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

81–341PDF 2013

TRAGIC ANNIVERSARY OF THE 1989 TIANANMEN

SQUARE PROTESTS AND MASSACRE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 3, 2013

Serial No. 113–69

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 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Wei Jingsheng, president, Wei Jingsheng Foundation ................................. 6

Ms. Chai Ling, founder, All Girls Allowed ............................................................ 10

Yang Jianli, Ph.D., president, Initiatives for China ............................................. 23

David Aikman, Ph.D. (former Time magazine bureau chief in Beijing) ............. 34

Sophie Richardson, Ph.D., China director, Human Rights Watch ...................... 38

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Wei Jingsheng: Prepared statement ............................................................... 8

Ms. Chai Ling: Prepared statement ....................................................................... 14

Yang Jianli, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ................................................................ 25

David Aikman, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ........................................................... 36

Sophie Richardson, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .................................................... 40

APPENDIX 

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

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

The Honorable Steve Stockman, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas: Prepared statement ............................................................................. 70

Written responses from Mr. Wei Jingsheng to questions submitted for the 

record by the Honorable Steve Stockman .......................................................... 72

(1)

TRAGIC ANNIVERSARY OF THE 1989

TIANANMEN SQUARE PROTESTS AND 

MASSACRE 

MONDAY, JUNE 3, 2013

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:59 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. Hearing will come to order. And good afternoon to everyone. Today, this week, the world remembers the dream that was 

and is the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. And deeply honors 

the sacrifice endured by an extraordinarily brave group of pro-democracy, Chinese women and men who dared to demand fundamental human rights for all of China and for all Chinese. Twentyfour years ago today, the world watched in awe and wonder as 

hundreds of thousands of mostly young people peacefully petitioned 

the Chinese Government to reform and to democratize. China 

seemed to be the next impending triumph for freedom and democracy, especially after the collapse of dictatorships in the Soviet 

Union and among the Warsaw Pact nations. But when the People’s 

Liberation Army poured into and around the square on June 3rd, 

the wonder of Tiananmen turned to shock, tears, fear, and a sense 

of helplessness. 

On June 3rd and 4th, and for days, weeks, and years, right up 

until today, the Chinese dictatorship delivered a barbaric response: 

Mass murder, torture, incarceration, the systematic suppression of 

fundamental human rights, and cover-up. The Chinese Government 

not only continues to inflict unspeakable pain and suffering on its 

own people, but the cover-up of the Tiananmen Square massacre 

is without precedent in modern history. Even though journalists, 

live television, and radio documented the massacre, the Chinese 

Communist party line continues today to deny, obfuscate, and to 

threaten anyone who deviates from the line. 

In December 1996, General Chi Haotian, the operational commander who ordered the murder of the Tiananmen protesters, visited Washington, DC, as the Chinese Defense Minister. See, he had 

gotten a promotion. Mr. Chi was welcomed by President Clinton at 

the White House with full military honors, including a 19-gun saVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:13 Nov 03, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\060313\81341 HFA PsN: SHIRL
2

lute. A bizarre spectacle that I and others on both sides of the aisle 

strongly protested. Why do I bring this up? Minister Chi addressed 

the Army War College on that trip. And in answer to a question 

said, ‘‘Not a single person lost his life in Tiananmen Square,’’ and 

claimed that the People’s Liberation Army did nothing more violent 

than the pushing of people during the 1989 protest. Imagine that. 

‘‘Not a single person lost his or her life.’’ Are you kidding? The big 

lie, that big lie, and countless others like it, is the Chinese Communist party line. 

As chair of the subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee 

that handled human rights at the time, I put together an emergency hearing within a couple of days, on December 18, 1996, with 

witnesses who were there on the square, including Dr. Yang, a 

leader and survivor of the massacre, and including Time Magazine 

bureau chief, Dr. David Aikman, two of today’s witnesses. We also 

invited Minister Chi Haotian, or anyone else from the Chinese Embassy who might want to come and give an account. He and they 

refused. 

I guess Minister Chi thought he was back in Beijing where the 

big lie is king and no one ever dares to do a fact check. A few days 

ago, the U.S. Department of State asked the Chinese Government 

to ‘‘end the harassment of those who participated in the protests 

and fully account for those killed, detained, or missing.’’ The response? The Chinese Foreign Ministry acrimoniously said that the 

U.S. should ‘‘stop interfering in Chinese internal affairs so as not 

to sabotage U.S./China relations.’’ Sabotage Sino-American relations because our side requests an end to harassment, because we 

request an accounting? Sounds to me like they have much to hide. 

President Obama, as we know, is scheduled to meet with Chinese 

President Xi Jinping on Friday and Saturday to discuss security 

and economic issues. A robust discussion of human rights abuses 

in China must be on the agenda and not in a superfluous or superficial way. It is time to get serious about China’s flagrant abuse. 

The Chinese Government’s appalling record should make us question even the topic that is at hand: Can a government that crushes 

the rights and freedoms of its own people be trusted on trade and 

on security issues? 

China today is the torture capital of the world. And victims include religious believers, ethnic minorities, human rights defenders, like Chen Guangcheng and Gao Zhisheng, and political dissidents. Hundreds of millions of women have been forced to abort 

their precious babies, pursuant the draconian one-child policy, 

which has led to gendercide, the violent extermination of unborn 

girls simply because they are girls. The slaughter of the girl-child 

in China is not only a massive gender crime, but it is a security 

issue as well. A witness at one of my earlier hearings, Valerie Hudson, author of a book called ‘‘Bare Branches’’ testified that the gender imbalance will lead, inevitably will lead to instability and 

chaos, and, as she posited, even war. 

She said that the one-child policy has not enhanced China’s security, but demonstrably weakened it. The abnormal sex ratio of 

china does not bode well for its future, and notes that Nick 

Eberstadt has famously phrased, ‘‘What are the consequences for 

3

a society that has chosen to become simultaneously both more gray 

and more male?’’

I hope policymakers both here in Washington and elsewhere pay 

close attention to our witnesses because Tiananmen Square and 

the massacre that followed there was a tipping point, and the lessons learned and employed ever since by the Chinese Government 

require much better understanding and due diligence on our part 

and a more effective response on our part. We still don’t get it, 

what happened, post-Tiananmen Square. 

One of our witnesses, Dr. Yang, will testify that soon after 

Tiananmen, the Communist Party embraced the ubiquitous code of 

corruption to enrich the elite at the expense of the general public 

believing that, as he says in his testimony, economic growth means 

everything to the survival and the sustainability of the dictatorship. All of this, as he says, was made possible, thanks to the 

Tiananmen Square massacre and the political terror that was imposed on the country in the years following. 

Many of us on both sides of the aisle and Americans throughout 

this country and really people who believe in freedom around the 

world will never forget what took place in Tiananmen 24 years ago. 

The struggle for freedom in China continues. Someday, the people 

of China will enjoy all of their God-given rights. And a nation of 

free Chinese women and men will someday honor, applaud, and 

thank the heroes of Tiananmen Square and all of those who sacrificed so much and so long for freedom. I would like now to yield 

to my friend and colleague, Ms. Bass, for any opening comments. 

Ms. BASS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening today’s hearing. I think it is pretty remarkable to hear you say that you were 

here when this happened and that you held the hearing a few days 

later. 

As you noted, this week marks 24 years since the world watched 

the bravery and courage of the Chinese people and the violent 

events that took place in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Like most 

people around the world, I remember exactly where I was when 

those events took place. That is why the images of Tiananmen 

Square are forever etched in our memories. It is important to note 

that there were other protests taking place across China as students and demonstrators of all ages took to the streets, and there 

was very little coverage about what was happening outside of Beijing. 

There were images of those brutalized, those bloodied, and of 

those who paid the ultimate sacrifice in their demand for greater 

freedoms, government accountability, and an end to corruption. Yet 

it is the image of a man standing in front of a line of tanks that 

we remember so well. This lone protester embodied that of all demonstrators in China and for many around the world in the days, 

years, and more than two decades since. That one seemingly plain 

individual could stand with such strength is and will ever be a remarkable and truly humbling moment. 

I will always remember this image because of what it represents, 

the struggle of people everywhere against insurmountable odds, yet 

it was a brave individual who showed that a simple act of protest 

was bigger and more powerful than propaganda, instruments of 

war, and unspeakable violence. I want to thank today’s witnesses 

4

for participating in this hearing and reminding this committee of 

the important events of Tiananmen Square in the summer of 1989. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bass. 

Like to now yield to Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank each of you 

for being here today to testify. I look forward to hearing your testimony and certainly the lessons that we need to continue to learn 

as we address human rights across not only in China but across 

the world. It is hard to believe that it is some 24 years ago that 

we are now looking back at Tiananmen Square. And yet the tragedy is one that should not easily be forgotten. It is one that we 

must keep fresh in our minds. It is one that we must learn from. 

Obviously, the protests there was sparked by the death of a reformer, someone who called for greater government transparency, 

freedom of speech, economic reforms. And, you know, that is a 

story that we have seen before. 

You know, China itself has freed up much of its economy, it has 

seen explosive growth. But yet, the human rights record is still 

abysmal. We need to make sure that we hold them accountable. We 

wouldn’t stand for that here in our economy. And as we are part 

of a global economy, we can’t stand for it in some of our greatest 

trading partners. In the Middle East in the last 21⁄2 years, we have 

seen unrest happen across the Middle East following what some 

would call the Arab Spring. But really, in a large part, that unrest 

has the same underlying premise as Tiananmen Square: An oppressed people will eventually rise up, and they should. 

That is why this hearing is crucial. And the lessons from 

Tiananmen Square have clearly not been learned in China or 

abroad. And so I look forward to hearing your testimony and what 

we can learn from what has happened and what is happening and 

what hopefully will happen in the future and how we can highlight 

this particular problem to bring the end to the oppressive actions 

that continue to take back. And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, very much, Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. Stockman. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I request that I can give you my 

remarks so you don’t have to sit through the whole thing. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. But I want to say one thing, though. I remember 

watching on television, as many people have. And it was really 

heart-rendering and warm when I saw the replica of the Statue of 

Liberty and everything it stood for. And all I can say is when we 

saw the tanks rolling in and as they brought the—basically, I understand they were drugged, hyped-up people from outside of Beijing in to roll over those people as they were screaming for help 

and screaming for the rest of the people to cry out for freedom, I 

mean, I just—I—it broke my heart. 

And for all those that are still fighting for freedom in China, they 

represent one-quarter of this world population. And yet we seem to 

turn our backs on them again and again. And I am glad that the 

people here in this room stand up for freedom and stand up for 

those, and I will always remember that photograph. Yield back the 

balance of my time. Thank you. 

5

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Stockman. 

I would like to now introduce our very distinguished panel. Beginning first with Mr. Wei Jingsheng, who has served two jail sentences, totaling more than 18 years in China, for his pro-democracy, pro-human rights work. A father of the democracy world 

movement, it was Wei Jingsheng who literally posted an essay, the 

fifth modernization, which he entitled ‘‘Democracy.’’ And he had 

the courage to literally sign it—a lot of those postings were anonymous—he signed his, and for that he was incarcerated. I met with 

Wei very briefly when he was briefly let out in 1994. 

When the Chinese Government was seeking to get the 2000 

Olympics, they eventually got Olympics later on, but they thought 

releasing one high-profile political prisoner would be enough to 

make possible their getting the 2000 Olympics. That is how highly 

regarded he was, and is, to this day, for his democracy promotion 

and human rights promotion. 

In 1998, he founded and became the chairman of the Overseas 

Chinese Democracy Coalition, after he was exiled, of course. He is 

also President of the Wei Jingsheng Foundation and the Asia Democracy Alliance. He has written numerous articles and regularly 

speaks about human rights at a number of fora and in the media. 

We will then hear from Ms. Chai Ling, who was a key student 

leader in 1989 at Tiananmen Square during those very fateful 

days. When the military brutally crushed the protest on June 4th, 

Chai Ling was named to the government’s list of the 21 most wanted students. She escaped from Beijing 10 months later. She secretly was hidden in a cargo box for 105 hours to escape China as 

she made her way to Hong Kong. 

She has since gotten an MBA from Harvard. She also is the 

founder of a group called All Girls Allowed, which speaks on the 

behalf of the girl-child who is so viciously victimized inside of 

China as part of the one-child-per-couple policy. She also co-founded the Jenzabar Foundation, which supports humanitarian efforts 

for student leaders. 

We will then hear from Dr. Yang Jianli. Dr. Yang is also a 

Tiananmen Square massacre survivor, and was held as a political 

prisoner in China from 2002 to 2007. He is a founder of the Initiatives for China/Citizen Power for China, Foundation for China in 

the 21st Century, and founder and organizer of Interethnic/Interfaith Leadership Conferences for the online publication of China EWeekly. He co-authored a democratic constitution for China in 

1993, and co-chaired The Geneva Internet Freedom Declaration in 

2010. He has been elected to the Top 100 Chinese Public Intellectuals in each of the past 4 years. He has also represented Mr. Liu 

Xiaobo at the 2010 Nobel Peace Price award ceremony. And we 

welcome him and thank him for his very influential writing and 

leadership. 

We will then hear from Dr. David Aikman, who reported for 23 

years for Time Magazine in more than 50 countries, including 

China. In 1989, he was in China reporting on student democracy 

protests and was present when the Tiananmen Square massacre 

took place. Dr. Aikman was born in the United Kingdom, but in 

1992, became a U.S. citizen. He left Time in 1994 and has since 

written several books and newspapers columns and lectured at nuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:13 Nov 03, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\060313\81341 HFA PsN: SHIRL
6

merous places around the world. He is currently a professor of history at Patrick Henry College. And, I would note, when he was 

with Time Magazine in Beijing, he was the bureau chief. 

We will then hear from Dr. Sophie Richardson, who is the China 

Director at Human Rights Watch. Dr. Richardson is the author of 

numerous articles on domestic Chinese political reform, democratization, and human rights in many Asian countries. She has testified before the European Parliament and the U.S. Congress, including my subcommittee. I thank you and welcome you again. She is 

the author of ‘‘China, Cambodia, and Five Principles of Peaceful 

Coexistence,’’ an in depth examination of Chinese foreign policy 

since 1954’s Geneva Conference, including rare interviews with policymakers. So thank you all for being here. I would like to now 

turn to Mr. Wei Jingsheng. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WEI JINGSHENG, PRESIDENT, WEI 

JINGSHENG FOUNDATION 

[The following testimony and answers were delivered through an 

interpreter.] 

Mr. WEI. It has been 24 years since the June 4th massacre. I 

want to testify here about people’s view on this massacre after 24 

years and the impact on Chinese politics due to people’s widespread view. 

The current widespread representative view of the Chinese people is different from the view more than 20 years ago. At that time, 

the most widely hold view was to ask for the redress of the June 

4th massacre from the Chinese Communist Party. However, now 

more than half of the people’s concern is not the issue of redress 

but the investigation of the people responsible for the crime and 

the demand for the Communist Party to plead guilty for this massacre. 

This change of attitude illustrates that people have gradually 

lost the illusion to the Communist Party. So-called redress is the 

wrong thing to be corrected. In the past, people asked for redress 

because they still had the illusion about the Communist Party and 

having misconception that Communist regime is a reasonable government. Now people have their changed their minds. This change 

illustrates that the people no longer consider Communist regime as 

a reasonable government. In other words, the Chinese Communist 

Government has seriously lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese people. 

Within the Communist leadership, the view regards the massacre 24 years ago is also changing. There are often rumors that 

the new leadership will redress June 4th massacre. This is a certain basis to political rumors in China; the Communist Party has 

the habit of using rumors for political struggles. Thus some of 

those rumors are often very accurate, which can reflect the closeddoor struggle within the Communist Party. 

Every year before the anniversary of June 4th, the Communist 

Government is very nervous. To prevent people taking to the 

streets, the regime dispatch a large number of police and puts dissidents under surveillance and house arrest. This action alone results in lots of pressure over the Communist Party. The main cause 

of this pressure is due to the public opinion of the Chinese people. 

7

The pressure of the public opinion from the international community is another important reason. Over the years, those two pressure has become important reasons for the poor image of the Chinese Communist Government, both inside of China and internationally. This is a serious burden to the Chinese Government 

and is considered to be one of the several reasons for people to incite revolution. 

When the Communist leaders who participated in the massacre 

were still in power, those leaders consider this burden as what they 

must bear. But now the leaders who did not participate in the massacre has come into power and they consider as an extra unnecessary burden. Under the premise that the burden distresses them 

both diplomatically and internally, removing this burden and reducing the hidden risk of social instability has become an issue 

that the new leadership clique must consider. 

Some in the Chinese Communist leadership will naturally think 

of imitating successful international experience to ease people’s 

lasting resentment against this massacre by way of redressing and 

reparation for the June 4th massacre, thus reduce the instability 

factors made by the previous leaderships. But other people in the 

leadership clique consider concessions to the people as reducing the 

authority of the Communist Party that will bring new instability. 

So they oppose the redress and reparation. Those two views are 

causing new conflicts within the Communist Party, and have increased the division within the Communist leadership. 

Of course, to the Communist Party, this seems not the most urgent and the biggest problem now. As China’s economic crisis 

looms, as its intentions with the neighboring country intensify, improving the image and reduced domestic social pressure by June 

4th redress, is not a particularly pressing problem. It now appears 

that the Communist regime still considers this as a historical problem that can be resolved by suppression. 

For the time being, they do not have the motivation to solve a 

historic problem completely. The guilty accountability and reparation of the June 4th massacre may have to wait until the collapse 

of the Communist regime in China. 

Thank you to the chairman and thank you to all the representatives. 

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

and for your extraordinary leadership. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wei follows:]

8


81341a-1.eps

Testimony about the 24th Anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Protests and the 

June 4 Massacre at the Hearing Held by the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the United 

States House of Representatives 

-- Wei Jingsheng 

June 3,2013 3pm 

It has been 24 years since the June 4 Massacre. I want to testify here about people's 

views on this Massacre after 24 years, and the impact on Chinese politics due to people's 

widespread view. 

The current widespread and representative view of the Chinese people is different from 

the view more than twenty years ago. At that time, the most widely held view was to 

ask for the redress of the June 4 Massacre from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). 

However, now, more than half of the people's concern is not the issue of redress, but an 

investigation of the people responsible for the crime, and a demand for the Communist 

Party to plea guilty for this Massacre. 

This change of attitude illustrates that people have gradually lost illusions to the Chinese 

Communist Party. A so-called redress is a wrong thing to be corrected. In the past, 

people asked for redress, because they still had illusions about the CCP and had the 

misconception that the Communist regime is a reasonable government. Now people 

have changed their minds. This change illustrates that people no longer consider the 

Communist regime as a reasonable government. Tn other words, the Chinese 

Communist government has seriously lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese 

people. 

Within the Communist leadership, the view regarding the Massacre 24 years ago also is 

changing. There are often rumors that the new leadership will redress the June 4 

Massacre. There is a certain basis to political rumors in China; the Communist Party 

has the habit of using rumors for political struggles. Thus, some of these rumors are 

often very accurate, which can ret1ect the closed-door struggle within the Communist 

Party. 

Every year before the anniversary of June 4, the Chinese government is very nervous. 

To prevent people taking to the streets, the regime dispatches a large number of police, 

and puts dissidents under surveillance and house arrest. This action alone results in a lot 

of pressure over the Communist Party. The main cause of this pressure is due to the 

public opinion of the Chinese people; the pressure of public opinion from the 

international community is another important reason. Over the years these two 

pressures have become important reasons for the poor image of the Chinese government 
9


81341a-2.eps

both inside China and internationally. This is a senous burden to the Chinese 

government, and is considered to be one of several reasons for people to incite revolution. 

When the Communist leaders who participated in that Massacre were still in power, these 

leaders considered this burden as what they must bear. But now the leaders who did not 

participate in the Massacre have come into power, and they consider this as an extra 

unnecessary burden. Under the premise that this burden distresses them both 

diplomatically and internally, removing this burden and reducing the hidden risk of social 

instability has become an issue that the new leadership clique must consider. 

Some in the Chinese Communist leadership will naturally think of imitating successful 

international experience, to ease people's lasting resentment against this massacre by way 

of redressing and reparation for the June 4 Massacre, thus reducing the instability factors 

made by the previous leaderships. But other people in the leadership clique consider 

concessions to the people as reducing the authority of the Communist Party that will 

bring new instability, so they oppose redress and reparation. These two views are 

causing new conflicts within the Communist Party, and have increased the divisions 

within the Chinese leadership. 

Of course, to the Communist Party, this seems not the most urgent and the biggest 

problem now. As China's economic crisis looms, as its tensions with the neighboring 

countries intensifY, improving their image and reducing domestic social pressure by a 

June 4 redress is not a particularly pressing problem. It now appears that the 

Communist regime still considers this as a historic problem that can be resolved by 

suppression. For the time being, they do not have motivation to solve historical 

problems completely. The guilt accountability and reparation of the June 4 Massacre 

may have to wait until the collapse of the Communist regime in China. 
10

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Ling, Chai Ling. 

STATEMENT OF MS. CHAI LING, FOUNDER, ALL GIRLS 

ALLOWED 

Ms. CHAI. Well, thank you to the honorable Chairman Chris 

Smith, and to all the honorable Members of Congress, thank you 

for your support with us in this difficult journey and battle. And 

particularly, Congressman Chris Smith, thank you for your tireless 

effort to uphold human rights for all the people in China, around 

the world. I am deeply honored to be given the opportunity to share 

the message of hope and redemption through Christ Jesus on the 

24th anniversary of Tiananmen Square tragedy and massacre. My 

message is a summary of lessons learned from a 47-year life journey, of growing up in China, having led the Tiananmen Square 

movement, and now living in and observing America for the past 

23 years. The longer, fuller version of these lessons are in my book 

called, ‘‘A Heart for Freedom.’’

My message is for all the distinguished Congressional leaders 

and the foreign affairs policymakers like yourself, and also for 

American President Obama and China’s new President Xi Jinping, 

who will meet on the West Coast in a few days. It is also for church 

leaders in both countries, and also for Tiananmen Square students, 

dissidents, victims, our families, and for the people at large. I believe, despite the constant terrorism threats coming from the Middle East and the turbulence around the rest of the world, a godly 

partnership between America and China holds the key to a peaceful, stable, and prosperous world. To understand this truth and lesson from the Tiananmen Square massacre is the beginning of forging this partnership. Allow me to now elaborate on my view here. 

It feels like yesterday, on the morning of June 3, 1989, Beijing, 

China, the sun was rising over the newly set up tents, which I ordered them to set up to house thousands of protesting students. 

Tiananmen Square was waking up to a soft female announcer’s 

voice declaring the arrival of a new China. As a team of soldiers 

came across the Golden Water Bridge to raise the Chinese flag, for 

a moment the students, the soldiers, the flag in the square, the rising sun and the misty pink, blue sky all coexisted in peace and 

harmony in great anticipation of hope for a new China. 

That night all of this was brought to an end by a brutal massacre 

all of you witnessed. Ms. Bass, as you have said earlier, you remember exactly where you were, and so do we. I was there with 

my last 5,000 students standing in the square, surrounded by 

tanks and troops. We stood until the last hour when we had to 

leave the square, about 5 o’clock to 6 o’clock a.m. in the morning. 

There was much loss, death, injury, and imprisonment for all sides: 

Students, citizens, and soldiers. It is a wound that even 24 years 

later remains wide open in so many millions of Chinese people’s 

hearts, and some are still paying the price with their loss and grief, 

like the mothers of the victims. 

Others are paying with their freedom, such as Liu Xiaobo, Bao 

Tong, Tan Zuoren, and many others still in prison. And I and many 

others today are paying the price of living in exile, unable to go 

back to our country where we grew up, for the past 24 years. And 

11

after 10 months in hiding, after being put on—after the massacre, 

I was put on a most wanted list and eventually came to America. 

I spent 20 years tirelessly searching for the truth behind the 

massacre. I tried to understand what had caused it to happen, 

what could have been done differently to stop it, and what was the 

hope for China? It was not until December 4, 2009 when I finally 

give my life to Jesus, I found both. It was in pain and sorrow I discovered the truth behind the massacre. It was Deng Xiaoping’s 

unhealed pain and unperceived fear of reality that conspired to justify by killing. I learned that Deng Xiaoping, the Premier who ordered the massacre, had his memory triggered by the peaceful student movement at Tiananmen Square, which reminded him of his 

pain and suffering during the cultural revolution and other previous political movements. I learned that a few other elder leaders 

were also triggered by the same kind of pain and suffering. And 

they all joined the conclusion that if we do not stop the movement, 

we will have nowhere to back down, and risk breaking our families 

and losing our loved ones. 

And so Li Peng, the Prime Minister in China at that time, together with the military, executed this massacre and used brutal 

force to gun down those peaceful protesters which they labeled 

anti-revolutionaries who aimed to overthrow the government. Because I was in such a key place, having played such a key leadership role in leading the Tiananmen movement, from my perspective, their perception and decision point could not be further from 

the truth. As a student leader, I had very little interest in either 

joining or overthrowing the Chinese Government. 

At the time, I was already applying to study in America. All I 

wanted was to be safe, to not have to relive the injustice, humiliation, defamation, isolation I suffered when I tried to overcome an 

earlier attempted rape by a college classmate. Many other students 

in Tiananmen Square were inspired by similar desires for simple 

justice and freedom from fear. Feng Congde, a key student leader 

of the movement, was motivated to overcome his own fear and terror he experienced when he was imprisoned for 18 hours in 1987. 

And Li Lu was there to overcome his grandfather’s fate, who died 

as a rightist in prison under Mao’s regime. 

But the unhealed pain and misperception led Deng to believe 

only a massacre would rescue and secure their power. Deng was 

convinced that the only option was to kill his own people. A decade 

before 1989, he was also the same leader who ordered China’s onechild policy out of fear that it was needed in order prevent starvation. Many Chinese people still believe, subscribe, and defend the 

policy as of today. 

Unfortunately, exaggerated concentration of power without any 

democratic process allowed one person, Deng, to order both the killing that took place in Tiananmen Square, and the even larger and 

ongoing massacre against innocent women and babies through the 

brutal one-child policy. 

It was in November 2009, at your hearing, Congressman Chris 

Smith, that my eyes were opened up to the truth and brutality of 

the one-child policy when Wu Jian testified how she was dragged 

out from her hiding place and her baby, you know, had poison injected into her tummy. Her baby struggled and died, was chopped 

12

into pieces, taken out of her body, and my eyes were opened up and 

I realized I was trying to overcome the trauma I sustained under 

the Tiananmen massacre on my life. And there is today still an ongoing Tiananmen massacre taking place daily under China’s onechild policy, harming the most vulnerable unborn children and 

their mothers. 

In the past 30 years, over 400 million babies were killed through 

forced and coerced abortions. Later on, I came to realize three of 

those 400 million babies were mine. The root is the killing of people 

to solve a problem, the common way the Chinese Government has 

been using over and over again, based on not understanding and 

respecting the sanctity of life. I never learned what ‘‘sanctity of 

life’’ meant, so I Googled it. And the word come back: It means the 

state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly, having ultimate 

importance, inviolability. And that is what it meant. How precious 

life is and should be treated. 

So it was in that moment I realized we were confronting something much bigger than what I had previous understood, much bigger than the Chinese Government and individual leaders. We are 

confronting a huge evil that could kill 400 million babies yet still 

make the entire world almost blind to this horrific crime. The evil 

one’s scheme was exposed by a few faithful leaders and individuals. 

Congressman Chris Smith, yourself, and Congressman Frank Wolf, 

thank you for all of your effort in the past 30-plus years fighting 

against both the one-child policy and also defending the victims of 

the Tiananmen massacre. And it was your extraordinary perseverance and dedication to defend many, and your leadership and perseverance and dedication to defend human rights for all people that 

became the key that led me to the truth. 

It was this revelation of the true face of evil that led me to God 

through Jesus Christ on December 4, 2009, and helped me discover 

the true hope for China and for the people and for the leaders and 

for the victims and for myself. Congressman Chris Smith, you said 

earlier it was a sense of hopelessness of the evil that one felt that 

day when the massacre took place. Well, we all reacted with shock 

and horror. Even if we fight back, we still deep in our heart have 

a sense of hopelessness. Not until I found God, who is much bigger 

than that, we finally were able to receive and embrace that hope. 

Many of you grew up in America and heard the story that God created Heaven and earth; God created man and woman. 

And—in his image. But man and woman distrusted and disobeyed God. And through this sin, humanity fell. Jesus came to the 

earth and offered his life on the cross by obeying God all the way 

to death, and humanity was therefore redeemed through us accepting Jesus as our God and Savior. However, when we came from 

China, came to America, we never heard or were allowed to hear 

this truth. Many leaders in China do not know this precious truth. 

Had we known in 1989 that our struggles were not against flesh 

and blood, but against the rulers against authorities, powers of the 

dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil, and had the 

leaders accepted this truth, we may have been able to avoid the 

Tiananmen massacre, we may have been able to end the one-child 

policy. 

13

It is not too late to start a new beginning. God is not slow to 

keeping his promise. And some understand this as slowness, instead of his patience with us, not wanting anybody to perish but 

for everyone to come to repentance. And this is the same hope I 

have for America as well. 

And so—I know my time is limited. So I would like to say, as 

President Obama, President Xo Jinping meet together, I have a few 

very concrete requests for them: To reverse the anti-revolutionary 

turmoil ‘‘dong luan’’ verdict against Tiananmen Square’s peaceful 

protesters, to end the one-child policy in China, to end gendercide 

in China and in America, to end abortions in China and in America, to end the imprisonment of political dissidents Liu Xiaobo, Bao 

Tong, Tan Zuoren, and others, and to end the persecutions of 

churches and believers in China and in America. 

And I do, at this time, when many people after 24 years have 

now seen the Tiananmen massacre being ended and to be—the verdict being reverse, may be in process of giving a hope, but we know 

we have a hope and a future that cannot be shaken because God 

has promised that he will wipe every tear from our eyes and there 

will be no more death, no more sorrow, no more crying of pain: All 

these things will be gone forever. And all who are victorious will 

inherit all the blessings. And I will be their God and they will be 

my children. So with this promise, my prayer today is, Father God, 

do it swiftly. In Jesus’ name we pray. Amen. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Chai, thank you very much for your testimony. 

And again thank you for your extraordinary leadership over these 

many years. 

Ms. CHAI. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chai follows:]

14


81341b-1.eps

LingChai 

Founder & President 

All Girls Allowed - Tn Jesus' Name, Simply Love Her 

Monday, June 3, 2013 

T esti mony to 

The Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and 

Intemational Organizations, 

and The Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

in the U.S. House of Representatives 

A Message of Hope through Jesus 

To the Honorable Chaimlan Chris Smith, and to the Honorable Members of the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

Thank you Chairman Smith, for your tireless effort to uphold the human rights of 

all people in China, and in the world. I am deeply honored to be given the 

opportunity to share a message of hope and redemption through Jesus on the 24th 

anniversary of the Tiananmen Square tragedy and massacre. 

My message is a SlUl1lllary oflessons learned from a 47-year life jOll11ley of 

growing up in China, having led the Tiananmen Square movement and now living 

and observing America for the past 23 years. The longer and fuller version was 

docLUnented and published in my book: A Heart for Freedom. (published in 

October 2011) 

My message is for the distinguished Congressional leaders and foreign affairs 

policymakers like yourseleves. It is for American President Barrack Obama and 

China's New President Xi Jinping, who will meet on the West Coast in a few days. 

It is also for church leaders in both countries; for the Tianamnen Square dissidents, 

victims and their families; and for the people at large. 

I believe that despite constant acts ofterrorism, threats in the Middle East, and 

turbulence around the rest ofthe world, a godly partnership between America and 
15


81341b-2.eps

China holds the key to a peaceful, stable and prosperous world. To understand the 

truth and lessons from the Tiananmen Square massacre is the beginning of forging 

such a partnership. Allow me now to elaborate on my views here. 

The 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre 

It feels like just yesterday, on that morning of Jlme 3rd, 1989, in Beijing, China, the 

sun was rising over the newly set up tents that housed thousands of students in 

peaceful protest. Tiananmen Square was waking up to a soft female announcer's 

voice declaring the arrival of a new China, as a team of soldiers came across the 

Golden Water Bridge to raise the Chinese ±Jag. For a moment, the students, the 

soldiers, the flag and the square, the rising sun and the misty pink blue sky-all coexisted in peace aud harmony in great auticipation of hope for a new China. That 

night, all of this was brought to an end by a bmtalmassacre. 

I was there, with my last five thousand students standing in the Square, surrounded 

by tanks and troops. We stood until the last hour when we had to leave the Square, 

about 5 to 6 am on the morning of Jlme 4th There was much loss, death, injuries, 

and imprisonment for all sides: students, citizens, and soldiers. It is a wound that 

even 24 years later remains wide open in so many millions of Chinese people's 

hearts. Some are still paying the price with their loss and grief, like the mothers of 

the victims; others are paying with their freedom, such as Liu Xiaobo, Bao Tong, 

Tan Zuoren; and T and many others are paying the price of living in exile. 

After 10 months in hiding for being put on China's most wanted list, [ came to 

America. 1 spent 20 years tirelessly searching for the tmth behind the massacre aud 

the hope for China. It was not until December 4th, 2009, when T gave my life to 

Jesus, T found both. 

The Truth Behind the Massacre 

In pain and sorrow, I discovered the tmth behind the massacre: unhealed pain and 

misperceived fear of reality conspired to justify by killing. T learned that Deng 

Xiaoping, the premier leader who ordered the massacre, had his memory reminded 

by the peaceful student movements at Tiauanmen Square, which reminded him of 

his pain and suffering during the Cultural Revolution aud other previous political 

movements. [learned that a few other elder leaders were also reminded by similar 

pain aud sufferings from the Cultural Revolution, and that is why they agreed with 

Deng's conclusion: "Ilwe don 'I slop this (movemenl) we will have nowhere 10 

back down and we will risk breaking ourfamilies and losing our beloved ones". 

2 
16


81341b-3.eps

And then Li Peng, the Prime Minister of China at the time, was upset by Zhao 

Ziyang's labeling him as young and inexperienced. This in turn caused him to 

determinately follow Deng's decision to execute, together with the military, the 

massacre in order to crack down on what they labeled an anti-revolutionary 

movement whose aim was to overthrow the government. 

From my point of view, their perception and decision points 

could not have been further from the tmth. As a student leader, I had little interest 

in either joining or overthrowing the Chinese government. At the time, I was 

already applying to study in America. All T wanted was to be safe, to not have to 

relive the injustice, humiliation, defamation and isolation that I suffered when I 

had tried to overcome an earlier attempted rape by a college classmate. Many other 

students at Tiananmen Square were inspired by a similar desire for justice and 

freedom from fear. Feng Congde, another key leader of the movement, was 

motivated to overcome the fear and terror he experienced when he was imprisoned 

for 18 hours; Li Lu was there to overcome his grandfather's fate, dying inside 

China's prison as a ·'rightist" under Mao's regime. But the unhealed pain and 

misperception led Deng to believe only a massacre would secure their power. 

Deng was convinced the only option he had was to kill his own people. He also 

ordered the One-Child Policy out of a fear that it was needed in order to 

prevent starvation. This exaggerated concentration of power without any 

democratic process allowed one person, Deng, to order both the killing that 

took place in Tiananmen Square and the even larger and ongoing massacre of 

innocent women and babies through the brutal one child policy. 

In November 2009, at another hearing chaired by Congressman Smith, my eyes 

were opened up to the tmth and bmtality of this One-Child Policy. I realized then 

that while T was trying to overcome the trauma of the Tiananmen massacre in my 

life, there was today a daily Tiananmen Square massacre under the One-Child 

Policy, hanning the most vulnerable unborn children and their mothers. In the past 

30+ years, over 400 million babies were killed through forced and coerced 

abortions. Later on, I came to realized that three ofthese of the 400 million babies 

were mine. The root of the killing people to solve problem based on not 

understanding and respecting the sanctity of life. Coogle the word "Sanctity" 

brings back these explanation as "The state or quality of being holy, sacred, or 

saintly. illtimate importance and inviolability," 

3 
17


81341b-4.eps

In that moment, I realized we were confronting something much bigger than what I 

had previously understood, much bigger than the Chinese government and 

individual leaders. Weare confronting against a huge evil that could kill 400 

million babies yet make the entire world blind to this horrific crime. The evil 

one's scheme was exposed by a few faithful leaders and individuals. Chairman 

Smith, your extraordinary perseverance and dedication to defend human 

rights for all people is the key that led to the truth! 

It was the revelation ofthe true face of evil that led me to God through Jesus 

on December 4th, 2009, and helped me discover the true hope for China-for 

the people, for the leaders, for the victims and for me. 

The Hope and Redemption of China 

Many of you grown up in America may have heard the story: God created heaven 

and earth, God created man and woman in His image, but man and woman 

distrusted and disobeyed God and though this sin humanity fell. Jesus came to be 

to earth and otlered his life on the cross by obeying God all to way to death, 

humanity was redeemed through us accepting Jesus as our God and savior. Many 

of us never were allowed to know this truth. The leadership of China 24 years ago 

may not know this truth or did not accept this truth but imprisoned and persecuted 

those who believe. When we protested their corrupt and evil policies we did not 

know how far we have also fallen short of God's righteous standard. One thing we 

know for sure, both sides are eamestly searching for the truth to govern a righteous 

nation. Ifwe can only see, "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against 

the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against 

the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Ephesians 6: 12, NIV), and see 

and understand what Jesus had done 2000 years ago to give each of us eternal life, 

how much killing lives grieves the God who created us and loves us, we would not 

have seen the Tianamllen Square massacre or the massive killing tmder the one 

child policy. 

But it is not too late to start a new beginning that will take the first steps to right 

the wrongs done in Tiananmen Square and to end the one child policy. For Jesus' 

grace is sufficient for us. (2 Corinthians 12:9). "The Lord is not slow in keeping 

his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient \"ith you, not 

wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9, NTV) 

4 
18


81341b-5.eps

June 4, 2013: A New Day 

It is my hope that both President Obama and the new President Xi will accept this 

truth: "Por God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever 

believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (Jolm 3: 16 NIV) Because 

Jesus did it 2000 years ago for us, we are not only given hope, but also freedom, 

prosperity and peace. That means a new free China and a China whose leaders will 

no longer need to fear revolt or losing control. No more massacre for each lite was 

fearfully and wonderfully made by God (Psalm 139: 14); no more One-Child Policy 

for God is our provider he will meet all our needs as Jesus said in Matthew 6:31-33: 

,,31 So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 

'What shall we wear?' 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your 

heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his 

righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." 

And even better, the eternal joy is ours (psalm 16). 

While from the Pounding of the Republic, the United States of America has been a 

country that proclaims this truth saying: In God We Trust and One Nation under 

God, we have not always lived up to this pledge. Instead we trust first in our own 

understanding and strength. The employees of the Government may be resistant to 

lift high the name of Jesus, the name of God and Jesus was systematically removed 

from schools, companies, media, daily conversations and dialogues, etc. even one 

major political party wants to strip God out ofthe party platform. In the recent and 

distant past the tlrst thing a President did entering the Oval Office in the morning 

was to pray and read the Bible. But here in Congress, I believe we need to look for 

the secure foundation of our Faith in God to bring a moral, righteous message to 

remake our world closer to the image God intended. I know this kind of message 

is not shared often in the U.S. Congress recently, which I deeply regret. But I 

understand how many who hear my words will feel them foreign or strange in this 

setting. I tmderstand and am deeply pained by it because it has taken much too 

long for me to tlnd this precious truth in America. 

5 
19


81341b-6.eps

In the past 20+ years, I searched everywhere in America. I searched unceasingly, 

tirelessly, relentlessly. For ifT didn't find the truth and answer, the screaming and 

pain in the depth of my soul would not allow me to rest. 1 searched for truth in 

Buddhism because it was Buddhists who courageously rescued me; I searched for 

truth in the overseas democracy movement as we tried to keep the dream alive; 1 

searched for truth in elite American degrees because that is the hope and dream of 

millions of Chinese and American families; I searched for truth through testifYing 

and working in Congress, inteming at the U.N., and studying public affairs, 

diplomacy and democracy, since many thought the cure for China was a 

democratic system; I searched for truth in the American media because many 

believed that with freedom of speech came ultimate freedom; r searched for truth 

while working at a top management consulting firm and investment banking firm, 

for these are the top jobs for the most successful students in America; I searched 

for truth in my intemet startup, because entrepreneurship is how dreams are 

fulfilled and wealth is made and jobs are created; 1 searched for truth through 

building a happy family with houses, children, and dogs, since that is the epitome 

ofthe "American Dream." Today I can testifY with confidence, I have achieved 

much and I have been given much, but I did not tind hope and freedom until I 

came to know God through Jesus. Then, and only then, I found true lasting 

freedom for myself, my family and my dearly beloved countries: China and 

America. As Jesus said: "1 am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to 

the Father except through me". John 14:6 

The Hope for America 

Because the God I have come to know is not just a God of word but of power, I am 

not alone in arriving at this conclusion. Today, out ofthe debris of the Tiananmen 

Square massacre, there have emerged tens of millions of Jesus-believers in China 

who have discovered the same truth that I have. The testimony of Zhao Xiao, a 

Chinese govemment economist, is very telling. Zhao was sent to America by a 

Chinese government think tank to search for the secret of America's success. After 

the short era of stability following the Tiananmen massacre and prosperity led by 

refon11S in 1992, China was faced with growing corruption and a growing gap of 

rich vs. poor, challenges that plague China today. Zhao was sent to find truth and 

bring back hope. 

6 
20


81341b-7.eps

An atheist at the time, Zhao found God in America. As he wrote in his essay, 

"Free Economy with or Without Church", with his pernlission, r will paraphrase 

his findings: " .... What are the biggest differences between America and China? 

Was it that they differed in buildings and skyscrapers? No. Was it that they 

differed in wealth? No. Was it that they differed in science and innovation? No. 

Was it that they differed in market economy? No. Was it that they differed in 

political system? No. At the end, it was because they differ in the quantity and 

presence of churches, which appear everywhere in every corner of America's 

cities, towns and suburbs. It was the fear of God that compared to China kept 

America's crime rate lower and relative government corruption down. It was the 

church and the belief of God that kept America hopeful, peaceful and prosperous, 

compared to China's economy where people often got rich not because of hard 

work and imlOvation, but through open robbery by power and cOlmection. China 

had no good faith or rule oflaw in business activities, where people lied and 

deceived each other for profit, with no fear of facing God's judgment. 

It does take a mirror to see what we are and what we have. America is at risk of 

losing her most precious and priceless treasure-God Almighty through Christ 

Jesus, and all the blessings, protections and prosperity that come with believing in 

God. As a new American citizen myself who was treated kindly even when I was 

an alien, I must speak truth in love in return. 

The Foundation of a Godly Partnership between China and America 

The cornerstone of any godly partnership between China and America must be 

built on a foundation of faith in God, in the way of Jesus Christ. "What does the 

LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with 

your God." (Micah 6:8) 

So, President Xi Jinping, unlike Deng Xiaoping, you don't need to use terror and 

massacre to maintain order. All you need is the love of Jesus. For whoever believes 

in Jesus is called to love. Even the slightest hatred in our hearts is not pleasing to 

God. And the peace of God will come if we sow justice. "The fruit of that 

righteousness will be peace; its effect will be quietness and confidence forever." 

(Isaiah 32: 17) 

7 
21


81341b-8.eps

It is atler understanding this precious truth that I am testifYing about this hope for 

China and for America. It is after understanding this truth that T am urging the 

leaders of both cOlmtries, political and church leaders, and Jesus-believers, to end 

the following: 

• To reverse the Anti-revolutionary turmoil (Dong Luan) verdict against the 

Tiananmen Square peaceful protesters 

• To end One-Child Policy in China; 

• To end gendercide in China and in America; 

• To end abortions in China and in America; 

• To end the imprisonment of political dissidents Liu Xiaobo, Bao Tong, Tan 

Zuoren, and more; 

• To end the persecution of churches and believers in China and in America. 

Failing that, the word spoken by President Abraham Lincoln is stem warning, as he 

said during his second inauguration speech: "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we 

pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills 

that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty 

years oftmrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the 

lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand 

years ago, so still it must be said, 'the judgments ofthe Lord are true and righteous 

altogether. '" 

Will there be a day when China and America must shed all blood and lose all 

wealth through war and destruction in order to satisfy the judgments of God? The 

question is, what makes you think it will not happen, unless we stop and repent for 

the shedding of innocent blood and acts ofil~iustice in both China and America? 

Will that be the future we want to leave to our children? 

We don't have to. Jesus has given us a great future into eternity. Twenty-four years 

in the wilderness is much too long. It is time to enter the promised land of 

freedom! 

8 
22


81341b-9.eps

I remember on the 20th year anniversary Congress woman Nancy Pelosi hugged me 

at our memorial event and said to me, "Can you believe it is 20 years, we are still 

protesting?!" 1 agree! None of us could or want to believe it has been this long and 

maybe longer. 

To many who are still suffering, 24 years waiting for justice has been much too 

long and the waiting can be discouraging. But we have the hope for a future and 

we are confident that future is worth waiting because God has promised in His 

word: "Look' I am creating new heavens and a new earth, and no one will even 

think about the old ones anymore." (Isaiah 65: 17, NL T). "God will wipe every 

tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. 

All these things are gone forever. (Revelation 21: 4, NL T). "All who are victorious 

will inherit all the blessings, and 1 will be their God and they will be my children. 

(Revelation 21:7, NLT) 

With this promise, my prayer today is the following: "Father God, do it swiftly." 

In Jesus' name we pray, Amen! 

9 
23

Mr. SMITH. I would now like to yield to Dr. Yang. 

STATEMENT OF YANG JIANLI, PH.D., PRESIDENT, INITIATIVES 

FOR CHINA 

Mr. YANG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee for hosting this important and timely hearing. On the night 

of June 3, 1989, the Chinese Government ordered People’s Liberation Army to clear Tiananmen Square, the center of the peaceful 

democracy movement that had been carried out by student and civilians in China’s major cities for nearly 2 months. It is now 3:40 

in the morning on June 4th in Beijing. Exactly 24 years ago when 

in the early hours of June 4, 1989, troops opened fire on an armed 

students and civilians and cleared the square. During these hours, 

I was on Chung Lang Avenue near the square and saw with my 

own eyes more than 30 people killed, including 11 students run 

over by tanks. 

As a survivor, I have testified before U.S. Congress on the massacre three times, including the 1996 hearing hosted by you, Mr. 

Chairman, when China’s Defense Minister Chi Haotian visited 

Washington. Today I will not repeat what I said previously about 

what I saw during the massacre. Instead, I will try to deliver a few 

messages concerning the unresolved Tiananmen issues and other 

related questions. 

First, let me pass along a message from Ms. Ding Zilin, the head 

of the Tiananmen Mothers. Here is the letter:

‘‘Dear Chairman, I want to first, on behalf of Tiananmen 

Mothers, express my deep gratitude to you and U.S. Congress 

for your concerned support for the families of the victims of the 

Tiananmen massacre. Since 1995, the Tiananmen Mothers 

have written 36 open letters to the two Congresses of China 

and China’s leaders calling for the reversal of the government’s 

verdict on the Tiananmen incident and demanding truth, compensation, and accountability. But we have not received any 

reply from the government. We ask U.S. Congress to urge 

President Barack Obama to demand of President Xi Jinping in 

their June 8th summit that China fulfill its international and 

domestic obligations according to the standards of humanitarian principles and universal values and bring the crimes 

against the humanity committed by Deng Xiaoping, Li Peng, 

and others, in 1989, to trial and reach a just, fair resolution 

as soon as possible. 

‘‘The Chinese Government took the lives of our children 24 

years ago. And it has deprived us of the right to freely mourn 

our beloved. Please ask President Obama to urge President 

Jinping to respect our basic rights as human beings. In the 

past 24 years, 33 members of the Tiananmen Mothers have 

passed away yearning for justice. And the rest are aging in despair. Age does creep. For us, time is particularly precious. It 

is in nobody’s interest for President Xi to continue to be locked 

in his Chinese dream. Instead, we hope he awakens to the 

stern reality and address this stain on the modern history of 

China. Sincerely, Ding Zilin on behalf of the Tiananmen Mothers.’’

24

End of the letter. 

What can we say today about basic facts concerning the tragedy? 

According to human rights in China, more than 2,000 people died 

in various Chinese cities on June 3rd and June 4th and the days 

of immediately following. The Tiananmen Mothers have documented the names of 202 victims in addition. In the followup to 

June 4th, more than 500 people were imprisoned in Beijing’s Number 2 prison alone, and an unknown number were imprisoned in 

other Chinese cities. An additional unknown number were executed. However, the total number of dead, wounded, imprisoned, 

and executed remains unknown because the Chinese Government 

has refused to carry out a thorough investigation of events. The 

government’s persecution of the Tiananmen participants continues 

today. Hundreds who escaped China in the aftermath of the 

Tiananmen massacre have been blacklisted from returning home, 

six of them have died overseas, and unknown numbers could not 

pay their last visit before they parents passed away or attend their 

funerals. 

Wu’er Kaixi, a student leader of 1989, has not been able to see 

his parents for 24 years. Much less documented is the lives of the 

ordinary participants and the Tiananmen prisoners. They and their 

family members have endured unspeakable suffering in the past 24 

years. Most of them constantly subject to harassment and surveillance have found it extremely difficult to hold a regular job and to 

support their families. Some of them were later forced to leave the 

country. Today, one who recently came to United States is with us. 

I want to emphasize here that Tiananmen event is not just a 

one-time event. For the 24 years following the massacre, China has 

never stopped its human rights violations. In considering its record, 

we need look no further than these individuals, groups, events, and 

policies. Liu Xiaobo and his wife Liu Xia, Wang Bingzhang, Gao 

Zhisheng, Liu Xianbin, Chen Wei, Chen Xi, Guo Quan, Ding Jiaxi, 

Zhao Changqing, Hada, Nurmemet Yasin, Yang Tianshui, Dhondup 

Wangchen, Zhu Yufu, Tang Zuoren. 

Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians, house churches follow forced 

abortions, forced evictions, and forced disappearances, black jails, 

and the list can go on and on. 

I urge U.S. Congress and the Government to stay alert to these 

severe human rights violations and put pressure on the Chinese 

Government to change their ways. In February 2011, Colonel 

Ghadafi justified his blood actions by pointing to what China did 

to those people on Tiananmen Square. This shows how ignoring 

crimes in one place only encourages them to spread elsewhere. The 

good news is that the U.N. suspended Libya’s membership on the 

Human Rights Council for killing its own people. This same human 

rights standard should be applied by the U.N. to all of its member 

countries, including China. The Tiananmen Mothers and the meetings of victims of the Chinese dictatorship rightfully ask the United 

States to strongly oppose in a vote against the China regaining 

membership in the U.N. Human Rights Council and to encourage 

other democracies to similarly vote against it. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Yang, thank you very much for your leadership, 

for your very concrete suggestions, and for reminding us that the 

Tiananmen Square massacre continues to this day. 

25

[The prepared statement of Yang Jianli follows:]


81341c-1.eps

Written Statement Presented at Subcommittee Hearing on Tragic 

Anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Protests and Massacre 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

u.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6128 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Righls, and International Organizations 

June 3rd, 2013 

by YANG Jianli 

Founder and President of Initiatives for China/Citizen Power for China 

Mr. Chairman and other members of the Subcommittee, 

Thank you very much for hosting this important hearing on the 24th anniversary of the 1989 

Democracy Movement and the Tiananmen Massacre. In this written statement, I review the 

lessons learned and address the unfinished business of the 1989 Democracy Movement which 

was violent suppressed by the Chinese government. I also analyze the current political situation, 

current fights for human rights and prospects of democratization in China. 

The pro-democracy movement of 1989 stood against government corruption and stood for 

democracy and freedom. It has been one of the greatest sources of inspiration for continued 

struggle for these goals and even today's grassroots protests against government corruption and 

unjust government policies. 

This movement was widespread but ended in bloodshed. 

Over the past 20 some years after the Tiananmen Massacre, the CCP regime has established a 

two China structure, and one of the two Chinas, which I call China, Inc. 

Let's see how the China,lnc. has been formed. 

The Tiananmen massacre created a strong sense offear and dismay of general politics among 

ordinary people in China. Any room for a public system of checks and balances against 

governmental abuse of power was taken away 

It also created a sense of fear and crisis within the Communist regime because it had brought 

unprecedented public awareness to human rights and democracy. Although the Chinese 

Communist regime cracked down on that movement, life was no longer the same for the rulers. 

The regime had to face a completely different domestic and international environment and had 

resort to new tactics to meet its "overwhelming" need for stability. 
26


81341c-2.eps

The subsequent disintegration of The Soviet Union and the Eastern European Bloc cast an even 

heavier cloud over the heads of Chinese Communist officials. "How long can the red flag 

continue to fly?" They all started to doubt. Here, the doubt had two layers of implications. The 

first was, for how long can the communists stay in power and what would happen after they were 

gone? The second was, what does the ongoing, market-oriented economic refonn have to do with 

communist doctrine? 

Shortly after Deng Xiaoping's famous Southern Inspection Tour 1992, Communist otlicials at 

all levels realized three realities: First, the Chinese Communist Party's stay in power has nothing 

whatsoever to do with communist ideals. Second, "economic growth means everything;" that is, 

continued economic growth is the last, best hope to keep the CCP ship at1oat. Third, In order to 

uphold the one-party dictatorship, it had to rely on capitalizing on the dark and evil side of 

human nature: spoiling the elite in exchange for their loyalty. Therefore the corruption of the 

powerful elite now became accepted, endorsed, and even demanded 

With the understanding of these three realities, the communist officials developed an 

undocumented but almost unanimously accepted code of conduct-or rather, code of corruption 

So, every piece of governmental power is on sale in the market and every comer of the market is 

invaded by political power. 

Officials in nearly all government agencies spend most of their energy beefing up GDP, 

engaging in power arbitrage, bribing their superiors, and seeking luxurious personal perks They 

are doing this because it is a natural choice for them, probably the only choice. They gain 

enormous tinancial and materialistic benefits without taking any political risk. As a result, the 

Communist Party elite, who used to label themselves "the vanguards of the proletariat class," 

have either turned themselves into get-rich-overnight capitalist, or become brokers, patrons, and 

backers of domestic and foreign capitalists. All this was made possible thanks to the Tiananmen 

massacre and the political terror that was imposed on the entire country in the years following 

since, as a result, the entire society had lost the willingness or ability to check and balance the 

political power. 

In such a political environment, political power was dancing a full-swing tango with capital 

operation. Low human rights standards, low wages, lack of environmental protection regulations 

and enforcement, and the illegality of collective bargaining all contributed to creating a golden 

opportunity for domestic and international speculative capitalists. As a result, "money" quickly 

courted "political power." Business venture takers go to any length to seek out someone in 

power to serve as backers so that they can grab market opportunities without fair competition. 

They also use political connections to shed any and all legal and social responsibility. In a sense, 

the Chinese Communist Party, which used to be China Inc.' s sole shareholder, has now opened 

up its equity and offered its shares for capitalists to purchase 

The CCP's 16th National Congress published a new Party Charter that welcomed capitalists as 

Party members. As a result, capital has become the greatest advocate of the current system. For 

the past two decades, the marriage of power and capital in China has been an ongoing soap opera 

that shows no signs of being cancelled. This marriage is also extended to Hong Kong, Macao, 

and Taiwan, and the international community writ large. 
27


81341c-3.eps

While the shares of China, Inc. are open for domestic and foreign capitalists to purchase, they 

were offered to China's intellectuals as free, performance-related stock options. The regime 

knows that in addition to economic growth, there is something else that also means everything to 

its survival; that is so-called "political stability." In order to sustain such stability, the CCP 

regime offers all kinds of bribery incentives to buy off anyone and everyone of importance and 

influence in society. The bribery list includes bureaucrats at every level of governmental, 

military officers, and business leaders, who the regime deems direct relatives. The list also 

includes: college professors, journalists, publishers, authors, art performers, high-profile athletes, 

and so on. The government pays all these people offin the fonn of salaries, bonuses, statecovered expenses, free medical insurance, subsidized housing, free pension plans and so on 

Laws and policies more and more favor this group of people in exchange for their recognition 

and acceptance of the political status quo. Their income and perks add up to wealth that is 

disproportionally higher than that of ordinary workers, farm workers, clerks, and small business 

owners. The gap is much larger than that in any other country in the world. Such a policy of coopting and buying off potential opposition is quite effective in conjunction with the highpressure purges and persecution after the Tiananmen massacre. The cruelty of political reality 

created terror in the minds of intellectual s as a psychological deterrent. As time went on, fear 

turned into the cynicism, becoming increasingly indifferent to what was right and what was 

wrong. Indifference and hypocrisy rapidly became a new fashion that all the modern Chinese 

intellect tried to follow. This, coupled with a piece of the action in China Inc., made many 

intellectuals-who had once been independent and once been considered the conscience of the 

society-soften up their position against the post-Tiananmen status quo. 

ln summary, China,lnc. is fonned by 

1. Red Capitalists, through 

2. Marriage between Power and Capital 

taking advantage of: 

----low human rights standards 

----low environmental protection 

----low wages 

----banning collective bargaining power 

.'. China lnc. shares open to domestic and foreign capitalists 

4. China Inc. shares tree to intellectuals 

In today's China, power (political elite), capital (economic elite) and "intellect" (social and 

cultural elite), are bonded together with corruption as the adhesive to form an alliance that 

maintains the existing political order. This alliance owns and runs China, Inc, dazzling the 

entire world with its wealth, might and glory. With China's vast geographic size and population, 

the shareholders of China, Inc. have impressed many observers with their prodigious wealth 

accumulation and astonishing growth rates, making those same observers believe China stands as 

an alternative model for modernization to democracy. By the same token, these shareholders also 

control all the channels of the information flow and dominate the public discourse. They can 

make their voices loud enough so the outside observers believe that they represent China, that 

they are China-the whole of China. 

3 
28


81341c-4.eps

The truth is, there is another society named China, a society constituted of over a billion Chinese 

who are virtually laborers working for China, Inc. 

There you go, on one side of the coin is the elite Corporate China; and the other side is what we 

call "the China of shitizens." 

Of course, you cannot find the word "shitizen" in any official language. Here is an illustrative 

Chinese story: On October 29,2008,8:00 pm, a governmental official, Party secretary Lin, 

violently harassed an II-year-old girl in front of her parents on a busy street in Shenzhen, one of 

the most "modernized" cosmopolitan cities in China. When the girl's parents tried to stop him 

and passersby protested against him, he shouted "How dare are you get in my way~ Do you guys 

know who 1 am? I am a representative from the central Ministry of Transportation in Beijing. I 

ranked as high as your mayor in the government. You guys are as dispensable and worthless as a 

piece of shit in front of me." The incident and Secretary Lin's language quickly circulated on the 

internet, and since then numerous people have sarcastically begun calling themselves "Chinese 

shitizens" to show their discontent and despair. 

Here is how China, Inc. and the under China diverge: 

I. China Inc. possesses all of the political, economic, and social and cultural resources in China. 

2. The rules of the games at all levels in China are set by China,Inc. who also officiates the 

games. The outcome of any contlict between elite society and shitizen's society involves no 

suspense. In just two decades, China achieved the polarization of the country with unprecedented 

speed. Data show that at present, 0.4% of China's households possess 70% of the national 

wealth. (Wen Jiabao) The material wellbeing and luxury enjoyed by this 0.4% is second to none 

in the world. However, the billion shitizens of China benetit very little, if any, from the fruit of 

this economic growth. Recently, a Chinese scholar named Liu Zhirong did thorough research on 

world salary levels and on social security safety nets. He found the following: China's minimum 

wage is only 15% of the world's average, ranking I 59th globally. The minimum wage's 

contribution to GDP also ranked l59th globally, behind 32 African countries. On the opposite 

end of the spectrum is China's Tax Misery Index (tax burden minus benefits received). It has 

ranked 2nd or 3rd for several years in a row. These data do not take any undocumented-but 

heavy and widespread-fees or uncompensated property takeovers into account 

3. Shitizens are by no means citizens, as they are unable to enjoy basic benefits or constitutionwarranted civil rights. In China, discriminations against them are open, legal, institutionalized, 

and all-inclusive, spreading into the tields of politics, business, culture, and education. For 

example, the institutionalization of the so-called HUKOU (local residency restriction) imposes 

discrimination against migrant workers in the cities. Their children cannot receive normal public 

education. The Electoral Law expressly states that one ballot cast by a rural farm worker counts 

as Y, of the ballet cast by a city resident. But these are just statutory discriminations. The reality 

is that the powerless people, whether they live in urban or rural areas, have no say whatever in 

any local, regional, or national public affairs that may directly affect their interests. With the 

judiciary system as it is constituted under dictatorship, people have no recourse to have their 

grievances redressed when their interests are hurt and/or their rights violated 

4 
29


81341c-5.eps

4. The elite's monopoly over power, capital, and information, and its insularity, makes mobility 

between the two Chinas nearly stagnant. For many years, right after the founding of the People's 

Republic of China, people in the grassroots were allowed to move upwards through military 

service and higher education. Now the elite China relies more and more on blood relations to 

maintain the stability of the ruling group. The commonly accepted way to gain a position in the 

government and in the military is purchase it with a large sum of cash. But this is just a 

transaction between a member of the political elite and a member of the economic elite. The 

underclass can seldom go anywhere by virtue only of their personal talents and hard work. 

5. The two Chinas no longer speak a common political language. The otliciallanguage continues 

to use the rigid otlicial political terminology to make clear the government's intent to maintain 

the existing political order. Under the cover of such rigid language, the unspoken rules of a mafia 

operating by the codes of the jungle governs all transactions. Because the otliciallanb'llage is so 

false, lofty, and meaningless, so far removed from actual public life, it is almost impossible for 

the ordinary people to use it to express their opinions. They have to seek another lanb'llage. Since 

all the traditional media are tightly controlled by the ruling elite, they resort to cyberspace, 

creating numerous new concepts and new words in cyberspace that gained the acceptance of the 

general public. For example, "don't be so CCTV' (don't be so hypocritical), "TG" (initials for 

Tu Gong meaning "uncivilized or barbarian communists" in Chinese), "river crab" (homophone 

for the political buzz word "harmony"), "top movie star" (nick name for premier Wen Jiabao, 

who likes to weep in front of TV camera from time to time) The isolation of the two languages 

underlines the existence of the two mutually isolated societies in China. 

6. The two Chinas have almost no common political life Political participation channels for nonelite Chinese nationals are completely blocked. The government tried to use the hollow language 

and ceremonies of patriotism to bridge the gap with less than satisfactory results. Events like the 

Olympics, National Day and the World Expo are just pastimes for the elite. During these events, 

the government shows extreme distrust for its people, who are kept out by means of de facto 

martial law. The two Chinas are so divided that it is ditlicult for ordinary people to meet and talk 

to a government otlicial of as low level as a town manager. 

7. Emotional division. While the China,Inc. is disdainful of the under China, the latter grow more 

and more distrustful of the fonner. The phenomena of so-called "hatred towards the rich" and 

"hatred towards otlicials" clearly demonstrate this mentality. In recent years, China's otlicial 

media has adopted a new phrase: "conflicts caused by non-stake holders." It refers to the fact 

that more and more bystanders are participating in public riots. 

To maintain the two-China structure, the Chinese government, over 20 some years after the 

Tiananmen, has built a monstrous "stability sustaining system" which has an operating budget 

exceeding China's national defense budget established a gigantic stability-preserving system. 

Let's see how it has been developed. 

Since the Tiananmen massacre, corruption has become one of the CCP's important strategies to 

survive because no Party officials at any level would be loyal to the regime if they were not 

5 
30


81341c-6.eps

given the privilege to corrupt. Such a predatory regime has caused unprecedented infringement 

of the basic rights of the ordinary people, resulting in increasing frequent protests. 

Currently in China, there are about 200,000 public protests with more than 100 participants each 

year-or once every 3 minutes. The government has no effective way to handle these other than 

increasing the police force to prevent the protests from becoming trans-regional. Every province 

has set up branches in Beijing, staffed with police oftlcers and hired thugs and gangsters to 

intercept petitioners. These branches also run their own private detention centers. For the last 

years, the manpower, equipment, budget, and salary of policing has grown tremendously. Based 

on experts' estimates, there are at least 550,000 to 600,000 People's Armed Police and various 

other forms of police and para-police on the payroll. The Chinese local governments run more 

and more like mafias. They hire local gangsters to become their hatchet men and infonnants. ill 

a recent interview with the oftlcial Xinhua News agency, the assistant sheriff of Kai-Lu County, 

illner Mongolia, disclosed that there are 12,000 infonnants to help the police maintain stability in 

this county whose population is only 400,000. Some experts said that in first-tier cities such as 

Beijing or Shanghai and ethnic minority areas such as Tibet and Xinjiang, the number of spies is 

even greater. Extrapolating for the Kai-Lu County ration, there are at least 39 million informants 

nationwide. This coupled with 550,000-600,000 police force forms a heavy net of police over the 

people. 

I must reemphasize that I use the two "Chinas" argument to show China's structural reality: the 

division between the elite groups and the general public For some individuals in society, the 

boundaries ofthe two "Chinas" are not clearly marked, and not every member of society has a 

clear awareness of which China they belong to. In addition, the simple-benefit analysis is not 

enough. For example, some human rights lawyers and other opposition leaders, like Liu Xiaobo, 

the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner, could enjoy "elite Chinese" status, but they cross the border, 

trying to overcome the barrier that is similar to that between the colonial and the colony. They 

are trying to construct a reasonable society in line with universal values of public political life. 

But the Chinese government is afraid of the possible integration between the two Societies based 

on justice. Such integration is against the current interest of the stockholders of China, Inc. That 

is why the CCP regime has al ways tried to contain and persecute those who (democracy 

advocates) believe and work for such integration. Some of them have been sent into exile 

overseas, others were put in jail. Still others were followed, monitored, or put in house arrest. It 

is a long-term strategy to guard against the democratization of China by eradicating, harassing, 

and eliminating citizen advocates. 

Another stratet,'y is to control, compress and eventually block the space for public expression of 

opinions. Internet is on top of the government's hit list. Any forum of public opinions could 

serve as a launch pad to start a process of breaking the boundary between the two "Chinas", 

therefore eventuall y leads to the collapsing of the elite China. The CCP regime is full y aware its 

significance, and are making every efIort to put a tight grip over the internet 

This is how I use two-China analysis as the framework to summarize the Chinese communists' 

general strategies of maintaining authoritarian rule and resisting the democratization. On top of 

6 
31


81341c-7.eps

the traditional lies and violence, the CCP regime has developed new tactics. It is comprised in 

the shape of a dragon: 

Here you go 

Ihe body: sustaining economic growth at all costs to maintain the regime's ruling legitimacy 

..... ~IwQ..l¥i.!l~s: appeasing the elite with corruption and suppressing the powerless with rogue 

police 

Two claws purging democracy advocates like Liu Xiaobo and blocking public opinion. 

Nevertheless, it is not enough to just see the severe division of the two societies of China We 

need to stand in a more elevated position to envision the emerging of a new, democratic China, 

the third China Although this third China did not take shape, there are many signs indicating its 

coming. 

It usually takes four factors to be present at the same time to change a country from an autocracy 

to a democracy: 1) the robust, general disaffection from people; 2) split in the leadership in the 

autocratic regime; 3) viable opposition, viable democracy movement; and 4) international 

support. 

Let me look at these factors 

First. CCP' dragon-shaped one-body, two-wing, and two-claw strategy has split China into two 

exclusive societies. This is what some experts called the rigid stable structure. But rigid human 

society ever has a sustainable stability. If such a society is stable for the moment, it is only 

because a crisis is in the cooking and new opportunity is on the horizon. 

China's Stability Sustaining System treats every citizen as a potential enemy, and it has 

successfully made them enemies--dissidents, independent intellectuals, land-lease peasants, 

victims of forced demolitions and eviction, victims of forced abortion, veterans, migrant workers, 

Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians, Christians, and Falun Gong practitioners, you name it. The CCP 

regime does not lack enemies. 

Second. Compared to the under China, which is more di versified, the elite China seem to have 

common and consistent interests. But the consistency is based on bribery and buy-offs of multifaucet interest groups, with intrinsic tlaw in the foundation. Fierce internal power struggles have 

never ceased since the founding of the communist party. Perhaps the only achievement in 

China's political system in the past 30 years is the establishment of the "two-tenn, 10-year, onegeneration" term limit system. Many observers predicted that such a system would ensure longtenn stability for the CCP regime, wishfully believing that this system helped the CCP find a 

way out of the pit of power discontinuity that has plagued all dictatorships in history. The Bo 

Xilai event, however, mercifully burst that bubble. People within the Party have begun to 

challenge this power succession system. The cracks are only widening. 

7 
32


81341c-8.eps

Third. The concept of democracy has prevailed in the minds of the general public, thanks to the 

dozens years of efforts made by the pro-democratic activists both in and outside of China. The 

most important sign of this is the recent intellectual awakening, evidenced by the return of the 

democracy debate, which has occupied a central place in the public discourse around China's 

leadership change. More and more intellectuals, who were generally co-opted by the regime not 

long after the Tiananmen massacre and acted as its defenders for many years, have come to 

realize and acknowledge Chinese democracy movement's contributions, ideas, and beliefs, 

which are embodied in Charter 08. Recognition by intellectuals that the status quo is 

unsustainable is always the first, and vital, step toward changing it. 

In the meantime, the ordinary people are becoming more mature, more skillful, and more 

aggressive in fighting for their own civil rights. The China,Inc. can sure ignore the grievance of 

the society, but the people will eventually unite themselves to form organized rebellion if 

individual petitions yield no results. Among the people, there is a subgroup called the netizens, 

those who use the internet a lot, nearly 5 hundred and fifty millions of them. Although the 

Chinese authorities impose strict control over the media, the existence of the Internet paved a 

way for the people's awakening and networking. In the cyberspace language, the communist 

regime is rapidly losing all its moral asset while the people are constantly seeking opportunity to 

group together in a skillful way. The netizens constitute an "infonnation elite" that cannot be all 

bought off. They will playa leading role in future organized activities. Generally speaking, as the 

non-governmental forces grow and the civil protests escalate, struggle for power among different 

factions with the communist regime will become public. Especially, once the external pressure 

reaches a critical mass, the rivalry factions with the CCP will have to take the citizen force into 

serious account and seek or use the latter's support. This means a decomposition of China,Inc. 

That said, I want to emphasize that we need an overall, viable pro-democracy movement to force 

the dictatorship to crack open. A long-tenn resilient movement will reach critical mass when 

idealists like Liu Xiaobo join forces with the self-motivated public or the disatfected with the 

status quo 

A milestone to meet that obj ective would be the formation of a group of civil leaders able to 

represent the general public and to at least partially disrupt the current political order -- a group 

that would catch attention and support of the international community and carry out and to call 

for effective negotiations with the government. That was most needed but lacking in our 1989 

Tiananmen movement. But we are moving, perhaps 

slowly but surely, toward that goal. 

Last but not least, international support. 

Many triends in the international community are skeptical about the Chinese people's demand 

for freedom and democracy. Let me propose the following thought experiment for you to judge 

for yourselves. 

Imagine that you visited China, taking with you a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights. Arbitrarily choose any citizens on the street. Show the document, asking them with the 

language they understand whether they want the rights listed there. What would you expect them 

8 
33


81341c-9.eps

to say" Would you for a second believe they would say "No, I do not want these rights"" Of 

course, you wouldn't. You see, you understand the Chinese people through understanding 

yourselves: Nobody wants to be a slave. In this regard, the Chinese people are no different than 

other people in the world. The thirst for freedom and dignity is indeed universal 

The people of China have long ago begun the search for dignity, justice, goodness, fairness, 

equality, freedom, and brotherhood. They have produced a few major pushes towards these goals 

in this generation. In the 1989 Tiananmen democracy movement, the Chinese people 

courageously stood up against government corruption that in the words of Charter08, has 

"corrupted human intercourse." They stood up for democracy and freedom. The image of a lone 

man standing in front of a string of tanks has inspired the entire world, and our fallen brothers' 

spirits have been one of the greatest sources of inspiration for continued struggle for these noble 

goals today in China. 

No one can predict with precision when the moment of dramatic opening for change will come in 

China. Virtually every one of the sixty some peaceful transitions to democracy in the past few 

decades have come as a surprise to the US. One reason is that diplomats, academics, and policy 

makers generally do not pay attention to what is happening with students, workers, fanners---

with the street level society and culture of the world's not-free countries. 

The people of China are obviously experiencing revolutionary change. Above all else we must 

maintain our faith in my compatriots that we can and will join the vast majority of the world's 

peoples who now live in free or at least partly free countries. An opening for change could come 

in the next few months or it may take a few more years. Of course it will never come without 

collective efforts, including those from the international community. So we must persevere and 

keep the faith and be ready 

9 
34

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Aikman. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID AIKMAN, PH.D. (FORMER TIME 

MAGAZINE BUREAU CHIEF IN BEIJING) 

Mr. AIKMAN. Mr. Chairman and honorable members. Twentyfour years ago today, one of the most brutal assaults by any government in modern history on peaceful protesters began around 10 

o’clock p.m. in the evening Beijing time. By the time the assault 

was over several hours later, hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent civilians, including students, had been murdered by bullets to 

the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, or crushed under the attacks of tanks and armored personnel carriers. How do we know? 

Because scores of Chinese and foreign eyewitnesses photographed 

the event and reported on it. I was one of them. 

The killing of innocent civilians is always a tragedy and sometimes it is a crime. Most countries in the world have been guilty 

of this at different times in their history, including my own country, the United States. Over a few centuries, we treated with great 

cruelty Africans brought over to this country as slaves and Native 

Americans. But we came to recognize these faults and to express 

contrition and an apology for them and even asked forgiveness for 

them. 

China is a great civilization and culture and has contributed innumerable blessings to the human community. China has also suffered much in recent centuries from foreign invasion and aggression. The result is that Chinese feel a deep sense of grievance when 

information about past and present injustices is suppressed. That 

sense of grievance is alive in China today about the events of June 

3 and 4, 1989. What does it say about a great nation that it has 

to forbid Internet searches for the words, ‘‘Tiananmen incident,’’ or 

‘‘June the 4th,’’ or even ‘‘candle,’’ or most incredibly, even the numerals ‘‘5, 3, 5,’’ which point not to May having 35 days but to the 

date June the 4th? 

How can the authorities in power in China hope to have the respect of the world when they go through these medieval contortions 

to suppress information about China’s own history? All the truthrespecting people all over the world are asking for is for China to 

start being honest about its own past and present, and to investigate in a transparent manner what happened 24 years ago. China 

claims that hooligans were responsible for June the 4th. That is 

nonsense. Some hooligans, no doubt, were present, just as some 

hooligans perhaps were present when Martin Luther King, Jr. set 

in motion the civil rights March on Washington in 1963. But only 

a complete idiot today would assert that the civil rights March on 

Washington was an event organized by hooligans. 

China today its experiencing a multitude of protests by citizens 

experiencing injustice. That multitude is growing annually at a 

rate that even alarms the Chinese Government. Sooner or later, if 

not addressed honestly those grievances will coalesce into a social 

and political movement which could cause a national turmoil in not 

just China, but in some of China’s neighbors. For the sake of honesty, of sanity, and even regional peace, the Chinese authorities 

need to tell the world the truth. China claims to respect truth because it respects science, which requires truth to be respected. It 

35

will be a tragedy if China continues to hobble along, dragging its 

civilization and its recent history behind it, like an injured war veteran. Greatness of civilization requires truth, honesty, and modesty, not continued countenancing of lies like the Soviet regime of 

Joseph Stalin. Every Chinese and everyone in the world will feel 

a sigh of relief if China begins to be honest about its internal grievances, especially those stemming from June the 3rd to 4th, 1989. 

A wise man said 2,000 years ago, ‘‘You will know the truth and the 

truth will set you free.’’

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Aikman, thank you very much for your testimony 

and for being here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aikman follows:]

36


81341d-1.eps

COMMENTS TO HOUSE CONGRESSIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL 

HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 

By David Aikman, June 3 2013 

Mr. Chairman and honorable members, twenty-four years ago today one of the 

most brutal assaults by any government in modern history on peacefully protesting 

protesters began around 10.00 p.m. in the evening, Beijing time. By the time the 

assault was over several hours later, hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent civilians, 

including students, had been murdered by bullets of the Chinese People's Liberation 

Army or crushed under the tracks of tanks and armored personnel carriers. How do we 

know? Because scores of Chinese and foreign eyewitnesses photographed the event 

and reported on it. I was one of them 

The killing of innocent civilians is always a tragedy, and sometimes it is a crime. 

Most countries in the world have been guilty of this at different times in their history, 

including my own country, the United States. Over a few centuries we treated with 

great cruelty Africans brought over to this country as slaves and native Americans. 

But we came to recognize these faults and to express contrition and an apology for 

them, and even ask forgiveness for them. 

China is a great civilization and culture and has contributed innumerable 

blessings to the human community. China has also suffered much in recent centuries 

from foreign invasion and aggression. The result is that Chinese feel a deep sense of 

grievance when information about past and present injustices is suppressed 

That sense of grievance is alive in China today about the events of June 3 and 4 

1989. What does it say about a great nation that it has to forbid Internet searches of the 

words "Tiananmen Incident" or "June 4," or even "candle", or, most incredibly, even the 

numerals 535, which point not to May having 35 days but to the date June 47 How can 

the authorities in power in China hope to have the respect of the world when they go 

through these medieval contortions to suppress information about China's own history? 

All that truth-respecting people all over the world are asking for is for China to 

start being honest about its own past and present and to investigate in a transparent 

manner what happened 24 years ago. China claims that hooligans were responsible for 

June 4. That is nonsense. Some hooligans no doubt were present, just as some 

hooligans perhaps were present when Martin Luther King Jr. set in motion the Civil 

Rights March on Washington in 1963. But only a complete idiot today would assert that 

the Civil Rights March on Washington was an event organized by hooligans. 
37


81341d-2.eps

China today is experiencing a multitude of protests by citizens experiencing 

injustice. That multitude is growing annually at a rate that even alarms the Chinese 

government. Sooner or later, if not addressed honestly, those grievances will coalesce 

into a social and political movement which could cause a national turmoil in not just 

China, but in some of China's neighbors. For the sake of honesty, of sanity, and even 

regional peace, the Chinese authorities need to tell the world the truth. China claims to 

respect truth because it respects science, which requires truth to be respected. It will 

be a tragedy if China continues to hobble along dragging its civilization and its recent 

history behind it like an injured war veteran. Greatness of civilization requires truth, 

honesty and modesty, not continued countenancing of lies like the Soviet regime of 

Josep Stalin. Every Chinese and everyone in te world will feel a sigh of relief if China 

begins to be honest about its internal grievances, especially those stemming from June 

3-41989. 

A wise man said two thousand years ago, "You will know the truth and the truth 

will set you free" 
38

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Richardson. 

STATEMENT OF SOPHIE RICHARDSON, PH.D., CHINA 

DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

subcommittee. It is always a pleasure to be here. Thank you so 

much for your devotion and your leadership on these issues; to you, 

in particular, Mr. Wolf. I am used to being humbled in this room; 

I am especially so today by being on this panel. It is a little hard 

to add to or improve upon what has already been said. I think my 

task this afternoon is to try to put some of the events in a little 

bit of historical context. And it is really a fairly basic idea that Chinese Government denial and repression about Tiananmen in 1989 

make it impossible for the wound of Tiananmen to heal and for 

people inside and outside China to trust the Chinese Government. 

We see in Tiananmen the origins or pathologies of many of the 

human rights abuses and broader problems that continue to plague 

China today. What did Tiananmen mean in 1989? Different things 

to different people. At a time when it seemed there could be a real 

possibility of political reform, it meant that people actually could 

challenge the government, that they could try to exercise key rights 

to expression, assembly and association, that they could try to influence a political process that still allowed them no formal role, 

and for some of the of the lions of Tiananmen, some of whom are 

sitting here today and who of some of whom continue to fight for 

their rights from towns and campuses and jails across China, this 

was the formative experience. 

The Chinese Government’s reaction, on the other hand, made 

starkly clear that despite some vague signs of reformist impulses 

on the economic front, no dissent was to be brooked on political 

matters, a position that hasn’t changed much today. For the international community, the events of June 4, 1989 were shocking insight into what the government was like at a point in time when 

there had been somewhat limited contact the end of the Cold War 

began to wane, there was some debate, particularly about whether 

the Chinese Government could or would be more than a trading 

partner. 

What does Tiananmen mean now, 24 years later? I think the 

Chinese Government’s active efforts to wholly expunge Tiananmen 

from the history books and persecute survivors and victims’ family 

members, let alone to provide justice, means that China simply 

cannot in some ways move forward. And that until the government 

is willing to investigate those events, it also has to be viewed with 

profound skepticism as a partner. 

For Chinese activists, so many of the issues at stake then inform 

their work now, whether it is rule of law, holding officials to account, transparency, corruption, the right to protest. And many of 

them continue to confront precisely the same kinds of problems: Official obstruction, coverups, injustice, and denial. It is hard to offer 

a generalization about what Tiananmen means for Chinese people 

today, because as many panelists have described, it is very difficult 

to know about the events themselves. The Washington Post had an 

extraordinary article this morning. I would recommend all of you 

to reading it. It is an effort to speak to survivors about how they 

39

have—whether they have broached the subject with their children. 

And there is one paragraph I would like to read because I think 

it quite nicely summarizes the conundrum they face. William Wan 

wrote,

‘‘For most parents, it comes down to a choice between protecting their children from the past or passing on dangerous 

and bitter truths about the authoritarian society they continue 

to live under.’’

For the international community, I think Tiananmen continues 

to be, especially for governments who either seek to or feel obliged 

to have closer ties with the Chinese Government, Tiananmen becomes a very uncomfortable truth. It’s there, it hasn’t been dealt 

with, they don’t want to have to talk about it. Some of they issue 

statements, some of them try not to. Periodically the EU tries to 

detach its arms embargo from accountability for Tiananmen. But 

there isn’t a clear path forward or a clear message from all of those 

governments on how to deal with the legacy. 

What can be done about this? We are, of course, deeply appreciative of the efforts made by Members of Congress, although it is 

certainly my hope that as interest amongst members in China generally grows that more people will take an active interest in human 

rights issues as well. And while we certainly appreciate the—I 

think it’s appropriate to describe them as elegiac statements that 

the State Department issues on the anniversary, I think it is not 

easy for them to do that. I think they face resistance from other 

parts of the administration. And that that alone is certainly not 

enough. 

I think the question really remains from President Obama on 

down whether the U.S. is going to help fight the long, hard fight 

for truth and justice and accountability for Tiananmen and for 

other human rights abuses. We are at a point in time now where 

the U.S. has pushed hard for accountability and justice in various 

parts of the world. We now have a U.N. Commission of Inquiry 

Into Human Rights Abuses in North Korea. 

We have the Magnitsky Act. And yet we are left wondering what 

exactly is on President Obama’s human rights agenda for later in 

this week when he meets with President Xi. Will he ask for the release of political prisoners, as was once absolutely standard practice? Will President Obama explain to Xi Jinping that Shandong officials who have been responsible for tormenting Chen Guangcheng 

and his family members shouldn’t bother trying to apply for visas 

to come to the United States under the new executive order. Will 

President Obama ask Xi Jinping to investigate the events of 

Tiananmen, and perhaps most important in this week, to allow victims’ family members to mourn their dead. 

Xi Jinping has spoken about coming to the United States to try 

to establish a new relationship with the U.S. I think it is going to 

be very difficult to do until such time as the Chinese Government 

seeks to establish a new relationship with its own people, one in 

which it is finally willing to answer their questions about 1989. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Richardson follows:]

40


81341e-1.eps

Human Rights Watch 

Commitlll(,1l1s to Rull' of Law Empty 'Vithou' Justi('(' fOl' Past Abu~('~ 

May 31,2013 

(New York) - President Xi linping [2] and other senior Chinese [3] leaders should demonstrate 

their commitment to the rule oflaw by acknowledging the government's responsibility for the 

massacre of unarmed civilians 24 years ago, and by allowing commemorations of the 

anniversary, Human Rights Watch said today. 

More than two decades after the deadly crackdown, the Chinese government continues to deny 

wrongdoing in the suppression of the Tiananmen protests. The government has covered up the 

killings, failed to bring to justice the perpetrators, persecuted victims and survivors' family 

members, and maintained tight control over freedoms of assembly and expression 

"Chinese leaders continue to try to simply expunge Tiananmen from the history books," said 

Sophie Richardson [4], China Director "But the new leadership can choose to act differently and 

distinguish itselffrom its predecessors. A good start would be to ensure that family members and 

activists can commemorate the events of 1989 without fear of reprisals." 

In the run-up to this month's 24th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre, the Chinese 

government has tightened control over activist relatives of victims. Zhang Zianling, a member of 

the Tiananmen Mothers, a nongovernmental group made up of relatives of people who 

disappeared or were killed during the crackdown, was barred from leaving for Hong Kong to 

attend an event ahead of the anniversary. Other outspoken activists are also targeted during this 

"sensitive period." For example, Tang .linoling [5], a Guangzhou rights lawyer, was taken away 

from his home by the police, according to media and nongovernmental organizations' reports. 

The Chinese government has stifled any discussion of the demonstrations and aftermath in the 

mass media and educational institutions, and systematically censored the internet for date 

signifiers, including 6/4 and 89 - and even obscure references designed to avoid scrutiny, such as 

the fake date of "May 35." 

According to media reports, in recent weeks the General Office of the Chinese Communist 

Party's Central Committee issued a document on the "seven taboos," a gag order to universities 

directing them to avoid discussions of certain subjects, including "universal values" and the 
41


81341e-2.eps

Party's past wrongs. Another document issued jointly by the Party's Central Organization 

department, Propaganda department, and the Ministry of Education's party committee at around 

the same time calls on universities to strengthen the "ideological education" of young lecturers. 

University students played a major role in the 1989 protests. 

The Tiananmen crackdown was precipitated by the mass gathering of workers, students, and 

others in Beijing's Tiananmen Square and in other cities in April 1989 to peacefully demonstrate 

for a pluralistic political system. The government responded to the intensifying protests in late 

May 1989 by declaring martial law and authorizing the military to use deadly force 

On June 3 and 4, 1989, Chinese military opened fire and killed untold numbers of unarmed 

civilians, many of whom did not participate in the protests. Following the massacre, the 

government arrested thousands of people on charges of "counter-revolution" and other criminal 

charges, including disrupting social order and arson. According to the research body Dui Hua, 

the last of those jailed for "coumer-rev 01 uti on" for morc than two decades [6] have only just 

been released 

The Chinese government has refused to account for the massacre or hold any perpetrators legally 

accountable for the killings. The government initially maintained that the crackdown was a valid 

response to a "counter-revolutionary incident," and stressed that some protestors attacked army 

convoys and burned military vehicles, resulting in casualties. It has refused to conduct an 

investigation into the events or to release data on those who were killed, injured, disappeared, or 

imprisoned, though it now refers to the incident as one of "political turmoil" (zhengzhi dongluan) 

rather than "counter-revolutionary" activity. The group Tia[1anmen Mothers [7] has established 

the details of202 people who were killed during the suppression of the movement in Beijing and 

other cities. 

After the massacre, the government passed the 1989 Law on Assembly, Procession, and 

Demonstration (the Assembly Law), which outlines a series of restrictive requirements that 

effectively bar citizens from exercising the right. For example, under the regulations, all 

demonstrations must be approved by the police. In practice, however, police in China rarely 

approve public protests, particularly ones that seem likely to be critical of the government. In the 

lead-up to the 24th anniversary, activists were detained [8] and harassed for applying to hold 

public assemblies to commemorate the occasion. 

For many young participants in the pro-democracy protests in 1989, the events left an indelible 

mark on their lives and spurred them to become long-term activists, for which they have paid a 

high price. U.lLKi..3Q!m [9], a lecturer turned protest leader in 1989, became one of China's best 

known dissidents and is now serving a l2-year sentence in prison for "inciting subversion." His 

wife, Liu Xia, is underunlawtul house arrest in the couple's home in Beijing. Chen Wei, a 

student leader of the 1989 protests, went on to document human rights abuses in Sichuan 

Province and was sentenced in December 2011 to nine years in prison for "inciting subversion." 

Chen Xi, a university stafl' member in Guizhou Province and a protest leader in 1989, became an 

organizer of the Guizhou Human Rights Forum and was imprisoned in December 2011 for ten 
42


81341e-3.eps

years on charges of "inciting subversion." All three experienced their first imprisonments in 

1989 as part of the government's nationwide crackdown on the pro-democracy protests. 

"Government denial and repression make it impossible for the wOlmd of Tiananmen to heal 

[10]," Richardson said. "Justice and accountability have been critical to resolving countries' 

tragic histories all over the world - the question now is whether Xi Jinping is brave enough to 

face that challenge." 

Source URL: http/iw\vV<i.hrw. off!.inews/2013!05/31/cJlin3 -new-leadcr~hip-shQl,!ld-addres'2: 

ti anaIllnen-legacv 

Links: 

[I] http://www.hrw.orglnews/2013/Q5/3 I/china-new-Ieadership-should-address-tiananmenlegacy 

[2] http://www. hrw. orglnews/2Q 13/Q2128/china-1 etter-xi -jinping-outl ini ng-i ssues-reforrn-duri ngchina-national-peoples-confer 

[3] http://www.hrw.orglasia/china 

[4] http://www.hrw.orglbios/sophie-richardson 

[5] http://wqw2QIQ.blogspot.hk/2QI3/Q5/blog-post_I77Q.html 

[6] http://duihua.org/wp/?pagejd=7759 

[7] http://www.tiananmenmother.orgl 

[8] http://wqw2QlQ.blogspot.hkl2Q 13/Q5/blog-post_7 4 n.html 

[9] http://www. hrw. orginewsl2Q 13/0.2/27 Ichina-new-global-effort-free-liu-xi aobo 

[I a] http://www.hrw.orglen/node/83112 

© Copyright 20.13, Human Rights Watch 
43


81341e-4.eps

Human Rights Watch 

Th~> Tillmmmni L.·"an [1] 

On~uin;:: PUst'clltion lmd (\'n:sor~hip 

May 13, 2009 

Ongoing Persecution of Those Seeking Reassessment 

The Chinese government continues to persecute those who seek a public reassessment of the 

bloody crackdown. Chinese citizens who challenge the official version of what happened in June 

1989 are subj ect to swift reprisals from security forces. These include relati ves of victims who 

demand redress and eyewitnesses to the massacre and its aftermath whose testimonies contradict 

the official version of events. Even those who merely seek to honor the memory of the late Zhao 

Ziyang, the secretary general of the Communist Party of China in 1989 who was sacked and 

placed under house arrest for opposing violence against the demonstrators, find themselves 

subj ect to repri sal s. 

Some of those still targeted include 

Ding Zilin and the Tiananmen Mothers: Ding is a retired philosophy professor at People's 

University in Beijing whose 17-year-old son, Jiang Jielian, was killed in central Beijing on June 

4, 1989. Ding has since become the spokesperson and driving force behind the Tiananmen 

Mothers, a loosely organized group of around 150 family members of other June 1989 victims. 

Security forces routinely subject Ding to detention, interrogation, and threats demanding silence 

from her and other Tiananmen Mothers members ahead of "sensitive" dates, particularly June 4 

"China has become like an airtight iron chamber and all the demands of the people about June 4, 

all the anguish, lament and moaning of the victims' relatives and the wounded have been sealed 

off," reads a petition by the Tiananmen Mothers, signed by 127 people and submitted to China's 

parliament in March 2008 

Jiang Yanyong: Jiang is a 77-year-old army surgeon who treated some of the victims at 

Beijing's 301 Military Hospital in the immediate aftennath of the June 1989 military assault. 

Jiang first gained public prominence in 2003 for exposing the government's cover-up of the 

country's outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS. In March 2004, Jiang wrote a 

letter to China's parliament, the National People's Congress, urging a reassessment of the 

government's position on the Tiananmen Massacre. The letter exposed the brutality of the June 
44


81341e-5.eps

1989 massacre, including the People's Liberation Army's use of "fragmentation bullets of the 

kind banned by international convention." Jiang subsequently told foreign media the 

government's response to that letter was to dispatch state security forces to abduct him from his 

office, hold him for seven weeks at an army guesthouse, and subject him to "study sessions." 

After being allowed to return home, Jiang was placed under house arrest for several months and 

barred from overseas travel. In March 2009, Jiang wrote a letter to Chinese President Hu Jintao 

demanding an apology for the period he spent in detention in 2004 and the subsequent months of 

house arrest. 

Zhang Shijun: Zhang is a 40-year-old fonner soldier who took part in the military crackdown in 

Beijing on June 3-4. In March 2009, Zhang published an open letter to Chinese President Hu 

Jintao urging an official re-assessment of the "June 4 tragedy, the event in China's recent history 

that causes bitter weeping and choking back tears." Zhang was detained by security forces 

shortly after his letter was made public, and remains under detention in an undisclosed location. 

Sun Wenguang: Sun, a 75-year-old retired professor in Jinan City, Shandong province, was 

assaulted on April 4, 2009, by five plainclothes thugs who appear to have been working at 

official behest. He was en route to Jinan's Martyrs' Park to mourn Zhao Ziyang, the Chinese 

Communist Party secretary-general who tried to prevent the use offorce by the military in June 

1989. Zhao was stripped of his position following the crackdown and spent the last 15 years of 

life under house arrest in Beijing. The assault on Sun, which left him with three broken ribs, 

occurred just minutes after he had evaded some 20 uniformed police who attempted to prevent 

him from leaving the university campus where he lived. 

Tiananmen's Survivors: Exiled, Marginalized and Harassed 

The Chinese government is particularly hostile toward those individuals it has identified as part 

of the leadership of the 1989 Tiananmen student protests. Student leaders who served time in 

prison or fled China in the aftennath of the bloody crackdown of June 1989 have become 

unwilling exiles. Several of those fonner protest leaders have been turned back from China by 

Chinese immigration officials even when trying to visit aging family members they left behind or 

to attend their funerals. Student organizers who stayed in China remain subject to tight 

surveillance and harassment despite having served long prison tenns for their participation in the 

protests of June 1989. Perhaps most tragically, survivors maimed or handicapped in the June 

1989 military assault in Beijing and other major cities continue to face pressure from state 

security forces to lie or stay silent about the causes of their inj uries. 

Tiananmen survivors who continue to sutTer due to the role they played in the student protests in 

1989 include: 

Wang Dan: A former Beijing University student leader who topped Beijing's Tiananmen mostwanted list until his arrest in 1989, Wang received a four-year prison sentence in 1991, was 

released in 1993 when China was bidding to host the Olympics, was re-arrested in 1995 for 

"subversion" and was sentenced to an II-year prison term in 1996. Wang was sent to the United 

States in 1998 on medical parole and has been barred from return by Chinese immigration 

officials who have refused to issue him a new Chinese passport. In 2008, Wang launched a 
45


81341e-6.eps

campaign to urge the Chinese government to allow him and other blacklisted fonner Tiananmen 

protest leaders to return to China in line with Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights which specifies that, "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and 

to return to his country." 

Han Dongfang: Han was detained in June 1989 for his role in the Tiananmen protests and for 

organizing China's first independent trade union since 1949, and was subsequently held for 22 

months in prison without charge. In 1992, the Chinese government pennitted Han to go to the 

US for medical treatment, but subsequently cancelled his passport and has retused his multiple 

etforts to return to China without disclosing the legal basis for those refusals. Han is based in 

Hong Kong, where he researches labor-rights abuses and publishes the China Labur Blll/etin. 

Ma Shaofang: In June 1989, Ma was 10th on the Chinese government's list of most-wanted 

dissidents and served a three-year prison term for his role as a Tiananmen student protest 

organizer. Two decades later, Ma, now a Shenzhen-based businessman, continues to be subject 

to police monitoring of his movements and activities. On October 13, 2007, Ministry of State 

Security onicers warned Ma not to attend a writers' conference in Beijing during the 17th 

Congress of the Chinese Communist Party. In a blog posting in which Ma recounted the 

encounter, the State Security onicers warned that, "If you get into trouble, we will be there and it 

won't be good for you." 

Fang Zheng: A 42-year-old fonner student at the Beijing Academy of Physical Science, Fang 

had his legs crushed on June 4 under a tank while pushing a female student protester out of the 

tank's path. Fang was subsequently expelled from school after refusing to publicly deny the 

source of his injury, but went on to become China's wheelchair discus and javelin champion in 

1992 and 1993. However, Fang's Tiananmen connections prompted the Chinese government to 

bar him from competing in the Far East Games for the Disabled in Beijing in 1994 despite his 

promise not to discuss with foreign journalists the cause of his injury. Fang told a reporter from 

Singapore's New Paper in September 2008 that he maintained public silence and avoided travel 

to Beijing around the 2008 Beijing Olympics due to promises from government security forces 

that he would be given ajob ifhe kept quiet and stayed away Beijing ahead of during the Games. 

"1 will wait and see what they have to offer, since 1 have nothing more to lose," Fang said 

Censoring History 

The Chinese government continues to systematically erase from the public record any mention of 

the events of June 1989 that do not conform to the government's assessment of the bloody 

crackdown as a "political disturbance." 

China's online censors quickly remove any references to the 1989 crackdown, and internet search 

engines in China are carefully calibrated to filter out any images or references to the deaths of 

unanned civilians for search requests on topics including "Tiananmen Square" and "June 4." 

Web searches for such terms typically yield "page could not be found" messages, and generally 

do not inform the user that the search has been censored 
46


81341e-7.eps

Under dictates of China's official Propaganda Department, the domestic print media are 

forbidden to publish articles on the events of June 1989 inconsistent with the government's 

version. In 2003, then-US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton pulled her memoirs from sale in 

China after it was revealed that her Chinese publisher had without her approval omitted her 

references to the 1989 democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square 

Like individuals who speak publicly about Tiananmen, media outlets that do so are also 

punished. In June 2007, the Sichuan province daily newspaper the Chellgdu ~·velliflg News 

reportedly sacked three editorial statf after the paper ran a classitied ad which paid tribute to the 

families of victims of the Tiananmen Massacre. Copies of the paper which carried the one-line 

ad with the words "Saluting the strong mothers of the victims of 64 [a reference to June 4]" were 

quickly pulled from circulation. 

On March 31, 2009, Beijing Public Security Bureau officers briefly detained Jiang Qisheng, 61, 

deputy chairman of the Independent Chinese PEN Centre and a former Tiananmen Square 

student protester, due to concerns that he was writing an article to commemorate the 20th 

anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre. "They said not a single article was allowed this year for 

the 20th anniversary," Jiang later told the South China Morning Post 

Tn 1995, former Tiananmen student protester and political activist Li Hai was sentenced to nine 

years in prison on charges of violating state secrets laws for compiling a list of names of those 

killed in June 1989. Li spent the majority of his jail term in solitary confinement. 

One result of this official chokehold on information about June 1989 is a profound lack of public 

knowledge of one of the most important events in China in living memory. At least three foreign 

news organizations including a US Public Broadcasting Service program, FronlTifle, have 

conducted informal surveys over the past 10 years, asking groups of university students and 

Beijing residents to identify the context of the photograph-iconic outside of China-of "tank man," 

an unidentified Beijing citizen who on June 5, 1989, stood down a column of 17 army tanks near 

Tiananmen Square. Few if any have been able-or willing-to do so. 

Human Rights Watch Recommendations 

To the Chinese Government: 

The Chinese government should issue an immediate amnesty for those still imprisoned on 

charges related to the events of June 1989 and launch an independent review of their 

cases to determine possible miscarriages ofj ustice in terms of violations of due legal 

process. The government should absolve and compensate those individuals determined to 

have been unfairly or illegally imprisoned. 

The Chinese government should immediately permit the unimpeded return of Chinese 

citizens exiled due to their connections to the events ofJune 1989. 

The Chinese government should respect and enforce citizens' rights to freedom of speech 

and expression and cease the detention and harassment of individuals who challenge the 

official account of the events of June 1989 
47


81341e-8.eps

The Chinese government should permit an independent inquiry into the events of June 

1989. Such an inquiry should be open to the public, allow the participation ofvictims' 

families, including the Tiananmen Mothers, and the substance of its proceedings and 

conclusions should be made public in a complete and timely manner. Such an inquiry is 

obviously impossible until the government stops harassing and silencing the victims of 

the events of June 1989 and takes substantive steps to preserve the historical record of 

what transpired at that time. When these prerequisites have been met, the Chinese 

government should issue and uphold explicit public guarantees that participants will not 

be subject to official reprisals. 

The Chinese government should initiate a mechanism for victims of the violence of June 

1989 and/or their family members to claim official compensation for their losses. 

The Chinese government should launch criminal proceedings against any government 

and military officials who gave the orders for and/or participated in the use of lethal force 

against unarmed civilians in Beijing and other major cities in June 1989. 

The government should amend its recently released National Action Plan for Human 

Rights to include specific references which stipulate respect for the rights of the victims 

of June 1989 and their families. 

To the International Community 

The European Union should resist calls to lift its anns embargo until the Chinese 

government completes an independent public investigation of the crackdown and holds 

accountable those government and military officials responsible for the use of lethal force 

against unarmed civilians. In addition, the EU should insist on a general amnesty for all 

those jailed for all forms of peaceful protest in China. Those convictions should be 

reviewed and overturned ifthere were procedural safeguards or lack of evidence of 

serious criminal acts. 

Governments, particularly those that have bilateral human rights dialogues with the 

Chinese government, should make their concerns about the 1989 crackdown and its 

legacy a touchstone of its engagement with the Chinese government on human rights, and 

establish measurable benchmarks and timelines for the Chinese government to address 

the rights abuses, past and present, connected to the events of 1989. 

Foreign governments should urge China to amend its recently released National Action 

Plan for Human Rights to include specific references which stipulate respect for the 

rights of the victims of June 1989 and their families and actionable targets and deadlines 

to ensure those rights are respected 

Foreign governments should publicly observe the 20th anniversary of the events of June 

1989 by opening their embassies in Beijing to the general public on June 3-4, 2009, as 

safe zones where Chinese citizens could access uncensored information about the events 

of June 1989, and engage in discussions about those events and their legacy 

Those countries with bilateral human rights dialogues with China should make these 

recommendations a key component of their human rights engagement with China in 

2009. 

Member states of the Berne Process for human rights engagement with China should reconvene 

on or around June 3-4 to discuss means to adopt and implement these recommendations. 
48


81341e-9.eps

Source U RL: http://www.hrw.org!newsI2009/05/13/tiununmcn-legacy 

Liuks: 

[I] http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/05/ 13/tiananmen-Iegacy 

© Copyright 2013, Human Rights Watch 
49

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Richardson, thank you very much. You know, let 

us pick up on your last point about the upcoming summit on Friday and Saturday with President Obama and President Xi. What 

will President Xi’s takeaway be if human rights are not robustly 

discussed, if individual cases like, you mentioned, Cheng 

Guangcheng are not brought up? Cheng Guangcheng sat right 

where Dr. Yang is sitting, just a few weeks ago and made a passionate appeal for his nephew and other family members who are 

being retaliated against. His nephew is really a surrogate for him. 

He is now free, relatively speaking, and his family, immediate family, but the other members of his family are being tortured, including his nephew. And Liu Xiaobo, a fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner, just like President Barak Obama, continues to languish in 

prison and, you know, his wife pretty much under house arrest. 

It seems—as you said, it used to be standard practice that there 

would be political prisoners, religious prisoners and others who 

would be released when summitry would occur. It seems to me that 

at the very least, our side, our President needs to make a very 

strong and aggressive—diplomatic, but aggressive appeal for these 

people who are suffering with such impunity. 

Anyone like to handle that? Dr. Yang? 

Mr. YANG. Yeah. This hearing is timely, because we all know 

there is going to be a summit between President Obama and President Xi. I strongly believe that President Obama should set the 

tone of U.S.-China relations in this summit for his new administration and for the new leadership of China. 

This is a crucial moment to signal to the leadership of China that 

the quality of its relationship with the United States largely depends on how it treats its own citizens and on whether it leads by 

the universally accepted human rights norms for its international 

and domestic policies. 

Failure on President Obama’s part to speak up and address the 

human rights concerns will send the wrong message to the leadership, the new leadership, of China about U.S. priorities, and it may 

encourage the new leadership, the new Chinese leaders, to allow 

the human rights abuses to continue. 

While we don’t oppose the United States vigorously engaging 

with China, with Chinese Government, on other issues, including 

economic relations, treaty relations, North Korea and other security issues, we believe and hope President Obama will engage with 

some vigor on human rights concerns. So I think it is a very good 

opportunity for him to raise the very important cases of prisoners, 

as Mr. Chairman just mentioned: Cheng Guangcheng, Liu Xiaobo, 

Wang Bingzhang, Gao Zhisheng. All these prisoners of conscience, 

we are not forgetting them. And President Obama should raise the 

cases in the meeting. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. Mr. Wei? 

Mr. WEI. I think that in the past few decades, the human rights 

diplomacy of the United States has established a very reputable 

image of the United States. Not only with good image, it has also 

produced a very effective result, which ultimately resulted in the 

collapse of the Communist clique. And Representatives here maybe 

still remember since the passage of PNTR, the permanent normal 

50

trade relations, with China, the human rights in China situation 

has been rapidly deteriorated. 

I think from the perspective to have a good new image of the 

United States or to establish this soft power for United States, the 

United States should really holding up this ticket of human rights 

again. 

I agree with Dr. Yang that right during the meeting between 

President Obama and President Xi, we really should do something 

regarding human rights; however, I feel more important for the 

United States Congress and the administration to design a new 

strategy and to put human rights on the front line and for the future. 

President Obama said that human rights and the universal value 

is a big advantage for United States. If so, why don’t you take this 

advantage up front instead of waste your time with the Communist 

regime for other issues? So I hope more that the United States will 

have a new strategy, a new policy. I had European politicians ask 

me, what is the diplomacy of the United States? They don’t have 

one. Because if you do not take advantage of your universal value, 

then indeed you do not have advantage diplomatically. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me say briefly, when Wei Jingsheng was let out 

of prison in order to get the 2000 Olympics, I was actually in Beijing and had dinner with him. He said something that I will never 

forget. He said when American officials—any official, but especially 

American officials, especially the President of the United States—

speaks precisely, transparently, but boldly about human rights, 

they beat us less when we are in the Laogai, or the gulags of 

China. When you are vacillating, weak and dismissive of the 

human rights agenda, they beat us more. It gets right down to that 

level, to the prison guards and to the prison wardens. 

And I am wondering, you know, for us to miss an opportunity to 

speak out boldly and aggressively on behalf of these dissidents, 

who are being tortured, harassed, and degraded in every way imaginable, for us not to take that, would you, the other panelists, agree 

with Mr. Wei’s assessment that we need to have a more muscular 

human rights policy? 

And secondly, Dr. Yang, you made mention in your statement, 

and I thought it was very, very interesting, that 60 peaceful transitions to democracy have come as a surprise to the United States, 

because policymakers did not pay attention to the students, to the 

victims, to the activists, but we were focused like a laser beam, regrettably, on the political elite, who have very little regard for the 

human rights of other people. 

You also made a point, and I thought it was very profound, and 

I said in my opening that economic growth means everything; that 

they have inculcated in China among the elite a corruption that is 

indescribable, and that is what keeps them afloat, as you put it in 

your testimony, your written testimony. And I wonder if any of our 

panelists would like to speak to that. 

The conventional wisdom is that if we somehow trade more with 

China, they will matriculate from dictatorship to democracy, but as 

you have laid out, Dr. Yang, precisely the opposite has been occurring, especially since most favored nation status, now PNTR, was 

granted. You said that we are actually keeping the dictatorship 

51

afloat; that they have carved out the elite, they reward the elite, 

and through corruption and through gross human rights abuse, especially through torture, they are able to keep the dictatorship intact. If you would like to speak to that. 

Mr. AIKMAN. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

I think the Chinese Government would learn a lot by taking a 

few pages out of the history of South Africa. When the South African apartheid regime fell, many Black Africans were very, very 

angry at the way they had been treated by the regime that had just 

been overturned, and so what the South African Government decided to do was to have a truth and reconciliation committee. 

One of the things that is clear when you study China and modern Chinese history is the Chinese Communist Party is terrified of 

the Chinese people. They think that they may be thrown out of 

power for not being sufficiently nationalistic. They—and the Chinese people are terrified of the Communist Party and the power 

that they have. 

The only way out of this dilemma of absolutely polar opposition 

and fear is for some sort of reconciliation committee to come into 

place and to begin to examine the charges the Chinese people feel 

they have to lay at the base of the Communist Party and have the 

Communist Party be held accountable for those crimes which they 

have committed. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I actually just wanted to add a quick point onto 

your question about what happens if there is no really audible 

human rights-related intervention from President Obama this coming weekend. I think it is actually two different problems. One is 

that it would—it conveys such a lack of seriousness of purpose to 

fail to take that opportunity. I can’t help but wonder for an administration that has said repeatedly in public that it takes a wholeof-government approach to promoting human rights issues, I can’t 

help but wonder, you know, what was on Jack Lew’s agenda a couple of weeks ago, what was on Tom Donilon’s agenda, what were 

the human rights issues they were taking up in this whole-of-government approach? It is very hard to know that. 

And if you say that you were going to make vigorous human 

rights diplomacy a part of all of your interactions, and then it is 

awfully hard to know what those were, it is very easy for Xi 

Jinping to walk away and say, I didn’t get challenged about anything. Why should I take any of this terribly seriously? 

And that has a related problem, which I think is ratifying a 

sense of incredible exceptionalism that the Chinese Communist 

Party holds up. The Chinese may have signed on to international 

human rights covenants, but it is different. It gets to proceed on 

these matters its way. And to not be challenged on that, I think, 

only reinforces that sense. And so it is incredibly important to finally push back hard and clearly in a way that is audible not just 

to the kinds of people who are sitting in this room, but to a much 

broader audience in China, which is looking for some kind of leadership and some kind of responsiveness to speak to the kinds of 

problems they are dealing with every day. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. WEI. I just want to put some addition. In the past, lots of 

American officials, including congressional Representatives, when 

52

they were dealing with the Chinese Communist Government, they 

felt a lot of those officials were very hard, like a piece of iron board, 

and they seemed to have the same opinions. 

In the first 20 years after June 4th massacre in 1989, indeed 

that was a sort of that situation, but in the past 4 years or so, even 

within the Communist Government, there are people stand out and 

talking about human rights and universal values. So we should let 

President Obama know this is a good opportunity, because if there 

is a voice for human rights, then we could hear even more for 

human rights talks from the Chinese Government. So if we talk 

about human rights now, emphasize that, then it will have more 

impact to those officials within the Communist leadership, which 

also would have more impact to the people inside of China. 

Ms. CHAI. I would like to add a few words. 

Mr. SMITH. Please. 

Ms. CHAI. I do believe that this Friday when President Obama 

meets with President Xi, not only does he need to emphasize the 

human rights importance for China, but it is crucial and necessary 

for American security to do so. 

And I want to remind all of us that President Abraham Lincoln, 

in his second inauguration speech about lack of justice to free the 

slaves, had called the severe casualty and loss in the war, saying,

‘‘Fondly we hope, fervently do we pray that this mighty scourge 

of war may speedily pass away. Yet if it be God’s will that it 

will continue until all the wealth piled up by the bondsman’s 

250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop 

of blood drawn with the lashes shall be paid by another drawn 

with a sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be 

said, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’’

There is a rumor that China today finished their first submarines. They are in the process of making five more. And America 

has the most submarines in the whole world, 16 of them. Is China 

going into an arms race against America? 

God gave us a blueprint for how we can achieve peace. I know 

today we use the words ‘‘human rights,’’ and ‘‘democracy’’ to replace 

the fundamental truth of God, but I think it is really important for 

us to go back to that. In Isaiah 32:17, God said, ‘‘The fruit of their 

righteousness will be peace. Its effect will be quietness and confidence forever.’’ So the path to peace is to act justly, love mercy, 

walk humbly with the Lord our God. 

And the crucial timing for President Obama to uplift and honor 

the tradition of faith America is founded upon, one Nation under 

God, is because this is the first beginning of President Xi Jinping’s 

legacy. He is eager to learn, he is eager to build the right relationship with America. America must stand strong not just for this 

country, but for the world. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Dr. Yang? And then I will go to Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. YANG. At this point I want to address a myth, widely believed myth, in the international community. Actually I have been 

amazed by this well-entrenched myth, you know, believed by world 

leaders, the policymakers and the scholars. The myth goes as folVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:13 Nov 03, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\060313\81341 HFA PsN: SHIRL
53

low: That because China will punish those taking a strong stance 

on human rights with its growing economic power, affecting their 

all-important treaty relations with China, the human rights issue 

should take a back seat. That is a myth. But this myth is anything 

but tested. There is no past evidence to show it. 

We should ask—I list a lot of questions here. We should ask, 

what do—do you think, the world leaders, China will do in response to a strong human rights stance? Do you really believe that 

China will quit treaty with a country whose goods it needs because 

the country demands better treatment of its citizens? How much 

will affect your economy, for example, United States economy, and 

are you willing or able to accept this are to come? How much will 

it affect China’s economy? And what does it mean to this regime? 

We all know that the only source of legitimacy for this regime 

to continue is economic well-being, so I think that is the last thing 

that they would try to jeopardize. 

Questions are, will China be willing or able to accept a cost? So 

let us calculate how much we spent on the Iraq War, which toppled 

a dictator. If China really retaliates against this country with its 

economic power, how much are we willing to pay to help topple 

China’s dictatorship? How much less the American taxpayers will 

pay for the spending of defense if China becomes a democracy? So 

we should consider these questions. 

I found this is—you know, some fear is self-imposed fear. We 

have to test it. This means to break it. I, too, have past experience 

to show otherwise. I just give you a couple of examples. 

Number one, Liu Xiaobo was awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace 

Prize. The Chinese Government came out, fought to sanction Norway for this award, and just 4 days after award ceremony, December 14th, China and Norway struck an oil deal despite tensions. 

That is in the title of Wall Street Journal, and I read the first paragraph, okay: Beijing, China, oil field services limited. A unit of one 

of China’s largest oil companies has signed a long-term oil-drilling 

contract with Norway’s Statoil, demonstrating that Beijing’s fury 

over the award of a Nobel Peace Prize to jailed dissident Liu 

Xiaobo may not stop major commercial deals. 

And most recent example is Cheng Guangcheng. Both the Congress and the executive branch took a very strong stance on his 

case last year, getting him successfully to United States. What happened afterward? We still have a normal relationship, treaty relationship. Nothing affected the relation of the two countries. 

And for Oslo, I went back in May 2011 to check. I come to a staff 

member in—you know, who is dealing with trade with China about 

the quota of salmon importing—imported to China. He told me officials, Chinese officials, who told him how to get around of the—you 

know, the sanction. So they have to go through Hong Kong to avoid 

the sanction. 

So I think this is—this myth we have to test to break. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank each of you 

for your testimony and obviously highlighting this on an ongoing 

basis. The chairman has been very vocal for a number of years on 

54

human rights violations and how we need to continue to not only 

highlight that, but address it. 

And I guess my concern with this hearing today is that I have 

been in this very room hearing a number of issues over the last 

months, whether it be child abduction, whether it be human trafficking, whether it be a one-child policy, a number of human rights 

violations and religious freedom violations not only in China, but 

in a number of countries, and yet finding a way to make that part 

of our negotiations or part of our foreign policy is very difficult to 

put in. 

And so, Dr. Yang, you mentioned that it had to have an economic 

component. And I would be interested, Dr. Richardson and Dr. 

Aikman, for you to comment on that. How do we highlight it more 

than just having President Obama mention it this week in terms 

of—that it is important? How do we get beyond the rhetoric and 

make sure that we let them understand that it is a critical thing 

that we are wanting to emphasize and have corrected? 

Dr. Aikman, you can go first. 

Mr. AIKMAN. Well, I go back to South Africa. In the pressure to 

get South Africa to change its policy of apartheid and to abandon 

it, there were various very strict trade regulations that American 

companies were willing to agree to force the South African Government to change its policy toward Black South Africans, and these 

policies were very effective. So I think on a smaller scale, American 

States and cities and corporations could put selective pressure on 

parts of the Chinese Government that deals with foreign trade to 

force them to adopt a more humane human rights policy. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Dr. Richardson? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I have a long list of suggestions, but I will give 

you my top three. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. There are certain issues for any government 

that are discomfiting and they desperately want to avoid having to 

talk about in public, so you can, you know, retrofit this depending 

on which government you are talking about. But I think there are 

three or four issues for the Chinese Government that simply have 

to be made inescapable topics of conversation at every single senior-level summit, regardless of whether it is about a security issue, 

an intelligence issue, a trade issue, you know; and it should be 

some combination of issues related to ethnic minorities, individual 

cases, or certain key aspects of the rule of law. And it is not difficult to figure out how to fit that into a whole-of-government approach. 

I am actually a proponent of a whole-of-government approach 

partly because often—you know, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs bureaucrats from China are very good at thwarting those conversations. Try to have that conversation with a different part of the 

Chinese Government, Ministry of Justice, the public security, and 

it is a very—I think it tends to be a very different conversation, 

in some cases much more effective. But doing that well requires 

that the President instructs Cabinet members to do this and creates an expectation that they will follow through on it, and they 

will be expected to report back. 

55

Look, I think there is also much to be said for the idea of setting 

out benchmarks on certain key issues. You know, there shouldn’t 

be endless rounds, for example, of labor dialogues that don’t have 

built into them specific concrete steps that the Chinese side needs 

to take in order for there to be another round of dialogue. And our 

single biggest complaint about the human rights dialogues is that 

having them at all, wholly apart from whether they are useful, has 

become the deliverable in and of itself; that simply to get one 

scheduled and to take place becomes the goal rather than to insist 

on certain kinds of changes being made. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what you are saying is set a benchmark and 

then say we want to see these concrete—these three or five or six 

concrete steps toward reaching that benchmark needs to be part of 

our foreign policy? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Right. I mean, imagine, you know, there were 

some functional equivalent of the WTO for human rights issues. 

Right? I mean, there are standards that must be met, and if one 

party doesn’t adhere to those, there are consequence. Right? I 

mean, obviously we are not going to establish WTO for human 

rights issues, but it is the same logic, that in order to have the next 

phase of a discussion, you have to show some commitment, some 

seriousness of purpose and some willingness to change, not that 

these dialogues just become an endless series of diplomatic interactions in and of themselves. 

Mr. MEADOWS. One of—one of the things that we look at, and Dr. 

Aikman mentioned South Africa, but one of the issues that we have 

is really one of stability, that their government right now wants to 

have this stable environment as there is a free flow of information 

via the Internet. And obviously the sanctioning of that creates, I 

guess, more freedom of speech, which creates perhaps an unstable 

environment within China or the Chinese Government. 

Where—should those be—should that be one of the benchmarks 

that we look at is Internet freedom and the ability of free speech 

within—and promoting that as part of their human rights? Dr. 

Yang? 

Mr. YANG. I have a very specific suggestion for the congressional 

resolution. Maybe my ideas were wild, but I have been thinking a 

measure, a tax benefit. And China is huge, of different provinces, 

although the governments of different level all have the nature, 

same nature, but the violations vary from place to place. So we 

may each year single out a number of provinces where the human 

rights record is really bad, and those who are doing business, 

American businessmen doing business in these provinces, will not 

enjoy a tax benefit, whatever they are, and encourage internal competition on human rights record. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what you are saying is there is enough of a 

difference in human rights violations within provinces within 

China——

Mr. YANG. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. That you can set that up? 

Mr. YANG. Yes. So there is a variation we can take advantage of, 

and we will encourage the provincial leaders to compete for human 

rights record. 

56

Mr. MEADOWS. And I see some nods there from Dr. Richardson 

and Dr. Aikman. You would concur with that? 

Mr. AIKMAN. Yes. I think it is quite compatible with China’s disparate state governments competing with each other for foreign 

business to be able to reward those provinces that are more favorable to human rights by giving them economic benefits and by 

withholding them from the really strict regimes in other provinces. 

Mr. YANG. Yes. The local government officials, you know, we 

have two criterion, two criterion for the promotion of local officials: 

One is GDP; the other is stability. So GDP is a very important 

thing for all the local officials. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So which provinces would be most problematic 

when it comes to human rights? 

Mr. YANG. You know, Beijing, of course, is very problematic, and 

Sichuan is another one. In Sichuan we have Liu Xianbin, Chen 

Wei, Chen Xi, all sentenced recently to 10 years. They are all participants of the Tiananmen Square movement. And after they released, they resumed their activism and being arrested again and 

sentenced to long prison terms. 

So we can do the study very easy to come up with a record for 

each province. And if it is possible for the Congress to introduce 

such bill, I think it will help China to improve human rights very 

effectively. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And, Mr. Chairman, if you would, can I have one 

more question, please? 

So if you could comment, each one of you, and discuss perhaps 

the relationship between human rights and a democratic government versus the government that is there now. Are they mutually 

exclusive, or do we have to—do we have to have that? And I will 

start down on your end, Dr. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. You have hit upon a personal pet peeve of 

mine. I mean, look, it is black letter international law that governments are meant to be formed by free and fully enfranchised periodic elections. And last time I checked, the leadership transition 

that just took place was the function of denying 850 million people 

the right to vote, not premised on soliciting their views. The fact 

that the U.S. and many others failed to note that, as they regularly 

do around the world, is, to me, yet another example of Chinese 

exceptionalism. 

Do we know, if the Chinese people were allowed to vote freely tomorrow, who or what they would choose? I think that is—I think 

that is very hard to say. But is this—is the current permutation 

or could it be legitimately called a representative government? No. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Dr. Aikman. 

Mr. AIKMAN. Yeah. I think there are many components to a free 

society. Free elections are obviously very important, but the rule of 

law is even more important. If you have a society which has innumerable elections and doesn’t have the rule of law, the protection 

of property rights, the protection of the right of free speech, free—

the right of religious expression, you can have all the elections in 

the world, and you won’t have freedom. China needs to be held to 

account on standards of the rule of law as much as standards of 

political democracy. 

57

Ms. CHAI. Yes. I would like to make a comment. You know, God 

said man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that 

comes from the mouth of God. 

I do feel in the past 24 years, the U.S.-China relationship was 

mostly based on economic relationships, on bread, and not on the 

value and the word of God. And I do believe the leaders of China 

are eager to search for what would be the system that could really 

secure and create a just nation. 

The Tiananmen movement started on the eve of the death of reform leader Hu Yaobang, and he advocated for three reforms: Economic reform, political reform and spiritual reform. But unfortunately Deng Xiaoping only wanted one reform; that is, economic reform. We know today, looking back, it did not work. The most 

beautiful thing is not only we know it did not work, they know it 

did not work. 

It was when I learned one of the Chinese Government’s supported economists, Zhao Xiao, came to know Christ Jesus, it was 

very powerful. He said in a recent meeting with me, in 1992 after 

1989, they had the Tiananmen massacre, there was extreme leftist 

control against the whole country. That was just—everybody went 

into depression. And so Deng Xiaoping started, you know, to visit 

the south and started the reform. 

So there were a lot of people getting more wealthy, and the country became prosperous. However, by the time they reached 1997, 

they realize that they still have a problem, and the gap between 

rich and poor became enlarged, and the corruption became even 

more vicious than ever. And so he was sent out by the Chinese 

Government’s think tank to America to search for what would be 

the right way to build up this country. And he had a great conclusion. He said—he said as an atheist at that time, Zhao found God 

in America. 

He wrote his essay, ‘‘Free Economy With or Without Church.’’ 

With his permission, I paraphrase his findings. He said, what are 

the biggest differences between America and China? Was it because they differ in buildings, skyscrapers? No. Was it because they 

differed in wealth? No. Was it because they differed in scientific innovation? No. Was it because they differed in the market economy? 

No. Was it because they differed in political system? Well, not really. And so at the end, it was because they differed in the quantity 

and presence of the churches, which appear everywhere in every 

corner of America’s cities, towns and suburbs. It was a fear of God. 

And that was absent in China. 

And the fear of God kept America’s crime rate lower and relative 

governmental corruption down. It was the church and belief in God 

that kept America hopeful, peaceful and prosperous compared to 

China’s economy, where people often got rich not because of their 

hard work and innovation, but through open robbery, with power 

and through connections. 

China has no good faith rule of law in business activities, because there is no fear of God. Particularly when they have power, 

they feel they can do whatever it takes. So certain people would lie 

and deceive each other to make quick buck. And there is no fear 

of facing God’s ultimate judgment. 

58

That is the value, how America was founded. That is the value 

Americans unfortunately do not talk so much about everywhere, 

not in the media, not in the educational system, not in the economy, not in business, not in the government, not in foreign policy. 

To my deepest regret, it took me 20 years, 19 years after coming 

to America to finally come to find Jesus Christ through my own 

home country’s Christian hero, who endured persecution, who suffered in prison three times where God exhibited miracles through 

his suffering. 

One time he was in prison, he refused food and water for 74 

days. We knew it was a physical miracle that he survived, he did 

not die. God enabled him to live to tell the story. The third time 

he was in prison, his legs were broken, but he heard God tell him 

to go. At 8 a.m. in the morning, he was able to walk through three 

metal gates and got to freedom, and he arrived to a place where 

the address had been given to him in his dream, and there the 

brothers and sisters received him and said, Brother Yun, the Lord 

told us you will be coming here today. We have prepared for you 

a hiding place. Within 1⁄2 hour he was able to go to the safe place. 

Then, only then, he realized his legs were fully healed. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. Thank you. 

Ms. CHAI. And it was this kind of experience——

Mr. MEADOWS. I am out of time, so I am going to——

Ms. CHAI. Sorry. 

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. Yield back to the chairman, but 

thank you so much. 

Ms. CHAI. You are very welcome. Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Stockman. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Yeah. I have a question, and I don’t know if it 

has been asked. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I had to run down to 

a function. 

I want to know from our standpoint what we can do to facilitate 

more freedom of expression in China. So often, I think, to be honest, we are naive about what to do, and I think we do the wrong 

thing, and we typically stick our foot in our mouth or whatever. 

And I want to know from your standpoint if you could all just give 

a quick summary of what we should be doing, because I think that 

would help the chairman, myself, and others. 

I apologize for our ignorance, but we just look from the outside. 

And as you were a Time correspondent, I read your magazine at 

that time, and that—your magazine, by the way, has changed dramatically, but that is where we get our information. So we don’t 

know what to do. And I apologize for that standpoint, but we need 

your feedback on that. 

Mr. AIKMAN. Well, forgive me for being the first to respond. It 

is a good question. 

I always think that the best thing for people to do when a country exercises oppression and denial of free speech over its own people is every time a representative of that country comes outside of 

his country or her country, and you have a chance to speak to that 

person, complain, complain, tell them this is wrong, this is not 

right, this is against civilization, it is against decency, it is against 

truth. You claim to want to have a great civilization. How can you 

59

have a great civilization if you constantly suppress truth? Grow up. 

And I think you have to be very aggressive about this. 

Mr. WEI. I think it is very important to bring freedom, especially 

Internet freedom, such as this resolution Representative Smith was 

talking about, Global Online Freedom Act. That is really important, and that is a very solid way to push for the progress of freedom in China, because nowadays the Chinese Government use 

Internet to make their suppression, but meanwhile the Chinese 

people also use Internet, and they put the pressure back to the 

Chinese Government. That is the most powerful way. 

However, due to lack of freedom on Internet, so therefore, when 

the government is competing with the Chinese people, the Chinese 

people are put in disadvantage than the government. There are lots 

of people whose blogs or speech on the Internet are very welcomed 

by the people; however, those speeches were immediately deleted 

by the Chinese Internet police, and so therefore, this effect is very 

limited. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. But isn’t some of the technology you speak of 

sold by the United States to China’s suppression of the Chinese 

people by Yahoo, Google and other companies? 

Mr. WEI. We know there are lots of American companies, Internet company, doing business in China; however, they do accept this 

restriction from the Chinese Government, and therefore, they have 

a sort of censorship, which bring inconvenience for the Chinese citizens. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, by the way, you can put me on 

your bill. I appreciate that. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Dr. Richardson, do you have any comments on 

how we could improve our communication? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I think the only suggestion I would add to that, 

partly because I think there has been tremendous interest shown 

particularly by Chinese Internet users in everything from photographs of Gary Locke buying his own coffee to, you know, the posting of tax returns of senior U.S. officials online, the more people 

like you make yourselves available for Web chats, make sure that 

important discussions get translated into Chinese—we are obviously big fans of the language services that make it possible for 

people inside China to listen to VOA and RFA—I think demonstrating how we—how people in the U.S. Use those mechanisms 

both to hold our own officials to account, but also to communicate 

with people who are interested in talking to people like you to normalize that idea is really useful and helpful. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Actually, I watch CCTV, and I am probably one 

of the few people who watch it. 

Go ahead. You two. 

Mr. YANG. There are a lot of things actually you can do. I support Mr. Wei’s idea. Internet is very important for people to communicate to remain connected in China. And the U.S. Government 

has some funding to support development of a software with which 

the Chinese back inside China can get around a firewall, but I 

heard that very small percentage of the money actually put into 

good use. So I don’t have the number. 

60

Mr. STOCKMAN. It is shocking our Government would waste 

money. 

Mr. YANG. Yeah. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Never heard of that before. 

Mr. YANG. I think Congress should continue to push for that and 

to get more funding for the development of a software. 

Number two, I think there is some idea we should promote; that 

is, reciprocity. All the Chinese officials, scholars, whether, you 

know, they have opinions or views in line with the government or 

not, they can express it freely here, they can publish their papers 

here, you know, they can run Web sites and everything here without censorship. But when the U.S. officials travel in China, usually 

their speeches are censored. I think, Mr. Chairman, you have personal experience there, right? 

So I think, of course, complete reciprocity is impossible, but we 

have to promote this kind of idea. We have to insist that when the 

delegation of officials, scholars from this country travel in China, 

their speeches, their communications should not be censored. So 

that is the reciprocity idea we should promote. 

Ms. CHAI. Yes. I am really grateful you are willing to stand up 

for those voiceless people, for the people who cannot act on their 

own behalf. So thank you. 

And it reminded me of a story, what can we do to make things 

effective for the leaders in China to receive the message we want 

them to receive? And here in Colossians 3:17, it says, ‘‘Whatever 

you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord 

Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.’’

I remember Bob Fu, who is not present here, and who is a believer, defending the prosecuted churches in China; he told me a 

story of a congressional leader, I forgot his name, that when he 

called on behalf of a few church believers who were being persecuted in China, the Chinese Embassy said, it is our internal affairs. It is not your problem. And this congressional leader said, it 

is my problem. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. 

And there was such a strong silence from the Chinese leaders’ side. 

I believe that word can be such a strong message, have such a 

heart, such value. 

I also heard a story when recently a senior Chinese leader was 

visited by people who believed in Christ Jesus, and when lunch 

was served, when they prayed, the Chinese leader in turn was in 

tears. He said, ‘‘I have never heard people pray for me and my family in such a way, and especially I never saw anybody pray even 

for the people who make the food.’’ So when we truly live into our 

beliefs, people really notice. 

Dr. Aikman has been advocating for the South African model for 

China, you know, forgiveness and truth and reconciliation. I also 

studied about that part, the history, what caused that. I know I 

studied Desmond Tutu’s book about reconciliation. I read it from 

cover to cover. And also President Nelson Mandela. And when Nelson Mandela came out from prison after 40 years, his first words 

were, I forgive them. 

And we have to have the spirit of Jesus Christ, because he forgave us; therefore, we are all equal sinners. We can forgive each 

other. It is only then on that basis we can have true reconciliation. 

61

And last June 4th, I made a statement and sent out to the Chinese newspapers and the Chinese community, saying, ‘‘I forgive 

them. I forgive the leaders who ordered the massacre.’’ And today 

I am going to say that again: I forgive them. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. I thank you. And also——

Ms. CHAI. And I know——

Mr. STOCKMAN. Go ahead. 

Ms. CHAI. I know also that God dearly loves his children, and 

God is here waiting for them to know. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. I know the home churches are growing very 

quickly. 

Ms. CHAI. Supposedly 125 million people. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Yeah. A lot of them I know in Guanju are—the 

leaders that are very wealthy are Christians. And the only word—

I am not great in Chinese, but the only—one of the few words I 

know is ‘‘xie xie.’’ So thank you so much for coming. 

Ms. CHAI. Thank you. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. And I just thank again the chairman for his wonderful leadership on this. And we continue to struggle for freedom, 

and I appreciate all your efforts. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Stockman. 

Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Stockman, that is not the only word you know 

in Chinese, is it? 

I will direct this question to, I guess, everybody on the panel. 

Will the emergence of the free market, the free market, foster less 

government oppression and more human rights? 

Why don’t we start down here, Dr. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, we are a couple of decades into the reform era, and as several people have noted, we have seen——

Mr. WEBER. Chinese leaders get wealthy? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, we have seen extraordinary economic 

growth, but in some, I think, indirect ways has given some people 

in China more control over their daily lives, although I think that 

mostly means in a practical sense that people can live outside of 

certain kinds of state constraints. 

Mr. WEBER. I mean, obviously there are different levels of it, because you are talking about—or Dr. Yang was, about provinces——

Ms. RICHARDSON. Right. 

Mr. WEBER [continuing]. That actually some have less human 

rights violations, and you want to hit them with a different—American companies with a different tax code. Is that what I understand? 

Mr. YANG. Sure. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. But I would just add that I think alongside 

that economic development, that alone has brought with it some 

fairly uncorrected, serious human rights abuses, in addition to 

being a model that is essentially imposed on certain parts of the 

country who have no ability to benefit from it and who have no 

ability to opt out of it, such as in Tibet or in Xinjiang. So I think 

a rising GDP isn’t necessarily indicative of a greater compliance 

with the rule of law. And as several people have mentioned, 

there——

62

Mr. WEBER. Well, Dr. Aikman pointed out earlier that the greatness of society depends on truth, honesty, and modesty. I kept 

waiting for him to say truth, justice, and the American way. 

But the truth of the matter is in China, those officials define 

their own truth. Now, you said they believed in scientific truth, but 

what Ms. Chai there is describing is the ultimate truth, the moral 

truth of the universe. If China doesn’t believe in moral truth, and 

they get to define their own truth, then I would submit to you that 

of the two, the moral truth, that of the Lord Jesus, as she is pointing out, is indeed tantamount in having a sweeping—and I don’t 

want to start preaching up here—but having a sweeping revival in 

China, and then we usher in human rights, we usher in sanctity 

of life. 

And let me just ask you all a question. Of these five institutions—let us take the Christian Church; let us take the free market that I just talked about, the free market in China; let us talk 

about world opinion; let us talk about U.S. policy, that would be 

us; and let us talk about the Chinese people—of those five, what 

is your opinion, which is the most able to influence the Chinese 

Government? I will go back through them: The Christian Church, 

the free market that we talked about, world opinion, U.S. policy, 

or Chinese people. Most influential. 

Mr. AIKMAN. Mr. Congressman, if I may respond, I think history 

has shown, amongst other things, that capitalism is completely 

compatible with authoritarian government. The Nazis managed to 

have a very authoritarian government and a very successful capitalist system. So capitalism was thought for a long time to be the 

catalyst for real freedom, but it didn’t prove to be so in China. 

I think you have to change the thinking, the spiritual values of 

the civilization that contains them. And China will never, ever become a great power and a respected power unless it changes its 

moral values and accepts freedom, and reconciliation, and the values of truth and justice. I think nothing will happen unless those 

things take place. 

Mr. WEBER. Dr. Yang? 

Mr. YANG. Yes, a free market, generally speaking, helps reduce 

government’s repression, but the problem with China is there is no 

free market there. There is no free market there. There is tremendous government intervention in the market, in the economy. If 

you have a friend here who are doing business in China, ask him 

to tell you the truth of what they are doing there. The first thing—

the first order of business they have to do is to try to find a relationship in the government. 

So there is no free market. There is a big gap between the 

wealthy and the poor. That is not outcome of market; that is outcome of politics. 

Mr. WEBER. But to create that kind of free market where actually that gap gets closed, and, in reality, as John Kennedy said——

Mr. YANG. Of course, I think the five things that you just pointed 

out all help to influence China. All—and the Chinese Government, 

but ultimately the most important factor is Chinese people themselves. 

Mr. WEBER. So how do we get them more involved in taking this 

fight to the government leaders? 

63

Mr. YANG. So, you know, what we are doing today is, you know, 

one of the most important things we do. We should voice—you 

know, help to voice—give a voice to those who—who cannot have 

a voice in China and try to apply pressure to the China Government so that they will give some space that the people’s voice can 

grow in China. 

Ultimately the most important thing is the Chinese people themselves. They have to grow democracy forces, and democracy forces 

must become transformed into a viable opposition. And for all this, 

without international support, our work will become much, much 

more difficult. 

Mr. WEBER. Is that happening? 

Mr. YANG. Yeah, it is happening. 

Mr. WEBER. So—and then now you come in behind it and say 

world opinion is very important. 

Mr. YANG. Of course, world opinion——

Mr. WEBER. We have to stand up and say we support. 

Mr. YANG. Of course. China is open. China cannot close its door. 

So China is open. We get all information from the outside world, 

so the Communist leaders, they understand how democracy works. 

A lot of people have a misunderstanding, thinking that they don’t 

know, you know, how democracy works, why democracy is good for 

the people of China, because—you know, sometimes it is because 

they are—simply because they do know, they know very well how 

democracy works, they resist the democratization. 

Mr. WEBER. Sure. 

Mr. YANG. So I think world opinion is very important, too. All 

the five factors you point out are important, but, you know, ultimately we need people to grow, and we need a group of leaders 

who can transform the group——

Mr. WEBER. Who can evangelize those people. 

Mr. YANG. Yeah. 

Mr. AIKMAN. Literally. 

Mr. YANG. Literally. 

Mr. WEBER. And we will move over to Ms. Chai. 

Ms. CHAI. Thank you so much for your faith and your word of 

encouragement. I just rejoice in the fellowship you are sharing with 

us. I want to hear more and more U.S. leaders like yourself lift the 

name of Jesus up. 

You listed the five things that can influence the leaders of China, 

but I couldn’t write them fast enough to list all of them. My general impression is, all of them are idols, and there is only one 

truth: That is Jesus Christ. And how do we convey that? Again, 

God gives a word of strategy. He said in Revelation: They triumph 

over him, which the evil——

Mr. WEBER. By the word of their mouth and their testimony. 

Ms. CHAI. Amen. 

Mr. WEBER. Amen. 

Ms. CHAI. Amen, Jesus. 

And we have got to share our personal testimonies of how God’s 

grace saved us, because the leaders of China, they are just like us. 

They are created in God’s image, and they have a heart searching 

for truth. 

64

And I—my heart broke, because I—in 1989, in May, before the 

massacre happened, I went to search for Deng Xiaoping. I wanted 

to tell him that we are not against him. We have no animosity toward him. We wanted reform, we wanted peace. 

Mr. WEBER. Is the church growing in China? 

Ms. CHAI. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. You said 125 million? 

Ms. CHAI. Absolutely. 

And I stayed until—we stayed until 6 a.m. at Tiananmen Square. 

I stayed at Tiananmen Square because I heard a rumor that America would come if the massacre took place, or something. America 

did not come. After 10 years, escaping to America, I was devastated 

to realize America did not come. But I am rejoicing: God had come 

to China. 

Mr. WEBER. His kingdom is not of this world. 

Ms. CHAI. Amen. And his kingdom cannot be shaken. 

Mr. WEBER. Let’s move over to Mr. Wei. 

Ms. CHAI. Yes. Thank you. 

Mr. WEI. So-called with the free market, then you can get more 

human rights and democracy. That is just an excuse made up by 

big American companies who want to do business in China, yet 

they do not want to pay a price for human rights. 

Mr. WEBER. Does he usually have this problem of speaking his 

mind? Go ahead. 

Mr. WEI. When there is no rule of laws, and to do business, one 

is totally reliant on some people in power, and then this country 

would never have a real, true free market. 

More than 10 years ago when we have this debate of permanent 

normal trade relations we have talked about, even we start the 

trade, and what we would have is just a true big capitalist class 

in China, but not a free market. You could only get a true free 

market and also a sizable middle class when there is rule of law, 

and there is free speech, as well as there is fair treatment. 

So let me emphasize what I just mentioned earlier. To have true 

freedom in China, you must have a free speech by the Chinese people, and that we already have a sizable netizen presence on the 

Internet, and they could put a lot of pressure over the Chinese 

Government. 

Mr. WEBER. Let me say this. I am going to be through. Mr. 

Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence. Back to Dr. Aikman, who 

said that the Chinese Government fears being thrown out of power, 

as I recall, because they don’t display enough nationalism——

Mr. AIKMAN. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER [continuing]. Or something to that effect. And so how 

do we get it—and I understand the importance of the Internet, and 

Ms. Chai, the free market is used by God to further people’s countries. 

Ms. CHAI. I agree. 

Mr. WEBER. He lifts some up and he puts others down, by the 

way. 

Ms. CHAI. I agree. Worshiping free economy alone, by God this 

is an idol. 

Mr. WEBER. You and I are on the same page, sister. 

Ms. CHAI. Thank you. 

65

Mr. WEBER. What I wanted to say is what we need to be able 

to support—the Chinese people are going to have to—they are 

going to have to rise up and they are going to have to make this 

their aim and their goal and make it known to the government 

that, the Chinese Government, that they won’t stand still for it. We 

are going to have to do our part, whether it is with trade sanctions 

or whether it is with encouraging evangelism, whether sending 

missionaries over there—sometimes I think they need to send missionaries over here—and we also need to be sure that we can encourage the Internet so that the word gets out more and more and 

more. But I think we need of a marriage, if you will, a partnership 

of policy, world opinion, Internet, and the Chinese people taking 

the lead in making their government to understand that this will 

no longer be tolerated. Is that fair? 

Mr. AIKMAN. If I could comment, I think one thing the Chinese 

people don’t want to see is a violent upheaval in their own society. 

Mr. WEBER. When you say ‘‘Chinese people,’’ Doctor, government 

or all Chinese? 

Mr. AIKMAN. All Chinese, I think. I visited China in 1993, and 

I talked to many Chinese intellectuals, some of whom had studied 

in the United States and Europe. And I said to them, don’t you 

want to have political democracy in your country? And they said 

yes. 

Mr. WEBER. But not at the price of bloodshed. 

Mr. AIKMAN. But not quickly, not quickly. Because the explosion 

of anarchy that would emerge from people who have no experience 

at self-control in a political environment, no idea that you have to 

restrain yourself and allow other people to have their opinions. 

Without those constraints among the people, I don’t think you are 

ever going to have a safe democracy in China. 

Mr. WEBER. Was it Franklin who said, ‘‘He who trades security 

for liberty will soon have neither’’? 

Mr. AIKMAN. That’s correct, quite correct. I do not agree with 

that opinion. 

Lots of people did not realize that the Chinese people had to be 

divided into three major classes. Those super rich people are less 

than 1 percent. Of course, they do not want see any change in 

China because they really enjoy their lives. The 10 percent of socalled middle class, their life is reasonable. And they are not happy 

with the Communist rule. However, indeed, for their own sake, 

they do not want see China into chaos. 

However, the very majority of Chinese who are very poor who 

cannot afford to send their children to school or have the medical 

care and whatever, they want to see China in chaos because that 

is opportunity to topple the Chinese Government and to have a 

new government to try. Those three classes are totally different. 

They do not have a common language. 

Unfortunately, when the foreign journalists or foreign people 

went to China, the Chinese Government carefully arranged you to 

meet with the first class and second class, instead of third class. 

And the very importantly, this third class, all they could speak out 

of their mind is on the Internet. 

And the very reason for the Chinese Government even within the 

government, people saying we have to reform is because they knew 

66

if they do not reform, the people will revolt and they will topple 

down the government. So, therefore, I know this friend, he is indeed a good person, try to know China better. But when you are 

in China, at least to listen to the taxi driver, to know what they 

are talking about. 

Mr. WEBER. Public opinion. Listen, I have gone way too long. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. Let me thank our very distinguished panelists for their lifelong leadership on behalf of Chinese 

human rights, rule of law and basic freedoms. You know, I would 

say to Dr. Aikman, I know you were talking about a very swift 

transfer of power. But obviously all Chinese people demand an immediate freedom from torture, cruel and degrading treatment. They 

demand an immediate freedom from religious persecution, which 

would include the Christians, the Muslim Uyghurs and the Falun 

Gong, who are tortured and treated with impunity in China today. 

They seek immediate freedom from coerced population control and 

forced abortion; immediate freedom from censorship and surveillance of people. I think the number that you put, Dr. Yang, was 

39 million informants nationwide in your testimony. There must be 

freedom from the exploitation of labor, where only a few benefit 

from the labor of the many. There are so many other freedoms that 

need to be immediate and durable and sustainable. 

So I want to thank each and every one of you for your testimony. 

Our hope, I think collectively, is that President Obama will be very 

robust and very clear in his representations on behalf of human 

rights; particularly on the behalf of some of those who have been 

long suffering in the Laogai and in jails of China, to be free. 

He has a huge opportunity. As I think Chai Ling said, President 

Xi is brand new. He will be listening. What he hears ought to be 

what really animates the United States of America and so many 

other free countries, and that is that human rights are indivisible 

and they are every person’s—every man, woman, and child’s birthright. It belongs to them. 

So thank you for your testimonies. And this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(67)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

68

f


81341n.eps

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COM1VIITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6128 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Hnman Rights, and International Organizations 

Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ), Chairman 

May 30.2013 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs, to be held by the Subcommittee on Africa. Global Health, Global Human Rights, and 

International Organizations in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building (and available live 

on the Committee website at y.r'''i\vJgreigIl[itl':lirs.h.o.u,segov) 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Monday, June 3,2013 

3:00 p.m. 

Tragic Anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Protests and Massacre 

Me Wei Jingsheng 

President 

Wei lingsheng Foundation 

Ms. Chai Ling 

Founder 

All Girls Allowed 

Yang lianli, PhD. 

President 

Initiatives for China 

David Aikman, Ph.D. 

(Former Time magazine Bureau ('hie/in Beijing) 

Sophie Richardson, Ph.D. 

China Director 

Human Rights Watch 

By Direction of the Chairman 
69

f


81341m.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MINUTES OF SUBCOtvln.1ITTEE ON Africar Glohalllea(t!IJ Glahnl Hmrlfrtl Rights, aurf Illlematirmal Organh,o(iollS HEARlNG 

Day_----'M,"""o"'II"'ll"'({.LV __ lJate' ___ J"-I"-fl"-W"-" .o:.3L, 2=Ol,..,3,-__ ll.oom 2172 Ravburn HOB 

Starting Time 1>00 n In Ending Time 5 .. 07 p.m. 

Re« ... " ~I ( __ In __ )( __ ln --.J ( __ 10 __ lC __ to __ )( __ to __ 1 ( __ to __ 1 

P,'esidillg Member(s) 

Rep. Clll"i;;o, Smith 

Check"" ojlilejollmvlng flIal apply: 

Open Session GJ 

Rxccntj"e (closed) Session 0 Televised [2] 

'rULE UF HEARING: 

Electrunically Rcconl!:!!jt.pcd) [2] 

Stenographic Record l.:LJ 

Tmgic Anniversary oflhe 1989 Ti(l1WlIIn211 Sqll(l1'e Pmtesls ({lid 1l'[assacl'e 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

Rep. Meadows, Rep. Bass, Rep. Stockmall, Rep. Weber 

NON·SUBCOMMITTEE l\IEMBERS PRESENT: (Mark with all * iflheyare 1I0t membe/'s qffllll committee,) 

Rep. Wolf'" 

H..E;ARING WITNESSES: Same £IS meeting notice attnchcd? Yes [Z] No D 

(if "no", please 1i:}1 below ami include fiffe, ugene)" department, or organization) 

STATEI\'IENTS FOR THE RECORD: ([isl (my s!afeme1/fs stlhmil!edfiJr (lIe "ecord,) 

Statement {}f Rep. St{}cfWUIIl 

Questions for tlte Record /1"0111 Rep. Stockman 

TIME SCHEDULED TO RECONVENE ___ _ 

TIME ADJOURNED._ 5:071'./11. 
70


81341f-1.eps

Never Again: Remembering the Tiananmen Square Massacre 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, June 3, 2013 

By Congressman Steve Stockman (TX-36) 

The world held its breath on June 4, 1989, as Chinese citizens demanded their freedom. 

Tiananmen Square was packed with people just like you and me And all across China, millions 

were challenging Communist tyrannical rule 

Never before had the Chinese people dared express their desire to be truly free; never before had 

the Chinese people stood together in Tiananmen Square and in locations all around the country 

with the simple, peaceful message of freedom. 

For a moment, the dictatorship seemed unsure how to act Allow real treedom? Brutally crush 

the demonstrations? 

In the end, the dictators chose slaughter and imprisonment for the brave advocates of freedom. 

Then the propaganda began, sealing off the truth and injecting lies. Today, many Chinese youth 

have little idea their parents almost succeeded in bringing them freedom. 

Our government shamefully never forced the butchers of Tiananmen to pay a price for their 

crimes against humanity. Indeed we reward their brutality. One example--the US invited China 

to participate in naval training exercises with the US Navy-teaching them tactics they might use 

against us in their scheme to seize the South China Sea. 

Today, China only appears free Their economic prosperity is a mask which disguises the 

tyranny which remains never more than a gunshot away from anyone who dares repeat that 

simple, peaceful message offreedom; so eloquently spoken in Tiananmen Square in 1989. 

The Chinese Communist Party still maintains its iron grip on power. Ideas are censored with an 

iron fist, and the regime cracks down brutally at even the slightest hint of dissent. Their internet 

is censored by armies of workers to keep any mention of treedom and democracy away from the 

Chinese people. 

It is easy to tum a blind eye. To ignore human rights violations as if they only matter at home; to 

pretend their expansionistic dictatorship is no threat; that their hacking has no effect on our 

prosperity or defense; that their unsafe food need be of little concern; that supporting freedom is 

a concern only within our own borders; and that China's aid to Tran's and North Korea's atomic 

weapons programs could never result in those bombs being used on the cities of our allies or our 

own. 

History proves otherwise Appease tyranny; pretend it isn't there; call it by politically-correct 

names, and pay the price. Weakness always encourages tyranny and aggression. 
71

f


81341f-2.eps

On the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square freedom rallies and massacre, let us pause and 

remember those who gave their lives and liberty to try to bring freedom and democracy to all 

Chinese citizens. 

To the Chinese government; I call on you to allow the truth about the struggle for freedom in 

Tiananmen Square to be freely discussed; to admit how many were killed and imprisoned; and 

how many remain in prison or suffer discrimination today. I call on you to release all political 

and religious prisoners; allow open and free elections; and grant full freedom of speech, press 

and religion. You seek recognition as an equal with the tree world; you must first become a tree 

nation to earn such recognition. 

To the Chinese people, I encourage you to demand your fundamental human rights. Beyond 

economic rights, you have the rights to freedom of speech; religious freedom; to elect the leaders 

of your choice and form political parties; to not have the internet censored; and to enjoy all other 

human rights as do citizens offree nations. 

To President Obama, I encourage you to increase the pressure, both diplomatically and publicly, 

on China to join the community of tree nations by forever ending restrictions on fundamental 

human rights; including freedom of speech, press and religion; and to allow open and free 

elections 

After the Holocaust, the world pledged "never again." Let's stand for freedom, and again take 

that pledge to support and assist everyone in China and around the world to achieve full human 

rights. Then there will never again be a massacre like in Tiananmen Square. 
72


81341g-1.eps

Page 10f2 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD OF THE HONORABLE STEVE STOCKMAN WITH 

RESPONSES FROM MR. WET JTNGSHENG 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS; 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS; 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENT A TTVES 

"TRAGIC ANNIVERSARY OF THE 1989 TlANANMEN PROTESTS AND MASSACRE" 

June 3,2013 

1. What actions would be most useful for Congress to take to help advance human rights in 

China? 

Wei Jingsheng's Answer: The campaigns on the Internet launched by the Chinese netizens 

have already caused a great shock to the Communist regime. It is similar to the trend of the 

Jasmine Revolution in Egypt and Tunisia. But, with the help of US business, the Chinese 

government has much better Internet control ability that any other country. If in the arena of 

Internet freedom we could limit the censorship of the Communist government, as well as 

limit US business support to the Chinese Communist Party, then it will be a great help to all 

the freedoms of the Chinese people. 

2. What actions would be most useful for the President to take to help advance human rights 

in China? 

Wei Jingsheng's Answer: Same as the above. The President of the United States also can 

appeal for individual cases. The pressure will be a very direct help to the victims. 

3. What actions would be most useful for individual citizens in the US to take to help 

advance human rights in China? 

Wei Jingsheng's Answer: The American people should call on the US Congress and the US 

President to do something and to contribute to China's opposition groups. Donations to the 

Chinese opposition that amount to even less than ten percent of donations to animal welfare 

would greatly improve the human rights situation in China. Only the Chinese opposition 

groups are really applying pressure against the Communist regime. Many other so-called 

human rights organizations have not been concerned with China issues for several years now, 

due to their concern for donations. Many American business enterprises have investments or 

joint ventures in China. To avoid otlense to the Communist regime, they will not make 

donations to the enemy of the Chinese Communists. 

4. What would be the result if China's internet censorship system, the "Great Firewall" were 

defeated or broadly bypassed? 
73

Æ


81341g-2.eps

Page 2 of2 

Wei Jingsheng's Answer: The Chinese Communist Party is relying on the media to deceive 

the Chinese people. When it is unable to deceive the majority of people, it will collapse in 

six months to a year. The US Congress should urge the State Department to spend money on 

breaking through the Internet firewalls set up by the Chinese authoritarian regime. This will 

be more eiIective that the annual increase of hundreds of billions of dollars in military 

spending. It would be the modern equivalent of Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, and 

even better. 

5. What is the greatest Achilles' heel of the Chinese Communist Party? 

Wei Jingsheng's Answer: The revolt and awakening of the lowest level of people in China, 

will be the basis for the downfall of the Communist Party. The internal struggle within the 

Chinese bureaucratic class will be the trigger for large-scale rebellion. 

6. Were many Tiananmen Square prisoners killed for organ transplants? 

Wei Jingsheng's Answer: T do not have reliable information on this, thus T am unable to 

comment on this specific question. However, for decades now, the Chinese prisons have 

been harvesting organs from executed prisoners. Political prisoners would not be spared the 

same fate. 

7. Would you considerthe repression of the Tibetan people and the destruction of the 

Tibetan culture to be genocide? 

Wei Jingsheng's Answer: Of course that is a genocide. Although the Communist Party's 

repression against the Han Chinese and destruction of the Chinese culture is also a genocide; 

but for Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians and other ethnic minorities, the Communist Party's 

genocide action is more obvious and serious. 

8. What would likely be your punishment if you made the same statement you made to this 

committee in China? 

Wei Jingsheng's Answer: I was put in prison for 18 years due to similar remarks. Thus I 

expect that probably at least 18 more years of jail time will be waiting for me for the 

statement I made to this committee, ifit is not more serious.