U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

64–475 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

CHINA, THE WTO, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

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

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1999

Serial No. 106–102

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

Lori Wallach, President, Global Trade Watch ....................................................... 7

Stephen Rickard, Director, Washington, D.C. Legislative Office, Amnesty

International USA ................................................................................................ 9

Charles Wowkanech, President, New Jersey State AFL–CIO ............................. 12

Harry Wu, Executive Director, Laogai Research Foundation .............................. 17

Mary Beth Markey, Director of Government Relations, International Campaign for Tibet ...................................................................................................... 20

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

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

State of New Jersey, Chairman, Subcommittee on International Operations

and Human Rights ............................................................................................... 42

Lori Wallach ............................................................................................................. 46

Stephen Rickard ...................................................................................................... 50

Charles Wowkanech ................................................................................................ 65

Harry Wu ................................................................................................................. 68

Mary Beth Markey .................................................................................................. 71

Additional material submitted for the record:

Statement submitted by Mr. Wei Jingsheng ......................................................... 75

Letter to President William J. Clinton .................................................................. 76

Congressional Research Service Memo, submitted by Ms. Wallach .................... 78

(1)

CHINA, THE WTO, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Wednesday, December 8, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS,

Committee on International Relations,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:35 p.m. In Room

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith

(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good afternoon. The unrest in the streets of Seattle this past week suddenly

focused the world’s attention on the activities of the World Trade

Organization. The protests raised many important questions about

the way that the WTO conducts its affairs and the nature of economic globalization.

At a time when so many of the premises of the World Trade Organization are being reexamined, it is particularly appropriate that

the Congress examine the potential impact that WTO membership

might have on one of the world’s fastest growing trade powers and

most egregious violators of fundamental human rights, the People’s

Republic of China.

For the past several years, the Beijing regime has made accession to the WTO a top priority, hoping to gain permanent MFN status from other WTO members, most notably from the United

States. On November 15, the possibility of China’s accession became more likely when the Clinton administration and PRC officials announced, with smiles and champagne, that the two countries had reached a bilateral trade agreement. I, for one, saw no

reason to cheer.

The question before this Subcommittee and the Congress is

whether, at this moment in history, bringing the PRC into a permanent and more privileged trading relationship with the United

States and other WTO members will make it act more humanely

toward its own people. Sadly, this year of so-called progress toward

PRC accession to the WTO has also been another year of significant regression for human rights in China.

In quarterly reports, tracking the seven human rights policy

goals that President Clinton publicly announced before his 1998

trip to Beijing, Amnesty International found a complete lack of improvement in all categories. Amnesty rated Beijing in all seven

areas and gave the regime seven Fs.

Here are the specifics: Release of all prisoners of conscience and

Tiananmen Square prisoners: total failure; Regression. Review of

2

all counterrevolutionary prison terms: Total failure; no progress.

Allow religious freedom: Total failure; no progress. Prevent coercive

family planning and harvesting of organs. No progress. Fully implement pledges on human rights treaties: No progress. Review the

reeducation through labor system: Total failure, no progress. End

police and prison brutality: Again, total failure, no progress.

The Communist government of the PRC blatantly and systematically violates basic human rights on a massive scale. It does not

allow significant political dissent. It continues to repress the China

Democracy Party, whose representatives appeared before us at a

hearing earlier this year. As of October, some 30 CDP leaders remained in government custody, some of them having received stiff

sentences of up to 13 years for their pro-democracy activities.

According to the State Department, the PRC, and I quote, ‘‘continues to restrict tightly worker rights and forced labor remains a

problem,’’ close quote. The Department’s latest country report on

human rights practices in China states that, and I quote again,

‘‘independent trade unions remain illegal within China. The government has attempted to stamp out illegal, ‘‘that is, independent,’’

‘‘union activity,’’. The administration also admits that Beijing’s

compliance with the U.S.-China memorandum of understanding, or

MOU, on prison-made goods has been inadequate in all the cases,

they write, of U.S. inspection requests in 1998; the ministry of justice refused the request, ignored it, or simply denied the allegations

made without further elaboration. In addition, poor enforcement of

occupational safety and health regulations continues to put workers’ lives at risk.

The deplorable state of workers’ rights in the PRC not only

means that Chinese men, women, and children in the work force

are exploited and put at risk, but also that U.S. workers are severely hurt as well by profoundly unfair advantage that go to those

corporations who benefit from these heinous labor practices.

Human rights abuses abroad have a direct consequence of robbing

Americans of their jobs and their livelihoods right here at home.

As we will hear today from Charlie Wowkanech, the president of

the New Jersey State AFL–CIO and I quote him, ‘‘Chinese economic policy depends on maintenance of a strategy of aggressive

exports and carefully restricted foreign access to its home market.

The systematic violation of internationally recognized workers’

rights is a strategically necessary component of that policy. Chinese labor activists are regularly jailed,’’ he writes, ‘‘or imprisoned

in reeducation camps for advocating free and independent trade

unions, for protesting corruption and embezzlement, for insisting

that they be paid the wages that they are owed, and for talking to

journalists about working conditions in China. In January 1999,

police attacked a group of retired factory workers in Wuhan, who

were protesting unpaid wages and pensions. Many of the retirees

were beaten,’’ close quote.

The PRC also imprisons religious leaders, ranging from the 10-

year-old Panchen Lama to the elderly Catholic Bishop Su of

Baoding province. It summarily executes political and religious

prisons in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. It harvests and

sells the internal organs of executed prisoners. It forces women

who have unauthorized pregnancies to abort their children and to

3

submit to sterilization. It continues to brutalize the indigenous peoples of Tibet and Xinjiang. It uses slave labor to manufacture products for export.

The most obvious deterioration in the situation in China has

been the Chinese government’s massive crackdown on Falun Gong,

a nonviolent meditative spiritual practice with millions of adherents in China and elsewhere. Since the group was banned in July

of this year, thousands of ordinary citizens from all over China

have been jailed for refusing to give up their practice of Falun

Gong. There have been many credible reports of torture and inhumane treatment of detained practitioners, including a report that

a 42-year-old woman was tortured by the Chinese government to

death. Numerous practitioners have been sentenced to labor camps

without trial, and thousands have lost their jobs or been expelled

from schools. In hearings closed to the public, adherents have been

sentenced to up to a dozen years in prison for using, as they say,

‘‘an evil cult to obstruct the law’’. The Beijing regime has publicly

declared its intention to, quote, ‘‘smash’’ Falun Gong.

The utter failure of the administration’s current policy of constructive engagement with China should come as no surprise.

While the rulers of the Chinese Communist Party may be ruthless

and despotic, they are not stupid. If there are no costs associated

with the brutality that keeps them in power, then they have no incentive to become less brutal. In fact, they will become bolder, as

they have.

China has suspended its human rights dialogue, for example,

with the United States. Recently, the Chinese ministry of foreign

affairs has even stopped accepting diplomatic protests from the

United States regarding human rights issues. According to yesterday’s Washington Post, and I quote, ‘‘The State Department must

now issue the protests in Washington, a significant change in diplomatic protocol.’’

According to many accounts, if China were to accede to the World

Trade Organization, the U.S. would be required to either grant Beijing permanent MFN status or to lose the benefits of WTO agreements with China. As it stands today, China’s most-favored-nation

trading status with the U.S. is reviewed, as we know, annually. Although that status has been renewed in recent years by Presidential waivers of the Jackson-Vanik freedom of Emigration requirement, the annual debate and the possibility of MFN revocation are arguably the most important leverage that the U.S. still

has to influence the human rights situation in China. Surrendering

that leverage to Beijing would send exactly the wrong message at

the wrong time.

Of course, when we begin talking about conditioning trade and

economic benefits on basic respect for human rights, we provoke

the predictable litany of responses from business interests: Sanctions don’t work. Unilateral actions are counterproductive. And so

on.

But when big business and the Clinton administration really

want to change Beijing’s conduct, such as in the effort to get China

to respect international copyrights or intellectual property rights,

what do they do? They use the credible and imminent threat of economic sanctions, the very same sanctions they say would be counVerDate 11-SEP-98 12:50 Jun 15, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 \PRESS\64475.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
4

terproductive as a means of promoting political and religious rights

and freedom in China. On at least three occasions since 1991, the

U.S. trade representative has threatened to impose billions of dollars in sanctions to vindicate U.S. intellectual property interests. In

each of those cases, when faced with sanctions, the Chinese government changed its behavior.

The WTO dispute settlement moreover relies on the same kinds

of sanctions as the primary mechanism to enforce the WTO agreement. Under article 22.2 of the WTO’s understanding on rules and

procedures governing the settlement of disputes, the final means of

vindicating a claim against a noncomplying member is the imposition of unilateral, retaliatory sanctions by any other nation that

may choose to impose such sanctions.

By their actions, big business and the Clinton administration

show their faith in sanctions. By their reactions, Chinese leaders

show the effectiveness of sanctions as well. Thus, the question before us is not: Can economic sanctions work? It is, why do we use

sanctions to protect software but not human life? To protect musical recordings but not the rights of religious believers, or workers

rights or political prisoners? We will do it to stop movie piracy, but

we won’t do it to stop torture. I have yet to hear a real answer to

that question. I have posed that time and time again to administration witnesses and others who have come before our Committee

and before the Full Committee.

Unless someone can give me another plausible explanation, I

must reluctantly conclude that some business interests and U.S. officials understand full well that sanctions, and the threat of sanctions, can and do work to change the conduct of the PRC and similar governments. But they also know that sanctions may be subject

to the law of diminishing returns. For example, if a certain punitive tariff rate were already in effect because of egregious human

rights violations, then it would no longer be useful to threaten the

same punishment in order to vindicate intellectual property rights.

Big business would prefer to conserve the limited resource of trade

leverage for their own uses, and the rules of the WTO attempt to

turn this preference into international law. The selective use of

rhetoric denouncing unilateral sanctions hides an implicit

prioritization of profits above fundamental human rights.

That is wrong. We must not abandon the American ideals of freedom and democracy for the sake of marginally cheaper consumer

goods and access to cheap labor. We must condition expanded trade

relations upon at least minimal respect for fundamental human

rights. American interests and American values demand no less.

I would like to yield to my good friend from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, for any opening comments he might have.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. I certainly want to associate myself very closely with the remarks that you just made,

and I appreciate you calling this hearing in order to put the demonstrations that took place up in Seattle in a perspective. Obviously this, what is going on in our country, is not a left-right conflict when you have the two of us siding with some of the demonstrators that were making their feelings very well known in the

streets of Seattle.

5

The WTO is an organization which it seems the business community wants to invest a lot of authority in because the business community feels that they are in control and will be in control of the

decisions of the WTO. That is that. I am someone who believes that

centralized authority and centralized decisionmaking is contrary to

American tradition and contrary to certainly of the beliefs that I

hold dear, of trying to let people at the lowest level of government

make the decisions that are important for them as well as right on

down the line. At least everybody is involved with the decisionmaking.

From what I see, the WTO is not going to be a democratic institution. Where are all the elections that are going to be determining

the WTO and the decisions and reaffirming the decisions that are

made there? It is totally contradictory to me for an American citizen to want to give up this type of authority, especially when what

we are really talking about is the legal use of economic pressure.

Are we going to indeed invest all of the power to exert economic

pressure and force on nations into a world organization? If we are

indeed going to do that, why are we permitting the Communist

Chinese to become part of that organization?

It makes a mockery out of the United Nations to have the world’s

worst human rights abuser have a veto power in the Security

Council of the United Nations. It is a mockery. What can you do

for the cause of human liberty when you have got the world’s worst

human rights abuser with a veto power? Here we have people in

the West, especially the United States of America, literally begging

the Communist Chinese to get involved with what would be considered an international chamber of commerce. What do you want the

local gangster to become involved in the chamber of commerce for?

What is that all about?

They have got some businessmen who may know how to run

their own business but don’t have much sense and certainly have

no loyalty to the values that we Americans hold dear when it

comes to liberty and justice and human decency. They are there to

make a profit. That is what business is supposed to be for, make

a profit. We will listen to them about making a profit, but the heck

if we are going to let them make our decisions about what the

moral values and the moral standards and the standards of liberty

and justice will be for the United States of America. That is left

up to the people of this country, and we are not going to vest that

power in a World Trade Organization that will tell the people of

Boston or the people of some community that they cannot boycott

Burma or some other country because of horrible human rights

abuses that are going on in that country.

We as Americans believe that people have a right to exercise decisionmaking. That is why people threw the tea in Boston harbor.

That is what that was all about. I do not want to set up a scenario

where we have the Communist Chinese and the Burmese and the

Nigerians and the people from Sudan who run Sudan, and other

countries like that, dominating a World Trade Organization that

we have vested with power and authority. Our businessmen have

pushed us into that policy and then find out that these other countries end up calling the shots 10 years down the road. That is exactly the direction this will go, mark my words.

6

If we let this happen, we will have people who hate everything

that the United States stands for, people who despise us, people

who have no concept of human rights in their own country, people

who despise democracy and think of it as a threat. Criminals and

crooks who control these countries will now find themselves in a

position of leverage and authority in a new world trading organization that has been granted authority to make these type of decisions as to what type of economic pressure can be put on various

regimes.

I don’t believe that you should only use military force or do nothing. I think economic pressure is and should be an alternative the

United States of America has, and it should be something that

local communities and States have as well. If a State legislature

wants to say no, nothing will be purchased by this State government from some outrageous genocidal regime like the SLORC regime in Burma, more power to them. I think that is a great statement for the world to hear, and it is their right as Americans to

declare that.

So we have got to nip this thing in the bud right now. We have

got to let the American people know what the drawbacks are to

WTO and the fact that China, they are begging China to get in—

pardon me for being so blunt about it—the tongues of our people

are sore from licking the boots of these dictators. It is embarrassing.

So today we say ‘‘wake up, America’’. We are going into the holiday season where we celebrate our most cherished religious values,

Christians and Jews and others, and Ramadan is about to happen

as well. Let us recognize that there are some fundamental values

on this planet that are worth more than just making money in the

short run. That is what we are trying to reaffirm here today. I

thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for that very eloquent defense of human

rights. You have been indefatigable in your efforts, particularly in

Asia, to try to promote human rights there, in Burma and elsewhere. I appreciate your comments. I would like to welcome our

witnesses and ask them to take their seats. The record will reflect

a fuller bio of each, but just let me introduce each of our witnesses

today.

Beginning with Ms. Lori Wallach, who is the director of Global

Trade Watch, a division of Public Citizen, the organization founded

by Ralph Nader in 1971. A graduate of Wesley college and Harvard

law school, Ms. Wallach is also a founder and board member of the

Citizens Trade Campaign. She has spoken and written extensively

on NAFTA, GATT, and other trade issues and is considered truly

an expert in those fields.

Mr. Stephen Rickard is the director of the Washington office of

Amnesty International USA. Previously, Mr. Rickard served as the

senior adviser for South Asian affairs in the Department of State,

as well as a professional staff member for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian

affairs. Thank you, Mr. Rickard, for being here.

Mr. Charles Wowkanech has served as the president of the New

Jersey State AFL–CIO since his election in January 1997. He has

been an active labor leader for the past 25 years. Before that, he

7

served as secretary treasurer and as assistant to the president for

that organization. A longtime participant in health care reform efforts, Mr. Wowkanech was also the chairman of the New Jersey Individual Health Coverage Program board which was established by

law to implement insurance reforms and regulate the New Jersey

health insurance market. Mr. Wowkanech, his wife Lu Ann, and

their two sons, Charles and Michael, reside in Ocean City, New

Jersey.

Harry Wu is the executive director of the Laogai research Foundation. Harry has spent 19 years as a prisoner in the Chinese

laogai in 12 different forced-labor camps. Released in 1979, Mr. Wu

came to the United States in 1985 as a visiting professor at the

University of California at Berkley. Mr. Wu was arrested while attempting to reenter China in the summer of 1995. Mr. Wu was arrested by the Chinese government, held for 66 days, and sentenced

to 15 years in prison before being expelled from the country as a

result of an extensive international campaign launched on his behalf.

Finally, Mary Beth Markey is the director of government relations for the International Campaign for Tibet, a nonprofit organization providing information on the situation in Tibet and urging

a negotiated political statement of Tibet’s status. A graduate of the

College of William and Mary, Ms. Markey served for 8 years on the

staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where she monitored human rights and refugee issues.

Ms. Wallach, if you could begin with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF LORI WALLACH, PRESIDENT, GLOBAL TRADE

WATCH

Ms. WALLACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

holding this hearing.

I am joined by a distinguished panel of experts on why granting

permanent MFN for China as well as China’s accession to WTO is

a bad idea, so I am going to focus on the how and the what. Specifically, I am going to aim at what are some big misconceptions, I

would say also some outright mendacities as to the role of Congress

regarding this decision.

The bottom-line reality of Chinese accession to WTO is there is

simply no requirement that the U.S. Congress grant permanent

most-favored-nation status to China either as a condition for China

entering WTO or, if China has entered WTO, as a condition for the

U.S. obtaining the potential reciprocal benefits of that agreement.

As a legal matter, this decision as to what a country must do is

set forth rather explicitly in the actual GATT, and it is updated in

the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. The language is unambiguous; it must be unconditional, most-favored-nation treatment reciprocally. There is simply nothing about the duration of that grant.

Explicitly, to be very clear, neither in GATT nor in WTO is there

a single rule that requires anything about duration nor specifically

permanent most-favored-nation, nor does such a thing exist in

GATT jurisprudence. In fact, the U.S. could choose to give weekly,

hourly, daily, annual, biannual, 5-year, permanent, you choose it.

It cannot cease and it cannot be conditioned on what, in GATTese,

8

is called ‘‘noncommercial performance requirements,’’ i.e., you cannot write a statute that says we will check these three things and

then extend. But you can do an annual review that is on all issues

and give annual grants.

Now, the reason I mention this is because the boosters of permanent MFN to some degree, I suspect, see WTO admission of China

as an excuse to obtain what they really want, which is to stop the

congressional reviews, as compared to how it is sold to the rest of

us, which is the other way around, i.e., what a wonderful thing

WTO admission, small little thing as permanent MFN.

I believe that the reason, as a political matter, why the U.S. Congress must consider and review its legal options as to what kind

of status to grant is because the record of Chinese noncompliance

with its international, commercial and other agreements is an extreme and long one, not the least of which is the 1993 memorandum of understanding on prison labor, a whole series of intellectual property agreements. So for the U.S. Congress to have the leverage of having an annual review even with removing any explicit

condition of continuation of MFN as a matter of obtaining some

possibility of compliance with the agreement is very important.

To this end, I want to add as another legal clearup point the

threats by the Chinese Ambassador to the U.S. that China would

deny the U.S. the benefits of the WTO deal absent a grant by the

U.S. Congress of permanent most-favored-nation status is, depending on how you look at it, either, A, a meaningless threat or, B,

if it were carried out, would be China’s first violation of WTO rules.

Because as a matter of fact, to the extent the U.S. grants reciprocal

MFN and China does back, China cannot unilaterally decide to

deny any terms of WTO to the U.S.

Finally, two more technical correction points to add to the debate. The issue of accession. As a matter of the WTO and GATT

procedures, at a point where the executive branches of the 135

WTO countries by a majority of two-thirds approve a country’s accession, a country is in. However, it is a totally separate decision

what are the bilateral relations between any of those 135 WTO

members, which is why it is vital for the Congress to understand

that separate from the issue of Chinese entry to WTO is the free

will of Congress to determine the extent of duration of U.S. grants

of trade benefits.

Finally, on accession, all of those commitments that we have

been told will get lost if the U.S. does not do as it is being requested by China, all of those commitments will be

multilateralized. They will be part of the binding agreement of accession. All the countries of the WTO will get that benefit, or none

of them will. It is not a special thing for the U.S. to do in payment

for permanent MFN.

Then finally, a little bit about the WTO provisions, and again we

have heard a lot about how they could undermine the U.S. ability

if China were to be a member to take action on human rights and

religious freedom. I would like to be very explicit about what we

are talking about. GATT article 1, most-favored-nation treatment:

you may not treat another country differently according to its conduct relating to human rights, proliferation, et cetera. GATT article

3: like products must be treated alike. That means physically simiVerDate 11-SEP-98 12:50 Jun 15, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 \PRESS\64475.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
9

lar products. This means you cannot distinguish things that are

made with slave labor, with prison labor, with child labor. A shoe

is a shoe no matter where it is made, in the PLA or in the U.S.

in a union shop.

The third key point to know is the agreement on government

procurement to the WTO. These are the provisions under which the

Burma case you have both mentioned arose. It explicitly forbids

any country in spending its own tax dollars from considering any

noncommercial consideration such as human rights, labor rights,

religious freedom, et cetera.

So, although there is still an outstanding question about what

the Congress could do, not about MFN but about China’s entry into

WTO, you need to be very clear what the U.S. would be giving up.

Under WTO rules, as we saw with the Japan case relating to

Kodak film, once China is in WTO, the U.S. has lost its ability to

use unilaterally any kind of sanction; and this includes all the

issues WTO does not cover. You cannot change any tariff or quota

that is bound by WTO even on issues such as in the Kodak case

where it has to do with personal relationships between individuals

and rules not covered. That is done. So a little bit of technical update and now I will enjoy listening to this distinguished panel on

the merits of why. Thank you very much.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Wallach, for that excellent testimony

and look forward to hearing your answers to some questions in a

few moments.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wallach appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Rickard.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN RICKARD, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. LEGISLATIVE OFFICE, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA

Mr. RICKARD. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to have the opportunity to testify before your Committee today and specifically before you and Mr. Rohrabacher. Both of you have been among the

most stalwart friends of human rights victims around the world for

many years, and it is an honor to be here today. We are grateful

to you for holding this timely and important hearing on the human

rights in China and the issue of China’s admission to the World

Trade Organization. I would reciprocate Ms. Wallach’s comment

about being on the panel. I certainly appreciated very much her remarks and look forward to hearing from the other distinguished

panelists as well. With your permission, my full statement would

be included in the record and I will present a shorter version.

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, it will be a part.

Mr. RICKARD. As recent events in Seattle make clear, there is

widespread concern about the World Trade Organization. Human

rights activists are struck by many things about the WTO. For instance, we are amazed to see the United States enthusiastically

embrace the World Trade Organization where U.S. laws can be

judged and sanctioned by little understood panels while at the

same time it refuses to support an international criminal court

where the worst criminals in the world would be judged under procedures modeled on the Bill of Rights. Frankly, it is hard to underVerDate 11-SEP-98 12:50 Jun 15, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 \PRESS\64475.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
10

stand why it is easier to protect copyrights than human rights.

Why is there a court to protect Disney’s rights to ‘‘The Little Mermaid’’ but no court to protect little children?

Into this maelstrom comes the U.S. deal with China. Consider,

at the same time that China is pledging to embrace the rule of law

for commerce, it is waging a merciless and highly arbitrary campaign of repression against tens of thousands of peaceful Falun

Gong adherents. The Information Center for Human Rights and

Democratic Movement in China has reportedly estimated that as

many as 35,000 Falun Gong practitioners have been detained.

Many of them are being funneled into the reeducation-throughlabor system, an administrative process with no due process rights.

Amnesty has received reports of Falun Gong practitioners who

have been beaten to death, tortured with electric cattle prods and

by other means, and raped in custody. In a disturbing echo of Soviet practices, some have been taken to mental institutions. A copy

of our report on the individual Falun Gong cases is attached to my

testimony.

I should be clear that Amnesty International takes no position on

trade sanctions against any country as a matter of Amnesty policy.

We neither oppose them nor support them and have never taken

a position for or against extending most-favored-nation status to

China. We do believe, however, that effective human rights policies

require consistency and credibility, and credibility means being

willing to pay a price to stand up for human rights victims. It is

almost never a question of whether U.S. officials care about human

rights. It is a question of whether they care enough to be willing

to pay a price and to be willing to fight for the victims.

This explains why the annual effort to condemn China’s human

rights record at the human rights commission in Geneva and the

annual debate in Congress over the human rights record in China

continue to be important even when the ultimate vote goes in China’s favor. They demonstrate to the Chinese government and to

human rights victims in China that the human rights issue will

not go away. In light of China’s ferocious campaign against Falun

Gong, its unrelenting repression against Tibetans and Uighers, and

its failure to move forward in any meaningful way on the human

rights promises it has already made, such as implementing international human rights treaties, Congress is clearly entitled to be

skeptical about assertions that China’s admission to the WTO will

herald the dawning of a new age in China.

I think it is significant and probably wise that U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky has been very circumspect in

making any such claim. For instance, she was quoted in the New

York Times as saying, ‘‘I am cautious in making claims that a market opening agreement leads to anything other than opening the

market. It may, it could have a spillover effect but it may not. We

have got to understand that.’’

In other words, there is nothing inevitable about trade or the

WTO leading to human rights progress. Frankly, the recent news

is not encouraging on the human rights front or any other. According to reports out of China, Chinese political officials recently severely beat a democracy activist because he spoke to a U.S. human

rights official. Even on the trade front, Chinese leaders have

11

rushed to tell other Asian governments that once China is admit

to the WTO, it will stand with other Asian governments to reject

and resist Western trade proposals.

In other words, China tells the U.S. that engagements and

friendship requires the U.S. work to have China admitted to the

WTO while at the same time telling Asian governments that once

admitted to the WTO, China will become a stalwart opponent of

U.S. proposals. Without question, however, the period between now

and the congressional debate on the China deal represents an opportunity for the Clinton administration to demonstrate that the

tree of engagement can bear fruit.

There are three steps that the Chinese government could take or

at least set in progress immediately to demonstrate a genuine commitment to the rule of law and to fulfilling international commitments. First, the Chinese government could announce that it will

review the convictions of every person serving a prison sentence for

counterrevolutionary offenses. These are offenses no longer even on

China’s statute books, having been replaced by a new national security law.

Second, China could announce that it will dismantle the reeducation through labor system. It is simply impossible to claim a commitment to the rule of law and simultaneously maintain a system

that sentences hundreds of thousands of people without due process. Third, the Chinese government could move forward to ratify

and fully implement international human rights treaties. All three

of these steps go directly to the credibility of China’s international

commitments and its commitment to the rule of law.

Now, there are of course many other critical human rights issues

in China. Religion continues to be severely repressed throughout

China. Just as the repression of Tibetans and Uighers and Christians has already demonstrated, the campaign against Falun Gong

shows how extraordinarily fearful Chinese authorities are of any

form of organized entity, however peaceful. To be frank, and speaking just for myself, I shudder when I read that implementing the

U.S.-China trade agreement may cause millions of people to become unemployed in China. One western diplomat was quoted in

the Washington Post saying that if China fails to create a social

safety net for the unemployed, quote, ‘‘things could get extraordinarily ugly,’’ close quote. Indeed.

I don’t believe that governments can maintain social stability in

the long run by cutting themselves off from the rest of the world

and maintaining bloated state enterprises. But when painful

change comes in a democratic society, the unemployed and the poor

can hold leaders accountable and demand government policies that

ameliorate their suffering. In China, the answer may instead be

the cattle prod, the firing squad, or the one-way ticket to the

Laogai. Remember, China is a country where people have literally

been given the death penalty and shot for counterfeiting tax receipts.

Mr. Chairman, you have many distinguished expert witnesses on

human rights in China testifying today so I will not prolong my remarks. I look forward to hearing their testimony and answering

any questions you or others may have. I have brought with me several recent Amnesty reports on human rights conditions in China

12

including the campaign against Falun Gong, the situation in Tibet

and in Xinjiang and others; and with your permission I would ask

that they be made a part of the record of the hearing.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Rickard, they will be made a part of the record,

and I do thank you for your excellent testimony and the great work

that Amnesty does in China and elsewhere around the world.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rickard appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Wowkanech.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES WOWKANECH, PRESIDENT, NEW

JERSEY STATE AFL–CIO

Mr. WOWKANECH. Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the distinguished panel. Before I start my official remarks,

I would like to say that I have given my testimony for the record.

I plan to deviate from that somewhat today with some materials

that I have brought from our home state of New Jersey. But before

I start, I would like to congratulate you on the fine job that you

have done over the years in your fight for the social and economic

justice and human rights of workers around the world. I think it

is unprecedented. I am deeply honored to be here in your presence,

along with your colleague and Mr. Wu, and the other people here

on the panel.

With that, I would just like to say thank you, Mr. Chairman, and

members of the Subcommittee, Mr. Rohrabacher, for allowing me

to present the views of the New Jersey state AFL–CIO and the 1

million workers that we represent on the inclusion of China into

the World Trade Organization and the effect this and other U.S.

trade policies would have on New Jersey.

New Jersey’s trade, economy, and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans are threatened by China’s impending accession into the WTO. China should not be allowed to capitalize on

its human rights, worker rights, and environmental failings to the

detriment of New Jersey working families. In 1998, the U.S. had

a $57 billion trade deficit with China. In that year, U.S.-China

trade yielded a grossly skewed import-export ratio with $71 billion

in Chinese goods entering this country and only $14 billion in U.S.

exports. This was a direct result of the normalized trade relations

between China and the U.S.

New Jersey has been particularly hit hard by the recent U.S. free

trade agreements. In 1996, manufacturing employment in New Jersey fell below 500,000 for the first time since 1930. Free trade

agreements with Canada, Mexico, and Europe have resulted in the

loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs, as businesses have

relocated to exploit weak or nonexistent labor and environmental

protections. In the wake of these agreements, corporate profits

have grown while high-paying American jobs have been lost.

The wage gap for American workers has widened. According to

Business Week, in 1998, the average pay of an American CEO was

419 times that of an average factory worker. When is enough

enough? While corporate profits continue to grow, the working people of New Jersey are struggling to pay their mortgages, send their

kids to college, and improve their overall economic standing. I

would say for the record that back in 1995 and 1996 while all this

13

was going on, New Jersey was No. 1 in mortgage foreclosures, and

New Jersey was ranked No. 1 in our Nation in businesses that

were filing chapter 11. That is a direct correlation with the companies that I am going to talk about that are on that map of our

great state of New Jersey that have left New Jersey for good.

So while all this corporate world has been prospering, many have

suffered. I want to state for the record that I am not a protectionist. I want to state for the record for those that do not know

me in my position with the state federation, I have developed a

fairly good reputation with the business community in our State.

I work very hard with the casino industry in achieving a better

regulatory climate for them to do business in our State. I have

most recently worked with our congressional delegation here, with

our shipping companies in our great port of Newark. I have worked

with Continental Airlines with their quest for some $2.6 billion expansion in New Jersey. In 1985, I proudly worked alongside with

the telecommunications executives in our state to make New Jersey

the first state in the Nation to become wired for fiberoptics so that

we could attract industry to our state and maintain the business

that we had.

So in my remarks, when I say some maybe-not-so-kind things

about corporate America, I just wanted to enter that for the record

that I am not a protectionist; I am not a person that goes around

thinking that the working people should have everything and the

business community should have nothing. I think I have demonstrated in my 10 years in this position that I have not been that

way. The North American Free Trade Agreement has resulted in

the loss of 400,000 American jobs in its first 5 years. New Jersey

alone has lost more than 28,000 to increased trade deficits. New

Jersey’s 1993 to 1996 NAFTA deficit was $2 billion. During the

same period, wages in New Jersey dropped from $13.07 to $12.55

while inflation was on the rise. Again, this situation will only get

worse upon China’s acceptance into the WTO.

At this time I would like to ask the panel as well as the members

on the Committee to focus on the map. I don’t know if you can see

it, but this is a map that shows the spillage of blood of New

Jerseyan and American workers in our state that started since

1985. The statistics that I am going to share with you today are

not from Charlie Wowkanech or from the AFL–CIO. They are from

the New Jersey Department of Labor under the administration of

Governor Christine Todd Whitman.

In 1995 when our Department of Labor started to keep track of

what was going on, 109 companies left our state for good, affecting

some 11,752 workers. From that year on in each successive year,

the number of companies has climbed and the number of workers

out of work has gone up. In 1995 we totaled 388 companies from

109 and 34,700 workers lost their jobs that year. Because of this

map, as you can see, and the wear and tear on it—we have used

it extensively in our state on these issues—our present administration decided to disband this department and not release these numbers anymore. But through our own internal monitoring, we would

take an educated guess to indicate to you at this time in 1999 at

the dawn of the new millennium that we are upwards of 500,000,

and 3,500 companies.

14

I want to direct your attention, Congressman Smith, Mr. Chairman, from New Jersey, because these names will ring a bell, and

for Mr. Rohrabacher, they might as well. I want to start at the

dawn of the century. A great individual by the name of Thomas

Edison founded an incredible device called the light bulb. Here at

the dawn of the new millennium, we cannot find a light bulb made

in America. It is very difficult.

Anheuser Busch, the king of beers, American eagle as its em- blem, most recently decided to purchase $200 million and more,

$200 million worth of their bottles from Mexico because of NAFTA.

The immediate effect was two plants, one by the name of Ball Foster in Millville, New Jersey; and the other plant I don’t have right

now, but was in the state of Texas. In New Jersey, 2 weeks before

Christmas, the employer came and told the 300 plus workers,

‘‘We’re closing the plant down. That was it.’’

Anheuser Busch decided to go with workers in Mexico who are going to be paid $7.50 a day as opposed to $18 an hour with health

care benefits and pension. We cannot go on. We cannot go on like

this. The garment industry, one of the industries that we think will

most come under attack under China’s acceptance into the WTO in

New Jersey, presently our New Jersey Department of Labor indicates that we have 27,000 employees within this industry. That is

also business owners, people who pay real estate taxes; most of

these workers, these garment workers, are single mothers who

work for decent employers, who provide health care and do those

kind of things. They cannot compete. They cannot compete with

China with the situations that you have heard described from this

body, with the egregious offenses that are taking place. It is going

to wipe this industry out.

This is going to have a cascading effect on unemployment, on

welfare, on the tax base. We now have towns in our State which

I am sorry to admit to you here in Washington D.C. where the

principal industry is hospitals and police stations and jails.

This has gone far enough.

One final note. As indicated in your opening remarks, the father

of two children, a 5-year-old and a 7-year-old son who I want the

same great things for as you-all do, and my father and mother for

me. Both boys are fans of the United States Navy and big ships.

So my wife and I thought it would be appropriate this summer, not

only to make the connection to their education and to the history

of our great country, nothing would be more fitting than to take

them to the United States Naval Academy where you see the father of our Navy, John Paul Jones, who was entombed in the chapel. You see the flags and artifacts, cannons and swords from great

battles. When they take you on the 2-hour walking tour, they tell

you about the Academy and it develops the leaders of the future,

both intellectually and morally, and the history of our country and

the honor and the duty to serve.

At the end of the tour, they bring you to the gift shop, like most

tours, and you have tears in your eyes and you are looking at other

people in the tour and you just can’t believe how proud you are to

be an American and what has taken place in our country. Then you

see hats and shirts and beach bags and coffee mugs that are all

made in China, El Salvador and anyplace that you can imagine.

15

But I stayed there for an hour and couldn’t find anything made in

the United States of America.

I say to this Committee, that has to stop. This can’t go on.

Also for the Committee, I would have brought a lot more, but I

have shirts and other garments that are produced in our own great

state of New Jersey, and I am embarrassed to show this to you.

You can go on a New Jersey Turnpike or the Garden State Parkway, and again you can stop in a gift shop and you can purchase

a baseball cap just like this one here and the ones I have in front

of you, that the State of New Jersey buys, that when you flip over

the tag you see ‘‘Made in China,’’ no codes, no FTC regulations. We

have no idea where this stuff comes from in China, if they are from

indentured workers or prison workers. It sells, here’s the price tag,

for $14 dollars.

I can’t believe a New Jersey-based company or an industry that

has 27,000 workers cannot produce these hats. They can.

It is an issue of corporate greed. The situation has gotten out of

control, and I would ask this Committee to consider some of the

recommendations that I am going to put before you this afternoon,

as well as my own great President, John Sweeney, of the national

AFL–CIO, because I am troubled. I am troubled by getting calls

from workers in our State—a wife will call me and tell me her husband has committed suicide because their industry is gone, they

have gone through retraining, and they can’t find a job. They realize that when they are told this is a global marketplace we must

compete in, they don’t want to compete against kids. They don’t

want to compete for 17 cents an hour. They don’t want to compete

against the Mexico bottle workers for $7.50 a day.

So I offer these suggestions to you for your consideration. One,

the State of New Jersey and I think the Federal Government, as

Mr. Rohrabacher has said—I think the United States of America

and the Federal Government must lead the way. We are the nations’ leader, the most industrialized nation in the world. As we see

in New Jersey with the purchase of these goods with taxpayers’

money, I say the Federal Government, right here in the Capitol

building in its souvenir shop or at our national parks or anything

else that the United States of America owns, there should be some

prevailing wage concept. As we have in the building and construction arena, where it creates not protection, it creates a level playing field where people who are bidding on these types of garments

for the State of New Jersey or for the U.S. Government know that

they can’t buy these goods where they are manufactured with these

type of egregious conditions. I think that is something for your consideration.

I also would ask that something to the effect of an international

advisory council. I watch on TV with great interest that the U.N.

is allowed to go in behind the scenes and look at the reduction of

arms. We are fighting the same war. It is not about missiles and

chemical warfare. It is an economic warfare. Somehow a commission must be formed with human rights leaders, with labor leaders,

with corporate America at our side as partners, that must look at

what is taking place; and if these countries do not want to live up

to a standard and level playing field, then they should not be allowed to do business here. We should not open our marketplace.

16

I know the political reality of that is difficult to achieve, but that

is by far the most simplest thing to stop this thing right now.

But I think another suggestion worthwhile looking into—and

again to my good friends on the other side of the aisle in the corporate board rooms who have shown through their own efforts that

they cannot police themselves, that the situation is out of control,

that it is more important at 4:30 this afternoon what the closing

is on the New York Stock Exchange, as opposed to what is going

on inside their factories and plants, I think there has to be some

sort of a Federal industrial retention commission to look at these

violators, whether they be United States companies or not, that intentionally move companies from United States soil and New Jersey and move them to foreign shores to exploit workers. They leave

towns and communities in total devastation, and they leave the

taxpayers of that state to pick up charity care for health care because now people don’t have health care. The welfare rolls, unemployment, I think that these companies have to be held accountable. They can’t police themselves. We can’t let this go on.

So I offer those suggestions to you with the hopes that out of this

meeting and subsequent meetings I know you plan to have, Mr.

Chairman, that some sort of Federal guidelines or legislation incorporating all of the things that this panel is going to offer us today

would be something that we all could get behind to support and

stop China from achieving acceptance into the WTO, and most assuredly we oppose their Most Favored Nation clause, and we would

do anything to work with you or any of these constituency groups

around here to deny that happening within this administration.

So at this time I yield to my great friend, Mr. Wu, and would

be open for questions at any time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wowkanech appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Wowkanech, thank you very much for your testimony. You have raised a number of action items that we will very

seriously consider and try as best we can to act on in the coming

months. Looking at your chart—when you brought that into my office this morning, the thought that occurred to me was that if a

battlefield commander—who often, as we know, puts flags on a

map where the different troops might be—had those kinds of

losses, he would be fired. That may just be New Jersey, but that

speaks for every one of the 50 States throughout our country.

Hopefully, Americans will begin to see that while humanitarianism

in and of itself should be enough to make us sensitized to these

egregious abuses around the world, like in China, there is also a

direct impact and a very negative one on their livelihoods and on

their jobs and on their quality of life.

There is some self-interest that needs to be gotten out there so

that the American public takes ownership of the human rights

issue, because it does negatively affect them both medium- and

long-term; and that certainly makes the case, I think, very dramatically, and I thank you.

Mr. Wu.

17

STATEMENT OF HARRY WU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LAOGAI

RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, Congressman and ladies and gentlemen,

it is my honor to testify before your Subcommittee.

Today, we are standing at a historical crossroads. Down one path

lies a United States chasing after market access in China and talking about human rights, but only acting on trade deals. Down the

other path is the chance to have a principled foreign policy in relation to Communist China, one based on American values and national interest.

For the most part, the United States has been moving steadily

down the first road, kowtowing to the business interests and using

all of the U.S.’s negotiating abilities to push for business deals. The

WTO agreement is supposed to be a major milestone on this road.

It has long been fashionable to think, ‘‘What is good for Wall Street

is good for the United States,’’. But we must also realize that this

deal gives a timely boost to the Chinese Communist leadership.

This blood transfusion to a dying Communist regime is both unwise

and unnecessary.

Faced with a stagnating economy and sagging exports, the Chinese Communist Party desperately needs increased foreign investment and guaranteed access to foreign markets, with no threat of

bilateral sanctions. This deal gives just that to the Chinese dictators, increasing their authority and claims to legitimacy.

The Chinese leadership has not proven to be a reliable partner

in its international dealings. Its human rights abuses violate the

United Nations treaties it has signed, and it continues to violate

trade agreements by dumping and by exporting forced labor products. Mr. Chairman, I promise you that in the next spring I will

come back here to tell the American people what is the truth of the

forced labor products imported into the United States.

The current crackdown on the Falun Gong is a sad but perfect

example of how the Chinese Government treats its common citizens. The Beijing government actually supported Falun Gong when

it first started to flourish in China. The Communist Party realized

that China is facing an ideological crisis: the people do not have

faith in the party as they once did. Falun Gong seemed like a

harmless way to fill this ideological vacuum. Let them meditate. It

is much better than meeting to discuss politics or Christianity or

unemployment. Then slowly, the Falun Gang yellow book became

more popular than Mao’s the red book. It seems that millions of

Chinese today have found a new bible; the yellow replaced the red.

But Falun Gong quickly became a nationwide and organized

movement, and that, the Beijing government could not tolerate.

The Chinese Communist Party does not allow any organization except itself to have nationwide structures, regardless of the organization’s purpose. For example, if you want to collect matchbooks in

New Jersey, you can organize an institution. If someone has the

same purpose, same interest, you can have an institution in California, but you cannot have a nationwide institution to just collect

match books. It is not allowed by law.

So, in retaliation, the Beijing government declared Falun Gong

a cult and is arresting members by the thousands on charges of

spreading superstition or subverting the government. Now, if you

18

look into the yellow book, it does not discuss subverting the government, and it does not advocate any violence. It does not say that

the end of the Earth is coming. Rather, it is talking about an individual’s spiritual health and demonstrates how to do proper breathing exercises.

Like any totalitarian regime, the Chinese Government is paranoid. It considers these people a threat and will treat them as it

does any threat, by cracking down quickly and completely. Lawyers

in China today have been instructed not to represent these people,

showing that the Chinese Government will easily break its own

laws.

But remember, there are many American academics today talking about legislative reform in China. It seems to them this is a

kind of good progress.

The members of Falun Gong were detained, tortured and sent to

the labor camps, and it is reported that over 35,000 people have

been detained since the crackdown began in July. Today, a new

crackdown is starting on another group that practice traditional

breathing, Zhong Gong. So far 100 members have been detained.

These arrests continue even as China receives the Secretary General of the United Nations. This is another shame of this United

Nations organization.

The Chinese Government just released a new law, declaring that

any gathering, baseball games or basketball games or any concert,

if there are over 200 people, must be approved by public security.

The law was issued November 24, 1999. The Chinese Communist

Party is fundamentally threatened by any popular group, students

who want an end to corruption, workers who want their pensions

or independent unions or even middle-aged women practicing meditation exercises in the park.

The Chinese Communist Party will grow richer and stronger

from—if approved for WTO membership. Part of its new wealth

will go to upgrading its instruments of authority: the police, the

military and the labor camps. Foreign investment will help them

crack down on the Falun Gong more efficiently, and it will help

them harvest organs from the death row prisoners with better technology.

There is also the question of national security. Congress should,

when it considers permanent NTR status for China, put this agreement under a national security microscope. The relationship between a lack of democracy, economic growth and Chinese military

expansion is a serious one and must be closely examined.

From a human rights standpoint, granting China permanent

NTR will give them the green light, a green light to continue the

abuse their citizens. That action will tell the dictators in China

that the United States will ignore the horrible way the Chinese

people are treated as long as markets are open to trade and foreign

investment.

Perhaps 1 day the U.S. Government will try to promote human

rights in China with the same zeal that it runs after market access. I hope so. Maybe 1 day a President of the United States will

use his or her private line, red line, with the Chinese Communist

leader to promote human rights, to show that the United States is

19

serious about freedom and democracy. Today, that responsibility

rests with the Congress.

Thank you.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Wu, thank you very much for your very incisive

testimony, and for making the considerable effort to get here, having been in Korea just recently and having changed your plans to

come and appear before the Committee. We are very appreciative

of that.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH. Before I go to Ms. Markey, I would like to just recognize that Eni Faleomavaega is here, and if you have any opening

comments, I say to my friend——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have an opening

statement, but I do want to thank you for your leadership. It has

always been the case in our workings of the Committee, of the Subcommittee, and it is quite unusual, given the fact that the members

are not here. But I am really, really happy that you were able to

call this Committee and have our friends from the NGO’s.

Unfortunately, none of the administration people could make it

to the hearing, but hopefully maybe next month we definitely will

call them up to consider more examination of what happened at the

WTO meeting in Seattle. We definitely will be following up on this,

and I do look forward in hearing from them.

My apologies for those witnesses who have already testified, but

I am going through their statements and really appreciate their

input in the process.

Mr. SMITH. I want to thank my friend and just point out that

events don’t wait on the congressional schedule, and one of the nice

things about this Subcommittee is that we meet all 12 months, and

when events so dictate. Certainly the imperative that we now face

with regard to the massive effort that has been announced again,

as recently as yesterday, by the administration and business leaders for permanent MFN requires this meeting.

Ms. Wallach, I think, pointed out some very, very important

myths that need to be gotten out there with regard to whether or

not permanence in MFN is actually required, and that is something

we will get into during the Q and A.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If the Chairman would yield further, in the

10 years that I have served as a member of the International Relations Committee, again I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for

your leadership and especially on the issue of human rights, not

only in substance and depths of what we have tried to do over the

years with China, but as well as other countries of the world. I

think now we are beginning to see at this most critical moment

how not just the more prosperous countries but every country of

the world, there has got to be a sense of greater equity and fairness

in the process when we talk about economics and trade; and I am

very, very concerned, if this is the way that we are to proceed.

But more than anything, Mr. Chairman—again, I want to thank

you sincerely for your leadership on the issue of human rights; I

think there is no other Chairman in my experience in serving on

this Committee who has provided that kind of leadership. It has

not only sensitized our national leadership, but certainly leaders of

other countries to know that we are dead serious about this, even

20

though in the past years we have somewhat waffled. Sometimes we

think about human rights, sometimes we don’t.

But with your leadership, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend

you, and I certainly will continue to give you all the support I can

as a member of this Subcommittee, because it touches on every aspect. When we talk about social economic issues, we cannot neglect

human rights, and I think this is something we ought to pursue.

I look forward to continue working with you along those lines.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much for those comments.

Ms. Markey.

STATEMENT OF MARY BETH MARKEY, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR TIBET

Ms. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to

testify before the Subcommittee this afternoon. It is always a pleasure to hear your edifying remarks on human rights, and if my

memory serves me, Congressman Faleomavaega, you are one of the

small number of Members of Congress who have made that difficult journey up to Dharmsala, India. I think it may have even

been during the monsoon that you went up there. That is the seat

of the Tibetan Government in exile, and I am sure that was an exciting experience for you. I hope my remarks on Tibet will be interesting in that light.

Like many of our fellow activists in the labor, environmental and

human rights communities, the International Campaign for Tibet

believes that the World Trade Organization has both the potential

internationally to liberalize economies, a good thing; and to promote an ethic based on the accumulation of transnational corporate

wealth which ignores democratic principles, hard-won economic

safeguards and basic human rights, which is very bad, and the

basis of our opposition to an unregulated WTO and to China’s accession at this time.

The International Campaign for Tibet calls on the U.S. Congress

to see the coming debate on China’s WTO membership and permanent NTR status as an opportunity to consider carefully the WTO’s

potential and proclivity to address human rights abuses and then

to use this opportunity of maximum leverage to extract meaningful

human rights concessions from China.

The Congress need not be a rubber stamp for this administration’s investor-based trade priorities, especially with regard to the

China market. Our Nation has many serious concerns with China,

human rights and the situation in Tibet being just two that are

systematically dismissed by Beijing. The U.S.-China human rights

dialogue is shut down, as Chairman Smith has pointed out, although other countries continue to meet bilaterally to discuss

human rights. The Washington Post reported yesterday, as Chairman Smith pointed out, that Beijing will not even accept our

human rights demarches and, as a new protocol, insist that they

must be delivered to the embassy here in Washington.

Appeals to Chinese leaders from heads of state the world over to

begin dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama are routinely answered with Chinese histrionics.

In Tibet the use of prison labor in economic development is openly stated policy. Prisoners forced to work in prison greenhouses fall

21

ill from pesticide exposure. Torture is routine. Patriotic reeducation

continues in monasteries.

Popular resistance against hard-line policies on religion and

against the Dalai Lama continues. In Lhasa in October, Tashi

Tsering who attempted to raise the banned Tibetan flag during the

national minority games, was severely beaten and died of his injuries in detention.

Tibetan homes are routinely searched for evidence of ‘‘splittist activities.’’ officials demand loyalty to the unity of the motherland

and caution against the infiltration and sabotage of foreign hostile

forces.

Ngawang Sandrol, a nun first arrested when she was just 13

years old, is serving her 10th year in prison and has just received

a third term extension, which means she will serve a total of 21

years in prison for singing songs of her love for Tibet and His Holiness the Dalai Lama. According to the Tibetan Information Network in London, a female prisoner in Lhasa’s notorious Drapchi

prison, based on current information for records with adequate

data, has a 1 in 20 chance of not surviving the consequences of imprisonment.

China is silent to requests from U.N. Officials and agencies and

from numerous government, religious and humanitarian delegations to meet with the young Panchen Lama. This little boy, held

captive since he was 6 years old, goes missing—an alarming report

on a Chinese Internet site suggested that he died in Gansu province and was cremated in secrecy. For 41⁄2 years, since May 1995,

the United States has raised his case with Beijing. Assistant Secretary for Human Rights Harold Koh has requested to see him as

part of the resumption of the bilateral human rights dialogue.

Here, Mr. Chairman, I beg your patience to address a terrible

flaw in the U.S. position on the Panchen Lama that is germane to

this discussion today. While the issue of religious freedom has been

elevated to a priority among rights in our State Department, an

ambassador at large and a commission on religious liberty named,

our government has taken an equivocating position with regard to

the authority of the Dalai Lama to recognize the reincarnate Panchen Lama. The Panchen Lama is referred to by our foreign policy

establishment as the, quote, ‘‘Panchen Lama recognized by the

Dalai Lama.’’ since the Chinese Communist Party leadership chose

another boy to replace the kidnapped child, our government refers

to him as the, quote, ‘‘Panchen Lama appointed by the Chinese.’’

Of course, the Chinese Communist Party has no right of primacy

on any religious issue. Nonetheless, the administration is providing

Beijing cover with its ambiguous approach. This is wrong. Would

we hesitate to recognize the choice of a Pope by the College of Cardinals in Rome? Is a mullah not a mullah because we quibble with

his politics? How can we, the United States, advocate on behalf of

religious freedom and accept that the Communist Party, the antithesis of a religious body, has a legitimate role in naming the eleventh Panchen Lama of Tibet?

It is precisely this kind of conflicting signal that doomed to failure the 1993 executive order on MFN, and we should guard against

mixed signals with respect to permanent NTR.

22

Whether we fight the NTR battle annually or permanent NTR is

phased in as China moves into compliance with WTO rules, the

Clinton administration and the Congress must accept the challenge

of devising a tandem human rights/permanent NTR strategy and

commit together to its implementation.

U.S. business, which has failed utterly to use its privileged access to China and Chinese leadership to promote human rights

principles, will likely not ally itself to this strategy. However, it is

past time for them to play a responsible role in exporting the commodity of democratic values.

Mr. Chairman, the International Campaign for Tibet, with the

support of several environmental groups, has for the past months

been engaged in a battle with the World Bank over a plan to move

some 58,000 mostly Chinese settlers onto the Tibetan plateau. The

World Bank project, if implemented, threatens to do serious damage to Tibet’s fragile high altitude ecosystem and will further dilute

the Tibetan population and culture. The Bank has argued from the

beginning that the politics of this project are not the Bank’s responsibility; in other words, the transfer of large numbers of Chinese farmers onto traditional Tibetan lands, hastening the

sinocization of Tibet, need not be considered by Bank project planners in Beijing or Bank headquarters here in Washington. Fortunately for the Tibetans in the project area, there is a mechanism

for redress at the Bank, the Inspection Panel, and the International Campaign for Tibet has submitted a claim against the

project on their behalf.

Destructive environmental decisions from the WTO have similarly been interpreted as outside the scope of the WTO’s responsibility. A platform for labor rights is being resisted as well, and unlike the World Bank, there exists no mechanism for transparency

and redress. It is therefore not difficult to imagine development or

natural resource exploitation in Tibet made possible by the politics

of sinocization and giant transnational corporations that Tibetans

would oppose, but are powerless to stop.

Though China’s membership in the WTO might eventually pressure the leadership to open its doors to outside monitoring, there

is currently no WTO mechanism to perform oversight and certainly

little evidence to support the hopeful position that China would accommodate it. Opening Tibet to unregulated foreign investment

more likely would promote more Chinese migration into Tibetan

areas and challenge efforts for appropriate development designed to

benefit the Tibetan people.

Mr. Chairman, Tom Hayden, a former protester of some renown,

suggested that the new generation of activists that protested in Seattle represent the breakthrough of their generation into a public

effort to challenge the systems. The International Campaign for

Tibet has seen how our own movement has been propelled by

young people. Their priorities, by nature, are hopeful and forward

looking. It is very much a new world order they seek. While they

may have only shut down the WTO meeting for a short while, I am

confident that they will be back and ready to play an active role

in the debate early next year on permanent NTR for China. I

would caution big business not to declare victory as yet.

23

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I hope the Congress will look into how

the Seattle protesters were treated by the police during the demonstrations and in custody. As an American who speaks out against

the atrocities perpetrated by Chinese police and security officials

against peaceful Tibetan demonstrators, I was appalled by what I

saw on television and heard from some of the protesters themselves. Again, I take note of John Pomphret’s piece in yesterday’s

Washington Post. In response to U.S. warnings that a resolution

critical of China might be introduced at the U.N. Human Rights

Commission in Geneva, Pomphret quoted a Chinese official as saying, quote, ‘‘After what happened in Seattle, how could you do this

with a straight face?’’ end quote. Thankfully, those protesters in Seattle have recourse through the legal system and public opinion.

That would be my answer to the Chinese official, but it was still

a shameful display of intolerance and abuse of power.

Thank you again for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Than you very much, Ms. Markey, for your excellent

testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Markey appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH. Let me make just a couple of points and then go to

a couple of questions. We had invited some other witnesses to be

here, including some from the administration. Ms. Barshefsky had

been asked and admittedly was on relatively short notice, and she

was obviously very busy with the events leading up to and then

certainly in Seattle. We will renew that request and hopefully hear

from the administration, from Mr. Roth and from Secretary Harold

Koh as well.

They were all invited to be here, and they chose not to be, but

again giving the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it had something to

do with fatigue having been part of that whole process in Seattle,and we will renew that invitation to them.

We also invited Wei Jingsheng, who is out of the country, but he

did send a letter. I will read a portion of it because I think it is

very, very powerful. As we all know, he was a leader of the democracy movement, and like Harry Wu, spent a significant portion of

his life behind bars because of his belief in human rights and

human freedom.

‘‘Dear Congress: Make no mistake about it, the current mistake

in China is very grave,’’ he writes. ‘‘as witnessed by the recent

Falun Gong crackdown, the ongoing suppression of religious freedoms, the oppression of independent labor unions and the continued imprisonment of democratic activists like myself, whose only

crime was to openly express their opinions, the Chinese Communist

regime continues to trample on the human rights of the Chinese

people.

‘‘Following America’s profuse and repeated apologies for the

bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade last May, the Communist Party leadership has only increased its attitude of defiance.

Chinese language newspapers have published sources stating that

in a recent meeting with Chinese military officials, President Jiang

Zemin ordered an increase in the speed of military development

and scoffed that a so-called close strategic partnership with the

United States was impossible.

24

‘‘He said this at a time when the United States should choose to

award the Communist regime with a sweetheart deal to join the

WTO is utterly inconceivable. WTO membership, obviously a goal

coveted by the Chinese regime, is a bargaining chip that should not

be given away without receiving significant concessions on human

rights, financial sector reform, workers’ rights and freedom of

speech.

‘‘It appears this administration is more worried about getting its

name in the history books than about promoting the principles of

democracy.

‘‘With the entry of China into the WTO now appearing inevitable,

the U.S. must find a way to continue the annual debate on China’s

NTR status. If NTR were made permanent, the U.S. Would forfeit

its final effective weapon for applying pressure on the Communist

government, who would then be free to violate the human rights

of the people unhindered by the threat of U.S. sanctions.

‘‘As one who has spent more than 17 years in Chinese prisons,

I can tell you that international pressure has a direct impact on

human rights in China. When in jail, I could always judge the current state of affairs because there was a clear and inverse relationship between my treatment and the state of American-Chinese relations. The more tense things became, the better I was treated in

prison. The friendlier things became, the worse I was treated.

‘‘As the leaders of the democratic world, it is your duty,’’ he

writes, ‘‘and in your best interest to promote democratic principles

around the world. You must not forsake the friends of democracy

in China by giving away WTO membership and permanent NTR

status to dictators who continue to violate their citizens’ human

rights. Wai Jingsheng, December 8, 1999.’’

I would like to begin by asking Ms. Wallach, in looking at your

statement—and it is probably one of the most provocative things

that will come out of this hearing, and that is the shattering of the

myth based on your legal analysis that permanent MFN is not required for the U.S. to benefit from China’s WTO accession. You

spoke of the issue of duration as opposed to the annual versus permanent. I have read three separate analyses by two different authors from the Library of Congress who suggest that permanent

MFN is required. The President’s assumption, and I assume his

legal assumption, or that of his legal counsel, is that permanent

MFN is required, although no one has said absolutely at the White

House. So maybe they are just saying this is the chance to slamdunk it under the guise of the WTO agreement.

Could you perhaps elaborate on that issue, if you would, and any

of the other panelists who might want to speak to it? Are there any

other countries who are members of the WTO that do not have permanent MFN that would be an example underscoring your point?

Ms. WALLACH. What the GATT agreement requires in Article I:1

is, with respect to customs duties and charges of any kind imposed

on, or in connection with, importation, exportation, blah, blah,

blah, any advantage, favor, privilege or immunity granted by any

contracting party to any product originating in or destined for any

other country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to

the like product. That is the only language, ‘‘immediately and unconditionally,’’ as to the grant of Most Favored Nation status. As

25

a factual matter, the record in history, there are two points. First,

in fact there has been no jurisprudence when there have been annual grants saying that that is not allowed; and second, there have

been annual grants of MFN to GATT members.

The untested case is, what about an unconditional annual grant.

The U.S., for instance, has granted annual MFN to all of the previous Soviet satellite states as they have come into GATT. Romania

still has it, et cetera, and the former Yugoslavia came in that way.

Currently, Czechoslovakia still has it, but it was done under a

waiver provision because it was done as a waiver of Jackson-Vanik.

If the U.S. Congress either amended the Jackson-Vanik amendment to take out the clause that requires a conditionality based on

freedom of immigration or, alternatively, Congress, as a freestanding piece of legislation, simply granted a year of Most Favored Nation status to China with a renewal process that would

not allow for it to expire in between—i.e., like we do now where

there is notice there is a month overlap and absence to vote it just

goes on for another year—there is nothing in the GATT rules, the

WTO rules, nor literally the precedents and history of the institution that would forbid that. I have seen those memos, and those

are basically memos that are putting arguments with no legal, factual, WTO law basis to what is clearly a political push for a particular outcome, but there is no legal or factual basis to that, and

in fact, there is precedent to the contrary.

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that insight. Would any other panel

members want to touch on that? I mean, that is something we need

to look at very, very seriously.

As a practical matter, while Jackson-Vanik is very narrowly written with regard to freedom of immigration, going back to the years

of Romania especially—because I was one of those who led the effort to try to suspend MFN to Romania because of Ceausescu’s horrific record on human rights, torture and religious persecution, as

a matter of practice—we were able to expand the consideration

even though technically it only applied to immigration.

So your point to that, if that were out, it wouldn’t necessarily

mean that we don’t look at the whole spectrum of human rights

with a microscope, and I think it is room for some very serious

thought as to how we might proceed.

It is also important, I think, to shatter that myth, because I

didn’t find citations to back up the Library of Congress Permanet

MFN analysis I kept looking for footnotes that would go into further detail and they weren’t there. Hopefully, the news media will

take note of this because the administration is making it as if it

is a given, an absolute given, that permanent MFN is the prerequisite to WTO affording the benefits between the U.S. and the

PRC; and I think you have held up a stop sign and said, wait a

minute, the law doesn’t say it. That is very, very helpful.

Ms. WALLACH. If I may just add.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, please.

Ms. WALLACH. The political fact of this legal reality is that the

U.S. Congress could take a step that would make sure that whatever benefits might accrue commercially under WTO accession by

China would be fully obtained by U.S. interests, while at the same

time maintaining the leverage that they currently have unlimited,

26

though not added to, which you and others have suggested would

be necessary; but you would preserve the status quo by being able

not literally to condition continued MFN on a particular thing, but

rather the knowledge that every year the Congress, the press, the

U.S. public will have a look, and there is that possibility, but

meanwhile, all the commercial benefits would be allowed.

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you about point No. 5, in your testimony.

You know Harry Wu and everyone here have spoken out against

prison labor very effectively. Harry actually suffered, as we all

know, in the laogai. You point out that a technical, legal consideration about China and WTO is the new powers and rights China

would obtain as a WTO member, as against the U.S.

Most simply, WTO rules forbid countries from banning goods

made with child or forced labor and also forbid countries to treat

other WTO members differently according to their human rights,

weapons proliferation and other noncommercial behavior. If this all

happens the way the administration would like, it is your view that

if we wanted to ban the importation of child-made goods or if the

Smoot-Hawley provisions on prison-made goods were being effectively implemented, that that would all become moot?

Ms. WALLACH. In fact, the way to look at the WTO, as compared

to the GATT with the WTO, is it sets constraints on government

action in a wide array of areas, and in the areas laid out in my

testimony, particularly the ability of policymakers to differentiate

goods not on the basis of where they are from, no, you must not

discriminate, but on how they were made has also been taken away

under Article III and now 12 years of jurisprudence.

It is the same jurisprudence that, for instance, the U.S. lost our

Marine Mammal Protection Act. Tuna is tuna. It doesn’t matter if

it is caught in a way that kills dolphins or in a way that is dolphin

safe; and to be very explicit about the child labor point, in fact, in

1993, when the Uruguay Round was being debated, U.S. Senator

Metzenbaum and I believe, at that point, U.S. Senator Harkin had

the Congressional Research Service review a piece of legislation

they were about to introduce after the State Department had informed me that their child labor ban, implementing the existing

rules of the ILO for the U.S. market, was a violation of GATT; and

there is a CRS memo of 1993 making very explicit that in fact such

government actions are forbidden.

To add to it—it is a complicated matter—there is under an exception generally of GATT relating to national security some specifically enumerated things on which you can take actions that

would otherwise violate the World Trade rules; and because child

labor, forced labor, slave labor is not specifically enumerated, while

many other things are, the interpretation in the trade bar, as well

as by the CRS, is that those things are specifically permitted.

Mr. SMITH. So a perverse outcome of this could be that the Chinese Government or other governments that routinely use sweatshops, underpay their people, don’t have any kind of working conditions that would even come close to comporting with international,

ILO-type standards, they would be in the offensive/protagonist position of bringing action against the United States or any other

power or country that sought to protect basic human rights, which

makes this issue even more ominous than some of us have realized.

27

I mean, that final point that you make, I have been introducing

child labor bills with sanctions for years, only to have the administration say they just, as a matter of policy, disagree with sanctions.

But now you are saying that we would be liable to activity under

the auspices of the WTO. That is frightening.

Ms. WALLACH. I will submit for the record the CRS memo. I have

also done a more detailed legal analysis of it, but by way of extension, for instance, the ILO treaty, I have to mention this because

this wins the hypocrisy of Seattle award. The ILO treaty that was

signed with great trumpets and banners on the abuse of forms of

child labor at the Seattle ministerial, the implementation of it is

a violation of the WTO; and in fact, the Government of Pakistan

has an informal demarche; not an actual filing at WTO, but a

state-to-state cable of some legal significance has noted that if the

U.S. were to ban importation of child labor products, it would take

action.

The way that this works, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, is, the WTO is simply an enforcement body for what are

now 800 pages of regulations. The GATT is now just one of 18 of

the agreements that is enforced, and the WTO’s enforcement system operates such that any government who is a member—which

if China were to be admitted, would now include China—may challenge the law of any other member government as going beyond

the permitted constraints of the WTO rules; and that decision is

then made before a tribunal of three trade lawyers.

There are no basic due process rules. There is no conflict of interest rules for the judges. There is no outside appeal. Unlike any

other international institution where typically decisions are made

by consensus to move forward, so you sacrifice sovereignty but you

are not bound unless you agree, under WTO, these tribunals’ decisions and automatic trade sanctions for countries who refuse to remove the laws these tribunals say are WTO violations, occur absent unanimous consensus to stop, which means 135 countries—

136 if China were to come in—including the country that is just

one sacking some U.S. child labor ban, has to agree to stop, or

automatically, the WTO procedure puts in trade sanctions against

the country that tries to keep a ban on child labor.

So from a public citizen’s perspective, we say that China should

not be allowed into the WTO, and in fact as one of the organizations that helped organize for the past year toward Seattle, we

have organized nongovernmental organizations around the world

because the WTO actively undermines the status quo ante as compared to empowering improvements.

Mr. SMITH. This is going to bear, I think, much more scrutiny

rather than the very quick knee jerk—let us go out and ratify all

of this—that we are getting from the administration. I mean, to

this date, I have yet to see the fine print. I have only read summaries that CRS was able to garner from the administration about

what the agreement actually is—perhaps you have seen it, but I

have been unable to get it—and yet we are being told that the mobilization to try to politically get this fully moved forward by Congress in terms of permanent MFN is being mounted without a scintilla of information about what the consequences will be for child

28

labor, prison labor, workers rights, human rights and all of the

rest.

This is really a cauldron that has to be very, very carefully inspected, and I think your testimony and all of your testimonies

have been very, very helpful in that regard.

Let me just ask with regard to independent trade unions—and

again, any of our witnesses who might want to respond, and Mr.

Wowkanech, you might want to respond as well—there have been

petitions to establish new and free trade unions. Beijing has not

approved any. What are the prospects for the establishment of

independent unions, and will there be any impact of WTO membership will that help, hinder, or be neutral? Does it actually embolden the hard-liners that now they have even less to worry about

in terms of international repercussions, or are trade unions more

or less likely?

Mr. Wowkanech.

Mr. WOWKANECH. I think that the establishment and the right

for people to form unions is one of many issues that the labor community is looking at. We are kind of partners here with the rest

of the environmentalists, the human rights people and everyone

else. It is not just a take-one-component and forget about everything else—prison labor, child labor. I think that what we favor is

that a minimum code of international ethics be put together encompassing all these issues, and the right to form or be a member of

the union is just one of many of the staples that must be in the

package.

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Wallach.

Ms. WALLACH. As a legal matter, under the 18 agreements in

force by the WTO, there is no floor of conduct regarding human

rights or labor rights; there are only ceilings. So there is no treatment of workers that is too squalid to require a trade sanction. But

if a government tries to go above what is permitted and in the instance, of banning child labor and keeping the product out of market access, it is totally, you can’t do any of that.

Right now in the WTO, the Government of Canada is at WTO

challenging the Government of France, which has now implemented a worker safety ban on asbestos; and under WTO rules in

GATTese, the Technical Barriers in Trade agreements, under the

TBT agreement. In fact, a country’s international right to deal with

asbestos does not include a ban, but only includes regulation in labeling. So Canada is using the WTO rules. So say that this fundamental worker safety right in France is a violation, and if in fact

the tribunal just goes straight on what the rules are, the French

law, which many countries have will be struck down. If they take

a political approach to let off steam, maybe they will let it slide,

but in almost any area of worker safety, of organizing, et cetera,

there is a ceiling of activity.

As a practical matter, if you wanted, instead of having a ceiling,

to have a floor, it is really quite simple what you would do. You

would set up as a condition of market access for goods in international trade a system of conduct. So, in the same sense that for

intellectual property you cannot bring something into this market

unless it has a certificate of compliance with the trade-related intellectual property agreement, you would have to have a certificate

29

of compliance of, for instance, the basic ILO agreements, the multilateral agreements on environmental agreements, et cetera. It

would just be a Customs matter to set the floor, and it would be

a condition of market access.

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask Mr. Wu. The MOU which we have all

roundly criticized and have hoped would be beefed up and made

real for years, it began as we all know under the Bush administration as however well intended, certainly a Swiss cheese-type of document that allows the Chinese government to do the investigations, to tell us when and if we can actually investigate a laogai

for prison-made goods that are exported, and unfortunately the

subterfuge continues under the Clinton administration. As I pointed out in my opening comments, we have had no compliance really.

I myself was actually in Beijing Prison Number One with Frank

Wolf. We raised the issue of what we actually got from that, as

jelly shoes and some socks that were being exported and made by

Tiananmen Square activists who were in that prison. Yes, they

took action, but we very seldom have access to these sites, and the

information is so hard to get. Your Laogai Research Foundation

has done so much to try to document this. What do you see as the

progress that is being made to rewrite that MOU so that it is

stronger and has real teeth, and how is that effort threatened by

this WTO fight that we’re undergoing right now?

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, there are two memorandum of understandings between the United States and Communist China. Actually, there are no real teeth over there. In particularly the last couple or 2 years, no activities have happened. The American Government from my view does not want to see anything to disturb the

relationship between the United States and China. They just want

to ignore that. In my statement, I very clearly said that we will

come back over here to tell the truth. We can give you so many examples. So many products I could show you, like baseball caps, all

kinds of things that continually come to the United States. Today,

the American administration did not take any serious action to try

to enforce or implement the law. I think according to WTO principle forced labor should be a major issue. I would say while the

memorandum of understanding—we use the word MOU—we say

this is meaning of useless. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask Mr. Rickard: Amnesty is forever trying

to accurately and tenaciously report on abuses, and you always

have some positive thing that you hope will happen if the brass

ring is seized; and you did it again in this testimony when you stated, without question, that the period between now and the congressional debate on the China deal represents an opportunity for the

Clinton administration to demonstrate that the tree of engagement

can bear fruit.

You named three specific things that you hope might happen—

I am sure there are many others you hope might happen as well:

Review the convictions of every person serving a prison sentence

for counterrevolutionary offenses, dismantle the reeducationthrough-labor system, and ratify and implement international

human rights treaties. Could you expound on that optimism? Do

you have a realistic hope? Do you think the administration will say

now we are serious?

30

Yesterday, it was pointed out in one report that we have threatened to get tougher in our report on human rights. That would

probably be in the country reports on human rights practices. We

may bring a resolution at Geneva. But you wonder whether or not

rhetoric now has any currency with the Chinese. You mention

three very specific things. Do you think the administration will try?

Mr. RICKARD. I am sure the administration will try. In response

to the question of whether or not there is reason for optimism, in

candor very little. Quite the contrary, for at least two reasons.

One—I defer to other members of the panel who are real experts

on China—but it certainly seems to me that there has been a pattern of the Chinese government actually going out of its way to

make very public points that cannot be ignored, that we want to

make it clear we are not doing anything on human rights to move

forward. We want to do this so obviously, so publicly that you can’t

really fudge the issue.

I think during the period in which the President’s executive

order linking human rights to most-favored-nation status was in effect, it really did seem like the Chinese government was saying, we

really want you not to be able to say with a straight face that any

progress at all has taken place. I must say, the one thing about

that whole debacle that you have to give a certain amount of credit

to the administration for was that in fact they did not try and

fudge that and they said, no, there really has not been any

progress; and if we were going to implement the executive order,

we would have to revoke MFN, and so instead we are just going

to back down. They were up front about it.

But I think when the Chinese government arrests dissidents just

before or even during high-level state visits; when they tell the

President of the United States whether or not he can or cannot

bring with him as part of his official delegation senior State Department officials, the President’s representatives like the director

of the policy planning department who is also his designated special representative on Tibet; when the Chinese government says in

a very public way what reporters can and cannot accompany the

President on his trip; when Chinese police arrest and severely beat

someone for speaking with an American human rights official right

at the moment that this issue is being considered, it is either an

unbelievable series of coincidences or there is a concerted effort to

say both externally and perhaps more importantly internally, Don’t

think we’re loosening up or we’re giving anything away about this.

The second reason why I do not think there is a lot of reason for

optimism, one hopes and it is a moment when there ought to be

some leverage, but the other reason is that as I mentioned in my

testimony there is some reason to think that the Chinese government knows very well that in order to live up to its end of the commercial bargain here, there is going to be tremendous social disruption within China. They are going to have to cut tariffs; they are

going to have to face at least some more competition from external

competitors.

It is precisely the moment that the Chinese government is going

to be less willing than ever to tolerate independent entities, the

independent trade movement. So the perverse effect is that in the

short to medium range, there is every reason to think that there

31

is a powerful incentive for the Chinese authorities to clamp down

as tight or tighter than ever because they are anticipating a period

of social disruption and unemployment.

We have seen in many other circumstances with international financial institutions, the International Monetary Fund, the fact is—

I don’t think really anybody disputes this—that some of the things

that the IMF requires of governments are painful medicine and

they cause social disruption. When you have to cut back subsidies

on bread and fuel and cooking fuel, things like that, people are

going to be very unhappy about that. In many countries around the

world, dictatorial governments and military dictatorships are in a

much better position to do the things that the international financial community and business community is asking of them, and it

can be very destabilizing for democratic governments in some of

these situations.

Just to make a last point and then stop. I think Mary Beth’s

point about the World Bank having a procedure where some of

these issues can be raised is very profound, because it took a decade, and the World Bank fought the idea that environmental considerations had any relevance whatsoever to their mandate. ‘‘this

is totally outside of our mandate. You want us to use our financial

power to achieve other objectives.’’ and what do they say now? They

say, ‘‘Environmental considerations is a part of good banking. If we

don’t take these things into account, we’re going to make bad loans

that don’t promote sustainable development and that don’t actually

add overall to the productivity.’’ .

This is, in fact, a very important consideration, and they are beginning to have that rubric about governance issues. What is the

point of loaning a government $2 billion if at the same time that

they are supposed to be putting it into hydro projects or whatever,

they are out purchasing $2 billion worth of additional arms with

which to repress their own people? That is not good banking. You

wouldn’t make that kind of lending on commercial terms.

So the question is, why is it that in the World Trade Organization this idea that anything other than these commercial terms are

absolutely anathema? I just have to say, particularly in light of

Lori’s testimony, that the more I hear about the World Trade Organization, the more I am astonished about it, particularly as someone who went through the wars this past year over the proposed

international criminal court. The proposed international criminal

court has unbelievable safeguards, unbelievable conflict of interest

rules, appeal rights left and right, opportunities to confront witnesses, et cetera, et cetera. Everything is public, et cetera.

There is a difference, of course, between a commercial governmental entity and a court that is deciding on criminal penalties for

individuals, and it is appropriate that there be very, very high safeguards. But they are there and they were fought over. Even with

all of those, many people find it unacceptable. The idea that three

judges with no public disclosure, no conflict of interest rules can

make determinations that effectively circumvent the collective

judgment of the Congress is, and again speaking outside my Amnesty portfolio, astonishing to me as an American citizen.

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Wallach.

32

Ms. WALLACH. The only thing I would add to that is as a legal

matter to the extent that there is some moment from this whole

opportunity to use leverage to extract some concrete progress, it is

actually on the making of the bilateral accession agreement. So for

any country to get into WTO, there are two different processes.

There are negotiations bilaterally between the big WTO members

and the new entrant as to the terms, almost all of which are

multilateralized. They become part of the legal document of that

country’s commitments and obligations under the WTO.

But also, as we saw, there are some side deals: we will buy X

bushels of grain, or whatever, as a sweetener. It is at that moment,

basically, to obtain the support of a country in the vote to have a

country accede that a variety of different potential objective accomplishments can be demanded. In fact, I suspect that the crowds in

Seattle increased by 20 to 30 percent merely on the talking, the

talk about we are going to put human rights and labor rights, a

human face in the global economy, in contrast to the moment having come, gone and been missed of the administration. Having that

short moment of leverage to list your three things, a handful of

others just did not do anything when the talk had to turn into

walk.

Mr. SMITH. I will yield to my good friend in 1 second. You have

seen the U.S. WTO summary. Have you been able to look at, any

of you, the actual agreement? The way I read it—and I looked at

all the bullets in the summary—is provide full trading and distribution rights, cut tariffs from an overall average of 22.1 percent

to 17 percent, establish a tariff rate quota system. Obviously there

is nothing in here about human rights. It is a missed opportunity

even tangentially to have brought in what Mr. Rickard had said on

those issues. There was a moment of opportunity that seems to

have been squandered, and that is most unfortunate.

Ms. WALLACH. To add to that, I think part of the reason why—

and my friend from labor could speak to this with an official position—but from having read, as many of us have, in the press and

also in the statements of the AFL–CIO president, Mr. Sweeney, the

big issue about China and the WTO is to the extent the WTO can

ever be fixed, pruned back in its excesses and some balance in

human rights and labor rights added in. It is not going to happen

when you have China, which has avowed if it enters, to make sure

it is the 800-pound guerilla that stops any such thing. It will never

happen.

Mr. SMITH. Like a computer virus getting into the system, they

will then be proactively trying to excise human rights and workers’

rights for themselves and anyone else.

Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With all the

problems that we have all been informed through the media and

the press concerning the recent WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle, I like to think that there is a blessing in disguise. The WTO

has also exposed to the international community some very fundamental issues, that either the countries have neglected to address

or just simply put it under the table, not wanting to discuss these

fundamental issues. I think there have been some pluses as far as

the WTO is concerned.

33

I know members of this Committee and other members of this

body have debated quite actively the concepts of free trade and fair

trade. I can say for quite a number of my good friends and colleagues here on the Committee who are great advocates of free

trade, but when you add the word ‘‘fair’’ to it, then it changes the

whole picture as far as what free enterprise is all about. There is

also a perspective I think to consider about the golden rule: he who

has the gold makes the rule. I like to think that on the WTO, you

have the European Union, you have the United States, you have

got NAFTA with Mexico, we have Japan and we have China. I suppose because of other serious situations with India and Russia

added, you get into a real interesting situation.

I would like to ask the members of the panel for their perspective. How do you tell corporate America not to go to not just China,

any third world country that pays 10 cents an hour in labor wages

and suggest that corporate America goes over there because this

will help the economy of that country? Does it really? I raise the

question, because I think at the heart and soul of the very issue,

that really has never been properly exposed all these years for the

GATT, and what Ms. Wallach has stated, now is at the forefront.

We are talking serious environmental issues; we are talking serious labor issues; we are talking serious about slave labor, about

child labor issues. In addition to China, with these 135 member

countries that supposedly make up the WTO, how are they going

to resolve these fundamental issues before even talking about

trade? We are talking about trade, but we have not even gotten to

the meat of the issues that some of you have raised quite eloquently here this afternoon.

I for one am very concerned. We can talk about free trade and

the principles of capitalism, to say that millions of Americans are

stockholders to Wall Street and every other stock exchange that we

have here in our country. With a $1.7 trillion budget a year that

is no comparison to almost all other countries of the world. How

do you bring a sense of fairness and equity if we are ever to look

at WTO as the organization that is going to give or respond or answer some of these fundamental issues that I have raised?

I want to thank Ms. Markey. That was one of the most eventful

experiences in my life. To drive for 3 hours to Dharmasala is not

my cup of tea, if you will, but it was a real experience that I have

had in meeting personally with the Dalai Lama, getting a real

sense of spiritual understanding and appreciation of what the

Dalai Lama and the good people of Tibet are having to struggle

with. I appreciate your mentioning that. I would like to have some

expertise on this.

Mr. WOWKANECH. With all due respect, I don’t know how much

expertise; it is more of just a recommendation that has been developed over some 7 or 8 years, which I indicated in my testimony

that we have lost close to half a million jobs, primarily from American companies, doing exactly what you are talking about. I think

the situation that we are faced with here today, again in my own

opinion, nothing official, is that there is not one magic brush that

is going to cure all these ills. I think a number of things have to

be put in place, an international code of ethics.

34

You are right. The workers in China and Burma and the other

countries, they are not going to come up to the type of livable wage

that Americans need in this country, but the Americans I think

would understand that. I think if there were some type of a percentage where the percentage of the American livable wage or minimum wage was the same in China, at least it would be fair competition. But I think what the Americans want to do, or the American government, should be to raise the boats of all countries to our

level, not to take what our parents and our parents before them

have built up, so that now we are in a position where we now have

to go down to that level. We cannot do that and pay our taxes, our

health care bills, send our kids to college. We cannot do that. That

is catastrophic for us.

So I think it is a number of things. I think some sort of an international code of ethics, basic thresholds, have to be established in

terms of a living wage, human rights, environmental rights, health

and safety standards. But the other suggestion that I had for the

chairman—and I don’t know if you had missed it in my testimony—attempts to address your question on American companies.

As I said in my testimony, I am not a corporate killer. I have

worked with every major corporation in our state to make sure that

they stay there. I believe that we must be a partner with the political community as well as the business community and that we are

kind of all in this together. Once you try and do something on your

own, you are in trouble. But I have seen firsthand as you have seen

by the corporate salaries and the packages and the things that are

going on in this country today, that it is kind of like the honor system in West Point. It did not work. The honor system in corporate

America is not working.

I think there has to be some public policy developed, and I offered the suggestion to this Committee of something that we developed in New Jersey, that would be called a Federal Industrial Retention Commission. The commission would be empowered to review and investigate any plant closings, mass layoffs of American

companies due to relocation of jobs in these other countries. If it

is proven that they have gone just to circumvent paying the wages

and exploit other workers in other countries who have no human

rights, who have no right to belong to a union, who have no health

and safety, have no environmental concerns, then that company

must pay restitution. Because what we have seen—and if you could

see our map of our State of New Jersey—we have seen entire communities where this American company was the major employer

between property taxes, payroll taxes, health care to the employees. All of a sudden they are gone.

We just had that situation with Anheuser-Busch, who shut down

a plant in our State, 300 workers, less than 2 weeks notice before

Christmas. They are paying workers in Mexico $7.50 a day to make

bottles that come back in this country for American consumption.

So I think the idea could be critiqued with some of your expertise

and the panel’s. We need some sort of commission that says if you

are going to do that and decimate a community and load up the

welfare rolls of the State, and all those workers who had health

care do not have health care—and in our State we call it charity

care, which is paid for by a variety of surcharges based on the peoVerDate 11-SEP-98 12:50 Jun 15, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 \PRESS\64475.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
35

ple that are still working—there has to be restitution. These companies cannot get off scot free.

That is probably only two things. There needs to be other things

that are put in place, but I think that is a big one. As I said, the

honor system did not work in West Point, and it is not working in

corporate America. The most important thing is that about 45 minutes from now on the stock exchange, when they hit the bell for

the last time, their number is higher than it was the day before,

and that is the sad truth of what is going on here.

Ms. WALLACH. First, just to put some numbers to your observation, the 5-year record of the WTO in effect has actually resulted

in increased income in equality as between countries but also as

within countries, and that is data from the World Bank. That is

not data from some progressive institution on economics. As well,

the U.N. reported that for the countries, developing countries, that

have most quickly adopted WTO rules, their real wages have

dropped most severely even while their macroeconomic growth has

increased.

So if you look at not the external indicators like a stock market

but what it is doing to people’s lives, in a broad sense this particular version of rules, because this clearly isn’t free trade, you

would have one page that says no barriers. Someplace Ann Smith

and David Ricardo are rolling in their graves because this is managed trade, but it is just one version of it.

There are two approaches to fix it. This is a broad brush of it,

but the WTO needs to be pruned back to eliminate its constraints

on existing capacity over the national, State, and local government

to take action to deal with these issues and then it is a smorgasbord of different policy options, many of which are not currently

allowed under WTO rules but, for instance, to set up nondiscriminatory, i.e., you treat foreign and domestic goods the same but

process standards, i.e., environmentally sensitive ways of production. That is the rule; that is the floor. Or no child labor, that is

the rule.

Each country has the right then to set the terms for the access

into its own market, with the basic trade principle that has been

in existence for 50 years of GATT, that you do not discriminate just

because of where it is made but rather on the set of values that

you are going to regulate your market on, and then you hold your

same producers to the same standard. But under the current system, as we have heard from our friend from labor, the guy who

does it right, i.e., the company that wants to pay a wage, pay benefits, et cetera, gets clobbered. They are going to go out of business

or they are going to have to go overseas.

I have heard that time and again from the owners of companies,

many of whom have been generation after generation in this country and under this set of rules are put in a no-win competition. So

we can prune back the WTO so as to facilitate countries being able

to take those measures. Alternatively, there can be things added to

the WTO to set up within the WTO a floor of conduct that becomes

an international standard as a condition for market access. As I

had described before, how you would do that is literally the model

to use intellectual property rules. You literally would have to have

a certification of meeting X, Y, or Z criteria; and then it is enforced

36

as a customs matter, which to the extent that the U.S. has ever

attempted to enforce through GSP or anything else, any labor

rights, you end up doing it as a customs certification.

I think that as a matter of international politics, the likely next

step is the pruning-back option, where both the developing countries and the rich countries would be reempowered to make more

decisions on their own according to their people’s needs and would

be liberated somewhat from the constraints of the WTO as compared to, for me, there are many sovereignty issues raised. If you

try and actually change the country’s conduct, it is a different matter if you are changing the conduct relating to a good in international commerce. Thus, a Malaysian fisherman who in his boat

gets 2 pounds of shrimp to take to his local town’s market would

not be required to comport with the international environmental

agreements, that, for instance, would be put on the shrimp trawler,

a factory trawler that the Malaysian government has purchased, to

send exports to whatever other markets. That is certainly a first

step, would be to prune back, whether or not down the road it is

possible to add a floor.

But absent that, the trends are on the rule are very clear and

to the extend there was so much passion in Seattle, it is because

the outcomes are simply intolerable. In the U.S. we have an enormous amount of job creation, but our Department of Labor lists the

top four categories of job creation as cashier, waiter/waitress, janitor, and retail clerk. We haven’t caught up in the U.S. with real

wages since 1972, and we are theoretically the winner. When I

meet with my coalition partners from around the world in Seattle

and they say, we’re taking it in the shorts but at least you guys

are doing well, I say, look at this data. This whole system needs

to be replaced.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it very much. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rickard has a comment.

I realize it is easy for me to ask the question, realizing also the

complications that every one of those 135 countries have different

sets of economies; you have got a different standard of living, you

have got a different governmental system. I am sure my good

friend, Mr. Rohrabacher, who was here earlier, would have said we

are giving up a lot of our sovereignty through the WTO, which I

fully agree; and to a large extent I don’t want a separate organization telling my country what to do, especially if it involves our national interest in some of those areas.

You can talk about fishing too. I just wanted to see if perhaps

those who were advocating very strong for WTO, at least gives

them a chance to see where they might end up in their dialogue.

Quite obviously, the haves and the have-nots do not agree on some

of those fundamental issues and the reason for the collapse. I tend

to agree with Ms. Wallach, that maybe we ought to start piecemeal.

I think we are trying to grab too much at one time. That may be

in some instances, in some form of categorizations in terms of how

each country’s economies are functioning and maybe work it

through that kind of a system; but it all comes down to the simple

word of ‘‘fairness.’’ how do you draw the line? What is fair for one

country may not necessarily be fair for our country.

37

So our country having the highest standard of living, highest cost

of living, highest everything, does not necessarily mean that our

people working here are getting the best deal. I think that is something that certainly I am sure the Chairman is quite cognizant of,

and that we are trying to find solutions to these very fundamental

and basic issues. I want to thank the members of the panel and

thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. I thank my distinguished friend from American

Samoa for his faithfulness to the human rights issue in general

and for doing all that he can. Whether it be Indonesia, China, or

any of the countries that we deal with, he is always in the front.

Let me just make one final comment, and you might want to respond to it or just leave it as a comment. One of the aspects of political life—and I have been in this 19 years as a Member of Congress—I have really no respect for and zero tolerance for, is selfserving theater. We saw it when Jiang Zemin came in. First when

he made his trip to the United States he stated that they were

going to sign the International Covenant for Civil and Political

Rights, he got kudos ad nauseam for that statement. But there has

been as you pointed out, Mr. Rickard, no implementation. It was

a very cynical gesture thus far. It brought them an enormous

amount of good will. There are many politicians, Republicans and

Democrats, who engage in that kind of practice as well.

Not to make this a stretch, but I have a cynical sense about the

signing, the ill-timed signing of the abusive forms of child labor

during the Seattle conclave. As we all know, that was agreed to 6

months ago, approximately half a year ago; and it doesn’t take effect until the requisite number of countries accede to it, then I

think it waits a year. We should have been the first out of the

blocks with pen in hand to agree to that. Yet it waited until there

was a venue that lent itself to some political outcome.

I am not sure if it was done to cloak or for sheer political selfishness, but it is that kind of thing that I think gives human rights

a bad name, especially if, as has been pointed out, which I did not

realize until this hearing, the perverse outcome of this WTO agreement could completely undermine that convention and any other

like-minded treaty or obligation.

You might want to comment or not, but it is just an observation

from the chair at least that that kind of thing has got to stop,

whether it be done by Republicans or Democrats. Do not be so cynical. If this was a political deal, let us know it. Do not try to give

a highfalutin veneer to it because there are kids who are suffering

every day from child labor, anywhere from 100 to 200 million kids.

Their lives and futures should never be played with in such a cynical way. Mr. Rickard.

Mr. RICKARD. I don’t think that there is much doubt that the administration saw it as a good opportunity to talk about that convention at a high-profile setting where there was going to be a lot

of criticism of globalization. Now, at the same time I have to say

that it is not every day of the week that the administration rushes

through to move forward on a really, really good human rights development; and I have to say that I think that the new ILO convention on the elimination of the worst forms of child labor is a good

development.

38

I think one of the reasons it was able to be done so quickly was

because the convention enjoyed—the ILO in general and the convention enjoyed the very strong support of Chairman Helms, which

we unfortunately have not been able to move other human rights

treaties like the women’s convention which have languished before

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for more than 5 years

now. But this was one where there was very broad bipartisan support.

Senator Hatch, who has always been a big supporter of the ILO

for understandable reasons, the ILO is one of the reasons why the

solidarity movement survived in Poland. Yes, I think the signing

of that in Seattle, the high profile that was given was part of political theater. At the same time it is a very good agreement. It did

not go as far as Amnesty and others would liked to have seen in

addressing the issue of recruitment of child soldiers but at least did

take a positive step in that direction prohibiting coercive recruitment. It still permits voluntary recruitment below the age of 18.

Yes, it was theater but at least—it is an ill wind that blows no

good, a good human rights treaty that moved very quickly.

One point I would like to identify with is Ms. Markey’s comments

about what went on in Seattle. Amnesty just completed a yearlong

campaign on human rights issues in the United States. I think we

do need to be aware of the fact that there are tremendous excesses

and abuses of power in this country as well. So I completely agree

with that, and it is something that needs to be looked into. At the

same time I am sure she will join me in disgust at the Chinese government’s saying what happened in Seattle in any way remotely

equates with what happened in Tianamen Square or what happens

virtually every day of the week in Tibet, in Xinjiang, in other parts

of China.

So my response would be if you ever get to the place where you

have the kind of abuses that took place in Seattle but people have

the freedom to organize, the freedom to protest, where there is

going to be the kind of investigations and followup that there will

be in Seattle, where groups like Amnesty, Public Citizen, and the

International Campaign for Tibet are free to raise these issues and

come before Congress and challenge the behavior of the Seattle Police Department, we will continue to complain about what happened in Seattle; but we will throw a party for you because you will

have made astonishing progress to have gotten to that point.

Mr. SMITH. The point is excellent and well taken. Are there any

further comments from our witnesses?

I would like to thank you for your very, very insightful comments

to the Committee. I think now more than ever we need to get this

information out so that there was not a quick and a cursory review

of what the issues are and the implications from those issues, the

consequences of which, Ms. Wallach, I think you pointed out so

well. There are things that all of us are in a learning curve on.

That is why we have hearings like this. The information will be

widely disseminated among the members. I do think it will have

a very, very real impact on the outcome as we go forward.

I want to thank you for the very, very timely information that

you have imparted to us, and the counsel and wisdom that you

have given us. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned.

39

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(41)

A P P E N D I X

DECEMBER 8, 1999

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

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89