most part, workers’ demands have remained economic. Workers

want to earn enough for their families to live on. That’s all they

want. But this can change quickly, especially if reasonable economic demands remain unmet.

It is abundantly clear that the major concern of the Communist

leadership is to keep the protest from escalating and challenging

its right to rule. The State Department report chronicles the record

of arrest and sentencing of worker activists virtually on a monthly

basis throughout 1999. Accurate figures as to the number of workers’ activists who have been detained are difficult to come by, since

there are no reports of arrests in the official press. Many workers

simply disappear in the prison system. It is only a matter of time,

however, before any worker attempting to exercise his or her most

basic rights will be arrested.

Let me highlight a more recent arrest not included in the State

Department report. Wo Keiking worked at a chemical factory in

Human City, Ubei Province. He was arrested on August 21, last

year, for leading 2,000 fellow workers and family members in a

demonstration that stopped traffic in the city for a day. The protest

was over some money that the factory management had deducted

from the workers’ wages in 1996 and then absconded with after the

factory closed down. Wo had tried to discuss the matter with the

vice mayor, to no avail. He was tried and convicted of disturbing

public order. He is now serving his 1-year prison sentence. Such

stories are commonplace in today’s China.

16

Forced labor continues to be a serious problem, particularly in

penal institutions. The AFL–CIO believes that products made with

prison labor enter the United States market on a regular basis and

that the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 1992 prohibiting

trade in prison labor products is not worth the paper which it is

written on. The State Department now concedes that, in recent

years, the authorities have been uncooperative. In fact, the last

time the authorities permitted a visit by a U.S. customs official to

a suspected prison labor facility was 3 years ago.

The depths of the leadership’s concerns about any independent

political activity can also be seen in its harsh response to the attempted formation of a tiny opposition party, the China Democracy

Party. The State Department reports that by years’ end, almost all

of the key leaders of the China Democracy Party were serving long

prison terms or in custody without formal charges and that only a

handful of dissidents nationwide dared to remain active publicly. A

number of workers’ activists have been detained because of their

association with the China Democracy Party.

The only legally recognized trade union structure, the All China

Federation of Trade Unions, ACFTU, like all Chinese institutions,

remains under the control of the Communist Party. Its leader is

not only a member of the Politburo, but also has oversight responsibility for the security apparatus. In many ways, the ACFTU’s traditional role of mobilizing workers to achieve Party objectives and

improving labor discipline remains the same. Only 90 percent of

the 103 million members it claims to represent work in state-owned

enterprises, making the task which has been assigned to it of ensuring that growing membership dissatisfaction and desperation

does not erupt into political action an impossible one.

One thing is for sure, however, the ACFTU considers the thousands of workers who have found the courage to stand up and protest, many of whom have been arrested and remain in prison as we

speak, to be petty criminals. That is the message the ACFTU has

given to the International Trade Union movement every time the

issue of worker detainees has been raised.

Before I conclude, I would just like to make a few comments

about religious persecution in China. The harshness of the crackdown on the Falun Gong spiritual movement is another reflection

of the leadership’s preoccupation with preserving its own rule.

What was so challenging to the authorities was not the spiritual

precepts Falun Gong represents, but the fact that it was able to organize tens of thousands of Chinese citizens into an independent

movement. Its demonstrated ability to organize, independent of the

state and the party, would not be tolerated. Religious persecution

goes well beyond the Falun Gong spiritual movement, as you well

know, Mr. Chairman.

The repression of the Catholic church continues. The latest in the

arrests of Catholic leaders happened less than a month ago when

Archbishop Yang, 81 years old, was arrested in the middle of the

night by security police. His whereabouts are unknown at this

time. Archbishop Yang has spent over 30 years of his life in Chinese prisons for refusing to denounce the pope as the supreme authority of the Roman Catholic Church and for his refusal to cooperate with the authorities to form a Chinese Independent Church.

17

Of course, the persecution of the Tibetan Buddhists continues

unabated. Associated Press reported only yesterday that the family

of Karmapa Lama, who recently fled to India, has been detained.

The widespread publicity given to the plight of this particular monastery may offer some protection for the Karmapa Lama and his

family. It is the 6 million Tibetan Buddhists who live outside the

international spotlight who continue to be the victims of Chinese

government religious persecution.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the AFL–CIO is urging Congress

not to grant China permanent Normal Trade Relations status and

discard annual congressional reviews of that country’s human

rights records. The AFL–CIO recently commissioned a new national survey of registered voters conducted by Peter Hart Research

Associates. Public opinion is strongly opposed to ending the system

of annual review for China. Americans feel strongly that U.S. trade

agreements should prevent the loss of jobs in the United States,

protect the environment, and stop unfair competition from countries who violate workers’ rights.

According to the Hart research survey, the majority of voters, 65

percent, opposed giving China permanent trade access without allowing Congress to annually review its record. 63 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of Republicans opposed Permanent Normal

Trade Relations for China. Seven in ten voters reject the argument

frequently made by supporters of permanent free trade with China

that the best way to improve human rights in China is not to restrict trade, but to engage China and include it in important international bodies, such as the World Trade Organization.

They also reject the arguments that the agreement will expand

our exports and create good jobs in America and that American

business will be hurt if other countries have access to the Chinese

market and we don’t. This is not the time, in our view, to reduce

the leverage we may have on China to improve its dubious record

by ending the annual review and giving the Chinese Government

a blank check.

Thank you.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Sweeney, thank you very much for your very eloquent statement and for the mobilization you have initiated in Detroit to make American workers aware of this surrender that is underway with regard to workers rights and other human rights in

the People’s Republic of China. Without the annual review, our leverage is zilch. More people need to be mobilized. As the Hart research clearly indicates, when the question is posed directly, people

seemingly understand the consequences. But I think it’s reassuring

to know that you and your organization will be very much out in

front to make sure that Members of Congress don’t give away the

store to the People’s Republic of China.

I understand a few of our witnesses are under very close time restraints. Before introducing our next witness, I’d like to ask a question of Mr. Wu, who has to leave shortly after his testimony, as

does Mr. Sweeney. Looking at the two of you sitting side by side,

it occurs to me that we have here the leader of worker rights in

China, Mr. Wu, and the leader of worker rights in the United

States, Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Wu probably would have your job in a

parallel organization in China if it were free today, because cerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:05 Jul 07, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 65151.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
18

tainly he has paid a price, 19 years in the Laogai, and has been

indefatigable in fighting for those rights since he was released. He

has been spanning the globe on behalf of worker rights and human

rights.

So, Mr. Wu, please proceed and then we’ll go to a few questions

and then go to our two final distinguished witnesses and then go

to more questions.

STATEMENT OF HARRY WU, PRESIDENT, LAOGAI RESEARCH

INSTITUTE, FORMER DETAINEE IN CHINA

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my testimony today, I

would like to focus on three areas of Chinese human rights abuses:

forced labor in the Laogai, which is China’s forced labor camp system, China’s population control policy; and executions and organ

harvesting.

Last week, the State Department released a human rights report

about China. The State Department report correctly states that,

‘‘forced labor is a serious problem,’’. The Chinese Laogai is not a

simple prison. It’s equivalent to the Soviet Union gulag system.

The fundamental idea for this Chinese system is ‘‘Reform is the

goal, forced labor is the means.’’ In the Laogai, the prisoners are

forced to give up their religious and political beliefs, confess their

so-called crimes, and submit to reform to become new socialist

beings. This can be a form of psychological torture.

Since China began on the road to economic reform, the production part of the Laogai system has become more and more important. Prisoners are regarded as tools of the regime. They must fulfill work quotas or face beatings, reducing their food, or have their

sentences extended. Prisoners in the reeducation-through-labor

camps are there with no trial at all and they call this an administrative punishment. Due process is severely lacking for just about

everyone who goes through the Chinese judicial system. I think Mr.

Song testified before you all Committee about what it takes.

Some of the products they make in Chinese prison camps to exported illegally to the United States. The State Department report

says, ‘‘A 1999 directory of Chinese corporations published by a foreign business information company lists at least two correctional

institutions as having business enterprises.,’’ This refers to Dun &

Bradstreet, the well-known business directory. The Laogai Research Foundation actually discovered 99 forced labor camps listed

in this directory. Two of them had the words, ‘‘Reform through

Labor’’ in the title, but there were 99 in total. Some of them include camps whose products are already banned by the U.S. Customs Service. These companies are still looking for international

customers and international investment.

We do not know what part the Laogai plays in the Chinese national economy. This is because all of the facts are considered state

secrets. Even today, we do not know how many camps there are

in China, how many prisoners, and what kind of products in prison

are made by forced labor for export. China is not complying with

the MOU on prison labor. They no longer allow Customs officials

to visit the camps and they do not give information about suspected

camps, as they are required to do. The administration of the

United States has done nothing.

19

As Amnesty International and the State Department report

noted, China executes more people than every other country in the

world combined. People sentenced to death are often paraded in the

streets and humiliated at public sentencing rallies. The government calls this ‘‘killing the chicken to scare the monkey.’’ The prisoners are then taken to the secret execution sites. In some cases,

the family of the victims can ask for and receive the ashes of their

loved one.

According to Chinese report, in China in the last couple of years

there kidney transplant cases were about 20,000 and also a Chinese corporation said most of them, at least 90 percent of them,

come from prisoners, these death row prisoners.

The State Department reports that there are, ‘‘credible reports

that organs from some executed prisoners were removed, sold, and

transplanted,’’. I believe that this is a serious understatement. The

organ harvesting policy is a national policy, coordinated by many

different branches of government. The courts, police, jails, hospitals

are all run by the government. The Chinese government makes announcement to say, it’s not allowed to buy and sell organs. It is

true, it is different from a country like India and the Philippines

you can purchase an organ from individual people. You cannot do

that in China. But it is an entirely government business. They execute the prisoners and use them for transplant operations and the

fact is the hospitals are owned by the government.

In 1998, this Committee held a hearing on this practice. In the

past, the Chinese government has repeated this practice occurs.

Now they just lie and deny it altogether. But the evidence keeps

coming from China. Just last month, a Hong Kong newspaper reported that Hong Kong patients were going to the mainland to get

liver transplants from executed prisoners. The problem continues

and is spreading. Even Chinese former citizens intend to sell the

executed prisoners organs in the United States.

Last, I would like to talk about the Chinese population control

policy. This is a national policy that affects every man, woman, and

child in China. We have to know, in this country, without a government permit, whether a woman is married or unmarried, she cannot have a child. Then there are some exceptions to the so-called

‘‘one-child policy,’’ but those exceptions are still controlled by the

government.

The main issue is what happens to the woman if she goes

against the government rules. Sometimes the family must pay very

stiff fines. But in many other areas, women who become pregnant

are forced to abort and women who have an extra-plan child, that

means have a second child, are sterilized. Many children born outside of the plan are not given the identification papers that are

needed to get an education, health care, and a job. Because they

were not in the plan, then the government does not care about

them.

This government does not know the meaning of individual dignity, but, yet, here we are again talking about whether or not to

expand our trade with this country. Today there it is a fashionable

idea that we make an investment in China and make trade with

them, that would benefit the people and promote democracy in

20

China. It seems to me this is kind of a false idea and it is an echo

to the Chinese line that the money can change entire systems.

For years, the debate was about MFN, Most Favored Nation

trading status, and each year I asked, why do we favor this communist country? We did not favor the Soviet Union in the past. We

do not favor North Korea and Cuba today. Then they changed the

name to NTR, Normal Trading Relations. But China is not a normal country. Because China is a communist country. But I want

to tell you today, China is continuing on their own way as a communist regime.

Now the administration and big business wants the United

States to give up the yearly review of NTR and give China permanent NTR. They say that unions, human rights activists, some

Members of Congress, and others are standing in the way of the

PNTR and China’s entry into the WTO.

But what about the Chinese government? This government’s

leaders continue human rights abuses and military threats against

Taiwan. Recently we heard they purchased a missile destroyer

from Russia and they paid hard currency and hired 2,000 Soviet

military experts. Their using their money to upgrade their military

systems. Their using their money to strengthen their own control.

The military police in 1986 only half million. Today, there are 1.3

million police.

It is a sad reality that all of these human rights abuses take

place without any meaningful action in the international community. It is not enough for the United States to sponsor a human

rights resolution against China in the United Nations Human

Rights Commission in Geneva. I agree that it is important to take

a stand in Geneva, but it is the least that the United States can

do. We should and we can take action in Washington, D.C.

We heard many years ago, that copyrights violations were happening in China and that Americans right away wanted to impose

economic sanctions. When you’re talking about human rights violations, they say, that’s another issue. Because this administration

will not do it. It is up to the Congress to take a stand for a principled China policy that puts people over profit.

Thank you.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Wu. Let me just start and

then I’ll go to our final two witnesses, because two of our witnesses

do have to leave, ask a couple of questions of Mr. Wu and Mr.

Sweeney.

Yesterday, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright argued, and

this is her quote at the House Appropriations Committee, ‘‘I believe

our business practices are such,’’ she said, ‘‘that really push the

issue of worker rights and human rights. The way we treat our

people is an example.’’

Even in this country, I’ve never gotten the impression that management was in a hand-in-glove relationship with its own workers,

even within its own factories. Yes, they may have their interests

at heart, but that’s why we have strikes, that’s why we have binding arbitration. There is almost built into the system an adversarial relationship that is very constructive. But the Secretary of

State seems to be suggesting that those same captains of industry,

when they go overseas, somehow will be in the vanguard of China

21

to protect worker rights when the evidence, at least so far, years

to date, is absolutely contrary to do that.

As you pointed out, Mr. Sweeney, it’s been 3 years since there’s

been an inspection pursuant to the MOU. I remember when President Bush first announced that, we took a look at it. I went over

to China. I tried to test it. I talked to the two Customs officials that

were deployed with other parts of their team working on other

things. As you pointed out, then and now, the MOU isn’t worth the

paper it’s printed on. The advance notice that has to be given is

so long that if we do get access, we see a Potemkin Village.

It seems to me that the administration buys into this idea that

our CEO’s and our government reps, when they go and employ people over there, are going to be bringing American values, as they

put it. Do either of you share that optimism that somehow if we’re

over there, worker rights will blossom into fruition?

Mr. SWEENEY. If the secretary assumes that or makes that assumption, I think she’s dreaming. I really don’t think there’s any

basis for making that kind of an assumption. If anything, we see

multinational corporations taking the low road and really building

upon the lowest possible level in terms of workers’ rights and environmental protection and human rights. As I said, China hasn’t

lived up to its agreements. There have to be rules. Rules at the

WTO, rules in terms of the relationship between trade and these

issues.

We’re not opposed to trade. We’re not unrealistic in terms of the

growing globalization. But we feel strongly that core labor standards and human rights issues and environmental protections have

to be a part of globalization. China has to have some kind of annual review if we’re going to see what kind of improvements are

taking place in these areas.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I think he’s right. China under the Communist regime oftentimes they had unions, but it’s communist

union. In these American factories and companies in China, there

are the unions that exist. Those are controlled by the party. American money really benefits these unions. So it’s a union in China

and it’s controlled by the communists and spending and benefits

from foreign investment. But if you’re talking about the other

things: the workers can organize their own unions, it would not

happen and didn’t happen in China, Communist China, at all.

Mr. SMITH. The State Department report points out that the

Ministry of Justice did not respond to any of the requests made for

visits pursuant to the MOU. Not so long ago, the Chinese government agreed to the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights with great fanfare and enormous amounts of good will being

affixed to that. As a matter of fact, I can’t tell you how many times

their PR folks have used that to suggest that somehow they’re joining the civilized nations, with regard to human rights.

Yet, there’s been no implementation of that. The MOU is a feckless almost unforceable document that has not been implemented.

Why do you think anyone in his right mind would think that the

WTO would be implemented with any kind of effectiveness either,

since as Mr. Song pointed out, the excuse of ‘‘state secrets’’ is something that’s used with impunity by the Chinese leadership?

22

Perhaps that’s a rhetorical question, but you might want to take

a stab at it.

Mr. SWEENEY. I don’t know why anyone in their right mind

would think that that’s going to be the result. We think that in

order for these issues to be addressed, that the rules have to be

written and China has to be forced to play by the same rules that

the rest of the world plays by.

Mr. WU. We are talking about the forced labor products MOU.

We, a couple of years ago, we issued a report, we explained the

MOU in a different way. We said it was the Meaning Of Useless.

OK. That piece of agreement actually is when the Chinese government tried to dismiss the case, actually, right now, that became realistic. The case was dismissed. The Administration didn’t do anything in the last couple of years.

Actually, according to our investigation, many products, especially like auto parts, rubber shoes, toys, garments, Christmas

lights, even binding clips for office use is still coming into the

United States. They cover up and even if there is evidence, solid

evidence, that we present to the Customs Service and so far, at this

moment, there is no action because they just don’t want to bother

their very good relationship with the Chinese government.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. I do appreciate your excellent

testimony. Please feel free to stay until you absolutely have to

leave. But I do thank you for being here and for the fine testimony

both of you have provided.

I would like to ask Ms. Reyila if she would now make her presentation.

STATEMENT OF REYILA ABUDUREYIM, DAUGHTER OF REBIYA

KADEER, UIGHUR MUSLIM DETAINEE IN CHINA

Ms. ABUDUREYIM. I’m testifying because my mother, Rebiya

Kadeer, and my brother, Ablikim, got arrested last year in China.

First of all, we thank you all for arranging this meeting for us. We

thank the senators and the Congressmen in Congress.

In February 5, 1997, the Uighurs who want freedom and independence demonstrated in Ely City in Xingguo. But all the Chinese

cracked down. In February 15, 1997, my father arranged a demonstration with 100 Uighur people against the crackdown of the

Chinese in front of the White House and Chinese embassy in

Washington, D.C. The Chinese government was informed about the

demonstration my father arranged. So, on March 27, 1997, the Chinese government confiscated my mother’s passport while she was

going to Tashkan. The Chinese government told my mother that

her husband had arranged a demonstration of war against them

and, for that reason, she was not allowed to leave the country

again.

After losing her passport, she could not finish her business in

central Asia and lost $600,000 at one time. There is a, just for an

example, my dad was there also. My mom imported 15,000 tons of

iron and steel from Kazakstan. At that time, it should be $45 million yen in the market. My mom earned $7 million instead.

From that day, my mom was under political stress. The electric

company tortured her by cutting off the electricity. The fire department tortured her by fining her. The Tax Office tortured her by

23

doubling her taxes. Unlimited power of government makes people

think that it’s appropriate for the government to put stress on my

mother.

In December 12, 1997, my mother gathered 400 businesswomen

in Rebiya Kadeer Market and built the Thousand Mothers Movement to help women to rise. The Chinese government first passed

out a legal permit to do it. In order to break up the Thousand

Mothers Movement, in December 25, 1997, the Chinese government kept $2 million yuan from the Thousand Mothers Movement

in the bank.

My mother was a member of Uighur Autonomous Region’s political consultation since 1993. In September 18, 1997, immigrant

Wang Loquan, the secretary of the Uighur Autonomous Region, declared that my mom was kicked out of the Chinese national political consultation.

The beginning of August 1999, Miss Carry, from the Library of

Congress asked my dad for my mother’s phone number because she

was going to Urumqi and wanted to meet with my mother. My dad

gave it to her. When Miss Carry arrived in Urumqi, she called my

mom and invited her to hotel where she stayed. In August 11,

1999, my mom and her friend with two other people were arrested

in front of Yendu Hotel by Chinese police and security officers on

her way to meet Carry.

On the same night, two of my brothers, Ablikim, 25, Alim, 23,

and my mom’s secretary Kahrimam, were arrested. My youngest

brother got released after 24 hours. The other brother and my

mom’s secretary were sentenced for 2 and 3 years. They are in the

Olanbay Labor Camp in Urumqi.

On August 16, 50 Uighur business people went to the government to ask them to release my mother. The government arrested

those people and held them for 1 day. After the government courts

organs had my mother’s case, they returned her case to the

procuratorate twice. On November 20, last year, they declared that

there was not enough evidence to put my mother on trial. She was

accused of stealing state secrets and giving information to the outside, as were my brothers. But she doesn’t know anything about

the state secrets. She simply is a businesswoman.

After my mom’s arrest, her newly done 12-storey building was

stopped. Some of her business was stopped. We’re waiting for the

Chinese government to release my mother, my brother, and

Kahriman. Thank you. God bless you all.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much for your outstanding testimony

and we appreciate your being here today and presenting your remarks to the Committee which we will amplify and get out to other

Members of Congress. So, thank you.

I’d like to ask our final witness, Ms. Zhao, before going to some

additional questions, if you could present your testimony.

STATEMENT OF TRACEY ZHAO, FALUN GONG PRACTITIONER,

FORMER DETAINEE IN CHINA

Ms. ZHAO. Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to thank the

Members of this Committee for the opportunity to speak at this

hearing today. I hope that my testimony will help shed some light

on what is happening right now in China regarding the suppresVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:05 Jul 07, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 65151.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
24

sion of Falun Gong and the persecution of innocent Chinese citizens.

Before I begin, I would like to briefly introduce myself. My name

is Tracy Zhao. I was born and raised in Beijing, China. Currently,

I am an American citizen residing in Queens, New York. I am 30

years old and working as a flight attendant. I am also a Falun

Gong practitioner.

Falun Gong is known as Falun Dafa, a spiritual practice based

on ancient Chinese principles. It has five sets of traditional exercises and teaches practitioners to follow the universal virtues of

truth, compassion, and tolerance. It has attracted millions of people

all over the world because of the positive effect it has on people’s

overall health and well-being.

In early February of this year, I traveled to Beijing with a number of other practitioners. I was interested to see what it was like

for Falun Gong practitioners in China. I had heard stories through

news reports and friends, but I wanted to get a firsthand look at

what was really going on. I had no intention of participating in any

protests nor was I there to cause trouble. I simply wished to observe the situation firsthand.

Shortly before midnight on February 4th, which was the night

before the Chinese New Year, I arrived at Tiananmen Square. I

saw many policemen beating and kicking Falun Dafa practitioners

and dragging them into police vans. Many policemen were without

coats and were sweating profusely from beating people, and practitioners were trying to peacefully practice their meditative exercises

as a way to appeal to the government to allow them their constitutional right to freedom of belief, assembly, and speech.

I quickly took out a camera to take a picture. The flash caught

the attention of the police and three of them immediately pushed

me into the police van without asking me any questions. We were

all taken to the nearby police station where there were hundreds

of practitioners being held there. Some were bleeding in the face.

Others had bruises or black eyes. There were children in detention

too.

These Falun Gong practitioners had done nothing wrong, had not

committed any criminal acts, but had only been exercising their

constitutional rights. The Chinese government claims it is a country ruled by law, but it often violates its own laws. In the early

hours of February 5th, around 1,200 practitioners, including myself, were taken to the Dong Cheng detention center on the outskirts of Beijing. For 24 hours, there was no water or heat. Each

of us received only two pieces of Chinese bread for food and we

were not allowed to use the bathroom for a while.

After 24 hours, the police questioned me and I told them I was

an American citizen. They did not believe me and sent me to a

prison cell. There were 15 other people there. Six of them were

practitioners and they told me they had been secretly tried and had

been sentenced for up to a year. All they had done was go to the

Government Office of Appeals to offer their personal testimony to

the government on how Falun Gong had improved their health and

made them better people. They were arrested the moment they got

there.

25

The Premier of China has recently urged the Government Office

of Appeals to improve their operating procedures so that the offices

would become better places for citizens to voice their concerns without fear of retribution. But for Falun Dafa practitioners, walking

into these offices is more like walking directly into prison.

Every practitioner in my cell had been abused at some point by

the prison guard and policemen. In prison, we were given two

meals a day and it was always the same: two pieces of Chinese

bread and cabbage soup. At night all of us slept on one big wooden

platform with one blanket for two people and no pillows. It was

very crowded. In the entire time I was there, we were not allowed

to take any showers. None of the practitioners were allowed any

contact with the outside, nor were family members or relatives allowed to visit. The families usually also faced huge fines.

In one instance, a female practitioner was trying to do the meditative exercises. But each time she started, a prison guard kicked

her to the ground. This scene repeated itself many times until she

had been kicked into a corner. The guard finally left her alone and

she finished her exercises.

While I was in prison, the police interrogated me and threatened

that if I didn’t answer all their questions, I would be kept in prison

forever. Finally, with the assistance of the U.S. embassy and reports made by the international media, I was released and deported on February 12th, eighth day of my detainment. I was not

allowed to make any contact with anyone the entire time.

Since the ban on Falun Gong was announced on July 20, 1999,

the brutality with which this ban has been enforced has continued

to escalate. It is reported that more than 5,000 practitioners, including the elderly, pregnant women, and young children have

been sent to labor camps without proper legal procedures, without

trial, legal representation, or due process.

In addition, more than 300 practitioners have been tried in secret

and jailed with sentences of up to 18 years. In November, an internal government report stated that, in Beijing alone, more than

35,000 practitioners have been detained, with many being held

under extremely inhumane conditions. So far, 11 people are known

to have died while in police custody, while countless others remain

unaccounted for.

Unfortunately, as I commented before, the scope and severity of

this persecution continues to escalate. For example, in January of

this year, the Hong Kong-based Information Center of Human

Rights and Democratic Movement in China discovered that some

Falun Gong practitioners were now being in mental hospitals

where they were being injected with various drugs and were subject to other tortures. This situation has been reported in the world

news by CNN, AP, and Agence France Press, to name a few.

All of this is ironic in light of the fact that the People’s Daily,

the state-owned paper, published a report just last May stating

that Falun Gong is a beneficial practice with no political motives

that can help people improve their health. This was prior to the

current crackdown.

Other television programs drew similar conclusions back then as

well. Despite the overwhelming brutality currently happening in

China, I would like to make it clear that Falun Gong practitioners

26

are not against the Chinese government. Nor do they seek any particular political change or reform. What they ask is that they regain the basic human rights to freedom of assembly and freedom

of belief, which are protected under China’s own constitution, as

well under the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights that China has

signed.

In short, we seek your help to open a dialogue with the Chinese

government so as to peacefully resolve this crisis. On behalf of tens

of millions of Falun Gong practitioners around the world, I want

to thank Congressman Chris Smith for introducing House Resolution 218, which was unanimously passed by the House on November 18, 1999. This House resolution condemns China’s brutal crackdown on Falun Gong. I would like to personally thank this Congress and the U.S. Government for the many steps it has taken

thus far to encourage the Chinese government to end its persecution. I hope you will continue to support a peaceful resolution.

Thank you.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much for your testimony. The resolution passed overwhelmingly because members, I do believe, are

deeply concerned and, frankly, are aghast at what’s happening. We

don’t understand why, which is why these hearings are so important, not just for chronicling the abuse, but also for trying to ascertain the ‘‘why’’. I think there’s been much too little, discussion on

what is at the core.

Yesterday, I met with Wei Jingsheng and he spent about an hour

or so talking to assembled Members of Congress and their staffs

about our lack of depth as an institution, as a democracy, in understanding the true nature of this dictatorship and its malevolent intentions toward the United States and Taiwan and many other

parts of the world, but especially toward the United States. We are

very Pollyann-ish in our treatment of this dictatorship.

If China were a democracy, constructive engagement would be

something we could be breaking our backs to accommodate, but we

are, indeed, enabling the dictatorship, as you put it. Things could

go from bad to worse. There is an escalation with regard to the

Falun Gong, which we ignore at their peril and our own. I think

all of your points were very well taken at this hearing.

I’d like to ask a few questions. According to our press reports, the

Chinese government has rounded up a number of political dissidents—we know about Tibetan Buddhists and Falun Gong practitioners—in an effort, to preempt any demonstrations during the

visit of Mary Robinson, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human

Rights. What effects do you believe the High Commissioner’s visit

will have? Will she speak out, in your view, boldly and clearly,

about what’s going on there? I mean, if access is indeed denied, will

she not then become a reason for silence? That should ratchet and

amplify the message of repression. Would any of you like to touch

on that? Mr. Qiang?

Mr. QIANG. Thank you. It was our press report 2 days ago and

yesterday that got into the fact of the increased persecution of civilians, of the Chinese dissidents, trying to prevent them from speaking out or trying to meet the High Commissioner from the United

Nations, Mary Robinson. Our office has been regularly in contact

with Mary Robinson’s office per her visit and provided a detailed,

27

in-depth analysis of information on the Chinese human rights situation to date.

Madame Robinson, who is a very respectable human rights advocate around the world, however in her last trip to China, in our

view, was made quite a confusing statement by praising China’s

sudden progress in the human rights area, which didn’t exist, including the village election and the needed reforms. Which we are

trying our best effort to keep her informed. This time we certainly

have asked her to speak out against those violations.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TSERING. Can I just add to what Qiang said? Any visitors to

China or Tibet, whether it’s the High Commissioner for Human

Rights or any other government officials, unless they are well-prepared, it’s likely that these may play into the hands of the Chinese

government. Last time when Mary Robinson was in Tibet, I think

there was a problem in a Tibetan prison.

Mr. SMITH. Many of us were shocked and dismayed when Kofi

Annan made his visit to Beijing and claimed, according to press reports, that somehow he had gotten a ‘‘better understanding’’ of the

Chinese treatment—we read that as mistreatment—of the Falun

Gong. Ms. Zhao, do you have any comments on that?

I asked Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Wu earlier about Madame

Albright’s testimony yesterday, which was not unlike her testimony

in this room just a few days earlier to the International Relations

Committee. I posed a question to her regarding China and human

rights. Her comment yesterday, and I’ll just quote it again, was, ‘‘I

believe that our business practices are such that really push the

issue of worker rights and human rights. The way we treat our

people is an example.’’

Is that naive? Or is that something else? Or is it accurate? Would

anyone like to respond? Yes.

Mr. QIANG. The suppression of the Chinese people’s effort to organize independent unions and any other autonomous organization

is the most severe last year for Tibetans. We already established

that through the State Department report. But I would add one

more thing. The Chinese government has been using their PR machine to emphasize the so-called dialogue with the United States

and other democratic countries on the human rights area as a way

to divert or deflect the international pressure.

There is a simple question, I think, that the United States can

pose to the Chinese government before establishing any meaningful

dialogue. Which is, the Chinese government must start a dialogue

on human rights with the Chinese people with any outside organizations. Those organizations, including my organization, has been

routinely requested the meetings with Chinese officials to discuss

the country’s human rights situation and never had any response.

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask a question. Ms. Reyila, you might want

to comment on this and Mr. Bhuchung, you as well. The Country

Reports on China states, ‘‘Ethnic minorities such as the Muslim

Uighurs and Tibetans are subject to less-stringent population controls and enjoy relatively lax enforcement of the government’s population policy.’’ This account seems to contradict testimony presented to this Subcommittee by a Uighur in late 1997. She described forced abortions being performed as late as the 40th week

28

of pregnancy and stated, ‘‘The birth control policy Uighurs is unbearable. Babies are being killed in delivery rooms’’.

Do you agree with the State Department’s description of the implementation of Chinese population policy against ethnic minorities

in Tibet?

Ms. ABUDUREYIM. Yes, I agree, because when mom——

Mr. SMITH. Wait. Let me say, you agree that it’s less stringent

than in the rest of China, or stronger, or the same?

Ms. ABUDUREYIM. I don’t quite understand what you’re saying.

Mr. SMITH. The State Department is suggesting that ethnic minorities are treated less harshly than, say, the Han Chinese in the

rest of China.

Ms. ABUDUREYIM. No, that’s not true.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Did you want to give any additional amplification on that?

Ms. ABUDUREYIM. Yes, it was 10 years ago, it happened to mom.

I was going to say that, but I don’t know if you’re interested in

that. My mom was put in 10 years ago and she was fined $45,000

yuan. It was pretty big money in China 2 years ago. Because she

was delivering her third child to my stepdad.

Mr. SMITH. She was fined for that. Did you want to comment on

that?

Mr. TSERING. Just that and also one sort of looking at all Chinese rules whether it’s on the family planning or any other rules,

I think you’ve got to keep in mind what’s on paper and what’s in

practice, whether it’s in Tibet or in Eastern Turkestan, anywhere.

The family planning issue is one thing which we are sensitive to.

It is our main charge against the Chinese authorities that they’re

trying to destroy the Tibetan identity. Therefore, it’s clearly bad for

Tibetans, even if the Chinese are implementing a slightly better

policy in certain areas. Because of the sheer difference in numbers,

that we face the brunt of the policy.

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Reyila, you mentioned that in November the Chinese government stated that it did not have enough evidence to put

your mother on trial. Do you have any information as to how your

mother is being treated in custody? Has any American diplomat

made any effort on her behalf to try to intercede? I know you’ve

pointed out State Department comments, but has there been any

attempt to visit her?

Ms. ABUDUREYIM. Yes. February 3, 2000 was when mom was visited by the political consultation seven people on the political consultation. That’s all we know, as far as I know, that’s the only

time.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Song, we really want to keep a focus on what our

own government is saying and on its lack of follow-through with regard to policy. The Country Report does say that your months of

detention, and this is a quote, ‘‘raises concerns about a possible

chilling effect on other Chinese researchers.’’ When I first saw that,

I said, ‘‘Gee do you think?’’ But what signal do you really think

that your incarceration sends to others?

Mr. SONG. In my case, think we might have two results. First is

that I went to the trial, and they sentenced me at least 5 years

under Article 111 of Chinia’s Criminal Law. If I was in this situation for western scholar, who go to China to do the research, will

29

be very difficult. Why? Because actually what I did was a routine

job for any researcher.

When I argued with these agents, I said, ‘‘If you sentence me,

any university, any college teachers and scholars inside China as

well as outside China should be sentenced for their research. Because we do the same job. We collect all the original material first,

read them carefully, get an idea, and then write a book or essay.

But now the situation is a little bit different because we won. We

won the battle. I was released. For the Chinese ministry part, especially for the national security agency part, they will be more careful, but for our parts, there is still potentially danger for ChineseAmerican scholars, is especially Chinese scholars only have green

card and don’t have citizenship to do the research in China. Their

research materials could be classified as anything all those newspapers I called are openly available during the Cultural Revolution

and openly available now, but they still classified them as ‘‘state

secrets.’’

When the Cultural Revolution happened, all Red Guards, including me, produced tons and tons of those kinds of material anywhere in China, like air, like sunlight. Reclassifying these materials means the Chinese legal system does not work, not as they

have written on paper. In practice, those secret agents never obey

their law. They just use their internal regulations against the law.

Who knows what kind of internal regulations they follow?

For instance, they told me, ‘‘You cannot bring out those old newspapers to the United States.’’ Then I asked them: ‘‘I have read all

of China’s criminal laws. I didn’t find one single sentence indicated

that I could not bring the materials abroad. This is not secret.

‘‘They answered, we have internal regulations.’’ I asked, ‘‘show me

your internal regulations.’’ They said: Because this is internal, we

cannot let you read it.’’ So who knows if the internal one exists or

not?

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Mr. Song. Let me ask you another question. Someone said that your release proves that constructive engagement and quiet diplomacy will yield more fruit than linking

economic benefits to human rights. I suspect that your individual

case will be used and maybe even exploited by some of those who

take the other view with regard to permanent MFN. I would like

to know from you what is your opinion in terms of linking human

rights with trade?

Mr. SONG. Yes, my opinion is that the victory come from both

sides, both hands. One hand did not work but both hands worked.

In my case, however,I first owned my release to international pressure. It made Chinese government understand if they still detain

me, if they sentence me, they would not get any change for WTO.

So they released me. But I still want to say that communication

also is our strategy to force them to understand the international

standard of human rights as well as academic freedom.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Qiang, let me ask you a question with regard to

Secretary Albright’s testimony. She attempted to deflect some of

the criticism on MFN by merely pointing to the Geneva Resolution

and the fact that we support the resolution there. We all know that

that resolution ought not to be seen in isolation. It is a very conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:05 Jul 07, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 65151.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
30

structive way of trying to press the case of human rights, but the

U.S. only has one vote.

The question always arises: How serious is the U.S. effort? As I

said in my opening comments, is it a full-court press where all of

our embassies are trying to inform their host governments just how

important and what a priority it is? It also could be a half-hearted,

half-baked effort. One could then say, ‘‘See, but we tried.’’ Then it’s

used to deflect the concerns that many of us have about the real

big issue, and that is linkage of human rights and trade.

What is your take on that issue? How serious is our undertaking

in Geneva?

Mr. QIANG. Let me first say, take the resolution at the Geneva

Convention condemning China’s human rights situation, it’s an important step. It is the correct step. It requires much more effort

than just sponsoring a resolution. China is a permanent member

of the Security Council in the United Nations. It is tremendously

influential, especially coming to the question of human rights, the

Chinese government has been using all the diplomatic, political,

and economic leverages to gain the votes from mostly Third World

countries to deflect their human rights abuses.

But that requires that the U.S. Government, which is a premier

sponsor of the resolution, who is also a leader of the democratic

world, should put much more diplomatic effort from the highest

level, from the White House, to every Ambassador in every member

state of the Commission, to lobbying to gain the actual vote for the

passage. That’s what I urge the U.S. Government to do.

I also agree that, just as Geneva is not enough, there are the bilateral pressure and the multilateral pressure has to go hand-inhand. That lack of a bilateral pressure and inconsistency in the

current administration’s human rights policy on China is a problem

that contributes to the human rights situation in China, especially

since 1998. Why 1998? Because the Chinese have got all they want

from the United States, the two summits and the rest of the bilateral agreements.

On the human rights front, what the Chinese government has

done is playing with I call it hostage politics or diplomacy. It is

wonderful to see Mr. Wei Jingsing and Mr. Song Yong Yi, very few

high prominent political prisoners are in exile. At least they are

not in prison. However, that is by no means to say that the Chinese government has any sincere step to implement human rights

as a country.

Mr. Song, we are very happy you are here, but, again, I wouldn’t

take that as any step for the Chinese government right now in improving human rights. If it is anything, it is the opposite. They are

using, abusing with over broad so-called national security laws and

under the name of so-called rule by law, continually prosecuting

human rights inside of China.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Bhuchung, let me ask you a question in regards

to the whereabouts, of the Panchen Lama whom we’re all deeply

concerned about. Is there any recent information about him?

Let me ask you an additional question. This year’s State Department report continues to refer to Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as, ‘‘the

boy recognized by the Dalai Lama as the Panchen Lama,’’ rather

than just as the Panchen Lama. In a similar vein, it refers to

31

Catholics who are loyal to the pope and not to the governmentsponsored Catholic Patriotic Association as ‘‘unofficial Catholics.’’

Do you think that this way of reporting undermines the right of

religious communities to define themselves? Does it give unmerited

credibility to the government’s ability to say this person is the Panchen Lama?

Mr. TSERING. Mr. Chairman, can I answer the second question

first? Yes, it does. When the United States comes up with such confusing statements it does affect religious position of the Tibetan believers.

Regarding the situation of the Panchen Lama, we are, of course,

very much concerned. Particularly so because of some of the things

you mentioned earlier. There was this news that the Panchen

Lama may have even died. Today, although it is no more than 5

years since the Chinese have taken the Panchen Lama, there is no

report as to his whereabouts. There is no indication about his

health condition.

We have sought ways through the individual governments, including the U.S. Government, as well as through the United Nations agencies, including the United Nations Rights of the Child

Committee, in order to impress upon the government of China the

importance of this one boy.

This is not a political issue. This is an issue of religious rights

of the Tibetan people. Even if they do not consider it as a religious

issue, it is the right of a now 10-year-old boy.

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you a general question, Mr. Qiang maybe

you want to touch on this. The report makes clear that trafficking

in women in the international sex trade is a problem in China and

that the local government officials are often complicity in such trafficking.

As I think you may know, I introduced H.R. 3244. It’s a comprehensive anti-trafficking bill with particular emphasis on those

women, most of whom were forced into prostitution. It would, at

this end, in this country, increase punishment of those who are a

part of that and anyone along the line who is apprehended. They

could get up to life imprisonment. But it also would deny nonhumanitarian aid to those countries that have not taken steps to

deter trafficking. It also has some provisions dealing with helping

women who are apprehended here as part of, say, a crackdown on

a brothel, so they’re not put on the next plane and put right back

in the cycle.

Now the trafficking in China has not been a very high visibility

issue in the past, although there have been some reports. What’s

your sense as to its severity? Do you think our legislation, if you’ve

studied it, is helpful in trying to mitigate the problem?

Mr. QIANG. Thank you, Chairman, for addressing this issue. It

is not very visible, but actually China has been trying very hard

to raise the awareness of this particular issue, the trafficking in

women. We did research in 1995, including in part of our report

presented to the World Conference of the Women’s Conference in

Beijing, and the followup report 2 years ago.

The importance of this issue also lies in the context of two

things. One, it is human rights violation in China. It’s not just

about a handful of dissidents. It’s not just about certain minority

32

groups or the workers’ union. It’s literally every citizen in the country.

The second one is the question of during these economic changes,

economic reforms, opening up, those vulnerable groups and the new

issues coming up, because of a lack of action or lack of protection

of human rights and the victims of human rights abuses spread

into the new vulnerable groups. The woman trafficking is one of

those groups. It is of those groups. It is a severe issue in China,

indeed. There is a lack of legislation and the political will to protect

those vulnerable groups during those social changes.

But in addition to that, the fact of a lack of independent organizations, lack of a free press, lack of an independent judicial system

severely contributes to those kind of violations.

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask the question, and anyone who would

want to respond to this, please do. I’ve been informed that there

is about to be a $5 to $7 billion initial public offering of a controversial foreign corporation, PetroChina, here in the United

States. PetroChina is a subsidiary of the China National Petroleum

Corporation. In addition to its possible complicity in inflicting serious environmental damage on Tibet, the CNPC is also a 40 percent

equity shareholder in the oil consortium of the Khartoum regime

in Sudan, which sponsors genocide, terrorism, and slavery.

In your opinion, how serious is the danger that the proceeds from

this IPO will go to support the political activities of another rogue

regime, that which is in Khartoum? Do you have any suggestions

as to what we might do to try to stop, can the U.S. Government

do anything to stop this stock offering?

Mr. TSERING. I would now like to take this question because it

is related to the Tibetan people in a direct way. I think it involves

two issues. One, of course, it is a well-known fact that in the past

the CNPC has been using money it has gotten to support the regime in Sudan. Therefore, there is a coalition of organizations

which has been launching a campaign against it.

But we have had information saying that the money that

PetroChina proposes to raise this time through their IPO may be

used to exploit gas and petroleum resources in Tibet, which is unfortunately or fortunately located near a controversial World Bank

project. If such a project leads to explosion of gas, it would harm

the Tibetans there. Second, it would change the demographic map

of the region and, thereby, bring social and political unrest into the

area.

So we have started a campaign recently along with other organizations. I believe AFL–CIO has also come aboard on this campaign

requesting that American investors not buy from this IPO because

if China wants investment, international money, China should

learn to play by the rules. Right now, China doesn’t play by the

rules. Therefore, it’s important that investors teach China this lesson by not buying the PetroChina shares.

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask Ms. Zhao, if you could speak to whether

or not you think the U.S. Government response has been adequate

to the atrocities committed against the Falun Gong, which, you

pointed out, are escalating. I think the number you used was 11

people who have been murdered by the regime. Countless others

have been incarcerated or beaten.

33

It is indefensible for this government to be engaging with china

in a way that enables or facilitates that to happen. I mean, in plain

daylight. I’ve been following the reports every day of people having

their legs kicked out from under them, according to Routers. I’m

interested. Some of my Republican and Democratic colleagues are

deeply interested. But has the administration done enough to protest? What would be your recommendation for what we might do

further to try to get them to lay off this relatively new repression?

Ms. ZHAO. I think right now the hardest thing is to communicate

with the Chinese government. All these people are trying every day

from all over the world and all over China. They try to tell the government we want an open dialogue with the Chinese government

and there is no way to get them to receive the message, I guess.

So I think just to let them know that we need an open dialogue

with the Falun practitioners. To let them know that we want all

the practitioners that have been arrested, to let them go free and

we can practice in public legally. That’s what we want.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

Are there any additional comments that any of our witnesses

would like to make before we conclude the hearing?

Mr. TSERING. Just one.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TSERING. It’s not just the people in Tibet. Also they are proposing to exploit oil fields in Eastern Turkestan so the Eastern

Turkestan people may also like to be involved in this campaign.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. QIANG. Just two points. First, is to reemphasize what Ms.

Zhao and I said earlier about a dialogue with the Chinese people.

Ten years ago, the students in Tiananmen peacefully demonstrating required a dialogue with the government officials. What

they got was tanks and machine guns. Now the Falun Gong people

are in the reeducation-through-labor prisons. People like myself,

they are in exile. Without that basic step, how can we say there

is any human rights movement improvement in China?

Second, those human rights violation has a direct implication to

the business or the business rules dealing with China. Let me give

you two examples. One is, as you probably have read through the

press, the report recently from the New York Times. A Chinese citizen who lived in the United States for 20 years, Mr. Vuan, who

recently visited his family back in Shanghai as a messenger to

meet one of the Tiananmen mothers, the mothers of Tiananmen

victims, trying to deliver some humanitarian donations to the

mother.

But the security police stopped him, interrogated him. They then,

when they found out he doesn’t have the money with him, they

forced him to write out a check from his U.S. bank as a condition

that otherwise they will implicate there his family and sentence

him. So, basically, this is extortion. He has to write that check out

of his U.S. bank. That kind of outrageous behavior, I think it is directly to do with the business rules.

There is another one, even more serious. My organization

Human Rights in China has wired $20,000 U.S. dollars through the

Chase Manhattan Bank in New York to the Bank of China to a recipient who will help us deliver this money to the Tiananmen

34

mothers. But the money was reported by the Bank of China to the

Chinese security and the security came, forced the recipient to restore the money, and confiscated the money.

This is the last year, last June, however, when Human Rights in

China has been asking Chase Manhattan to withdraw this money

because we realized there was the possibility of this. The Bank of

China—they are a business partner of Chase Manhattan Bank—replied the simply false information saying the money had already

been taken. At that time, we had clear evidence the money was

still in the Bank of China.

So by violating those business rules and the so-called National

Security Law, I think that human rights violations clearly are nonexistent, just on those dissidents, but also, directly, in this case, as

a business partner when you’re dealing with China.

Mr. SMITH. I want to thank our very distinguished witnesses for

being here today, for your testimony, for your brave efforts on behalf of human rights in China. The information that you conveyed

to this Subcommittee will be given to the Members of the House

and some Senators, but certainly to Members of the House. I do believe that the knowledge that we glean from these hearings, and

especially this one, will become ammunition in the upcoming fight.

Because right now there’s an all-out, as you know, public relations effort being made by the Secretary of State, the President of

the United States. Arms will be twisted to try to go along with permanent MFN in the next several weeks and couple of months. But

the information you give as witnesses helps us to make informed

decisions. I always believe just go wherever the facts take you.

What you’re giving us is further insight into the barbarity of the

Chinese dictatorship. That has to get out and we will do everything

we possibly can to ensure that it does.

So, thank you so much for being here and taking the time. This

hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(35)

A P P E N D I X

MARCH 2, 2000

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70