U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

75–292PDF 2012

INVESTIGATING THE CHINESE THREAT, PART II:

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, TORTURE

AND DISAPPEARANCES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 25, 2012

Serial No. 112–174

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Jared Genser, founder, Freedom Now ............................................................ 7

Ms. Rebiya Kadeer, Uyghur democracy leader ..................................................... 18

Mr. Hai Li, Falun Gong practitioner ...................................................................... 25

Mr. Bhuchung K. Tsering, vice president, International Campaign for Tibet ... 35

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Jared Genser: Prepared statement ................................................................. 10

Ms. Rebiya Kadeer: Prepared statement ............................................................... 20

Mr. Hai Li: Prepared statement ............................................................................. 27

Mr. Bhuchung K. Tsering: Prepared statement .................................................... 37

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 64

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 65

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

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 67

(1)

INVESTIGATING THE CHINESE THREAT, PART 

II: HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, TORTURE AND 

DISAPPEARANCES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2012

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

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

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

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

After recognizing myself and my friend, Mr. Berman, the ranking 

member, for 7 minutes each for our opening statements, I will recognize 3 minutes for the vice chair and ranking member of the 

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights. And I will, then, recognize 

other members seeking recognition for 1 minute. 

We will then hear from our distinguished set of panelists. Without objection, all of your written statements will be made a part 

of the record, and members may have 5 days to insert statements 

and questions for the record. 

The Chair now recognizes herself for 7 minutes. 

This hearing is called just 1 day after the conclusion of the 17th 

Session of the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue, held here in 

Washington, DC. I have long been an advocate for human rights 

in China and sponsored several measures, including two House resolutions focused on two of the issues that we will discuss today. 

The first was a resolution I put forward in 2007 that expressed, 

‘‘The sense of the House of Representatives that the Government 

of the People’s Republic of China should immediately release from 

custody the children of Rebiya Kadeer.’’ It is so wonderful to have 

you here. The second was a resolution I introduced in 2009, ‘‘Recognizing the continued persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in 

China.’’ Both of these measures garnered the overwhelming support of the House and served to underscore the deteriorating 

human rights situation in China. 

One must wonder when reading the latest State Department 

human rights report on China, what value is there in the so-called 

Human Rights Dialogue that recently concluded? The report, released on May 24th, noted that over the past year, ‘‘deterioration 

in key aspects of the country’s human rights situation continued. 

Repression and coercion, particularly against organizations and inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Oct 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\072512\75292 HFA PsN: SHIRL
2

dividuals involved in rights advocacy and public interest issues, 

were routine.’’

Congress was told over a decade ago, as some of my colleagues 

will recall, that the granting of permanent, normal trade relations, 

PNTR, to China would lead to economic liberalization and, inevitably, to greater political freedom. However, Congress was sold a 

bill of goods back then by the White House and multinational corporations. PNTR with China has not brought a decline in the 

human rights abuses in China, including torture and regime-arranged disappearances of dissidents. 

If anything, credible reports from dissidents, internet users, underground churches, the Uyghurs, the people of Tibet, and the 

North Korean refugees all indicate that things have gotten worse 

when compared to a decade ago. So, PNTR has proven to be no 

elixir to fix China’s endemic human rights abuses. 

In 1999, just a year before PNTR was passed, the Chinese regime began its relentless campaign of torture and suppression 

against the spiritual movement known as Falun Gong. The infamous Six-Ten Office, a secret unit as brutal as the KGB, was established at that time to hunt down, persecute, torture, and even kill 

Falun Gong practitioners. We will be hearing from one of our witnesses, Mr. Li, today on that fearsome and ongoing persecution. It 

is estimated that one-quarter to one-half of all detainees in China’s 

infamous reeducation-through-labor camps are Falun Gong practitioners. 

A Chinese dissident, Liu Xiaobo, the only imprisoned Nobel 

Peace Prize winner in the world, once famously said, ‘‘Freedom of 

expression is the foundation of human rights, the source of humanity, and the mother of truth.’’ Freedom of expression is, of course, 

completely lacking behind the bamboo curtain in Communist 

China, but the tentacles of Chinese security reach far beyond its 

own borders, at times even surprisingly First Amendment rights to 

free speech in our own country. 

The noted Chinese human rights advocate and blind attorney, 

Mr. Chen Guangcheng, had originally accepted an invitation to appear before this committee as a witness today. However, he subsequently declined to appear because of his reported fear of reprisal 

against his family back in China, especially against his nephew 

who is under arrest. 

We have with us another witness who also left behind family 

members in China. Uyghur democracy advocate Rebiya Kadeer, 

who is here with us today, has had her children severely beaten, 

imprisoned, and placed under house arrest by security forces. One 

of those beatings took place in 2006, when a staff delegation from 

this committee visited the Uyghur homeland, but had to cut short 

its visit because of the attacks on the Kadeer children. 

Chinese authorities, through torture and coercion, have even 

forced some of Ms. Kadeer’s children to demonize her in statements 

accusing her of ‘‘ethnic splitism.’’ These same Chinese authorities 

also recently forced one of Ms. Kadeer’s sons to sign over her business property in China. Yet, this courageous woman has still come 

forward today to testify before our committee today. 

Our witnesses will describe for us the particularly harsh, repressive measures that are being directed against the Uyghur and the 

3

people of Tibet. We will also hear of the use of a relatively new 

weapon in Beijing’s arsenal for human rights repression: That is 

the extra-judicial disappearance of noted dissidents. In today’s 

China, one does not need to wear an invisibility cloak in order to 

suddenly vanish into thin air without formal charges, without a 

trial, without due process. Pro bono lawyer and democracy advocate 

Jared Genser will address the newest Draconian measures which 

Beijing has implemented to suppress and terrorize its citizens. 

A Chinese proverb holds that, ‘‘To violate the law is the same 

crime in the emperor as in the subject.’’ But in China today, there 

is no such accountability. A human rights dialogue with the Communist regime in Beijing matters for little until the rule of law is 

genuinely rooted in Chinese soil. Only then will the Communist 

Mandarins in Beijing be held accountable for more than half a century of its regime’s crimes. 

Their litany of suppression includes the mass starvation of the 

Great Leap Forward, the Red Guard horror of the Cultural Revolution, the bloody massacre at Tiananmen Square, and today’s continued repression of both political dissidents and religious believers. Until there is concrete, verifiable, genuine political reform in 

China, all we should say in our human rights dialogue with Beijing 

is, ‘‘Deliver us from evil.’’

Now I turn to my friend and distinguished ranking member for 

his opening remarks. 

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

I am not going to use my entire time because I agree with so 

much of what you have already said. But thank you for calling today’s hearing and giving the committee an opportunity to focus its 

attention on the human rights situation in China. 

We are all aware that the Chinese Government’s record on 

human rights and the rule of law remains deplorable. Chinese authorities remain hyper vigilant about tamping down anything that 

smacks of political or social dissent, including criticism of the government and exposure of official wrongdoing. In addition, the Chinese Government continues to promote policies that threaten the 

culture, language, and traditions of Tibetans, Uyghurs, and other 

ethnic minorities. 

China is the world’s second-largest economy and has experienced 

remarkable economic growth in recent decades. Yet, it remains one 

of the worst countries for political rights and civil liberties, as 

measured by Freedom House. In fact, China continues to spend 

more on internal security than it does on its rapidly-increasing 

military, a clear indication that the government fears and distrusts 

its own people. 

As the government seeks to maintain stability with an iron fist, 

there are growing signs of stress in Chinese society. Reports of 

rural instability are rising. Protests about corruption by government officials, environmental degradation, and economic exploitation are on the increase. Tibet has seen nearly 50 self-immolations to protest Chinese rule, and there are reports of unrest in the 

Uyghur areas. 

The Chinese leadership, which is focused primarily on maintaining power, clearly doesn’t understand that it is in China’s self-interest to develop a society based on respect for human rights and 

4

the rule of law. But they ignore the lessons of history at their peril. 

At some point, I am confident that the Chinese people will say, 

‘‘Enough,’’ and chart a new course for the Middle Kingdom. 

I thank the witnesses for appearing today. I look forward to your 

testimony and the chance to hear from you and answering questions. 

Thank you. 

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

And now, we are honored to hear from the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, Mr. 

Smith, who has been a champion on the need for human rights accountability in China. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I want to welcome a very distinguished panel of heroes, men and 

women who have with their own lives labored so hard on behalf of 

the people of China to bring human rights to all parts of China. 

With Rebiya Kadeer, to the autonomous region of Tibet, she has 

done unbelievable work at great sacrifice to herself and her family 

on behalf of the Uyghurs. 

To all of you, welcome. 

In this morning’s USA Today, there is a cover story written by 

Calum MacLeod, and the headline is ‘‘Forced Abortions, Broken 

Hearts.’’ It begins by saying:

‘‘As supervisor of family planning enforcement in Fujian 

Province’s Daji township, Wang Jinding says he knows the best 

way to kill unborn babies of parents who want to keep them. 

‘The key point is to separate the pregnant woman from her 

family members.’ That is exactly what Wang did in a case in 

April, enforcing the Communist Party’s rules on family size. 

He had eight government workers kidnap a pregnant Pan 

Chunyan, 31, from her grocery store in Fujian city on the 

southern coast. 

‘‘Her husband, Wu, was frantically raising the $8,640 fee required for a third child. Wu and a dozen relatives fought to try 

to see Pan at the government building where she was held. 

‘‘Rather than granting the family more time, Wang organized 

a police-led convoy of seven vehicles to take Pan to a hospital. 

There, Pan—who was 8 months pregnant—was injected with 

chemicals to kill the child. She delivered a fully-formed, but 

dead, son. ‘My wife only got a glance at the child, her heart 

broke, and she cried loudly, because the whole body was black 

and blue and the skin on the face had peeled,’ Wu says. ‘This 

is a life that had no time to look at this beautiful world with 

eyes open.’ ’’

Madam Chair, you know and I know, and this committee knows, 

but, unfortunately, far too many people do not take it seriously, the 

one-child-per-couple policy has had a devastating impact on the 

women of China. It has now affected virtually every woman in 

China. Brothers and sisters are illegal in the People’s Republic of 

China and have been since 1979. 

Regrettably, groups like the U.N. Population Fund have had a 

hand-in-glove relationship for over three decades with the 

hardliners in Beijing, enforcing even in the counties where they do 

5

business the one-child-per-couple policies. These are crimes against 

women that have no precedent in human history, and the toll on 

children has been enormous. 

On torture, on trafficking, on religion freedom, on workers’ right, 

China gets a failing grade. This hearing, hopefully, will shed additional light on the abuse by the government of its own people. My 

hope is that reform, fomented by the people that are here, their 

leaders, the people inside of China who have had enough, will lead 

to freedom and democracy and, hopefully, a new dawn for the people of China. 

And I thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Well said. 

Mr. Connolly of Virginia, we are pleased to introduce you for 

your opening statement. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank you, Madam Chairman, and I welcome 

our panel. 

I join with my colleagues in expressing deep concern about the 

practice of human rights in the People’s Republic of China. Whether it be Tibet, whether it be family-planning issues, whether it be 

the free exercise of religion free of an appearance from the state, 

China has a ways to go. If China wants to be fully accepted into 

the family of nations, of developed nations, China is going to have 

to wrestle with this issue of respect of human rights. Mature governments are able to do that. 

It is a false choice to say we can either pursue economic development or pluralist democratic freedoms, but not both. That is antithetical to not only American values, but we Americans believe it 

is antithetical, frankly, to human aspiration around the planet. 

We want to see China develop. We want to see China become a 

full-fledged partner in the global arena, but it must address these 

human rights issues, and the United States must continue to be a 

clarion voice in advocacy for human rights. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, sir. 

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

I want to apologize. There is a hearing on water, and I come 

from California and water is very important to us there. I am going 

to run back and forth between these hearings, but that is sometimes what we have to do here in Congress. That does not diminish 

at all. I mean, water is essential for human life, but so is freedom. 

And today, humankind’s greatest hope for a more peaceful world 

and a freer world is in the hands of the people, the suffering people 

of China. If the suffering people of China continue to be repressed, 

the chances of peace are diminished because dictatorships, like Beijing, become aggressive and become threats not only to their own 

people, but to other people as well. 

Already we see in Taiwan where there are people today from the 

Falun Gong sitting in front of President Ma’s palace because a Taiwanese resident has been arrested on the mainland for wanting to 

mention the Falun Gong. He has been arrested, and President Ma 

in Taiwan is saying nothing, is trying not to ruffle anybody’s feathVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Oct 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\072512\75292 HFA PsN: SHIRL
6

ers. Well, that is what is going to happen around the world if we 

allow this powerful dictatorship in Beijing to continue without any 

type of protest from us to repress their own people, whether we are 

talking about the Falun Gong, the Uyghurs, the people of Tibet, or 

the women throughout China who are suffering from the forced 

murder of every one of their children except for the first one. These 

are horrific crimes against the people of China and they are crimes 

against humanity as well. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for making this hearing and this 

body representative of those values. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. Royce, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, is recognized. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

There was an article I saw in The Wall Street Journal that reported that there were 180,000 protests across China, four times 

the tally of a decade ago. And clearly, people across China are 

speaking out, are seeking to have more freedom of expression, freedom of religion. 

One of my hopes is that some of the broadcasting that we do 

with Radio Free Asia, the broadcasting that is now done in all of 

the various dialects spoken across China, is an effective surrogate 

radio that will allow people access to more information. I have had 

an opportunity to listen to some of those broadcasts with a translator and even to be on a few shows. It is very interesting to hear 

people call in from across China and see the desire for change, the 

desire for more freedom. 

My hope is that—and we just had legislation which I authored 

last year for a permanent extension of Radio Free Asia—it is my 

hope that over time there is an evolution across China as people 

become more and more familiar with the idea and ideals of tolerance and political pluralism, and the respect for religious liberty. 

I think this would be a way over time for China internally to see 

the type of change which would bring about better hope for the 

Chinese people. To do that, we should be thinking about how to 

communicate better and how to allow the Chinese diaspora the 

ability and the platform to carry on that dialogue with their countrymen and women, and continue to push these ideals. 

I thank the witnesses for appearing today, and I yield back, 

Madam Chairman. 

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

Thank you for your statement. 

And now, the Chair is pleased to welcome our witnesses. First, 

we welcome Mr. Jared Genser, the founder of Freedom Now, an 

NGO that works to free individual prisoners of conscience through 

focused legal, political, and public relations advocacy efforts. His 

human rights clients have included former Czech Republic President Havel, Nobel Peace Prize winners Aung San Suu Kyi, Liu 

Xiaobo, Desmond Tutu, and Eli Weisel. Welcome. 

Next, we welcome Rebiya Kadeer, President of the World Uyghur 

Congress from 1999 to 2005. In response to her activism, Ms. 

Kadeer was imprisoned for allegedly stealing state secrets. At the 

World Uyghur Congress, she has continued to advocate for greater 

autonomy for the Uyghur people. 

7

Next, we welcome Mr. Hai Li, a Falun Gong practitioner, a 

former official of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr. Li 

was detained and imprisoned by Chinese authorities four times, including a 7-year imprisonment during which he was brutally tortured. After being released, Mr. Li and his family immigrated to 

the United States on temporary visas and are now applying for political asylum. Welcome, Mr. Li. 

And finally, we welcome Bhuchung Tsering, a Vice President for 

Special Programs for the International Campaign for Tibet, which 

seeks to raise awareness of the Chinese Government’s unjust treatment of the people of Tibet. Mr. Tsering was born in Tibet, but his 

family fled to India in 1960, in wake of the Chinese Communist occupation. He had worked as a reporter for the Indian daily Indian 

Express, as editor for The Tibetan Bulletin, the official journal of 

the Tibetan Government, and for the Tibetan Government in Exile. 

Without objection, as I said, your written statements will be inserted into the record. 

Mr. Genser, we will begin with you. 

Welcome to all. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JARED GENSER, FOUNDER, FREEDOM 

NOW 

Mr. GENSER. Good morning, Madam Chairman and Ranking 

Member Berman, and members of the committee. And thanks for 

inviting me to speak today. 

As mentioned, I founded Freedom Now, an international legal 

advocacy organization that works to free prisoners of conscience 

around the world. Among my clients include Nobel Peace Prize 

Laureate Liu Xiaobo, his wife Liu Xia, and prominent Chinese 

rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng. 

My comments today will address these cases, the ways in which 

their ongoing detention violates both domestic and international 

law, and what lessons we can draw from these cases, and what I 

believe the U.S. Government should do on behalf of these individuals and others who are similarly situated. 

Dr. Liu Xiaobo, perhaps China’s most prominent prisoner of conscience and the world’s only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, is a respected intellectual with a lengthy history of putting 

his own liberty at risk to defend the universal values of freedom 

and democracy. I don’t have the time today to review his whole career, but focusing on what landed him in prison most recently. 

Just days before his role in authoring Charter ’08, and it was 

going to be made public in December 2008, Chinese police arrested 

him and held him incommunicado for 3 weeks without charge or 

access to a lawyer and, then, subsequently, held for him an additional 6 months as well. 

His trial on inciting subversion lasted only 2 hours, and the defense was given literally 14 minutes to present its case. Ultimately, 

he was convicted and sentenced to 11 years in prison. 

In a demonstration of the moral force of his character, which 

would later lead the Nobel Prize Committee to award him the 

Peace Prize, he said after that conviction, ‘‘I have long been aware 

that when an independent intellectual stands up to an autocratic 

8

state, step one toward freedom is often a step into prison. Now I 

am taking that step; and true freedom is that much nearer.’’

Hours after he won the award, Chinese authorities isolated Liu 

Xia from the outside world and placed her under house arrest. 

Some 22 months later, she remains under house arrest without 

charge, without trial, without any legal process whatsoever. Her 

only ‘‘crime’’ is having been married to a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. 

I am pleased that we were able to prevail in cases that we 

brought on their behalf to the United Nations Working Group on 

Arbitrary Detention, which found that they are being held in violation of international law and called for their immediate release. 

But perhaps most shocking is the fact that in those paper exchanges with the Chinese Government they actually claimed that 

Liu Xia was under no legal restriction, which is either a flagrant 

lie or a brazen admission that, in fact, they are holding her illegally. 

The government also refuses to release Gao Zhisheng, a prominent human rights lawyer, who has been repeatedly detained, disappeared, and tortured by the Chinese Government for his work 

defending the rights of others. His travails began in 2006 and, ultimately, he was repeatedly disappeared and tortured. We previously 

won his case before the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention as well. 

And this past December, he was reappeared, when the Chinese 

Government announced that they have revoked his probation, 

which was scheduled to expire within days, and it said it would imprison him for 3 more years under the original inciting subversion 

charges that had been imposed against him in 2007. Needless to 

say, the notion that Mr. Gao could have violated the terms of his 

probation while the government held him in secret detention is at 

best farceable, and we have a new submission to the United Nations pending, and we expect a ruling on the case in September. 

Of particular concern is, of course, the PRC’s response to specific 

complaints about their disappearing Gao and numerous others in 

the country by their trying to legalize disappearances through an 

act of the National People’s Congress, which is in flagrant violation 

of China’s obligations under international law. 

The Chinese Government claims it wants to engage in dialogue 

on human rights in the spirit of mutual cooperation, but, ultimately, it refuses to do so. And any dialogue that takes place, including the one this past week, ultimately, as I have heard reported repeatedly, consists of a series of sequential monologs. 

In public, the government frequently sticks to implausible and offensive talking points, that these cases are being handled in accordance with Chinese law. On other occasions, such as those with 

Liu Xia and Mr. Gao, it simply lies with the expectation that others 

will just move on to talk about other things. 

In my view, the only remaining approach is to push back and 

press the government privately and publicly and unilaterally and 

multilaterally to address violations of Chinese and international 

law. While broad and systemic change is required, there is no substitute for addressing specific cases where the treatment of individuals deviates from existing laws. By definition, if we can secure the 

9

release of these people who are most seriously oppressed, we can 

create greater space for them to operate and imbue others with the 

confidence that they can conduct their internationally-protected activities. 

If I can just conclude briefly with three final recommendations, 

first, President Obama and Secretary Clinton need to personally 

engage on Chinese human rights cases and make full use of the 

bully pulpit, something they have only done on rare occasions. 

Chen Guangcheng’s case is not an example that can be followed. 

The circumstances of it were quite unique. And China’s backsliding 

on rights should have long such merited a change in tactics by this 

administration and a more proactive and public approach. 

For example, President Obama could send a very important message to the Chinese Government by meeting with Gao Zhisheng’s 

wife, Geng He. Such an action with be particularly appropriate, 

given our Government owes a special obligation to his family, who 

we provided refugee status in the United States. He could also organize a group of foreign leaders to publicly call on the Chinese 

Government to release Liu Xiaobo. 

Second, the Congress could adopt a non-binding resolution highlighting a host of different cases and consider taking more aggressive measures, given China’s intransigence, such as awarding Liu 

Xiaobo a Congressional Gold Medal. 

Lastly, it is my view that the administration and the Congress 

should look at more substantial multilateral efforts directed at the 

Chinese Government. There are definitely no easy solutions to 

transform China’s human rights record. We have to be persistent 

and vigilant, but it is my view that the only way that we are going 

to achieve progress is by responding to their tactics with equallyaggressive tactics, both publicly and privately, unilaterally and 

multilaterally, whatever is necessary to get the message across to 

change their behavior. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Genser follows:]

10


75292a-1.eps
11


75292a-2.eps
12


75292a-3.eps
13


75292a-4.eps
14


75292a-5.eps
15


75292a-6.eps
16


75292a-7.eps
17


75292a-8.eps
18

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Kadeer, we welcome you, and I know that we have a translator who will say it in English. Thank you very much, Ma’am. 

STATEMENT OF MS. REBIYA KADEER, UYGHUR DEMOCRACY 

LEADER 

Ms. KADEER. First, I would like to thank Madam Chairman RosLehtinen and Ranking Member Berman, and also the members of 

the committee, for inviting me to speak today. 

I believe this hearing is very important because it is being held 

at a time when the U.S. and China have just concluded the Human 

Rights Dialogue. 

Because of time, my assistant will read my statement. 

Since the violent suppression of the Uyghur protesters by Chinese security forces in East Turkestan’s capital of Urumchi in July 

2009, the Uyghurs have experienced an intense period of human 

rights violations. The unrest in 2009 has led to the implementation 

of policies in the region that have not only engendered an atmosphere of fear, but have also accelerated the assimilation of the 

Uyghurs and their homeland into a greater Han China. 

This month marked 3 years of intimidating security measures, 

swift judicial procedures, and countless disappearances. Human 

Rights Watch describes enforced disappearances as ‘‘serious violations of international human rights law’’ and the Chinese Government has been continuing this practice among Uyghurs without 

fear of censure from the international community. In a report focused on Uyghur disappearances after July 2009, Human Rights 

Watch states that 43 disappearances documented were ‘‘just the tip 

of the iceberg.’’ Many more, in fact, have disappeared since July 

the 5th. 

Deaths in custody of Uyghurs allegedly involved in the unrest 

have also been reported. Noor-ul-Islam Sherbaz, a 17-year-old 

Uyghur boy who was sentenced to life in April 2010 after only a 

30-minute trial, was found dead in December 2011. Before his 

death in prison, his mother visited him in prison and saw physical 

abuse by the prison guards. 

State retribution of Uyghurs allegedly involved in the unrest has 

been enacted in the Chinese courts, and the process has been 

rapid. Twelve months after the unrest, 24 Uyghurs were sentenced 

to death and eight of them were a death sentence with a 2-year reprieve. Only 4 months after the unrest, eight Uyghur men were executed without due process. For these eight men, all of the following happened within the span of less than 1 month: They were 

tried, convicted, sentenced, their sentences were upheld by the 

Xinjiang Higher People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Court of 

China, and they were executed. 

In May 2010, the central government convened a Xinjiang Work 

Forum, chaired by the Chinese President Hu Jintao, that mapped 

out the development of East Turkestan. The Work Forum was 

prompted in large part by the tacit acknowledgment on the part of 

Chinese officials that preceding policies in the region had exacerbated the 2009 tensions in the region. 

But the policies that followed did not address the root cause of 

the July 2009 unrest and the legitimate grievances of the Uyghur 

19

people. Instead, they only focused on the economy, only on the resource extraction, which further exacerbated the tensions in East 

Turkestan. 

Work Forum policies also continued the pattern of bringing more 

Han Chinese to East Turkestan and furnishing them with economic opportunities unavailable to the Uyghurs. This month the 

Chinese Government announced a plan to formally grant residence 

to 6 million Chinese people floating in East Turkestan. 

Chinese authorities have long targeted religious freedom among 

the Uyghurs. A crackdown on our religion has been in force in 

weeks prior to and after the third anniversary of the July 2009 arrest. House-to-house searches in the Gujanbagh neighborhood of 

Hotan were announced in June, in early June. This followed the 

police raid of an ‘‘illegal’’ religious school for children in Hotan that 

injured 12 Uyghur children, and also the death of a Uyghur child 

in police custody in Korla. 

And also, in the month of Ramadan, now the Chinese Government enacted stringent religious crackdown on the Uyghurs. After 

July 2009, the Chinese Government also pressured my family 

members, my children, on my own China’s national TV to denounce 

me and also pressured my grandchildren to write letters to denounce me. 

If I may just conclude with a few recommendations to the Congress: First, I would like to urge the U.S. Congress to urge the Chinese Government to account for the number and the whereabouts 

of the Uyghurs detained and disappeared since the July 5th unrest. 

Second is the Chinese Government should cease the arbitrary detention, arrest, torture, and extrajudicial execution of Uyghurs in 

East Turkestan. The Chinese Government should also stop the execution of Uyghur political prisoners. Political executions mostly 

take place in East Turkestan. 

Also urge the Chinese authorities in East Turkestan to abide by 

China’s constitution and the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law. And 

urge the Chinese officials to release my two imprisoned sons, Alim 

and Ablikim, to the United States. And also, pass, if possible, legislation requiring the State Department to deny visas to Chinese officials involved in the violation of human rights, not only of the 

Uyghurs, but all, to enter the United States. 

And last, but not least, to pass legislation in defense of Uyghur 

people’s fundamental human rights, culture, religion, language, 

and identity. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kadeer follows:]

20


75292b-1.eps
21


75292b-2.eps
22


75292b-3.eps
23


75292b-4.eps
24


75292b-5.eps
25

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

Mr. Li? 

STATEMENT OF MR. HAI LI, FALUN GONG PRACTITIONER 

Mr. LI. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, Honorable Members of Congress. 

I would like to thank Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen for holding this 

important hearing and inviting me to participate. 

I began to practice Falun Gong in 1995. I found that the principles of truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance that Falun Gong 

taught people to follow was just how I wanted to live my life. 

In 1997, I joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its Department of Treaty and Law. In July 1999, our lives were turned upside-down when Jiang Zemin became jealous and fearful of Falun 

Gong’s popularity. Between 1999 and 2012, I was detained four 

times, with the longest over 7 years. 

I would like to focus my remarks on a few key points. My written 

testimony has a multitude about what I experienced and witnessed. 

One, the persecution is still brutal, lawless, pervasive, reaching 

every segment of society. Millions of Falun Gong practitioners continue to live in that nightmare that I survived and escaped. 

In November 2002, plain clothes police abducted me while distributing video discs about the truth of Falun Gong. The officers 

didn’t take me to a police station, as required by law, but to a hotel 

outside Beijing. They asked my address, but I refused to tell them 

to protect other participants. They kicked me, punched me, and 

then they brought out electric batons. They shot my neck, my 

palms, my genitals, and other sensitive body parts. The pain was 

unbearable. I couldn’t walk for a few days. 

In April 2004, Beijing’s No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court put me 

and eight others on trial for distributing video discs. It was a total 

sham. I was sentenced to 9 years and sent to Qianjin prison. Please 

be aware only after 8 months did my family know that I had been 

arrested, and they had no idea about the trial, either. I was in prison until May 2010. When I left, 60 to 70 Falun Gong practitioners 

were still there. Now three other prisons and labor camps hold 

Falun Gong practitioners just in Beijing and hundreds of other 

camps exist around the country. 

Two, the Communist Party’s persecution is to transform Falun 

Gong practitioners. What is transformation? At the prison, they 

had a special little-known method to transform Falun Gong practitioners. They didn’t let me sleep much and forced me to sit upright 

without moving on a tiny stool with my knees closed, my head on 

my knees, and I sat there for 12 to 20 hours a day. When I sat 

there, guards came in to threaten me and curse Falun Gong. And 

they hadn’t let me use the bathroom. 

After a few weeks, I couldn’t bear it anymore. I gave in; I signed 

the papers denouncing Falun Gong, even though I knew in my 

heart that Falun Gong is good. But I wasn’t confident that I could 

endure 9 years of torture. 

Even after I signed it, they didn’t leave me alone. They made me 

write a ‘‘thought report’’ every day. That is transformation. It made 

26

me feel hopeless, defeated, weak, and hating myself. I felt like a 

walking zombie. 

Three, despite the Communist Party’s best efforts, the persecution is failing. Eighty percent of Falun Gong practitioners start 

practicing again once they are released, as I did. That terrifies the 

Communist Party. 

I also noticed a big difference in people’s attitudes in 2010 compared to 2002. More and more people really hate the Communist 

Party and aren’t afraid to say so. As the U.S. Department of State 

reports, there is a horrific organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners taking place in China now, and we have also noticed that 

the Chinese public are speaking out to defend Falun Gong’s rights 

by signing petitions or using fingerprints to show their support and 

solidarity with Falun Gong. So, I feel that, despite the money and 

the brute force becoming part of censorship and repression, it is 

losing the true battle for the hearts and minds of the Chinese people. 

If I may conclude with the last point, as the United States Government thinks about how to improve human rights in China, I 

hope you can keep this in mind: If we truly want to free China, 

we need to free Falun Gong. So, what can the U.S. Government do? 

The public condemnation of the persecution of Falun Gong, including by President Obama himself, would be a strong start. 

Thank you again for inviting me to participate. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Li follows:]

27


75292c-1.eps
28


75292c-2.eps
29


75292c-3.eps
30


75292c-4.eps
31


75292c-5.eps
32


75292c-6.eps
33


75292c-7.eps
34


75292c-8.eps
35

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

harrowing experience with us, Mr. Li. Thank you. 

Mr. Tsering? Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. BHUCHUNG K. TSERING, VICE 

PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR TIBET 

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

China aspires to be a superpower that would want to abide by 

universally-accepted norms. I would like to raise the following matters regarding Tibet to see whether China is able to meet that expectation: Violation of Tibetan rights subsequent to the successive 

self-immolations in Tibet; interference in Nepal’s internal affairs 

and pressuring Nepalese officials to clamp down on Tibetans in 

Nepal; usage of Confucius Institutes to spread propaganda and 

shut down academic discourse in Tibet; and the possibility of regional conflict because of how it handles usage of Tibetan water. 

With the most recent self-immolation on July 17th, there have 

been 44 Tibetans who have self-immolated since 2009. Out of 44, 

33 are confirmed to have died and 11 are either missing or said to 

be hospitalized. Now the numbers don’t include those Tibetans who 

have committed self-immolation outside of Tibet or some whose information we are still trying to confirm. 

Madam Chairman, I would like to seek your consent to put their 

names and the information——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Without objection. 

Mr. TSERING [continuing]. Relating to the human rights in Tibet 

for 2012 in the record. 

Instead of addressing the genuine grievances of the Tibetan people, the Chinese authorities have responded to the self-immolations 

by increasing restrictions, torturing members of the selfimmolater’s family or their acquaintances, and taking several into 

custody without any judicial process. 

We welcome the China-U.S. Human Rights Dialogue that has 

just concluded yesterday, but the International Campaign for Tibet 

believes that the State Department bears the burden of proving 

that these dialogues are more than ritualized exercises, and that 

the United States should be clear about what improvements the 

Chinese should deliver in Tibet and what the response will be if 

they do not. 

In April, the International Campaign for Tibet released a major 

report about ‘‘60 Years of Misrule,’’ China’s cultural genocide in 

Tibet. This shows that there is a systematic effort to replace organic Tibetan culture with a state-approved version to suit the 

Communist Party’s objectives. The Chinese leaders seek stability in 

Tibet, but they strive to achieve it through an iron fist rather than 

an outstretched hand. 

During his visit to Washington, DC, last week, the Tibetan leader Kalon Tripa Lobsang Sangay said, ‘‘If Tibet is granted autonomy, that could be a catalyst for moderation of China because if the 

Chinese Government grants autonomy to Tibetans, for the first 

time they are accepting diversity within and accepting a distinct, 

if not different, people.’’

36

From the Chinese perspective, Tibet is the loss-leader for Beijing 

because they say they have spent lots amount of money for Tibet. 

But if Chinese leaders were to give Tibetans the voice in their own 

affairs and a stake in their own future, Tibetan leaders would be 

more economically self-sustained. 

I want to go to the situation in Nepal. The Tibetan refugees transit through Nepal as they fled persecution at home and toward 

freedom in India or beyond. Unfortunately, the Chinese authorities 

interfere in Nepal’s internal affairs and export China’s abuses of 

Tibetans into Nepal. Tibetans trying to flee Nepal today have to 

face great suffering at the hands of Nepalese security authorities. 

I am trying to condense here because of the time factor. 

We have seen reports and heard anecdotal evidence about usage 

of the Confucius Institutes. Last year, the International Campaign 

for Tibet requested a university to provide us information about 

Tibet from the Confucius Institute, and what they provided us was 

Chinese Government official propaganda. 

If the water resources in Tibet are being misused by the Chinese, 

it will have grave consequences for the future of the world and immediate risk for the neighboring countries. 

Now our recommendations are: First, that Congress should send 

a strong message by passing House Resolution 609 on Tibet. The 

Tibetan Policy Act has to be strengthened. The U.S. should seek 

reciprocity from the Chinese Government for information access 

and for access for diplomats. And the human rights dialogues 

should be followed up by Congress asking the Assistant Secretary 

to publicly testify about what the United States has done on 

human rights. 

Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tsering follows:]

37


75292d-1.eps
38


75292d-2.eps
39


75292d-3.eps
40


75292d-4.eps
41


75292d-5.eps
42


75292d-6.eps
43


75292d-7.eps
44


75292d-8.eps
45

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

each and every one of you for excellent testimony. 

Given your great expertise on this terrible issue of human rights 

violations in China, I would like to ask these three questions: What 

value do you see in the ongoing dialogue or monolog, as one witness called it, between the United States and China? Secondly, do 

you think that this administration in its relation with Beijing 

places a priority on advancing human rights in China? And thirdly, 

do you believe the human rights situation in China has improved 

or deteriorated in the 12 years since Congress approved PNTR for 

China? 

If we could begin with Mr. Genser? 

Mr. GENSER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Let me try to answer your three questions as quickly and as best 

as I can. 

First, your question was, what is the value of the ongoing dialogue? On the one hand, I think dialogue is necessary. We need to 

be able to convey to the Chinese our feelings. On the other hand, 

the series of human rights dialogues that we have had are, as I 

mentioned before, sequential monologs, and the Chinese would like 

to speak at 100,000 feet about broad developments in various 

areas. We tend to want to see improvement in specific cases. 

And so, it seems to me that the main way that we need to improve the dialogue—and I do think that we have to continue it; I 

think we have no choice but to engage with China—is by imposing 

benchmarks, timelines, and consequences. Without any accountability coming out of these dialogues, then they are fruitless and 

they are pointless. And I think that we need to move in that direction. 

In terms of how the administration has or has not made human 

rights with China a priority, unfortunately, I think at the highest 

levels it has not been a priority. I think that, of course, any administration is not monolithic. I would single out Mike Posner, the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Labor, and Human Rights, as 

doing a yeoman’s job within the Department, but, of course, he is 

a number of levels down from the Secretary. He has been public 

and outspoken. He has raised cases privately. I think he has been 

very aggressive and great. 

But, at the end of the day, we need the leadership from the 

President and the Secretary of State. While on a handful of occasions they have raised China human rights publicly, and I know 

from reports that I have received that they have also raised it privately, by definition, and to answer your last question, I think that 

the situation in Beijing and in China in the last several years has 

declined in terms of the human rights situation. And therefore, 

whether or not you agree with how the administration is handling 

Chinese human rights, one has to conclude that a change in tactics 

is doing to be required because human rights in China is moving 

in the wrong direction. And that is precisely what I would like to 

see happen. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Kadeer? 

Ms. KADEER. Yes, since the U.S. Congress granted China the 

PNTR status for the past 12 years, and also due to the rise of ChiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Oct 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\072512\75292 HFA PsN: SHIRL
46

na’s economy, China became more confident in dealing with 

Uyghurs and other groups, especially in arbitrary arrest, torture, 

and even executions. So, the situation since China got PNTR has 

become far worse than before. And especially in the past 3 or 4 

years, the extrajudicial killing of Uyghurs has dramatically increased. 

In my testimony, I state that the Chinese Government granted 

residence to 6 million floating Chinese population. That is in addition to the Chinese residents already immigrated to East 

Turkestan. And so, in addition to the population transfer to East 

Turkestan and Tibet and other areas to dominate the region, dilute 

the Uyghurs, and reduce us into an absolute minority in our own 

land, and for any Uyghur who is not happy with such policies of 

cultural genocide by the Chinese Government, the Chinese reaction 

is repression or just execution. So, that is what we are facing 

today. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Li? 

Mr. LI. As to the first question, I personally don’t value the dialogue because, if they keep it as a private session, they don’t talk 

about it openly and publicly, I think the Chinese Government 

wouldn’t feel the pressure in the international community, the 

pressure of justice, the pressure or morality. So, I think we should 

talk about it openly and publicly. 

And the second question, I think the United States Government 

should do more and, most importantly, speak up. If it keeps silent 

about the crimes, I think to some extent we are committing a crime 

too. 

And the third question, I don’t think there is any human rights 

progress since 12 years ago because, apparently, the Falun Gong 

situation has not improved. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Tsering? 

Mr. TSERING. In terms of the human rights dialogue, we believe 

that the administration needs to be open and transparent about 

what is really being discussed. Otherwise, it will become an opportunity for the Chinese to avoid international censure. 

In terms of whether human rights is a priority for the administration, the administration says it is, but we need concrete proof 

to say that it is really so. Whether the situation has worsened after 

PNTR, from the Tibetan perspective it has certainly worsened. 

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

your answers. 

I am pleased to yield, for whatever time he wishes to consume, 

to Mr. Berman, the ranking member of our committee, for his questions. 

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

There seems to be a consensus among all of you that a more vigorous, vocal expression of outrage at the Chinese Government’s 

conduct vis-a`-vis specific human rights cases and the general treatment of ethnic minorities and others, political dissidents, would be 

useful. Beyond that, I heard a specific reference to visas. And then, 

47

Mr. Genser talked about timetables, sort of guidelines, and consequences. Speak to the issue of consequences. 

Mr. GENSER. Let me reiterate one of the things that Mr. Li said 

which I think makes a lot of sense, which is one of the things that 

the Congress could start to work on immediately, is legislation that 

would replicate the Sergei Magnitsky Act for the Chinese Government. You would be in a position to be able to say anybody who 

is involved or facilitating torture, wrongful imprisonment, disappearance, or a range of other crimes under international law will 

be put on a public list for the United States, an asset freeze, visa 

bans, et cetera. 

Just by gathering evidence from existing cases, I would imagine 

across all of these different situations we could come up with thousands of names that we could credibly verify that would be the first 

batch of people to be put on this kind of a list. At the end of the 

day, if the Chinese aren’t going to listen to the complaints and they 

are not going to address them, then this would be a very clear potential consequence. So, let me just put that forward as a first idea 

that has some teeth to it. 

I also mentioned—and it is worth highlighting again—awarding 

Liu Xiaobo the Congressional Gold Medal would be a pretty profound signal to the Chinese Government about U.S. concern. 

And then, just lastly, I will mention it isn’t even exclusively 

about public outrage by the President or the Secretary of State, although at times I think is helpful. It is also about using the private 

threat of doing public things that I think can bring China to the 

table. 

So, for example, President Obama, I suggested that he meet with 

Geng He, Gao Zhisheng’s wife. The administration, as far as I 

know, hasn’t privately said to the Chinese, ‘‘Unless we start to 

move on Gao Zhisheng’s case, the President is going to do this. He 

is going to meet publicly, or meet and it will be made public, with 

Geng He.’’ And use that private threat as an opportunity to see if 

we can see some progress on this particular case. This would be an 

aggressive way to get at the Chinese Government the strength of 

our concerns and our convictions. As far as I know, none of these 

kinds of things have happened. 

Mr. BERMAN. Yes. Thank you. 

Mr. Tsering, the Special Envoy for the Dalai Lama recently resigned from his position. We have had the opportunity to meet with 

him on many occasions. He is a very forceful, articulate, and reasonable and moderate individual, representing the Dalai Lama in 

the dialogue with China. That dialogue seems to be totally stalled. 

You have been part of the Special Envoy’s team throughout the 

nearly 10-year duration of the dialogue progress. The Congress and 

the U.S. have been big proponents of the dialogue as a way to resolve differences and lead to a peaceful political situation for the 

Tibetans. 

How important is this dialogue with the Chinese, in your mind? 

What was the sticking point that led to its demise? What message 

regarding Tibet should the U.S. Government be sending now? 

Mr. TSERING. I believe the dialogue is a very important factor in 

having a lasting solution for the Tibetan issue. In terms of why the 

situation has remained so now, it is strictly because of China’s lack 

48

of political courage to acknowledge that there is a Tibetan problem 

and to address it to the satisfaction of the Tibetan people. 

And therefore, we believe that the United States Congress, as 

well as the administration, which has called for a peaceful resolution of the Tibetan issue, needs to be more proactive in making the 

Chinese come to the table, because at the present the Tibetan leadership has also committed itself to resolving the issue through negotiations, and there is the need for that. But how we can go about 

it depends on the Chinese because right now instead of responding 

positively to the Tibetan initiative, there are voices within the Chinese leadership which are even calling for doing away with the 

framework of autonomous status. If that happens, there is no way 

people like the Tibetans or the Uyghurs can hope to achieve anything under this Communist government. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you. 

My time has expired. 

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

I am pleased to recognize the chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, Mr. Smith of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Yesterday, at the 10th anniversary of the founding of ChinaAid, 

led so brilliantly by Pastor Bob Fu, Gao Zhisheng’s wife, Geng He, 

as you know, made yet another strong appeal for her husband, who 

has been tortured with unbelievable animosity by the Government 

of China. So, thank you, Mr. Genser, for again bringing up his case 

and how important it is that we raise that. 

You, especially, have talked about some new ideas. I think it is 

always good to be pursuing new ideas. But, as Mr. Li said, first 

and foremost, the President needs to speak out about China’s 

human rights abuses. He has had both the Vice President and the 

President, Hu Jintao, here to the United States, has feted especially Hu Jintao with a state dinner and an infamous press conference, where an Associated Press reporter asked about human 

rights, and our President shamelessly said they have a different 

culture and a different political system. 

So, it was so bad that The Washington Post did an editorial, the 

banner headline of which was, ‘‘President Obama Makes Hu Jintao 

Look Good on Rights.’’ It was one of the worst statements, I think, 

and performances of this President. To the people back in China 

who are suffering, like Gao Zhisheng and others, and Liu Xiaobo, 

that had to have been demoralizing that the President just brushed 

this aside. 

But, Mr. Li, you asked that the President speak out. Hope 

springs eternal. Hopefully, he will speak out at some point. The 

gentlelady and I, we won’t hold our breath. 

But let me just say this: We need to enforce the law. We have 

several laws on the books right now that go either inadequately enforced or totally unenforced. 

First of all, you mentioned visa bans. I offered legislation that 

became law in 2000 that said anyone who is complicit in forced 

abortion or forced sterilization ought to be banned, will be banned, 

shall be banned from admission to the United States. Under the 

Obama administration, four people—that is four, not 40, not 400—

49

four people have been precluded a visa because of their complicity. 

There are no lists. I have asked that there be lists. There are no 

lists. We know who these people are. People inside of China know 

who their abusers are. And we ought to have an engraved invitation for them to come forward and say, ‘‘This person is doing this 

atrocity against women and against children.’’

Some people like to talk about the Chinese program as family 

planning. It is child extermination. It is the exploitation of women 

in the cruelest fashion. We have a law called the Kemp-Kasten. It 

goes unenforced—unenforced. This administration reversed the 

Bush policy and the Reagan policy of saying, ‘‘No money to any organization that supports or co-manages a coercion population-control program.’’

On trafficking, there is no doubt—and the gentleman from California and I and the gentlelady worked so hard to ensure that the 

watch list on human trafficking that is put out by the State Department does not become a parking lot for abusers—China clearly 

merits to be a tier III country susceptible to a whole array of sanctions, and it is not. It has stayed on the watch list for another year, 

even though the record is overwhelming that China has become a 

magnet for human trafficking, perhaps the worst in the world. I 

don’t know of any country—and I wrote the trafficking law—that 

is worse than the People’s Republic of China. They are on the third 

tier. So, that law goes unenforced. 

And then, the law that was authored by Frank Wolf, the International Religious Freedom Act, China has been a CPC country 

since the beginning of that law. So, the Bush administration I believe failed, and the Obama administration is failing miserably as 

well, to enforce the 18 prescribed sanctions, some of which are very 

real and very severe, not quite NTR loss, but very real. They go 

just glossed over, even though it is a CPC country. So, they did the 

naming, which is fine, but there is no penalty. 

Your thoughts? We need to enforce the law. We have laws that 

will make a difference. It is not just the President speaking out. 

And again, don’t hold your breath on that one, or the Vice President. But let’s just enforce the law. Your thoughts, please, again. 

Mr. GENSER. Just briefly, Chairman Smith, you are a champion 

for China human rights and have been for decades. I concur with 

your assessment of the situation and the reality that there is actually a lot that we can do to enforce existing law, as well as bring 

into effect new laws to put serious pressure on China that sends 

a message that the United States is actually serious about human 

rights. 

Unfortunately, as we know—and this is not just this administration, but it is prior administrations—the United States has a whole 

range of interests in China. My biggest fear, as a human rights 

lawyer, however, is that unless human rights is made a priority, 

by definition, other so-called more pragmatic issues will always 

overcome human rights. I think that we need to see human rights 

as a core and fundamental value of the United States of America 

and imbue it into all that we are doing, and make it an affirmative 

priority. 

When you have, unfortunately, a situation where it is not a top 

priority of the President and the Secretary of State—again, I agree 

50

they have said that it is a priority—but I just haven’t seen the actions that enable me to agree with that statement and see that 

that is an actual conclusion. 

And again, I would like to see more coercive measures being 

taken. The Chinese are unabashed about their persecution of their 

own population and unapologetic, and, in fact, will publicly lie repeatedly. There has been no consequence for that, not just from the 

United States, but from around the world. I think that, collectively, 

we all need to do substantially better. 

Ms. KADEER. Yes, it is really sad that the U.S. Government, the 

administration is not implementing the laws that, Congressman, 

you have just mentioned. Because of this, the Chinese Government 

sees that more as a green light to implement their own aggressive 

policies with their family planning. Of course, it has been in place 

for decades, and it is not only used against the Han Chinese, but 

also used against Uyghurs and other minority groups. Under even 

Chinese regulations that ethnic minorities, if it is under 10 million, 

they are not bound by these family-planning restrictions, but the 

Chinese Government aggressively imposes these restrictions on the 

Uyghurs, Tibetans, and other groups. So, this is another weapon 

for the Chinese Government to really make us even a smaller minority now in our own country. 

In addition to that, the Chinese Government has been transferring tens of thousands of Uyghur young, marriage-age women out 

of East Turkestan to eastern Chinese sweatshops in eastern Chinese provinces to work. This is like an exchange of population. We 

see this as a form of not just a cultural genocide, but really to aggressively assimilate and eventually eliminate the Uyghur people 

as a Uyghur people. 

So, it is our hope that the administration will pursue and implement the laws that can really pressure China on these heinous 

practices. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LI. Mr. Smith, thank you. Mr. Smith, could I beg your pardon as to your question? Please repeat it. Could you repeat it? 

Mr. SMITH. Sure. The question, you, yourself, raised the importance of speaking out. 

Mr. LI. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. We have numerous laws already on the books that 

go unenforced. Some are enforced to a small extent, but mostly unenforced. 

One would be the CPC designation under the International Religious Freedom Act. China has been so designated. It is an egregious violator of religious freedom, whether it be Falun Gong, 

Uyghurs, underground Christians, Catholics. It is across the board. 

Secondly, on trafficking, this year, again, China got a pass. We 

punted as a government and did not designate China as a tier III 

violator, which is the worst category, susceptible to a whole array 

of sanctions. There is no doubt that China warrants it—no doubt. 

The evidence is overwhelming. Even how they mistreat the North 

Koreans—and I will yield in a second because I am out of time—

how they mistreat the North Koreans, who come across, and traffic 

those poor women or send them back to a cruel fate in North 

Korea. 

51

The third has to do with a current, existing visa ban where any 

person involved or who is complicit in the forced abortion policy of 

China, by our law, since 2000, cannot get a visa. Under the Obama 

administration, four people have been so precluded a visa. 

So, there is, then, the Kemp-Kasten language that says here are 

the words; this is the law: Any organization that supports or comanages a coercive population-control program cannot get U.S. 

funding. That has been breached as well. 

Mr. LI. Thank you, Mr. Smith, and thank you for your efforts. 

Anyway, I believe that the U.S. Government, the White House, 

should be looking to organ harvesting crime, because it is so horrible, and speak out against this crime. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. TSERING. Congressman, we concur with your position that 

laws that are there need to be implemented if China is to understand what the United States stands for. For example, in the case 

of Tibet, Congress has mandated that there be a consulate in 

Lhasa. To date, nothing has happened about that, and that is 

something that ought to be done. 

In terms of access, in our recommendation what we have said, 

China doesn’t respect the diplomatic principle of reciprocity. China 

doesn’t allow the United States’ diplomats or other government officials access to Tibetan areas to get the real situation. 

But, on the other hand, China always sends or the United States 

provides visas to Chinese officials to come to the United States and 

to propagandize about Tibet and other issues freely without any 

qualms. So, the Congress should seek restrictions on these, so that 

there is this principle of reciprocity. 

Mr. SMITH. And just a final 30 seconds? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Gosh, Mr. Smith, maybe we will——

Mr. SMITH. I can’t get a visa to China. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Connolly of Virginia is recognized. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. My goodness, Madam Chairman, he must have 

given you a bucket-load of chocolate. [Laughter.] I thank the chair, 

and I welcome our panel. 

I just want to say I certainly share the passion about human 

rights with my colleague from New Jersey, but I certainly do not 

share in the judgment that somehow the President of the United 

States and his administration have somehow been playing a backseat on this issue. I don’t think that is true. I think it is sometimes 

easy for us here in Congress to opine about human rights as opposed to those who have the responsibility for sometimes executing 

policy when it comes to specific cases. 

We just had a success story in China, actually, in getting a dissident out of China, and I think it involved very direct face-to-face 

statements by the Secretary of State, who was visiting at the time, 

and back-room negotiations between our Embassy officials and foreign ministry officials in the People’s Republic of China, that ultimately led to getting the gentleman and his family out of China. 

Now sometimes we have to ask ourselves, are we more interested 

in making a point and using this platform to do that or are we 

sometimes more interested in trying to have a result? And so, I just 

say in defense of the President, I think he is as passionate and 

52

committed to human rights as any of us, but he has what we don’t 

have, which is the responsibility of executing policy. 

That doesn’t mean we can’t and shouldn’t continue to press on 

that regard, whoever is in the White House, because I think human 

rights has to be enshrined as a cardinal value, an American value 

and, indeed, a universal value, and we have to advocate for it, even 

when it is inconvenient. 

Let me ask, Mr. Li, you seemed to indicate, if I understood your 

testimony correctly, that you were skeptical about the value of the 

dialogue; it wasn’t going to produce much. Did I get that right? 

Mr. LI. Yes. Yes, I doubt, if they keep it as a private session. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But here is my concern about that: I mean, we 

even talked to the Soviets in the Cold War, at the height of the 

Cold War, about human rights, with sometimes having some effect 

on Soviet Jewry. 

And we implemented laws, like Jackson-Vanik. Hopefully, we 

will implement some more, as Mr. Genser indicated, in terms of 

Magnitsky, if we are going to do PNTR with now Russia. 

If there is no dialogue, how do we effectuate change in policy? 

How do we help individuals and groups of individuals protect their 

human rights if we are not at the table pressing that other party? 

Mr. LI. Thank you. 

Because from my point of view, I notice that the Chinese Government takes the human rights dialogue itself as progress and, actually, I didn’t see any progress or change of the Chinese human 

rights situation. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Do you believe that the Chinese are impervious 

to international opinion, international pressure on this subject? 

Mr. LI. I think if we condemn the Chinese Government publicly 

and openly, it will feel the pressure and at least do some change. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Genser, what is your view about the value 

of dialogue with the Chinese Government on this subject? 

Mr. GENSER. Well, I think Mr. Li and I have a disagreement, at 

least in a small respect. I think, to a large extent, we agree that 

the dialogues themselves are an opportunity taken by the Chinese 

Government to emphasize process rather than substance. So, they 

issue press releases about how wonderful it is that they are engaging in dialogue and that should be the end of the discussion. 

And I don’t think dialogue alone is sufficient. This is why I talk 

about the need for benchmarks, timelines, and consequences out of 

these dialogues. It can’t be the case that we just keep talking and 

talking and talking, and we don’t see changes to their laws; we 

don’t see changes in their conduct, and we don’t see them responding to particular concerns that we raise. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But, of course, Mr. Genser, it is a bit of, not that 

you are doing this, but, I mean, it is a little bit of a straw man 

to say negotiations alone aren’t going to be the answer. Who is arguing that? Who in the U.S. foreign policy establishment or in this 

administration or in this Congress is saying negotiations are sufficient—I’m sorry—dialogue is sufficient? 

Mr. GENSER. No, I mean, I agree with you that isn’t anyone’s 

public position, but I have to say—and I am very much a human 

rights partisan and not a political one in any respect, and so I just 

53

call it as I see it—I have been disappointed, unfortunately, in this 

administration’s willingness on a range of issues on Chinese 

human rights to follow through on a range of issues. And so, I will 

give you an illustration. 

Gao Zhisheng I have talked about extensively. Geng He was in 

town around the time of the Xi Jinping visit. We requested a meeting either with Secretary Clinton or the President or the Vice 

President, and neither of them had time on their schedules. Now 

I understand they are busy people. But, unfortunately, the President, in the run up to the Xi Jinping visit, met with four experts 

on China and Chinese rights, but none of them were actual victims 

of Chinese human rights abuses. And so, those kinds of symbolic 

gestures, or lack of symbolic gestures, speak volumes. 

I have to say that I really wish, for example, this President 

would spend more time with dissidents from different countries 

around the world and meet with them, and give them the platforms 

that merely a meeting with the President in the Oval Office would 

have. And so, I just think that we are really missing something if 

we don’t look at the public diplomacy element that the President 

and the Secretary of State can play on these kinds of issues. 

They have done some. I think they need to do substantially more, 

particularly when I know that they have raised, for example, Liu 

Xiaobo’s case privately to the Chinese Government. His wife remains under house arrest and has for 22 months. 

So, my question publicly, and what I have said directly to the administration, is: What are you going to do now that you have raised 

these issues privately and quietly? You haven’t gotten a response 

from the Chinese Government. What is the next step, right? Because 22 months under house arrest in Liu Xia’s case without any 

due process of law whatsoever is pretty egregious conduct. And so, 

if you don’t get somewhere with the private request, what do you 

do next? Unfortunately, I haven’t seen what it is going to do next, 

although I have been asking repeatedly. 

And so, these are illustrative examples to me of concerns that I 

have about how we need to follow through on our publicly-stated 

concerns. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

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

Mr. Rohrabacher, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 

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

And thank you, Madam Chairman, for doing your part in sending 

the right message that America needs to be sending to dictators 

throughout the world, and especially the world’s worst human 

rights abuser, which happens to be China. 

I am very dismayed at this struggle, which I have been witnessing close-up for 30 years. Let me just note that, under the 

Reagan administration, which I was proud to serve as Special Assistant to President Reagan as well as one of his speech writers, 

we held dialogue with countries, but we had lots of dissidents in 

to see the President. There were people who came from China and 

met with President Reagan in the Oval Office. There were people 

from Eastern Europe who came and met with President Reagan in 

54

the Oval Office and high-level officials. I personally met with dissidents in the Soviet Union during that time period. 

Let’s just note that the double-standard that I see right now for 

China seems to be, I mean, it is overwhelming to me as an individual. There has been great reform in Russia. I mean, I think it 

is a wonderful thing. And by the way, Ronald Reagan did not accomplish the great changes that have taken place in Eastern Europe and in Russia, he did not accomplish that by opening up more 

trade. 

In fact, it was just the opposite. We never gave Most Favored 

Nation status to the Soviet Union, and we had a whole totally-different approach. We were actually supporting the dissident movements. It would be the equivalent of today our Government would 

be providing help, as we should be, to the Uyghurs or to the Tibetans. That is what brought an end to the Cold War with Russia, at 

that time the Soviet Union. And hopefully, it would bring an end 

to this antagonistic, fascistic regime in Beijing and open a door for 

more freedom and peace in that part of the world. 

Let me note that it is disturbing to see that we are saying to 

Russians, even after all of their reform, that they can’t join the 

WTO without certain human rights commitments. That is a good 

thing. But we are not enforcing any of those commitments on 

China. I mean the double-standard between Russia and China is 

so glaring that it is giving a bad message to both the Russian Government and to the Chinese Government. 

So, let me ask a question. I am going to get one question here, 

and that is, of course, let me note that after Ronald Reagan left, 

Herbert Walker Bush was President of the United States, our Republican, who, again, this body voted to eliminate Most Favored 

Nation status for China after Tiananmen Square twice, and Herbert Walker Bush vetoed that. So, this isn’t a Democrat-versus-Republican. This is Americans who are proud of our values and other 

Americans who would rather do business and make sure we have 

short-term profit. 

But I would like to ask the panelists this. I have got 11⁄2 minutes 

to do it. What has happened in the past when we allow monstrous 

regimes to get away from being confronted by their crimes against 

their own people, quite often, they start committing crimes and 

using their pressure and arrogance against countries, other countries, to do their bidding. 

I just mention that President Ma in Taiwan isn’t even mentioning the Falun Gong practitioner who is a Taiwanese citizen, 

who is now being held in prison in mainland China. Have you any 

examples where people from your communities have actually suffered attacks or repression in other countries outside of China by 

the Chinese Government? And that is for the panel. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. If you could repeat that last question? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The question is, basically, do you know of examples in your communities, whether the Uyghurs or the Tibetans 

or human rights people from China itself, do we have examples 

where in other countries the Chinese dictatorship in Beijing is 

reaching out of their own country to try to expand their repressive 

behavior against those communities in other countries, even maybe 

the United States? 

55

Ms. KADEER. Yes, the Chinese Government’s pressures and 

threats are very pervasive, not only in East Turkestan, but the 

long arm of China is reaching China’s neighboring countries and 

other countries, especially in pressuring the extradition of Uyghur 

activists who fled into those countries. 

One example is the deportation of 20 Uyghurs by the Cambodia 

Government in December 2009 back to China, where they sought 

asylum. They were deported back to China just before the visit of 

China’s Vice President Xi Jinping. 

And also, we have numerous examples of Uyghurs being deported by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. For example, 

Ershidin Israil, a Uyghur activist who fled Kazakhstan, was deported back to China by the Kazakh Government. And also, 

Huseyincan Celil, a Uyghur Canadian citizen who visited his wife’s 

family in Uzbekistan, he was kidnapped by the Uzbek Government, 

sent back secretly to China, where he is facing a life sentence 

today. The Canadian Government could do little to really get even 

consular access to him. These are just a couple of examples. 

The only Uyghurs who are safe, refugees, if they have fled to 

America or Europe. Otherwise, China is able to pressure other 

countries to send them back. Once they are back to China, they all 

disappear for good. Then, we have no information as to what happened to them. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this 

hearing. And again, we need to demonstrate what our real values 

of the American people are, and you are doing your part. Thanks. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. Sherman, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, is recognized. 

Mr. SHERMAN. President Obama met with the Dalai Lama last 

July at the White House. But, in general, we have not done enough 

to push the Chinese on human rights. In a way, American values 

are being held hostage by the trading relationship that we have 

agreed to with the Chinese. The Chinese have total access to the 

U.S. market. No matter what they do, they have total access to the 

U.S. market. As Dana Rohrabacher pointed out, the events occurred at Tiananmen Square, and they didn’t lose a slight bit of access to the American market. 

In contrast—and this is disguised—our access to the Chinese 

market is entirely dependent upon Chinese Government decisions. 

Whether they buy the Airbus or the Boeing plane, that is not a decision made by airline officials who examine the planes carefully. 

That is a political decision. And America’s jobs are held hostage by 

the Chinese Government. As long as we are in a circumstance 

where their access to our market is unlimited and our access to 

their market is at the grace of their government, then American 

values will be held hostage. 

Mr. Tsering, what lessons should the world draw from the tragic 

self-immolations of Tibetan monks and nuns and other religious 

figures? Do you know of any evidence to support the Chinese Government’s charge that the immolations were encouraged by groups 

outside China? 

Mr. TSERING. Congressman, thank you for your question. 

56

As you can see from the chart over there, that is a list of names 

of Tibetans who have committed self-immolation so far. One single 

message, if we can get out of it, is that the Tibetan people are not 

satisfied under the current Chinese rule. They are also looking for 

the international community’s assistance, assistance from the Chinese people, assistance from everywhere, to save them from this 

present situation. 

It is very encouraging that there are governments who have 

issued statements. But, more than that, what we need is concrete 

action. For example, at this Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue, the 

United States would have raised the issue of self-immolation. Now 

the Congress should be let known what has been the Chinese reaction and what the United States would do in the face of such a reaction from the Chinese side. So, therefore, I think this is related 

to the larger issue of why there is a problem in Tibet, and the Chinese have to answer that. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Ms. Kadeer, China is justifying its policy with 

claims that the Uyghurs and those who assert Uyghur rights are 

somehow affiliated with international Islamic extremist terrorism. 

What are the facts, and are there any Uyghur groups that receive 

support from al-Qaeda, from Saudi Arabia, or from Iran? I realize 

putting Saudi Arabia in that list is for my own information and is 

not designed to say that there is an equivalency of those three. 

Ms. KADEER. After the tragic events of the September 11th terrorist attacks in the United States, and after the beginning of the 

global war on terrorism, the Chinese Government used both of 

them to its advantage to demonize and label the Uyghur people’s 

legitimate opposition to China Government’s brutal rule in the region as terrorism and fabricate stories that alleged Uyghur groups 

had links with international terrorism, to justify their heavy-handed rule in the region. 

And so, we believe the Uyghurs actually became a victim of even 

the acts of Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization because 

we happen to be Muslims, and China used that to its vast advantage to demonize us. 

One example is the unrest on July 5th of 2009, which began 

peacefully by the Uyghurs taking to the streets to protest against 

the mob killing of the Uyghurs in Guangdong province. But that 

day, the Chinese security forces opened fire and killed hundreds of 

them. They even turned off the street lights at night from 9 o’clock 

p.m. to 3 o’clock a.m. and killed so many of the Uyghurs. 

And the Chinese Government, in addition to accusing some 

Uyghurs as terrorists, also accused me as a terrorist. China continues to accuse me. 

Mr. SHERMAN. If I can interrupt, my two specific questions there: 

Are Uyghur groups receiving support from Iran, and are Uyghur 

groups receiving support from Saudi Arabia? 

Ms. KADEER. And none of the Uyghur groups ever received any 

money or financial aid from either Iran or Saudi Arabia. Actually, 

both countries are allies of China. So, they would never support 

any Uyghurs for any cause, and they have never supported us in 

any fashion. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you for your specificity. 

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

57

And now, Mr. Royce, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, is recognized. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I wanted to ask Mr. Genser a question. We have, over the last 

few months, seen a crackdown by the North Korean leader. Kim 

Jong Un really has toughened punishment for anybody who attempts to flee from North Korea into China. And so, those refugees 

who are repatriated are tortured, often killed, shot. I have seen 

some of the tapes of this. 

One of the questions here is the complicity, the way in which 

Beijing has assisted in repatriating those North Korean refugees. 

Now, in Seoul, because of the candlelight vigil, it has become a 

very popular cause to become more aware of what is happening to 

North Korean refugees. And you had four South Korean human 

rights activists who were working in China who were held, and because of the pressure, were released by China. I wanted to see your 

thoughts about diplomatic pressure from Seoul and whether or not 

you think that is what led to the release of these South Korean 

human rights activists. 

Mr. GENSER. Thanks so much, Congressman Royce, for the question. 

I actually happen to do a lot of work, also, on North Korea 

human rights and know you have been a real leader in the Congress on North Korea human rights for many years. So, thank you 

for that. 

China’s repatriation of North Korean refugees to North Korea is 

a flagrant violation of its obligations under the Refugee Convention. By definition, at a minimum, those who flee from North Korea 

without permission are so-called refugees sur place because it is actually illegal under North Korean law to leave the country without 

permission, and it is punishable potentially by the death penalty. 

So, the moment they have left North Korea to enter China, they 

are at risk of serious persecution upon their return. 

So, clearly, much more pressure needs to be put on China with 

respect to their complicity. And with respect to the four South Koreans and their activities inside China, I think China had to make 

a relatively, I hope, easy decision as to whether they wanted to 

have the spotlight of international pressure placed upon them. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, that was my point. That spotlight of international pressure. What I want to check on is whether or not we 

could look at a longer-term strategy. Is there a way diplomatic 

pressure can be placed on China to allow the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees’ Office in Beijing to begin its policy of enforcement to see if we can’t get safe passage to South Korea of those 

North Korean refugees? 

Mr. GENSER. Yes, I mean, I think that that is precisely the direction we need to go. I think that South Korean pressure mattered 

a lot. The mobilization of the South Korean public was noted, I am 

sure, by Beijing and had to play a key role in the decision. 

The challenge has been usually you don’t have third parties. 

Mr. ROYCE. Right, but our problem right now is they have not 

bowed to any pressure in terms of returning or allowing North Korean refugees safe passage. They have bowed to the pressure from 

North Korea to return those refugees. And so, wider recognition in 

58

the international community and more pressure from NGO groups 

and more attention to this issue I think is necessary in order to 

turn up the heat. 

I had a question for Mr. Li pertaining to the question of how pervasive the use of torture is in China’s prisons. I read your account, 

your written account, of what transpired over the period of the 

months after months that you were held before your trial and then 

after your trial in terms of the torture that you endured and the 

types of torture applied. I wanted to ask you about how pervasive 

you believe that may be. 

I also wanted to ask you about how concerned young Chinese, 

who are pretty open on the internet in terms of their discussions 

about the desire for more freedom of association and freedom of expression, how concerned they should be about the law on disappearances passed by the National People’s Congress in March. 

Mr. Li? 

Mr. LI. Thank you. 

Actually, to your first question, I would say anyone who did not 

transform or be transformed would be tortured by any means. 

Mr. ROYCE. And how about your concern about the law on disappearances? 

Mr. LI. The law on——

Mr. ROYCE. On disappearances, which you might be familiar 

with, but it was passed by the National People’s Congress in 

March. 

Mr. LI. Sorry, I didn’t know much about——

Mr. ROYCE. Then, I will ask you, if I could, Madam Chairman, 

I will just ask you one final question. To what extent does the Chinese judiciary actually function independently from political interference? To what extent is the judiciary system independent? 

Mr. LI. I don’t think they are separate because they are all under 

the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. 

And as to the disappearance act, frankly, I don’t know much 

about it, but from my own experience I think they never mind to 

make somebody disappear. 

Mr. ROYCE. As you say, you were held for 8 months. 

Mr. LI. Yes. 

Mr. ROYCE. And your mother passed away, partly from worry, 

during that period of time. 

Mr. LI. Yes. 

Mr. ROYCE. She was only 60, I think, at the time. 

Mr. LI. Yes. 

Mr. ROYCE. And you had no awareness of that or her funeral because at that point in time, prior to your trial, you simply had disappeared. 

Madam Chairman, thank you very much for this hearing. 

Mr. LI. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

And we have given members more time because of the translation. So, don’t worry about that. 

Mr. Poe, the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

59

China, who are these folks? Well, they are the people who steal 

our trade secrets. They steal our patents. They invade our internet 

and go to our Web sites. They are one of the nations that refused 

to take back convicted Chinese citizens that are convicted in American jails. They don’t take them back, as they should according to 

American law. They torture and they kill their own people. And 

China is a source, transit, and destination country for sex, labor, 

and organ trafficking, according to the 2012 Trafficking Persons 

Report, compiled by our State Department. 

In fact, where I live down in Texas, in Harris County, Texas, 

there are 20 to 30 illicit massage parlors, mostly run by the Chinese. It is sex slavery. These investigators have found wire transfers going in and out of China from owners of these parlors. China 

doesn’t, to me, seem to care much about human trafficking. They 

are on the tier III watch list for 8 years. They ought to be on tier 

III, where the worst of the worst offenders are, but China is not 

there. 

The State Department, who determines what tier countries get 

on, admits that the only reason China got a waiver from tier III 

is not because of its human trafficking ability or crackdown, but it 

has got a paper of policy saying that we don’t like human trafficking. China knows that they don’t enforce it. We know they don’t 

enforce it, and the State Department doesn’t seem to want to deal 

with the sanctions on China as a tier III determination. 

I think we ought to quit making excuses for China. The State 

Department should, I think, quit giving them cover by ignoring 

human rights violations. The State Department, God bless them, 

they want to talk, talk, talk. That is what they do. They are diplomats. One thing I have never been called is a diplomat, but they 

are diplomats. And they want to talk about all these issues with 

the Chinese. But, you know, like my grandfather used to say, when 

all is said and done, more is said than done. And it seems that all 

of this continues to go on. 

China eventually needs to suffer the consequences for all of these 

human rights violations. Mr. Genser, what do you think those consequences ought to be? 

Mr. GENSER. Well, let me just reiterate—and, Judge Poe, Congressman, I wanted to thank you for your remarks—I think we 

need to be as aggressive with the Chinese as they are with us. 

They are unapologetic and very clear in what they are trying to do 

to their own people in order to maintain their grip on power. 

Unfortunately, I suppose one of the benefits of a democracy, and 

one of the challenges of a democracy, is we have an open debate 

in our country about what our priorities are and how much human 

rights should factor into our concerns about China. And we have 

companies that want to trade and do business and want to de-emphasize human rights. This is all healthy in a democracy. 

Nevertheless, I do think that human rights is a fundamental 

value of our country, and human freedom is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. So, I think it is 

time, as Congressman Smith was saying, to enforce the existing 

laws that are in place. 

I think moving China to be a tier III country, as you mentioned, 

in human trafficking absolutely should happen. There is a range of 

60

sanctions because China is a country of particular concern under 

the International Religious Freedom Act that should be imposed. I 

would like to see a Sergie Magnitsky Act for China where thousands of Chinese Government officials who are complicit in torture 

and wrongful imprisonment and a range of other crimes against 

humanity can be imposed on the Chinese Government. 

All these could be used in an interim process as clear threats to 

the Chinese to see if we can influence their behavior. I don’t know 

necessarily that we have to start doing all this overnight, but we 

need to send a clear message from the top of the government, from 

the President of the United States and the Secretary of State, that 

our relationship with China is going to change, and that unless it 

starts to change, unless some of these fundamental concerns of our 

people start to be addressed in a meaningful and systematic way, 

that we are going to go down the road of starting to directly address the kind of consequences that we are all discussing here 

today. 

Mr. POE. Thank you. 

Mr. Li, I have one final question for you regarding the Falun 

Gong. How many folks in the Falun Gong have been killed because 

of the Chinese Government’s policy? And is the situation with the 

Falun Gong in China getting worse, getting better? Where is it 

headed, in your opinion, the persecution? 

Mr. LI. Okay. Thank you. 

Reportedly, over 3,000 Falun Gong practitioners have been 

killed, and this is not complete. 

As to the second question, I think the situation is deteriorating. 

I haven’t seen any progress of Falun Gong practitioners. 

Mr. POE. Well, let me ask you this: Is the persecution increasing 

against the Falun Gong? Or is it diminishing? 

Mr. LI. It is increasing, I believe. 

Mr. POE. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. LI. Thank you. 

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

Ambassador Poe. [Laughter.] Mr. Bilirakis, my Florida colleague, is 

recognized. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate 

it. Thank you so much for holding this hearing as well. 

I have a question for Ms. Kadeer. I hope I didn’t mispronounce 

that name. I apologize. 

But, Ms. Kadeer, I understand that you met with President 

George W. Bush while he was in office at least once and, also, I 

believe you met with Secretary Rice as well. Have you had any opportunity, have you been able to arrange a meeting with President 

Obama or Secretary Clinton? And elaborate on that, but I would 

like for you to answer that question first. 

Ms. KADEER. Yes, I was able to meet with President Bush, actually, twice during his administration, the first time in Prague, the 

second time in the White House. So, both of the meetings sent a 

strong message to the Chinese Government that the U.S. was deeply concerned with the Uyghur rights issues. 

And also, with regard to the situation of my children at the time, 

China was very careful because of these meetings. And also, there 

were frequent visits from the U.S. Embassy to our homeland. 

61

And actually, I was able to honorably meet with First Lady 

Laura Bush. 

Obviously, I would love to have the honor to meet President 

Obama to speak what is in my heart regarding the human rights 

violations, but so far I have not had the honor. Of course, I am 

available, and I also requested meetings many times in the past, 

but that has not materialized. 

I also want to meet with Secretary Clinton, especially to talk 

about the case of my children, but still——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Why do you think that is the case? 

Ms. KADEER. I am not exactly sure why, but my hope is, as a 

mother, to talk to another mother regarding my children’s case, but 

that has not happened. 

And I certainly hope I would have the opportunity to meet President Obama eventually. My thinking is probably that President 

Obama doesn’t want to offend the Chinese Government, and that 

is why he probably decided not to meet with me and the other people. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam 

Chair. I yield back the balance. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you for bringing up that terrible human cost that comes 

with being a leader for freedom and democracy. Thank you for excellent testimony, and especially for giving us some very valuable 

suggestions about what we can do to press for freedom and democracy and openness and fairness for the people of China who hunger 

for freedom. Thank you so much. 

With that, our committee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(63)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

64

f


75292n.eps
65


75292m-1.eps
66

f


75292m-2.eps
67


75292e-1.eps
68

f


75292e-2.eps
69

[NOTE: The material submitted for the record by Mr. Bhuchung K. Tsering, ‘‘SelfImmolations in Tibet’’ and the ‘‘Summary of Human Rights Abuses in Tibet in 

2012,’’ is not reprinted here due to length limitations but is available in committee 

records.]

Æ