[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
INVESTIGATING THE CHINESE THREAT, PART II:
HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, TORTURE
AND DISAPPEARANCES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 25, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-174
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-292 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
RON PAUL, Texas RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
MIKE PENCE, Indiana ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
CONNIE MACK, Florida THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska DENNIS CARDOZA, California
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
TED POE, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
DAVID RIVERA, Florida KAREN BASS, California
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
ROBERT TURNER, New York
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Jared Genser, founder, Freedom Now........................... 7
Ms. Rebiya Kadeer, Uyghur democracy leader....................... 18
Mr. Hai Li, Falun Gong practitioner.............................. 25
Mr. Bhuchung K. Tsering, vice president, International Campaign
for Tibet...................................................... 35
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Jared Genser: Prepared statement............................. 10
Ms. Rebiya Kadeer: Prepared statement............................ 20
Mr. Hai Li: Prepared statement................................... 27
Mr. Bhuchung K. Tsering: Prepared statement...................... 37
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 64
Hearing minutes.................................................. 65
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 67
INVESTIGATING THE CHINESE THREAT, PART II: HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, TORTURE
AND DISAPPEARANCES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2012
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m.,
in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The committee will come to order.
After recognizing myself and my friend, Mr. Berman, the
ranking member, for 7 minutes each for our opening statements,
I will recognize 3 minutes for the vice chair and ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and the
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights. And I
will, then, recognize other members seeking recognition for 1
minute.
We will then hear from our distinguished set of panelists.
Without objection, all of your written statements will be made
a part of the record, and members may have 5 days to insert
statements and questions for the record.
The Chair now recognizes herself for 7 minutes.
This hearing is called just 1 day after the conclusion of
the 17th Session of the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue, held
here in Washington, DC. I have long been an advocate for human
rights in China and sponsored several measures, including two
House resolutions focused on two of the issues that we will
discuss today.
The first was a resolution I put forward in 2007 that
expressed, ``The sense of the House of Representatives that the
Government of the People's Republic of China should immediately
release from custody the children of Rebiya Kadeer.'' It is so
wonderful to have you here. The second was a resolution I
introduced in 2009, ``Recognizing the continued persecution of
Falun Gong practitioners in China.'' Both of these measures
garnered the overwhelming support of the House and served to
underscore the deteriorating human rights situation in China.
One must wonder when reading the latest State Department
human rights report on China, what value is there in the so-
called Human Rights Dialogue that recently concluded? The
report, released on May 24th, noted that over the past year,
``deterioration in key aspects of the country's human rights
situation continued. Repression and coercion, particularly
against organizations and individuals involved in rights
advocacy and public interest issues, were routine.''
Congress was told over a decade ago, as some of my
colleagues will recall, that the granting of permanent, normal
trade relations, PNTR, to China would lead to economic
liberalization and, inevitably, to greater political freedom.
However, Congress was sold a bill of goods back then by the
White House and multinational corporations. PNTR with China has
not brought a decline in the human rights abuses in China,
including torture and regime-arranged disappearances of
dissidents.
If anything, credible reports from dissidents, internet
users, underground churches, the Uyghurs, the people of Tibet,
and the North Korean refugees all indicate that things have
gotten worse when compared to a decade ago. So, PNTR has proven
to be no elixir to fix China's endemic human rights abuses.
In 1999, just a year before PNTR was passed, the Chinese
regime began its relentless campaign of torture and suppression
against the spiritual movement known as Falun Gong. The
infamous Six-Ten Office, a secret unit as brutal as the KGB,
was established at that time to hunt down, persecute, torture,
and even kill Falun Gong practitioners. We will be hearing from
one of our witnesses, Mr. Li, today on that fearsome and
ongoing persecution. It is estimated that one-quarter to one-
half of all detainees in China's infamous reeducation-through-
labor camps are Falun Gong practitioners.
A Chinese dissident, Liu Xiaobo, the only imprisoned Nobel
Peace Prize winner in the world, once famously said, ``Freedom
of expression is the foundation of human rights, the source of
humanity, and the mother of truth.'' Freedom of expression is,
of course, completely lacking behind the bamboo curtain in
Communist China, but the tentacles of Chinese security reach
far beyond its own borders, at times even surprisingly First
Amendment rights to free speech in our own country.
The noted Chinese human rights advocate and blind attorney,
Mr. Chen Guangcheng, had originally accepted an invitation to
appear before this committee as a witness today. However, he
subsequently declined to appear because of his reported fear of
reprisal against his family back in China, especially against
his nephew who is under arrest.
We have with us another witness who also left behind family
members in China. Uyghur democracy advocate Rebiya Kadeer, who
is here with us today, has had her children severely beaten,
imprisoned, and placed under house arrest by security forces.
One of those beatings took place in 2006, when a staff
delegation from this committee visited the Uyghur homeland, but
had to cut short its visit because of the attacks on the Kadeer
children.
Chinese authorities, through torture and coercion, have
even forced some of Ms. Kadeer's children to demonize her in
statements accusing her of ``ethnic splitism.'' These same
Chinese authorities also recently forced one of Ms. Kadeer's
sons to sign over her business property in China. Yet, this
courageous woman has still come forward today to testify before
our committee today.
Our witnesses will describe for us the particularly harsh,
repressive measures that are being directed against the Uyghur
and the people of Tibet. We will also hear of the use of a
relatively new weapon in Beijing's arsenal for human rights
repression: That is the extra-judicial disappearance of noted
dissidents. In today's China, one does not need to wear an
invisibility cloak in order to suddenly vanish into thin air
without formal charges, without a trial, without due process.
Pro bono lawyer and democracy advocate Jared Genser will
address the newest Draconian measures which Beijing has
implemented to suppress and terrorize its citizens.
A Chinese proverb holds that, ``To violate the law is the
same crime in the emperor as in the subject.'' But in China
today, there is no such accountability. A human rights dialogue
with the Communist regime in Beijing matters for little until
the rule of law is genuinely rooted in Chinese soil. Only then
will the Communist Mandarins in Beijing be held accountable for
more than half a century of its regime's crimes.
Their litany of suppression includes the mass starvation of
the Great Leap Forward, the Red Guard horror of the Cultural
Revolution, the bloody massacre at Tiananmen Square, and
today's continued repression of both political dissidents and
religious believers. Until there is concrete, verifiable,
genuine political reform in China, all we should say in our
human rights dialogue with Beijing is, ``Deliver us from
evil.''
Now I turn to my friend and distinguished ranking member
for his opening remarks.
Mr. Berman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I am not going to use my entire time because I agree with
so much of what you have already said. But thank you for
calling today's hearing and giving the committee an opportunity
to focus its attention on the human rights situation in China.
We are all aware that the Chinese Government's record on
human rights and the rule of law remains deplorable. Chinese
authorities remain hyper vigilant about tamping down anything
that smacks of political or social dissent, including criticism
of the government and exposure of official wrongdoing. In
addition, the Chinese Government continues to promote policies
that threaten the culture, language, and traditions of
Tibetans, Uyghurs, and other ethnic minorities.
China is the world's second-largest economy and has
experienced remarkable economic growth in recent decades. Yet,
it remains one of the worst countries for political rights and
civil liberties, as measured by Freedom House. In fact, China
continues to spend more on internal security than it does on
its rapidly-increasing military, a clear indication that the
government fears and distrusts its own people.
As the government seeks to maintain stability with an iron
fist, there are growing signs of stress in Chinese society.
Reports of rural instability are rising. Protests about
corruption by government officials, environmental degradation,
and economic exploitation are on the increase. Tibet has seen
nearly 50 self-immolations to protest Chinese rule, and there
are reports of unrest in the Uyghur areas.
The Chinese leadership, which is focused primarily on
maintaining power, clearly doesn't understand that it is in
China's self-interest to develop a society based on respect for
human rights and the rule of law. But they ignore the lessons
of history at their peril. At some point, I am confident that
the Chinese people will say, ``Enough,'' and chart a new course
for the Middle Kingdom.
I thank the witnesses for appearing today. I look forward
to your testimony and the chance to hear from you and answering
questions.
Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Berman.
And now, we are honored to hear from the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, Mr.
Smith, who has been a champion on the need for human rights
accountability in China.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to welcome a very distinguished panel of heroes, men
and women who have with their own lives labored so hard on
behalf of the people of China to bring human rights to all
parts of China. With Rebiya Kadeer, to the autonomous region of
Tibet, she has done unbelievable work at great sacrifice to
herself and her family on behalf of the Uyghurs.
To all of you, welcome.
In this morning's USA Today, there is a cover story written
by Calum MacLeod, and the headline is ``Forced Abortions,
Broken Hearts.'' It begins by saying:
``As supervisor of family planning enforcement in
Fujian Province's Daji township, Wang Jinding says he
knows the best way to kill unborn babies of parents who
want to keep them. `The key point is to separate the
pregnant woman from her family members.' That is
exactly what Wang did in a case in April, enforcing the
Communist Party's rules on family size. He had eight
government workers kidnap a pregnant Pan Chunyan, 31,
from her grocery store in Fujian city on the southern
coast.
``Her husband, Wu, was frantically raising the $8,640
fee required for a third child. Wu and a dozen
relatives fought to try to see Pan at the government
building where she was held.
``Rather than granting the family more time, Wang
organized a police-led convoy of seven vehicles to take
Pan to a hospital. There, Pan--who was 8 months
pregnant--was injected with chemicals to kill the
child. She delivered a fully-formed, but dead, son. `My
wife only got a glance at the child, her heart broke,
and she cried loudly, because the whole body was black
and blue and the skin on the face had peeled,' Wu says.
`This is a life that had no time to look at this
beautiful world with eyes open.' ''
Madam Chair, you know and I know, and this committee knows,
but, unfortunately, far too many people do not take it
seriously, the one-child-per-couple policy has had a
devastating impact on the women of China. It has now affected
virtually every woman in China. Brothers and sisters are
illegal in the People's Republic of China and have been since
1979.
Regrettably, groups like the U.N. Population Fund have had
a hand-in-glove relationship for over three decades with the
hardliners in Beijing, enforcing even in the counties where
they do business the one-child-per-couple policies. These are
crimes against women that have no precedent in human history,
and the toll on children has been enormous.
On torture, on trafficking, on religion freedom, on
workers' right, China gets a failing grade. This hearing,
hopefully, will shed additional light on the abuse by the
government of its own people. My hope is that reform, fomented
by the people that are here, their leaders, the people inside
of China who have had enough, will lead to freedom and
democracy and, hopefully, a new dawn for the people of China.
And I thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Well said.
Mr. Connolly of Virginia, we are pleased to introduce you
for your opening statement.
Mr. Connolly. I thank you, Madam Chairman, and I welcome
our panel.
I join with my colleagues in expressing deep concern about
the practice of human rights in the People's Republic of China.
Whether it be Tibet, whether it be family-planning issues,
whether it be the free exercise of religion free of an
appearance from the state, China has a ways to go. If China
wants to be fully accepted into the family of nations, of
developed nations, China is going to have to wrestle with this
issue of respect of human rights. Mature governments are able
to do that.
It is a false choice to say we can either pursue economic
development or pluralist democratic freedoms, but not both.
That is antithetical to not only American values, but we
Americans believe it is antithetical, frankly, to human
aspiration around the planet.
We want to see China develop. We want to see China become a
full-fledged partner in the global arena, but it must address
these human rights issues, and the United States must continue
to be a clarion voice in advocacy for human rights.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized, the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, and thank you for
holding this hearing.
I want to apologize. There is a hearing on water, and I
come from California and water is very important to us there. I
am going to run back and forth between these hearings, but that
is sometimes what we have to do here in Congress. That does not
diminish at all. I mean, water is essential for human life, but
so is freedom.
And today, humankind's greatest hope for a more peaceful
world and a freer world is in the hands of the people, the
suffering people of China. If the suffering people of China
continue to be repressed, the chances of peace are diminished
because dictatorships, like Beijing, become aggressive and
become threats not only to their own people, but to other
people as well.
Already we see in Taiwan where there are people today from
the Falun Gong sitting in front of President Ma's palace
because a Taiwanese resident has been arrested on the mainland
for wanting to mention the Falun Gong. He has been arrested,
and President Ma in Taiwan is saying nothing, is trying not to
ruffle anybody's feathers. Well, that is what is going to
happen around the world if we allow this powerful dictatorship
in Beijing to continue without any type of protest from us to
repress their own people, whether we are talking about the
Falun Gong, the Uyghurs, the people of Tibet, or the women
throughout China who are suffering from the forced murder of
every one of their children except for the first one. These are
horrific crimes against the people of China and they are crimes
against humanity as well.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for making this hearing and this
body representative of those values.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Royce, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Nonproliferation, and Trade, is recognized.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Madam Chair.
There was an article I saw in The Wall Street Journal that
reported that there were 180,000 protests across China, four
times the tally of a decade ago. And clearly, people across
China are speaking out, are seeking to have more freedom of
expression, freedom of religion.
One of my hopes is that some of the broadcasting that we do
with Radio Free Asia, the broadcasting that is now done in all
of the various dialects spoken across China, is an effective
surrogate radio that will allow people access to more
information. I have had an opportunity to listen to some of
those broadcasts with a translator and even to be on a few
shows. It is very interesting to hear people call in from
across China and see the desire for change, the desire for more
freedom.
My hope is that--and we just had legislation which I
authored last year for a permanent extension of Radio Free
Asia--it is my hope that over time there is an evolution across
China as people become more and more familiar with the idea and
ideals of tolerance and political pluralism, and the respect
for religious liberty. I think this would be a way over time
for China internally to see the type of change which would
bring about better hope for the Chinese people. To do that, we
should be thinking about how to communicate better and how to
allow the Chinese diaspora the ability and the platform to
carry on that dialogue with their countrymen and women, and
continue to push these ideals.
I thank the witnesses for appearing today, and I yield
back, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Royce.
Thank you for your statement.
And now, the Chair is pleased to welcome our witnesses.
First, we welcome Mr. Jared Genser, the founder of Freedom Now,
an NGO that works to free individual prisoners of conscience
through focused legal, political, and public relations advocacy
efforts. His human rights clients have included former Czech
Republic President Havel, Nobel Peace Prize winners Aung San
Suu Kyi, Liu Xiaobo, Desmond Tutu, and Eli Weisel. Welcome.
Next, we welcome Rebiya Kadeer, President of the World
Uyghur Congress from 1999 to 2005. In response to her activism,
Ms. Kadeer was imprisoned for allegedly stealing state secrets.
At the World Uyghur Congress, she has continued to advocate for
greater autonomy for the Uyghur people.
Next, we welcome Mr. Hai Li, a Falun Gong practitioner, a
former official of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr.
Li was detained and imprisoned by Chinese authorities four
times, including a 7-year imprisonment during which he was
brutally tortured. After being released, Mr. Li and his family
immigrated to the United States on temporary visas and are now
applying for political asylum. Welcome, Mr. Li.
And finally, we welcome Bhuchung Tsering, a Vice President
for Special Programs for the International Campaign for Tibet,
which seeks to raise awareness of the Chinese Government's
unjust treatment of the people of Tibet. Mr. Tsering was born
in Tibet, but his family fled to India in 1960, in wake of the
Chinese Communist occupation. He had worked as a reporter for
the Indian daily Indian Express, as editor for The Tibetan
Bulletin, the official journal of the Tibetan Government, and
for the Tibetan Government in Exile.
Without objection, as I said, your written statements will
be inserted into the record.
Mr. Genser, we will begin with you.
Welcome to all.
STATEMENT OF MR. JARED GENSER, FOUNDER, FREEDOM NOW
Mr. Genser. Good morning, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member
Berman, and members of the committee. And thanks for inviting
me to speak today.
As mentioned, I founded Freedom Now, an international legal
advocacy organization that works to free prisoners of
conscience around the world. Among my clients include Nobel
Peace Prize Laureate Liu Xiaobo, his wife Liu Xia, and
prominent Chinese rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng.
My comments today will address these cases, the ways in
which their ongoing detention violates both domestic and
international law, and what lessons we can draw from these
cases, and what I believe the U.S. Government should do on
behalf of these individuals and others who are similarly
situated.
Dr. Liu Xiaobo, perhaps China's most prominent prisoner of
conscience and the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize
Laureate, is a respected intellectual with a lengthy history of
putting his own liberty at risk to defend the universal values
of freedom and democracy. I don't have the time today to review
his whole career, but focusing on what landed him in prison
most recently.
Just days before his role in authoring Charter '08, and it
was going to be made public in December 2008, Chinese police
arrested him and held him incommunicado for 3 weeks without
charge or access to a lawyer and, then, subsequently, held for
him an additional 6 months as well.
His trial on inciting subversion lasted only 2 hours, and
the defense was given literally 14 minutes to present its case.
Ultimately, he was convicted and sentenced to 11 years in
prison.
In a demonstration of the moral force of his character,
which would later lead the Nobel Prize Committee to award him
the Peace Prize, he said after that conviction, ``I have long
been aware that when an independent intellectual stands up to
an autocratic state, step one toward freedom is often a step
into prison. Now I am taking that step; and true freedom is
that much nearer.''
Hours after he won the award, Chinese authorities isolated
Liu Xia from the outside world and placed her under house
arrest. Some 22 months later, she remains under house arrest
without charge, without trial, without any legal process
whatsoever. Her only ``crime'' is having been married to a
Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
I am pleased that we were able to prevail in cases that we
brought on their behalf to the United Nations Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention, which found that they are being held in
violation of international law and called for their immediate
release.
But perhaps most shocking is the fact that in those paper
exchanges with the Chinese Government they actually claimed
that Liu Xia was under no legal restriction, which is either a
flagrant lie or a brazen admission that, in fact, they are
holding her illegally.
The government also refuses to release Gao Zhisheng, a
prominent human rights lawyer, who has been repeatedly
detained, disappeared, and tortured by the Chinese Government
for his work defending the rights of others. His travails began
in 2006 and, ultimately, he was repeatedly disappeared and
tortured. We previously won his case before the United Nations
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention as well.
And this past December, he was reappeared, when the Chinese
Government announced that they have revoked his probation,
which was scheduled to expire within days, and it said it would
imprison him for 3 more years under the original inciting
subversion charges that had been imposed against him in 2007.
Needless to say, the notion that Mr. Gao could have violated
the terms of his probation while the government held him in
secret detention is at best farceable, and we have a new
submission to the United Nations pending, and we expect a
ruling on the case in September.
Of particular concern is, of course, the PRC's response to
specific complaints about their disappearing Gao and numerous
others in the country by their trying to legalize
disappearances through an act of the National People's
Congress, which is in flagrant violation of China's obligations
under international law.
The Chinese Government claims it wants to engage in
dialogue on human rights in the spirit of mutual cooperation,
but, ultimately, it refuses to do so. And any dialogue that
takes place, including the one this past week, ultimately, as I
have heard reported repeatedly, consists of a series of
sequential monologs.
In public, the government frequently sticks to implausible
and offensive talking points, that these cases are being
handled in accordance with Chinese law. On other occasions,
such as those with Liu Xia and Mr. Gao, it simply lies with the
expectation that others will just move on to talk about other
things.
In my view, the only remaining approach is to push back and
press the government privately and publicly and unilaterally
and multilaterally to address violations of Chinese and
international law. While broad and systemic change is required,
there is no substitute for addressing specific cases where the
treatment of individuals deviates from existing laws. By
definition, if we can secure the release of these people who
are most seriously oppressed, we can create greater space for
them to operate and imbue others with the confidence that they
can conduct their internationally-protected activities.
If I can just conclude briefly with three final
recommendations, first, President Obama and Secretary Clinton
need to personally engage on Chinese human rights cases and
make full use of the bully pulpit, something they have only
done on rare occasions. Chen Guangcheng's case is not an
example that can be followed. The circumstances of it were
quite unique. And China's backsliding on rights should have
long such merited a change in tactics by this administration
and a more proactive and public approach.
For example, President Obama could send a very important
message to the Chinese Government by meeting with Gao
Zhisheng's wife, Geng He. Such an action with be particularly
appropriate, given our Government owes a special obligation to
his family, who we provided refugee status in the United
States. He could also organize a group of foreign leaders to
publicly call on the Chinese Government to release Liu Xiaobo.
Second, the Congress could adopt a non-binding resolution
highlighting a host of different cases and consider taking more
aggressive measures, given China's intransigence, such as
awarding Liu Xiaobo a Congressional Gold Medal.
Lastly, it is my view that the administration and the
Congress should look at more substantial multilateral efforts
directed at the Chinese Government. There are definitely no
easy solutions to transform China's human rights record. We
have to be persistent and vigilant, but it is my view that the
only way that we are going to achieve progress is by responding
to their tactics with equally-aggressive tactics, both publicly
and privately, unilaterally and multilaterally, whatever is
necessary to get the message across to change their behavior.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Genser follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Ms. Kadeer, we welcome you, and I know that we have a
translator who will say it in English. Thank you very much,
Ma'am.
STATEMENT OF MS. REBIYA KADEER, UYGHUR DEMOCRACY LEADER
Ms. Kadeer. First, I would like to thank Madam Chairman
Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman, and also the members of
the committee, for inviting me to speak today.
I believe this hearing is very important because it is
being held at a time when the U.S. and China have just
concluded the Human Rights Dialogue.
Because of time, my assistant will read my statement.
Since the violent suppression of the Uyghur protesters by
Chinese security forces in East Turkestan's capital of Urumchi
in July 2009, the Uyghurs have experienced an intense period of
human rights violations. The unrest in 2009 has led to the
implementation of policies in the region that have not only
engendered an atmosphere of fear, but have also accelerated the
assimilation of the Uyghurs and their homeland into a greater
Han China.
This month marked 3 years of intimidating security
measures, swift judicial procedures, and countless
disappearances. Human Rights Watch describes enforced
disappearances as ``serious violations of international human
rights law'' and the Chinese Government has been continuing
this practice among Uyghurs without fear of censure from the
international community. In a report focused on Uyghur
disappearances after July 2009, Human Rights Watch states that
43 disappearances documented were ``just the tip of the
iceberg.'' Many more, in fact, have disappeared since July the
5th.
Deaths in custody of Uyghurs allegedly involved in the
unrest have also been reported. Noor-ul-Islam Sherbaz, a 17-
year-old Uyghur boy who was sentenced to life in April 2010
after only a 30-minute trial, was found dead in December 2011.
Before his death in prison, his mother visited him in prison
and saw physical abuse by the prison guards.
State retribution of Uyghurs allegedly involved in the
unrest has been enacted in the Chinese courts, and the process
has been rapid. Twelve months after the unrest, 24 Uyghurs were
sentenced to death and eight of them were a death sentence with
a 2-year reprieve. Only 4 months after the unrest, eight Uyghur
men were executed without due process. For these eight men, all
of the following happened within the span of less than 1 month:
They were tried, convicted, sentenced, their sentences were
upheld by the Xinjiang Higher People's Court and the Supreme
People's Court of China, and they were executed.
In May 2010, the central government convened a Xinjiang
Work Forum, chaired by the Chinese President Hu Jintao, that
mapped out the development of East Turkestan. The Work Forum
was prompted in large part by the tacit acknowledgment on the
part of Chinese officials that preceding policies in the region
had exacerbated the 2009 tensions in the region.
But the policies that followed did not address the root
cause of the July 2009 unrest and the legitimate grievances of
the Uyghur people. Instead, they only focused on the economy,
only on the resource extraction, which further exacerbated the
tensions in East Turkestan.
Work Forum policies also continued the pattern of bringing
more Han Chinese to East Turkestan and furnishing them with
economic opportunities unavailable to the Uyghurs. This month
the Chinese Government announced a plan to formally grant
residence to 6 million Chinese people floating in East
Turkestan.
Chinese authorities have long targeted religious freedom
among the Uyghurs. A crackdown on our religion has been in
force in weeks prior to and after the third anniversary of the
July 2009 arrest. House-to-house searches in the Gujanbagh
neighborhood of Hotan were announced in June, in early June.
This followed the police raid of an ``illegal'' religious
school for children in Hotan that injured 12 Uyghur children,
and also the death of a Uyghur child in police custody in
Korla.
And also, in the month of Ramadan, now the Chinese
Government enacted stringent religious crackdown on the
Uyghurs. After July 2009, the Chinese Government also pressured
my family members, my children, on my own China's national TV
to denounce me and also pressured my grandchildren to write
letters to denounce me.
If I may just conclude with a few recommendations to the
Congress: First, I would like to urge the U.S. Congress to urge
the Chinese Government to account for the number and the
whereabouts of the Uyghurs detained and disappeared since the
July 5th unrest. Second is the Chinese Government should cease
the arbitrary detention, arrest, torture, and extrajudicial
execution of Uyghurs in East Turkestan. The Chinese Government
should also stop the execution of Uyghur political prisoners.
Political executions mostly take place in East Turkestan.
Also urge the Chinese authorities in East Turkestan to
abide by China's constitution and the Regional Ethnic Autonomy
Law. And urge the Chinese officials to release my two
imprisoned sons, Alim and Ablikim, to the United States. And
also, pass, if possible, legislation requiring the State
Department to deny visas to Chinese officials involved in the
violation of human rights, not only of the Uyghurs, but all, to
enter the United States.
And last, but not least, to pass legislation in defense of
Uyghur people's fundamental human rights, culture, religion,
language, and identity.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kadeer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much for those
recommendations.
Mr. Li?
STATEMENT OF MR. HAI LI, FALUN GONG PRACTITIONER
Mr. Li. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, Honorable
Members of Congress.
I would like to thank Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen for holding
this important hearing and inviting me to participate.
I began to practice Falun Gong in 1995. I found that the
principles of truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance that
Falun Gong taught people to follow was just how I wanted to
live my life.
In 1997, I joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its
Department of Treaty and Law. In July 1999, our lives were
turned upside-down when Jiang Zemin became jealous and fearful
of Falun Gong's popularity. Between 1999 and 2012, I was
detained four times, with the longest over 7 years.
I would like to focus my remarks on a few key points. My
written testimony has a multitude about what I experienced and
witnessed.
One, the persecution is still brutal, lawless, pervasive,
reaching every segment of society. Millions of Falun Gong
practitioners continue to live in that nightmare that I
survived and escaped.
In November 2002, plain clothes police abducted me while
distributing video discs about the truth of Falun Gong. The
officers didn't take me to a police station, as required by
law, but to a hotel outside Beijing. They asked my address, but
I refused to tell them to protect other participants. They
kicked me, punched me, and then they brought out electric
batons. They shot my neck, my palms, my genitals, and other
sensitive body parts. The pain was unbearable. I couldn't walk
for a few days.
In April 2004, Beijing's No. 2 Intermediate People's Court
put me and eight others on trial for distributing video discs.
It was a total sham. I was sentenced to 9 years and sent to
Qianjin prison. Please be aware only after 8 months did my
family know that I had been arrested, and they had no idea
about the trial, either. I was in prison until May 2010. When I
left, 60 to 70 Falun Gong practitioners were still there. Now
three other prisons and labor camps hold Falun Gong
practitioners just in Beijing and hundreds of other camps exist
around the country.
Two, the Communist Party's persecution is to transform
Falun Gong practitioners. What is transformation? At the
prison, they had a special little-known method to transform
Falun Gong practitioners. They didn't let me sleep much and
forced me to sit upright without moving on a tiny stool with my
knees closed, my head on my knees, and I sat there for 12 to 20
hours a day. When I sat there, guards came in to threaten me
and curse Falun Gong. And they hadn't let me use the bathroom.
After a few weeks, I couldn't bear it anymore. I gave in; I
signed the papers denouncing Falun Gong, even though I knew in
my heart that Falun Gong is good. But I wasn't confident that I
could endure 9 years of torture.
Even after I signed it, they didn't leave me alone. They
made me write a ``thought report'' every day. That is
transformation. It made me feel hopeless, defeated, weak, and
hating myself. I felt like a walking zombie.
Three, despite the Communist Party's best efforts, the
persecution is failing. Eighty percent of Falun Gong
practitioners start practicing again once they are released, as
I did. That terrifies the Communist Party.
I also noticed a big difference in people's attitudes in
2010 compared to 2002. More and more people really hate the
Communist Party and aren't afraid to say so. As the U.S.
Department of State reports, there is a horrific organ
harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners taking place in China
now, and we have also noticed that the Chinese public are
speaking out to defend Falun Gong's rights by signing petitions
or using fingerprints to show their support and solidarity with
Falun Gong. So, I feel that, despite the money and the brute
force becoming part of censorship and repression, it is losing
the true battle for the hearts and minds of the Chinese people.
If I may conclude with the last point, as the United States
Government thinks about how to improve human rights in China, I
hope you can keep this in mind: If we truly want to free China,
we need to free Falun Gong. So, what can the U.S. Government
do? The public condemnation of the persecution of Falun Gong,
including by President Obama himself, would be a strong start.
Thank you again for inviting me to participate.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Li follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much for sharing that
harrowing experience with us, Mr. Li. Thank you.
Mr. Tsering? Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MR. BHUCHUNG K. TSERING, VICE PRESIDENT,
INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR TIBET
Mr. Tsering. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Congressman Berman,
and members of the committee.
China aspires to be a superpower that would want to abide
by universally-accepted norms. I would like to raise the
following matters regarding Tibet to see whether China is able
to meet that expectation: Violation of Tibetan rights
subsequent to the successive self-immolations in Tibet;
interference in Nepal's internal affairs and pressuring
Nepalese officials to clamp down on Tibetans in Nepal; usage of
Confucius Institutes to spread propaganda and shut down
academic discourse in Tibet; and the possibility of regional
conflict because of how it handles usage of Tibetan water.
With the most recent self-immolation on July 17th, there
have been 44 Tibetans who have self-immolated since 2009. Out
of 44, 33 are confirmed to have died and 11 are either missing
or said to be hospitalized. Now the numbers don't include those
Tibetans who have committed self-immolation outside of Tibet or
some whose information we are still trying to confirm.
Madam Chairman, I would like to seek your consent to put
their names and the information----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection.
Mr. Tsering [continuing]. Relating to the human rights in
Tibet for 2012 in the record.
Instead of addressing the genuine grievances of the Tibetan
people, the Chinese authorities have responded to the self-
immolations by increasing restrictions, torturing members of
the self-immolater's family or their acquaintances, and taking
several into custody without any judicial process.
We welcome the China-U.S. Human Rights Dialogue that has
just concluded yesterday, but the International Campaign for
Tibet believes that the State Department bears the burden of
proving that these dialogues are more than ritualized
exercises, and that the United States should be clear about
what improvements the Chinese should deliver in Tibet and what
the response will be if they do not.
In April, the International Campaign for Tibet released a
major report about ``60 Years of Misrule,'' China's cultural
genocide in Tibet. This shows that there is a systematic effort
to replace organic Tibetan culture with a state-approved
version to suit the Communist Party's objectives. The Chinese
leaders seek stability in Tibet, but they strive to achieve it
through an iron fist rather than an outstretched hand.
During his visit to Washington, DC, last week, the Tibetan
leader Kalon Tripa Lobsang Sangay said, ``If Tibet is granted
autonomy, that could be a catalyst for moderation of China
because if the Chinese Government grants autonomy to Tibetans,
for the first time they are accepting diversity within and
accepting a distinct, if not different, people.''
From the Chinese perspective, Tibet is the loss-leader for
Beijing because they say they have spent lots amount of money
for Tibet. But if Chinese leaders were to give Tibetans the
voice in their own affairs and a stake in their own future,
Tibetan leaders would be more economically self-sustained.
I want to go to the situation in Nepal. The Tibetan
refugees transit through Nepal as they fled persecution at home
and toward freedom in India or beyond. Unfortunately, the
Chinese authorities interfere in Nepal's internal affairs and
export China's abuses of Tibetans into Nepal. Tibetans trying
to flee Nepal today have to face great suffering at the hands
of Nepalese security authorities.
I am trying to condense here because of the time factor.
We have seen reports and heard anecdotal evidence about
usage of the Confucius Institutes. Last year, the International
Campaign for Tibet requested a university to provide us
information about Tibet from the Confucius Institute, and what
they provided us was Chinese Government official propaganda.
If the water resources in Tibet are being misused by the
Chinese, it will have grave consequences for the future of the
world and immediate risk for the neighboring countries.
Now our recommendations are: First, that Congress should
send a strong message by passing House Resolution 609 on Tibet.
The Tibetan Policy Act has to be strengthened. The U.S. should
seek reciprocity from the Chinese Government for information
access and for access for diplomats. And the human rights
dialogues should be followed up by Congress asking the
Assistant Secretary to publicly testify about what the United
States has done on human rights.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tsering follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Thank you so much to each
and every one of you for excellent testimony.
Given your great expertise on this terrible issue of human
rights violations in China, I would like to ask these three
questions: What value do you see in the ongoing dialogue or
monolog, as one witness called it, between the United States
and China? Secondly, do you think that this administration in
its relation with Beijing places a priority on advancing human
rights in China? And thirdly, do you believe the human rights
situation in China has improved or deteriorated in the 12 years
since Congress approved PNTR for China?
If we could begin with Mr. Genser?
Mr. Genser. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Let me try to answer your three questions as quickly and as
best as I can.
First, your question was, what is the value of the ongoing
dialogue? On the one hand, I think dialogue is necessary. We
need to be able to convey to the Chinese our feelings. On the
other hand, the series of human rights dialogues that we have
had are, as I mentioned before, sequential monologs, and the
Chinese would like to speak at 100,000 feet about broad
developments in various areas. We tend to want to see
improvement in specific cases.
And so, it seems to me that the main way that we need to
improve the dialogue--and I do think that we have to continue
it; I think we have no choice but to engage with China--is by
imposing benchmarks, timelines, and consequences. Without any
accountability coming out of these dialogues, then they are
fruitless and they are pointless. And I think that we need to
move in that direction.
In terms of how the administration has or has not made
human rights with China a priority, unfortunately, I think at
the highest levels it has not been a priority. I think that, of
course, any administration is not monolithic. I would single
out Mike Posner, the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Labor,
and Human Rights, as doing a yeoman's job within the
Department, but, of course, he is a number of levels down from
the Secretary. He has been public and outspoken. He has raised
cases privately. I think he has been very aggressive and great.
But, at the end of the day, we need the leadership from the
President and the Secretary of State. While on a handful of
occasions they have raised China human rights publicly, and I
know from reports that I have received that they have also
raised it privately, by definition, and to answer your last
question, I think that the situation in Beijing and in China in
the last several years has declined in terms of the human
rights situation. And therefore, whether or not you agree with
how the administration is handling Chinese human rights, one
has to conclude that a change in tactics is doing to be
required because human rights in China is moving in the wrong
direction. And that is precisely what I would like to see
happen.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Ms. Kadeer?
Ms. Kadeer. Yes, since the U.S. Congress granted China the
PNTR status for the past 12 years, and also due to the rise of
China's economy, China became more confident in dealing with
Uyghurs and other groups, especially in arbitrary arrest,
torture, and even executions. So, the situation since China got
PNTR has become far worse than before. And especially in the
past 3 or 4 years, the extrajudicial killing of Uyghurs has
dramatically increased.
In my testimony, I state that the Chinese Government
granted residence to 6 million floating Chinese population.
That is in addition to the Chinese residents already immigrated
to East Turkestan. And so, in addition to the population
transfer to East Turkestan and Tibet and other areas to
dominate the region, dilute the Uyghurs, and reduce us into an
absolute minority in our own land, and for any Uyghur who is
not happy with such policies of cultural genocide by the
Chinese Government, the Chinese reaction is repression or just
execution. So, that is what we are facing today.
Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Li?
Mr. Li. As to the first question, I personally don't value
the dialogue because, if they keep it as a private session,
they don't talk about it openly and publicly, I think the
Chinese Government wouldn't feel the pressure in the
international community, the pressure of justice, the pressure
or morality. So, I think we should talk about it openly and
publicly.
And the second question, I think the United States
Government should do more and, most importantly, speak up. If
it keeps silent about the crimes, I think to some extent we are
committing a crime too.
And the third question, I don't think there is any human
rights progress since 12 years ago because, apparently, the
Falun Gong situation has not improved.
Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Tsering?
Mr. Tsering. In terms of the human rights dialogue, we
believe that the administration needs to be open and
transparent about what is really being discussed. Otherwise, it
will become an opportunity for the Chinese to avoid
international censure.
In terms of whether human rights is a priority for the
administration, the administration says it is, but we need
concrete proof to say that it is really so. Whether the
situation has worsened after PNTR, from the Tibetan perspective
it has certainly worsened.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Thank you for
your answers.
I am pleased to yield, for whatever time he wishes to
consume, to Mr. Berman, the ranking member of our committee,
for his questions.
Mr. Berman. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
There seems to be a consensus among all of you that a more
vigorous, vocal expression of outrage at the Chinese
Government's conduct vis-a-vis specific human rights cases and
the general treatment of ethnic minorities and others,
political dissidents, would be useful. Beyond that, I heard a
specific reference to visas. And then, Mr. Genser talked about
timetables, sort of guidelines, and consequences. Speak to the
issue of consequences.
Mr. Genser. Let me reiterate one of the things that Mr. Li
said which I think makes a lot of sense, which is one of the
things that the Congress could start to work on immediately, is
legislation that would replicate the Sergei Magnitsky Act for
the Chinese Government. You would be in a position to be able
to say anybody who is involved or facilitating torture,
wrongful imprisonment, disappearance, or a range of other
crimes under international law will be put on a public list for
the United States, an asset freeze, visa bans, et cetera.
Just by gathering evidence from existing cases, I would
imagine across all of these different situations we could come
up with thousands of names that we could credibly verify that
would be the first batch of people to be put on this kind of a
list. At the end of the day, if the Chinese aren't going to
listen to the complaints and they are not going to address
them, then this would be a very clear potential consequence.
So, let me just put that forward as a first idea that has some
teeth to it.
I also mentioned--and it is worth highlighting again--
awarding Liu Xiaobo the Congressional Gold Medal would be a
pretty profound signal to the Chinese Government about U.S.
concern.
And then, just lastly, I will mention it isn't even
exclusively about public outrage by the President or the
Secretary of State, although at times I think is helpful. It is
also about using the private threat of doing public things that
I think can bring China to the table.
So, for example, President Obama, I suggested that he meet
with Geng He, Gao Zhisheng's wife. The administration, as far
as I know, hasn't privately said to the Chinese, ``Unless we
start to move on Gao Zhisheng's case, the President is going to
do this. He is going to meet publicly, or meet and it will be
made public, with Geng He.'' And use that private threat as an
opportunity to see if we can see some progress on this
particular case. This would be an aggressive way to get at the
Chinese Government the strength of our concerns and our
convictions. As far as I know, none of these kinds of things
have happened.
Mr. Berman. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Tsering, the Special Envoy for the Dalai Lama recently
resigned from his position. We have had the opportunity to meet
with him on many occasions. He is a very forceful, articulate,
and reasonable and moderate individual, representing the Dalai
Lama in the dialogue with China. That dialogue seems to be
totally stalled. You have been part of the Special Envoy's team
throughout the nearly 10-year duration of the dialogue
progress. The Congress and the U.S. have been big proponents of
the dialogue as a way to resolve differences and lead to a
peaceful political situation for the Tibetans.
How important is this dialogue with the Chinese, in your
mind? What was the sticking point that led to its demise? What
message regarding Tibet should the U.S. Government be sending
now?
Mr. Tsering. I believe the dialogue is a very important
factor in having a lasting solution for the Tibetan issue. In
terms of why the situation has remained so now, it is strictly
because of China's lack of political courage to acknowledge
that there is a Tibetan problem and to address it to the
satisfaction of the Tibetan people.
And therefore, we believe that the United States Congress,
as well as the administration, which has called for a peaceful
resolution of the Tibetan issue, needs to be more proactive in
making the Chinese come to the table, because at the present
the Tibetan leadership has also committed itself to resolving
the issue through negotiations, and there is the need for that.
But how we can go about it depends on the Chinese because right
now instead of responding positively to the Tibetan initiative,
there are voices within the Chinese leadership which are even
calling for doing away with the framework of autonomous status.
If that happens, there is no way people like the Tibetans or
the Uyghurs can hope to achieve anything under this Communist
government.
Mr. Berman. Thank you.
My time has expired.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
I am pleased to recognize the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, Mr. Smith of New
Jersey.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Yesterday, at the 10th anniversary of the founding of
ChinaAid, led so brilliantly by Pastor Bob Fu, Gao Zhisheng's
wife, Geng He, as you know, made yet another strong appeal for
her husband, who has been tortured with unbelievable animosity
by the Government of China. So, thank you, Mr. Genser, for
again bringing up his case and how important it is that we
raise that.
You, especially, have talked about some new ideas. I think
it is always good to be pursuing new ideas. But, as Mr. Li
said, first and foremost, the President needs to speak out
about China's human rights abuses. He has had both the Vice
President and the President, Hu Jintao, here to the United
States, has feted especially Hu Jintao with a state dinner and
an infamous press conference, where an Associated Press
reporter asked about human rights, and our President
shamelessly said they have a different culture and a different
political system.
So, it was so bad that The Washington Post did an
editorial, the banner headline of which was, ``President Obama
Makes Hu Jintao Look Good on Rights.'' It was one of the worst
statements, I think, and performances of this President. To the
people back in China who are suffering, like Gao Zhisheng and
others, and Liu Xiaobo, that had to have been demoralizing that
the President just brushed this aside.
But, Mr. Li, you asked that the President speak out. Hope
springs eternal. Hopefully, he will speak out at some point.
The gentlelady and I, we won't hold our breath.
But let me just say this: We need to enforce the law. We
have several laws on the books right now that go either
inadequately enforced or totally unenforced.
First of all, you mentioned visa bans. I offered
legislation that became law in 2000 that said anyone who is
complicit in forced abortion or forced sterilization ought to
be banned, will be banned, shall be banned from admission to
the United States. Under the Obama administration, four
people--that is four, not 40, not 400--four people have been
precluded a visa because of their complicity. There are no
lists. I have asked that there be lists. There are no lists. We
know who these people are. People inside of China know who
their abusers are. And we ought to have an engraved invitation
for them to come forward and say, ``This person is doing this
atrocity against women and against children.''
Some people like to talk about the Chinese program as
family planning. It is child extermination. It is the
exploitation of women in the cruelest fashion. We have a law
called the Kemp-Kasten. It goes unenforced--unenforced. This
administration reversed the Bush policy and the Reagan policy
of saying, ``No money to any organization that supports or co-
manages a coercion population-control program.''
On trafficking, there is no doubt--and the gentleman from
California and I and the gentlelady worked so hard to ensure
that the watch list on human trafficking that is put out by the
State Department does not become a parking lot for abusers--
China clearly merits to be a tier III country susceptible to a
whole array of sanctions, and it is not. It has stayed on the
watch list for another year, even though the record is
overwhelming that China has become a magnet for human
trafficking, perhaps the worst in the world. I don't know of
any country--and I wrote the trafficking law--that is worse
than the People's Republic of China. They are on the third
tier. So, that law goes unenforced.
And then, the law that was authored by Frank Wolf, the
International Religious Freedom Act, China has been a CPC
country since the beginning of that law. So, the Bush
administration I believe failed, and the Obama administration
is failing miserably as well, to enforce the 18 prescribed
sanctions, some of which are very real and very severe, not
quite NTR loss, but very real. They go just glossed over, even
though it is a CPC country. So, they did the naming, which is
fine, but there is no penalty.
Your thoughts? We need to enforce the law. We have laws
that will make a difference. It is not just the President
speaking out. And again, don't hold your breath on that one, or
the Vice President. But let's just enforce the law. Your
thoughts, please, again.
Mr. Genser. Just briefly, Chairman Smith, you are a
champion for China human rights and have been for decades. I
concur with your assessment of the situation and the reality
that there is actually a lot that we can do to enforce existing
law, as well as bring into effect new laws to put serious
pressure on China that sends a message that the United States
is actually serious about human rights.
Unfortunately, as we know--and this is not just this
administration, but it is prior administrations--the United
States has a whole range of interests in China. My biggest
fear, as a human rights lawyer, however, is that unless human
rights is made a priority, by definition, other so-called more
pragmatic issues will always overcome human rights. I think
that we need to see human rights as a core and fundamental
value of the United States of America and imbue it into all
that we are doing, and make it an affirmative priority.
When you have, unfortunately, a situation where it is not a
top priority of the President and the Secretary of State--
again, I agree they have said that it is a priority--but I just
haven't seen the actions that enable me to agree with that
statement and see that that is an actual conclusion.
And again, I would like to see more coercive measures being
taken. The Chinese are unabashed about their persecution of
their own population and unapologetic, and, in fact, will
publicly lie repeatedly. There has been no consequence for
that, not just from the United States, but from around the
world. I think that, collectively, we all need to do
substantially better.
Ms. Kadeer. Yes, it is really sad that the U.S. Government,
the administration is not implementing the laws that,
Congressman, you have just mentioned. Because of this, the
Chinese Government sees that more as a green light to implement
their own aggressive policies with their family planning. Of
course, it has been in place for decades, and it is not only
used against the Han Chinese, but also used against Uyghurs and
other minority groups. Under even Chinese regulations that
ethnic minorities, if it is under 10 million, they are not
bound by these family-planning restrictions, but the Chinese
Government aggressively imposes these restrictions on the
Uyghurs, Tibetans, and other groups. So, this is another weapon
for the Chinese Government to really make us even a smaller
minority now in our own country.
In addition to that, the Chinese Government has been
transferring tens of thousands of Uyghur young, marriage-age
women out of East Turkestan to eastern Chinese sweatshops in
eastern Chinese provinces to work. This is like an exchange of
population. We see this as a form of not just a cultural
genocide, but really to aggressively assimilate and eventually
eliminate the Uyghur people as a Uyghur people.
So, it is our hope that the administration will pursue and
implement the laws that can really pressure China on these
heinous practices.
Thank you.
Mr. Li. Mr. Smith, thank you. Mr. Smith, could I beg your
pardon as to your question? Please repeat it. Could you repeat
it?
Mr. Smith. Sure. The question, you, yourself, raised the
importance of speaking out.
Mr. Li. Yes.
Mr. Smith. We have numerous laws already on the books that
go unenforced. Some are enforced to a small extent, but mostly
unenforced.
One would be the CPC designation under the International
Religious Freedom Act. China has been so designated. It is an
egregious violator of religious freedom, whether it be Falun
Gong, Uyghurs, underground Christians, Catholics. It is across
the board.
Secondly, on trafficking, this year, again, China got a
pass. We punted as a government and did not designate China as
a tier III violator, which is the worst category, susceptible
to a whole array of sanctions. There is no doubt that China
warrants it--no doubt. The evidence is overwhelming. Even how
they mistreat the North Koreans--and I will yield in a second
because I am out of time--how they mistreat the North Koreans,
who come across, and traffic those poor women or send them back
to a cruel fate in North Korea.
The third has to do with a current, existing visa ban where
any person involved or who is complicit in the forced abortion
policy of China, by our law, since 2000, cannot get a visa.
Under the Obama administration, four people have been so
precluded a visa.
So, there is, then, the Kemp-Kasten language that says here
are the words; this is the law: Any organization that supports
or co-manages a coercive population-control program cannot get
U.S. funding. That has been breached as well.
Mr. Li. Thank you, Mr. Smith, and thank you for your
efforts.
Anyway, I believe that the U.S. Government, the White
House, should be looking to organ harvesting crime, because it
is so horrible, and speak out against this crime.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Tsering. Congressman, we concur with your position that
laws that are there need to be implemented if China is to
understand what the United States stands for. For example, in
the case of Tibet, Congress has mandated that there be a
consulate in Lhasa. To date, nothing has happened about that,
and that is something that ought to be done.
In terms of access, in our recommendation what we have
said, China doesn't respect the diplomatic principle of
reciprocity. China doesn't allow the United States' diplomats
or other government officials access to Tibetan areas to get
the real situation.
But, on the other hand, China always sends or the United
States provides visas to Chinese officials to come to the
United States and to propagandize about Tibet and other issues
freely without any qualms. So, the Congress should seek
restrictions on these, so that there is this principle of
reciprocity.
Mr. Smith. And just a final 30 seconds?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Gosh, Mr. Smith, maybe we will----
Mr. Smith. I can't get a visa to China.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
Mr. Connolly of Virginia is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. My goodness, Madam Chairman, he must have
given you a bucket-load of chocolate. [Laughter.] I thank the
chair, and I welcome our panel.
I just want to say I certainly share the passion about
human rights with my colleague from New Jersey, but I certainly
do not share in the judgment that somehow the President of the
United States and his administration have somehow been playing
a backseat on this issue. I don't think that is true. I think
it is sometimes easy for us here in Congress to opine about
human rights as opposed to those who have the responsibility
for sometimes executing policy when it comes to specific cases.
We just had a success story in China, actually, in getting
a dissident out of China, and I think it involved very direct
face-to-face statements by the Secretary of State, who was
visiting at the time, and back-room negotiations between our
Embassy officials and foreign ministry officials in the
People's Republic of China, that ultimately led to getting the
gentleman and his family out of China.
Now sometimes we have to ask ourselves, are we more
interested in making a point and using this platform to do that
or are we sometimes more interested in trying to have a result?
And so, I just say in defense of the President, I think he is
as passionate and committed to human rights as any of us, but
he has what we don't have, which is the responsibility of
executing policy.
That doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't continue to press
on that regard, whoever is in the White House, because I think
human rights has to be enshrined as a cardinal value, an
American value and, indeed, a universal value, and we have to
advocate for it, even when it is inconvenient.
Let me ask, Mr. Li, you seemed to indicate, if I understood
your testimony correctly, that you were skeptical about the
value of the dialogue; it wasn't going to produce much. Did I
get that right?
Mr. Li. Yes. Yes, I doubt, if they keep it as a private
session.
Mr. Connolly. But here is my concern about that: I mean, we
even talked to the Soviets in the Cold War, at the height of
the Cold War, about human rights, with sometimes having some
effect on Soviet Jewry.
And we implemented laws, like Jackson-Vanik. Hopefully, we
will implement some more, as Mr. Genser indicated, in terms of
Magnitsky, if we are going to do PNTR with now Russia.
If there is no dialogue, how do we effectuate change in
policy? How do we help individuals and groups of individuals
protect their human rights if we are not at the table pressing
that other party?
Mr. Li. Thank you.
Because from my point of view, I notice that the Chinese
Government takes the human rights dialogue itself as progress
and, actually, I didn't see any progress or change of the
Chinese human rights situation.
Mr. Connolly. Do you believe that the Chinese are
impervious to international opinion, international pressure on
this subject?
Mr. Li. I think if we condemn the Chinese Government
publicly and openly, it will feel the pressure and at least do
some change.
Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Genser, what is your view about the value
of dialogue with the Chinese Government on this subject?
Mr. Genser. Well, I think Mr. Li and I have a disagreement,
at least in a small respect. I think, to a large extent, we
agree that the dialogues themselves are an opportunity taken by
the Chinese Government to emphasize process rather than
substance. So, they issue press releases about how wonderful it
is that they are engaging in dialogue and that should be the
end of the discussion.
And I don't think dialogue alone is sufficient. This is why
I talk about the need for benchmarks, timelines, and
consequences out of these dialogues. It can't be the case that
we just keep talking and talking and talking, and we don't see
changes to their laws; we don't see changes in their conduct,
and we don't see them responding to particular concerns that we
raise.
Mr. Connolly. But, of course, Mr. Genser, it is a bit of,
not that you are doing this, but, I mean, it is a little bit of
a straw man to say negotiations alone aren't going to be the
answer. Who is arguing that? Who in the U.S. foreign policy
establishment or in this administration or in this Congress is
saying negotiations are sufficient--I'm sorry--dialogue is
sufficient?
Mr. Genser. No, I mean, I agree with you that isn't
anyone's public position, but I have to say--and I am very much
a human rights partisan and not a political one in any respect,
and so I just call it as I see it--I have been disappointed,
unfortunately, in this administration's willingness on a range
of issues on Chinese human rights to follow through on a range
of issues. And so, I will give you an illustration.
Gao Zhisheng I have talked about extensively. Geng He was
in town around the time of the Xi Jinping visit. We requested a
meeting either with Secretary Clinton or the President or the
Vice President, and neither of them had time on their
schedules. Now I understand they are busy people. But,
unfortunately, the President, in the run up to the Xi Jinping
visit, met with four experts on China and Chinese rights, but
none of them were actual victims of Chinese human rights
abuses. And so, those kinds of symbolic gestures, or lack of
symbolic gestures, speak volumes.
I have to say that I really wish, for example, this
President would spend more time with dissidents from different
countries around the world and meet with them, and give them
the platforms that merely a meeting with the President in the
Oval Office would have. And so, I just think that we are really
missing something if we don't look at the public diplomacy
element that the President and the Secretary of State can play
on these kinds of issues.
They have done some. I think they need to do substantially
more, particularly when I know that they have raised, for
example, Liu Xiaobo's case privately to the Chinese Government.
His wife remains under house arrest and has for 22 months.
So, my question publicly, and what I have said directly to
the administration, is: What are you going to do now that you
have raised these issues privately and quietly? You haven't
gotten a response from the Chinese Government. What is the next
step, right? Because 22 months under house arrest in Liu Xia's
case without any due process of law whatsoever is pretty
egregious conduct. And so, if you don't get somewhere with the
private request, what do you do next? Unfortunately, I haven't
seen what it is going to do next, although I have been asking
repeatedly.
And so, these are illustrative examples to me of concerns
that I have about how we need to follow through on our
publicly-stated concerns.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Rohrabacher, the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And
thank you, Madam Chairman, for doing your part in sending the
right message that America needs to be sending to dictators
throughout the world, and especially the world's worst human
rights abuser, which happens to be China.
I am very dismayed at this struggle, which I have been
witnessing close-up for 30 years. Let me just note that, under
the Reagan administration, which I was proud to serve as
Special Assistant to President Reagan as well as one of his
speech writers, we held dialogue with countries, but we had
lots of dissidents in to see the President. There were people
who came from China and met with President Reagan in the Oval
Office. There were people from Eastern Europe who came and met
with President Reagan in the Oval Office and high-level
officials. I personally met with dissidents in the Soviet Union
during that time period.
Let's just note that the double-standard that I see right
now for China seems to be, I mean, it is overwhelming to me as
an individual. There has been great reform in Russia. I mean, I
think it is a wonderful thing. And by the way, Ronald Reagan
did not accomplish the great changes that have taken place in
Eastern Europe and in Russia, he did not accomplish that by
opening up more trade.
In fact, it was just the opposite. We never gave Most
Favored Nation status to the Soviet Union, and we had a whole
totally-different approach. We were actually supporting the
dissident movements. It would be the equivalent of today our
Government would be providing help, as we should be, to the
Uyghurs or to the Tibetans. That is what brought an end to the
Cold War with Russia, at that time the Soviet Union. And
hopefully, it would bring an end to this antagonistic,
fascistic regime in Beijing and open a door for more freedom
and peace in that part of the world.
Let me note that it is disturbing to see that we are saying
to Russians, even after all of their reform, that they can't
join the WTO without certain human rights commitments. That is
a good thing. But we are not enforcing any of those commitments
on China. I mean the double-standard between Russia and China
is so glaring that it is giving a bad message to both the
Russian Government and to the Chinese Government.
So, let me ask a question. I am going to get one question
here, and that is, of course, let me note that after Ronald
Reagan left, Herbert Walker Bush was President of the United
States, our Republican, who, again, this body voted to
eliminate Most Favored Nation status for China after Tiananmen
Square twice, and Herbert Walker Bush vetoed that. So, this
isn't a Democrat-versus-Republican. This is Americans who are
proud of our values and other Americans who would rather do
business and make sure we have short-term profit.
But I would like to ask the panelists this. I have got 1\1/
2\ minutes to do it. What has happened in the past when we
allow monstrous regimes to get away from being confronted by
their crimes against their own people, quite often, they start
committing crimes and using their pressure and arrogance
against countries, other countries, to do their bidding.
I just mention that President Ma in Taiwan isn't even
mentioning the Falun Gong practitioner who is a Taiwanese
citizen, who is now being held in prison in mainland China.
Have you any examples where people from your communities have
actually suffered attacks or repression in other countries
outside of China by the Chinese Government? And that is for the
panel.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If you could repeat that last
question?
Mr. Rohrabacher. The question is, basically, do you know of
examples in your communities, whether the Uyghurs or the
Tibetans or human rights people from China itself, do we have
examples where in other countries the Chinese dictatorship in
Beijing is reaching out of their own country to try to expand
their repressive behavior against those communities in other
countries, even maybe the United States?
Ms. Kadeer. Yes, the Chinese Government's pressures and
threats are very pervasive, not only in East Turkestan, but the
long arm of China is reaching China's neighboring countries and
other countries, especially in pressuring the extradition of
Uyghur activists who fled into those countries.
One example is the deportation of 20 Uyghurs by the
Cambodia Government in December 2009 back to China, where they
sought asylum. They were deported back to China just before the
visit of China's Vice President Xi Jinping.
And also, we have numerous examples of Uyghurs being
deported by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. For
example, Ershidin Israil, a Uyghur activist who fled
Kazakhstan, was deported back to China by the Kazakh
Government. And also, Huseyincan Celil, a Uyghur Canadian
citizen who visited his wife's family in Uzbekistan, he was
kidnapped by the Uzbek Government, sent back secretly to China,
where he is facing a life sentence today. The Canadian
Government could do little to really get even consular access
to him. These are just a couple of examples.
The only Uyghurs who are safe, refugees, if they have fled
to America or Europe. Otherwise, China is able to pressure
other countries to send them back. Once they are back to China,
they all disappear for good. Then, we have no information as to
what happened to them.
Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing. And again, we need to demonstrate what our real values
of the American people are, and you are doing your part.
Thanks.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Sherman, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, is recognized.
Mr. Sherman. President Obama met with the Dalai Lama last
July at the White House. But, in general, we have not done
enough to push the Chinese on human rights. In a way, American
values are being held hostage by the trading relationship that
we have agreed to with the Chinese. The Chinese have total
access to the U.S. market. No matter what they do, they have
total access to the U.S. market. As Dana Rohrabacher pointed
out, the events occurred at Tiananmen Square, and they didn't
lose a slight bit of access to the American market.
In contrast--and this is disguised--our access to the
Chinese market is entirely dependent upon Chinese Government
decisions. Whether they buy the Airbus or the Boeing plane,
that is not a decision made by airline officials who examine
the planes carefully. That is a political decision. And
America's jobs are held hostage by the Chinese Government. As
long as we are in a circumstance where their access to our
market is unlimited and our access to their market is at the
grace of their government, then American values will be held
hostage.
Mr. Tsering, what lessons should the world draw from the
tragic self-immolations of Tibetan monks and nuns and other
religious figures? Do you know of any evidence to support the
Chinese Government's charge that the immolations were
encouraged by groups outside China?
Mr. Tsering. Congressman, thank you for your question.
As you can see from the chart over there, that is a list of
names of Tibetans who have committed self-immolation so far.
One single message, if we can get out of it, is that the
Tibetan people are not satisfied under the current Chinese
rule. They are also looking for the international community's
assistance, assistance from the Chinese people, assistance from
everywhere, to save them from this present situation.
It is very encouraging that there are governments who have
issued statements. But, more than that, what we need is
concrete action. For example, at this Bilateral Human Rights
Dialogue, the United States would have raised the issue of
self-immolation. Now the Congress should be let known what has
been the Chinese reaction and what the United States would do
in the face of such a reaction from the Chinese side. So,
therefore, I think this is related to the larger issue of why
there is a problem in Tibet, and the Chinese have to answer
that.
Mr. Sherman. Ms. Kadeer, China is justifying its policy
with claims that the Uyghurs and those who assert Uyghur rights
are somehow affiliated with international Islamic extremist
terrorism. What are the facts, and are there any Uyghur groups
that receive support from al-Qaeda, from Saudi Arabia, or from
Iran? I realize putting Saudi Arabia in that list is for my own
information and is not designed to say that there is an
equivalency of those three.
Ms. Kadeer. After the tragic events of the September 11th
terrorist attacks in the United States, and after the beginning
of the global war on terrorism, the Chinese Government used
both of them to its advantage to demonize and label the Uyghur
people's legitimate opposition to China Government's brutal
rule in the region as terrorism and fabricate stories that
alleged Uyghur groups had links with international terrorism,
to justify their heavy-handed rule in the region.
And so, we believe the Uyghurs actually became a victim of
even the acts of Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization
because we happen to be Muslims, and China used that to its
vast advantage to demonize us.
One example is the unrest on July 5th of 2009, which began
peacefully by the Uyghurs taking to the streets to protest
against the mob killing of the Uyghurs in Guangdong province.
But that day, the Chinese security forces opened fire and
killed hundreds of them. They even turned off the street lights
at night from 9 o'clock p.m. to 3 o'clock a.m. and killed so
many of the Uyghurs.
And the Chinese Government, in addition to accusing some
Uyghurs as terrorists, also accused me as a terrorist. China
continues to accuse me.
Mr. Sherman. If I can interrupt, my two specific questions
there: Are Uyghur groups receiving support from Iran, and are
Uyghur groups receiving support from Saudi Arabia?
Ms. Kadeer. And none of the Uyghur groups ever received any
money or financial aid from either Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Actually, both countries are allies of China. So, they would
never support any Uyghurs for any cause, and they have never
supported us in any fashion.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you for your specificity.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Sherman.
And now, Mr. Royce, the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, is recognized.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I wanted to ask Mr. Genser a question. We have, over the
last few months, seen a crackdown by the North Korean leader.
Kim Jong Un really has toughened punishment for anybody who
attempts to flee from North Korea into China. And so, those
refugees who are repatriated are tortured, often killed, shot.
I have seen some of the tapes of this.
One of the questions here is the complicity, the way in
which Beijing has assisted in repatriating those North Korean
refugees. Now, in Seoul, because of the candlelight vigil, it
has become a very popular cause to become more aware of what is
happening to North Korean refugees. And you had four South
Korean human rights activists who were working in China who
were held, and because of the pressure, were released by China.
I wanted to see your thoughts about diplomatic pressure from
Seoul and whether or not you think that is what led to the
release of these South Korean human rights activists.
Mr. Genser. Thanks so much, Congressman Royce, for the
question.
I actually happen to do a lot of work, also, on North Korea
human rights and know you have been a real leader in the
Congress on North Korea human rights for many years. So, thank
you for that.
China's repatriation of North Korean refugees to North
Korea is a flagrant violation of its obligations under the
Refugee Convention. By definition, at a minimum, those who flee
from North Korea without permission are so-called refugees sur
place because it is actually illegal under North Korean law to
leave the country without permission, and it is punishable
potentially by the death penalty. So, the moment they have left
North Korea to enter China, they are at risk of serious
persecution upon their return.
So, clearly, much more pressure needs to be put on China
with respect to their complicity. And with respect to the four
South Koreans and their activities inside China, I think China
had to make a relatively, I hope, easy decision as to whether
they wanted to have the spotlight of international pressure
placed upon them.
Mr. Royce. Well, that was my point. That spotlight of
international pressure. What I want to check on is whether or
not we could look at a longer-term strategy. Is there a way
diplomatic pressure can be placed on China to allow the U.N.
High Commissioner for Refugees' Office in Beijing to begin its
policy of enforcement to see if we can't get safe passage to
South Korea of those North Korean refugees?
Mr. Genser. Yes, I mean, I think that that is precisely the
direction we need to go. I think that South Korean pressure
mattered a lot. The mobilization of the South Korean public was
noted, I am sure, by Beijing and had to play a key role in the
decision.
The challenge has been usually you don't have third
parties.
Mr. Royce. Right, but our problem right now is they have
not bowed to any pressure in terms of returning or allowing
North Korean refugees safe passage. They have bowed to the
pressure from North Korea to return those refugees. And so,
wider recognition in the international community and more
pressure from NGO groups and more attention to this issue I
think is necessary in order to turn up the heat.
I had a question for Mr. Li pertaining to the question of
how pervasive the use of torture is in China's prisons. I read
your account, your written account, of what transpired over the
period of the months after months that you were held before
your trial and then after your trial in terms of the torture
that you endured and the types of torture applied. I wanted to
ask you about how pervasive you believe that may be.
I also wanted to ask you about how concerned young Chinese,
who are pretty open on the internet in terms of their
discussions about the desire for more freedom of association
and freedom of expression, how concerned they should be about
the law on disappearances passed by the National People's
Congress in March. Mr. Li?
Mr. Li. Thank you.
Actually, to your first question, I would say anyone who
did not transform or be transformed would be tortured by any
means.
Mr. Royce. And how about your concern about the law on
disappearances?
Mr. Li. The law on----
Mr. Royce. On disappearances, which you might be familiar
with, but it was passed by the National People's Congress in
March.
Mr. Li. Sorry, I didn't know much about----
Mr. Royce. Then, I will ask you, if I could, Madam
Chairman, I will just ask you one final question. To what
extent does the Chinese judiciary actually function
independently from political interference? To what extent is
the judiciary system independent?
Mr. Li. I don't think they are separate because they are
all under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.
And as to the disappearance act, frankly, I don't know much
about it, but from my own experience I think they never mind to
make somebody disappear.
Mr. Royce. As you say, you were held for 8 months.
Mr. Li. Yes.
Mr. Royce. And your mother passed away, partly from worry,
during that period of time.
Mr. Li. Yes.
Mr. Royce. She was only 60, I think, at the time.
Mr. Li. Yes.
Mr. Royce. And you had no awareness of that or her funeral
because at that point in time, prior to your trial, you simply
had disappeared.
Madam Chairman, thank you very much for this hearing.
Mr. Li. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
And we have given members more time because of the
translation. So, don't worry about that.
Mr. Poe, the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
China, who are these folks? Well, they are the people who
steal our trade secrets. They steal our patents. They invade
our internet and go to our Web sites. They are one of the
nations that refused to take back convicted Chinese citizens
that are convicted in American jails. They don't take them
back, as they should according to American law. They torture
and they kill their own people. And China is a source, transit,
and destination country for sex, labor, and organ trafficking,
according to the 2012 Trafficking Persons Report, compiled by
our State Department.
In fact, where I live down in Texas, in Harris County,
Texas, there are 20 to 30 illicit massage parlors, mostly run
by the Chinese. It is sex slavery. These investigators have
found wire transfers going in and out of China from owners of
these parlors. China doesn't, to me, seem to care much about
human trafficking. They are on the tier III watch list for 8
years. They ought to be on tier III, where the worst of the
worst offenders are, but China is not there.
The State Department, who determines what tier countries
get on, admits that the only reason China got a waiver from
tier III is not because of its human trafficking ability or
crackdown, but it has got a paper of policy saying that we
don't like human trafficking. China knows that they don't
enforce it. We know they don't enforce it, and the State
Department doesn't seem to want to deal with the sanctions on
China as a tier III determination.
I think we ought to quit making excuses for China. The
State Department should, I think, quit giving them cover by
ignoring human rights violations. The State Department, God
bless them, they want to talk, talk, talk. That is what they
do. They are diplomats. One thing I have never been called is a
diplomat, but they are diplomats. And they want to talk about
all these issues with the Chinese. But, you know, like my
grandfather used to say, when all is said and done, more is
said than done. And it seems that all of this continues to go
on.
China eventually needs to suffer the consequences for all
of these human rights violations. Mr. Genser, what do you think
those consequences ought to be?
Mr. Genser. Well, let me just reiterate--and, Judge Poe,
Congressman, I wanted to thank you for your remarks--I think we
need to be as aggressive with the Chinese as they are with us.
They are unapologetic and very clear in what they are trying to
do to their own people in order to maintain their grip on
power.
Unfortunately, I suppose one of the benefits of a
democracy, and one of the challenges of a democracy, is we have
an open debate in our country about what our priorities are and
how much human rights should factor into our concerns about
China. And we have companies that want to trade and do business
and want to de-emphasize human rights. This is all healthy in a
democracy.
Nevertheless, I do think that human rights is a fundamental
value of our country, and human freedom is enshrined in our
Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. So, I think
it is time, as Congressman Smith was saying, to enforce the
existing laws that are in place.
I think moving China to be a tier III country, as you
mentioned, in human trafficking absolutely should happen. There
is a range of sanctions because China is a country of
particular concern under the International Religious Freedom
Act that should be imposed. I would like to see a Sergie
Magnitsky Act for China where thousands of Chinese Government
officials who are complicit in torture and wrongful
imprisonment and a range of other crimes against humanity can
be imposed on the Chinese Government.
All these could be used in an interim process as clear
threats to the Chinese to see if we can influence their
behavior. I don't know necessarily that we have to start doing
all this overnight, but we need to send a clear message from
the top of the government, from the President of the United
States and the Secretary of State, that our relationship with
China is going to change, and that unless it starts to change,
unless some of these fundamental concerns of our people start
to be addressed in a meaningful and systematic way, that we are
going to go down the road of starting to directly address the
kind of consequences that we are all discussing here today.
Mr. Poe. Thank you.
Mr. Li, I have one final question for you regarding the
Falun Gong. How many folks in the Falun Gong have been killed
because of the Chinese Government's policy? And is the
situation with the Falun Gong in China getting worse, getting
better? Where is it headed, in your opinion, the persecution?
Mr. Li. Okay. Thank you.
Reportedly, over 3,000 Falun Gong practitioners have been
killed, and this is not complete.
As to the second question, I think the situation is
deteriorating. I haven't seen any progress of Falun Gong
practitioners.
Mr. Poe. Well, let me ask you this: Is the persecution
increasing against the Falun Gong? Or is it diminishing?
Mr. Li. It is increasing, I believe.
Mr. Poe. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Li. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Diplomat,
Ambassador Poe. [Laughter.] Mr. Bilirakis, my Florida
colleague, is recognized.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I
appreciate it. Thank you so much for holding this hearing as
well.
I have a question for Ms. Kadeer. I hope I didn't
mispronounce that name. I apologize.
But, Ms. Kadeer, I understand that you met with President
George W. Bush while he was in office at least once and, also,
I believe you met with Secretary Rice as well. Have you had any
opportunity, have you been able to arrange a meeting with
President Obama or Secretary Clinton? And elaborate on that,
but I would like for you to answer that question first.
Ms. Kadeer. Yes, I was able to meet with President Bush,
actually, twice during his administration, the first time in
Prague, the second time in the White House. So, both of the
meetings sent a strong message to the Chinese Government that
the U.S. was deeply concerned with the Uyghur rights issues.
And also, with regard to the situation of my children at
the time, China was very careful because of these meetings. And
also, there were frequent visits from the U.S. Embassy to our
homeland.
And actually, I was able to honorably meet with First Lady
Laura Bush.
Obviously, I would love to have the honor to meet President
Obama to speak what is in my heart regarding the human rights
violations, but so far I have not had the honor. Of course, I
am available, and I also requested meetings many times in the
past, but that has not materialized.
I also want to meet with Secretary Clinton, especially to
talk about the case of my children, but still----
Mr. Bilirakis. Why do you think that is the case?
Ms. Kadeer. I am not exactly sure why, but my hope is, as a
mother, to talk to another mother regarding my children's case,
but that has not happened.
And I certainly hope I would have the opportunity to meet
President Obama eventually. My thinking is probably that
President Obama doesn't want to offend the Chinese Government,
and that is why he probably decided not to meet with me and the
other people.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam
Chair. I yield back the balance.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Thank you for bringing up that terrible human cost that
comes with being a leader for freedom and democracy. Thank you
for excellent testimony, and especially for giving us some very
valuable suggestions about what we can do to press for freedom
and democracy and openness and fairness for the people of China
who hunger for freedom. Thank you so much.
With that, our committee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Note: The material submitted for the record by Mr. Bhuchung K.
Tsering, ``Self-Immolations in Tibet'' and the ``Summary of Human
Rights Abuses in Tibet in 2012,'' is not reprinted here due to length
limitations but is available in committee records.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
