Tracking Number: 184445
Title: "Simon: Change US Policy on Taiwan, Vietnam, Hong Kong." Senator Paul Simon's speech on the Senate floor suggesting that the US should upgrade its relations with Taiwan, end its trade embargo of Vietnam and support civil rights for the people of Hong Kong after 1997. (910522)
Source: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (PERIODICAL), MAY 20
Date: 19910522
Text:
*PXF303
05/22/91 *
SIMON: CHANGE U.S. POLICY ON TAIWAN, VIETNAM, HONG KONG
(Text: Congressional Record/floor speech) (11,980)
Washington -- The United States should upgrade its relations with Taiwan, end its trade embargo of Vietnam and support civil rights for the people of Hong Kong after 1997, according to Senator Paul Simon (Democrat of Illinois).
In a speech on the Senate floor May 20, Simon listed the three major steps he believed the United States should take to revitalize its overall Asia policy:
"First, greater identification of this country with the government of Taiwan, which has shown in recent months and years much greater sensitivity to civil liberties. Taiwan now has a genuine democracy," he said.
"Second, the United States should modify its policy on Vietnam, so that we reduce the cause of the flow of citizens from that country. As that is done, we can deal in a more realistic fashion with those who have fled the country.
"Third, the United States should make clear our adherence to basic civil liberties and self-government for the people of Hong Kong, now and after 1997."
Following is the text of Simon's speech as it appeared in the May 20 Congressional Record, along with several texts inserted by the senator to support his speech:
(begin text)
Remarks by SIMON (D-IL):
PROPOSALS TO REVITALIZE U.S. POLICY IN ASIA
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there is understandable interest in and attention to the most-favored-nation status of the People's Republic of China, and I will address that at a future session of the Senate. But there are broader issues in that region that should concern us, that deserve our attention, and I will take this opportunity to discuss those.
Recently, I had a chance to visit Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China, and Hong Kong. I would like to share with my Senate colleagues a few observations, as well as my concerns, about that area of the world.
On Taiwan, there has been remarkable economic and political progress. I met with President Lee Teng-Hui, who is a native of Taiwan, the first native Taiwanese to serve as President. I came away with the impression that Taiwan has a solid leader who has shown a remarkable ability to pull the nation together as he moves ahead in civil liberties as well as economic progress. People who once were political prisoners are now leaders of an opposition political party. There is universal recognition for the civil liberties progress that has been made. The majority party was reestablished in Taiwan by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek in 1949, and later headed by his son, Chiang Ching-Kuo. Their political party, the KMT, continues to be the dominant political force on the island, but a vigorous opposition now exists.
The average income in Taiwan is $8,000 a year compared to approximately $300 in the People's Republic of China PRC. Taiwan has the world's largest surplus of foreign currency reserves and is the 13th largest trading country in the world. What is also impressive is that there has developed a healthy middle-class and fewer of the huge disparities between rich and poor that many nations have. The difference between the wealthiest 20 percent and the poorest 20 percent on Taiwan is a 4-to-1 ratio. By comparison, in the United States our ratio is 9 to 1. We could learn from our friends in Taiwan. But there are significant economic needs: More long-term investment, improved communications, improved transportation, and other things that you would expect a nation to need that has shown dramatic progress economically.
United States policy toward Taiwan has been inconsistent with our ideals. It has been dictated by an excessive desire to please the government of the mainland. I want to get along with the PRC, but we will not earn respect by not standing up for our ideals. Successive administrations in the United States since President Carter have tried to maintain a balance between our official relations with Beijing and unofficial ties to Taipei. Those unofficial relations with Taiwan have been significant; perhaps most important, we are the only major industrial nation willing to sell Taiwan the weapons that Taiwan needs for self- defense and deterrence. But even in that area, our support has been declining, and our other relations with Taiwan have been cool and distant.
Now the time has come to tilt that balance more toward Taiwan, in recognition of their impressive democratization and in sad acknowledgment of the backward steps taken by the repressive regime in Beijing. Two ways to do that are:
First, increasing the officiality of our relationship by allowing contact between our Cabinet-level officials; and
Second, supporting Taiwan's admittance to international organizations in the technical and economic/financial areas.
Our traditions are for individual civil liberties and self- rule by the people. If we do not stand solidly for freedom and democracy, we do not stand for anything.
While Italy, France, Ireland, and other countries send cabinet-level officials to Taiwan, we are too timid to do so. Our present weak-kneed policy grew out of a mistake that was made in going from one extreme in China policy to another. We recognized the Republic of China -- Taiwan -- as the Government of all of China for many years. It was an illusion that did not do any good for the people of China nor for the people of the United States.
Then instead of doing what the United States did in Germany -- officially recognizing that there were two Governments, East Germany and West Germany -- we shifted to pretending that the government of the mainland, the People's Republic of China, represented all the people. We ignored the fact that the Republic of China -- Taiwan -- spoke for the 20 million people on Taiwan. Recognizing two Germanies was not a barrier to ultimate reunification of Germany, and a recognition of two Chinas would not have been a barrier to the ultimate unity of China.
But that is now history. To shift now to a two-China policy would be disruptive and unrealistic.
But it is also unrealistic not to acknowledge that there is a different Government in Taiwan. And that Government is infinitely closer to us in what it practices in freedom and democracy than is the Government of the PRC. There are many things we can do that are short of official recognition of the Government of Taiwan. The United States is now quietly supporting the admission of Taiwan to GATT. There are other international organizations where the PRC would not have a United Nations veto, and Taiwan could at least be admitted as an observer. Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation APEC is an important new mechanism for trade and economic development in the Pacific region. Taiwan would be a natural for membership. The World Health Organization is another example, the Food and Agricultural Organization yet another. There are ways of making clear that we regard Taiwan as a responsible member of the community of nations. The Wall Street Journal recently published an editorial suggesting that President Bush invite President Lee to the United States. I am all for that. But President Bush probably feels it would be too awkward to invite President Lee over or to visit Taiwan. If even having the Secretary of State visit Taiwan is somehow beyond the courage of our government, at the very least send the Secretary of Commerce to meet with officials in Taiwan, one of the world's great trading nations; or send the head of the
GE 4 PXF303 Environmental Protection Agency, William K. Reilly, to discuss substantial environmental problems that Taiwan has that ultimately affect the United States and the mainland, as well as the people of Taiwan. Our present policy of almost pretending Taiwan does not exist is anemic and could even lead to violence. I am concerned that our official posture of recognizing Taiwan as part of China puts us on very thin ice if the PRC ever decides they want to take over Taiwan through violent means. I am confident that a majority of the Members of Congress would want the United States and the United Nations to respond quickly to any such aggression, but our present policy leaves that situation somewhat ambiguous.
The thriving British colony of Hong Kong has achieved remarkable economic success. I was in Hong Kong only one other time, as a young journalist back in 1959, and the changes that have occurred in Hong Kong are dramatic, almost unbelievable. Hong Kong has the highest per-capita average income of any place in that area of the world outside of Japan. The per-capita income average is $12,000 a year. Prosperity in Hong Kong has spread over the border to the southern province of China. It does not mean that the people of the southern province of China have the same standard of living or the same basic liberties that the people of Hong Kong have, but Hong Kong's wealth has spilled over, and the People's Republic of China receives some of the benefit from Hong Kong's prosperity. As part of my visit to Hong Kong, I visited some of the boat people who have fled Vietnam. There are approximately 45,000 Vietnamese who are being detained in a prison-like situation in Hong Kong, where they have adequate food and medical attention, but they live in extremely cramped quarters that cause serious social problems. The United States and other countries could resolve the immediate circumstances of the 45,000 people, but unless we move on the problem that is causing people to leave Vietnam, we will not ultimately resolve anything. Achieving that goal will require an improvement in the economy of Vietnam and improvement in human rights there. That means that the United States should deal much more realistically with the Government of Vietnam, including stopping the trade boycott and recognizing the Government there, and we should push, at the same time, for Vietnam to improve its record in human rights and to fully address United States questions about those missing in action during the war. Unless there is movement on the economic front and on the human rights front, there will continue to be large numbers of people who will try to leave Vietnam. This is essential for resolving the problem of those detained in Hong Kong.
While I was in the camp I met a woman, whose background I am still checking on, who when I asked her if she would return to Vietnam replied, "No. The Communists there killed my father, and if I return they will kill me." And then she started to cry. Her fears may be unwarranted, but they are real. Until there is a change in the human rights posture of the Government of Vietnam, there will continue to be a great many people who fear returning to Vietnam.
When I visited the refugee camp at Whitehead, I met a British writer, Heather Stroud. Ms. Stroud gave me the background on some of the people I did meet: Nguyen Van Hoa, Nguyen Van Son, Vu Dahn Phi and his family. Their stories are gripping, and I ask unanimous consent to insert their stories into the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Text Inserted by SIMON (D-IL):
Nquyen Van Hoa-23011, Sec 1, Whitehead Detention Centre. Pham Thi Thanh Hai-23012 (wife); Nguyen Minh Kong-23913 (son); VRD 252/88
When the war broke out between China and Vietnam it caused many problems for my family. My sister was married to an ethnic Chinese. Vietnam had established a policy whereby all ethnic Chinese had to abandon their homes and leave Vietnam. Those who did not leave were rounded up and placed in special economic zones/compounds. My brother-in-law and sister decided not to leave Vietnam. My sister would not have been safe in China, yet it was not safe for her husband to remain.
My sister and brother-in-law were arrested and taken to Tran Duong-Vinh Bao, which is about forty kilometers from Haiphong City. Life was very difficult. They had to work hard and received little food. They could not leave the compound to visit with their family. My sister and brother- in-law found the situation to be so difficult that they escaped and crossed over the border into China.
The police called my family to the 48 office (counter espionage office). They said that my family had planned my sister and brother-in-law's escape. They believed that because my family lived in Vietnam and my sister and brother-in-law lived in China with his family, we were all part of a secret organization whose intent was to plot against the Vietnamese government. They said that if we did not admit to our crime we would be replaced in the confining zone to replace my sister and brother-in-law.
December, 1979 they read the order which required us to leave our house and move to the confining zone. I protested at the injustice of their actions. They took me to the police station to sign the arresting form. While I was waiting in a room I decided to attempt to escape. I knew that if I did not try then, I may never get another opportunity.
GE 6 PXF303
I escaped from the police station and made my way to my friend's house. We then sent word through my friend that I needed a place to hide. After three days I left and went to stay at my friend's mother's home in HaBac.
My family were now totally scattered. Our house had been seized by the authorities. My sister's family had fled to China. My mother had been arrested and was living in the confining zone. My younger brother who had been in the army was exiled and sent to 71 Thuy Nguyen for hard labour. I was in hiding. We had committed no crime and yet we were being punished because the authorities believed we had, or were likely to, betray them. It would have been more accurate to say, our country had betrayed us. It was because of these circumstances that I decided to leave Vietnam.
In March 1980, I set out for Hong Kong believing that if I survived the sea voyage I would find freedom. During our sea voyage our boat broke up. We had to struggle to reach the shore. We had left the Vietnamese territorial waters and found ourselves in China. We were arrested by the Chinese police and taken to Dong Xing camp.
Dong Xing was run on the lines of a prison, rather than, a refugee camp, even though there were children among us. We were treated as though we were criminals. If we attempted to escape, we could be shot or torn apart by the guard dogs. We were always hungry, especially the men because we tried to make sure that the children received enough to eat. If anyone was hurt or became ill we received very little medical care. Many people died because they did not receive adequate medical attention. Anyone who transgressed the rules could be tortured.
One man climbed over the wall in an attempt to escape. The guards saw him and shot him. He was badly hurt and they took him away. The next day we protested against this event and asked to be allowed to continue our journey to Hong Kong. Our request was refused and we were forced back to the camp by the police. Five men, suspected of being leaders of the demonstration were tortured and taken away. Later some of them returned.
In 1982 myself and four other men, (Nguyen Chi Cing, Nguyen Van Dai, Nguyen Van Hiep and Nguyen Son Hong) decided to escape from Dong Xing and to attempt to get to Hong Kong.
We managed to get out of the camp without being apprehended. We had no map and were uncertain of our route. In the dark we ventured into the border area. The next morning all of us were arrested by the border troops of Vietnam. They automatically assumed that we were on a spying mission from China. They tortured us by hitting us with the butt of their guns. All the time they tried to get us to confess that we were spies. They wanted to know what our mission was. After some time they were dissatisfied with our claims of innocence. They pushed our faces into the water until we were choking and almost drowned. Then they kicked us in the belly. My friend, Nguyen Son Hong, could not tolerate his face being pushed in the water and it appeared that he drowned.
Nguyen Son Hong may not have been completely dead at that time, but they put him in a drain and forced us to cover his body with dirt and branches.
We were very afraid and exhausted. Our bodies were ragged and covered in blood, yet they continued to torture us. We had no more strength or courage to resist their questions and we acknowledged that we were spies. We believed that had we resisted them further we would have been murdered like our friend.
They took us to the border service 229. We were locked in a block house. Half of it was afloat and half of it was sunken. We lay there, in and out of consciousness, for two days. Then they took us to Mong Cai district to stay for five days. We couldn't eat and we only drank a gruel made from rice water. The Mong Cai police contacted the police in Haiphong. They came and collected Nguyen Van Hiep and myself and took us back to Haiphong. My other two friends, Nguyen Chi Cong and Nguyen Van Dai, who were from Quang Ninh, remained. They were from the Mong Cai district so the police there took responsibility for their fate.
Nguyen Van Hiep and I, who are both from Haiphong, were imprisoned at 126 Nguyen Duc Canh road. They locked us in a special cell for political offenders. The call was 4 square (metres). We were given ten minutes of fresh air and five minutes of hygiene. We were given a bowl of rice with a little vegetable and salt, two times a day. The food was not sufficient for our body and we were always hungry.
They asked us many questions every day for a period of three months. Why we had returned to Vietnam? What was our duty? Did we carry guns? Did we carry handbills? We answered that we had not been to Hong Kong. We also said that we were not spies and had not come back to Vietnam on a special mission of espionage. They asked us why we had admitted to being spies. They did not accept, that we had confessed because we were afraid they would have tortured us to death had we continued to claim our innocence.
We were charged with having been recruited as Chinese spies and of having returned to Vietnam for the purpose of destroying the Vietnamese regime. We received no trial, and were placed in detention for an undetermined time.
I was in prison for 6 years total. I was kept three years in a cell at 125 Tran Phu. I was later transferred to Lam Son-Thanh Hoa. The other inmates here were mostly republican officers of the old South Vietnamese Army. Their fate was the same as mine. At Lam Son we were required to perform hard labour which placed us in danger. We had to place mines in stone to demolish the rock. We then had to carry the stone to another place. We had to strafe 2 metres of stone. We had to crush the stone so that it became smaller. Many inmates died because of our hard labour. We were punished if we did not complete our work load. If we did not finish we could not eat. Our food was miserable and inadequate as it was. We had two small meals a day of manioc with sweet potato. We had very little rice. During one year alone 350 prisoners died of starvation and dysentery.
I stayed at Lam Son, Thanh Hoa for two years, then was transferred to Haiphong. My case had still not been decided and they wanted to investigate me further. They used many methods to get me to talk. They wanted to know the names of the men who had come back to Vietnam from China. They were interested to know the names of the people who had been in the China camps and wanted to know what the Chinese wanted us to do.
During my stay in prison my mother died in the confining zone, (She and my father had divorced 20 yrs ago), my two brothers were imprisoned for attempting to escape to Hong Kong and my sister remains in China.
Sometimes in prison I thought about killing myself so that I could end my miserable life. All that kept me going was the belief that one day I would find freedom and begin to live.
On September 1987 I was given permission to temporarily leave the prison. I was still under their authority and could be interned at any time. With my mother dead, our house taken, and my brothers in prison, I had no home to go to. I could not stay with my father and his wife because they knew that my presence in their house would cause them trouble. I lived with my father's sister. There was still the risk of trouble and they were afraid of the implications of my being in their house.
I had no rights and no way of making a living. When my sister had things to sell I would help her. One day in Quang Ninh I was arrested because I had no license for selling goods. After I returned back to our house the police come round again and they arrested me because I had gone over three days without reporting. They kept me in prison for five days. They said that if I made one more mistake they would send me to a re-education camp for three years.
My freedom was not real freedom. I asked permission to obtain a marriage license but I was told that I didn't have a family card, I didn't have a citizens card and that I must wait for my trial to finish. After my trial I could be put back in prison.
My family were sympathetic. They help me to obtain a marriage license. We decide that we must leave Vietnam.
On April 1988 my wife and I attempted to escape Vietnam. We got close to the border when we were arrested. I knew I had to escape otherwise I would be put back in prison. This time I knew it would be for ever. I ran. God help me, I was so afraid I ran. My wife could not escape and was arrested. I sought out my friends. We bribed the police and after twenty days my wife was free.
We stayed at my friends house then successfully crossed the border into China. We made our way to my relatives. We stayed with them for a short time while my wife recovered from her experiences.
July 1988 we left for Hong Kong and arrived August 1988.
I have now failed the screening test and the review board. If I am sent back to Vietnam my life will not be worth nothing. I still face the trial of the false charges of espionage set against me, and by leaving Vietnam I transgressed the rules of my temporary respite from prison.
I am neither a spy or a criminal, yet I have spent the last ten years of my life in detention. If I were to return to Vietnam I would rot, slowly, in a Vietnamese cell. My choice is to die now, cleanly and in Hong Kong, with the salt air in my lungs.
The reason I have not yet plunged a knife into my abdomen, is that there still exists some stubborn faith within, that convinces me I will find freedom.
Text Inserted by SIMON (D-IL):
Nguyen Van Son -- 22197, Sec 1, Whitehead Detention Centre. VRD:1/89
Born 10/11/61 in Xuan Ninh, Mong Cai -- Quang Ninh (M).
Residence Section 10, Tho Xuan, Mong Cai, Quang Ninh.
I started school in 1969 and finished 1976. In 1977 I worked for a ship builder of Hai Ninh -- Tien Tien factory. In early 1980 I became a militia man of the area during the war between Vietnam and China. My family was a labouring one. My father was an upright and diligent man. He used to struggle for justice and human rights. He won everyone's favour and became chief of security of the area.
In June 1980 the Vietnamese Government forced the ethnic Chinese groups to leave their homes. These included people with an ethnic Chinese husband or wife. Most of them were poor and could not afford to get a boat so that they could leave Vietnam. Many ethnic Chinese were forced into Special confining zones. My father was very sympathetic toward the ethnic Chinese and let it be known he disagreed with the policy of forcing them away from their homes. He was not arrested at that time, but he confided in our family that we might expect some trouble as a result of his having expressed his views.
During August 1980 some people who had been travelling from Haiphong to Mong Cai were robbed at the Mong Cai Bus Station. My father recognized it as his responsibility to help them. He asked Mr. Khong Minh Duc, who was in charge of the situation at the bus station, to help find a solution. While a solution was being sought to help these people, they attempted to leave Vietnam for China and were arrested at the border. My father was immediately accused of giving support to escapees. His sympathy toward the ethnic Chinese had made him vulnerable and this incident provided his enemies with the oppportunity of punishing him for his views. He was put in prison for eighteen months.
After this incident many other things went wrong for our family. I got the sack from the factory where I worked. I also was forced out of the militia group I had joined. Our family were placed under the surveillance of the local authority. Mr. Khong Minh Duc who had also been involved with the situation received no trouble.
I felt very angry toward the communists and decided to escape with my friend. We left Vietnam during October 1980 with the intention of going to Hong Kong through the mainland. When we attempted to cross into China we were arrested by the Chinese police and taken to Dong Xing camp.
Conditions in the camp were very poor. We did not have enough to eat and received very little medical attention. Our future seemed dark. We were not aware of any international organization who knew of our circumstances. Inmates were beaten and ill treated regularly for small transgressions. After Mr. Bui Duc Sy was shot while attempting to escape, the whole camp demonstrated against our ill-treatment. We walked out of the camp and requested that we be allowed to leave for Hong Kong. The police came and gathered us together and took us back to the camp. I was amongst the five men who were arrested on suspicion of being leaders of the demonstration. The head man of the camp, Mr. Xam Pac ordered us to be tied up with wire and beaten. We were then forced to lie in the sun for hours.
After that I was taken to Kham Chau Prison. They beat me on several occasions. They tried to get information from me about who were the leaders of the demonstration. They suspected that it had been deliberately organized by a Vietnamese spy. I did not know about such matters and could not tell them anything. They then tried to force me to become a spy against Vietnam. I refused.
They detained me in Kham Chau for about a month after my interrogation. This time was very sad for me. I was afraid, lonely bored and miserable. I was young and they had no evidence against me so they allowed me to return to Dong Xing.
Soon after my return to Dong Xing I was called to see the leader of the camp. I was accused of being a trouble maker. They said I did not co-operate. I was blindfolded and taken to the border. At gun point I was told that I had to cross back into Vietnam. I knew there were many land mines and spikes in the area but I had no choice but to go back into Vietnam.
After I had crossed into Vietnam I was arrested by the frontier guards at To Chim post. They terrorized and beat me. They were convinced that I was a spy and tried to force me to confess. I refused to comply with their request. They continued to beat me. They then transferred me to the Security Army (759-323). While I was their I saw a friend of mine Mr. Duc beaten to death, because he refused to agree with their accusations. I was once again transferred to camp 14 Ha Lam, Quang Ninh Province, for questioning. After fourteen months detention I continued to tell them the truth and refused to sign any confession admitting to be a spy. They had no evidence to take to the court so they accused me of being a dangerous element and sent me to a re-education camp in Thanh Hoa, where political prisoners were detained.
At Thanh Hoa Prison we were given very littel food and we did not have sufficient clothes to wear. We were forced to work hard and long hours. The weather conditioins effected our capacity to work. My first job was to plant manioc. Each day I had to complete an area of 150m3 to 180m3. Three years later I was transferred to the brick making group. We had to make bricks (800 to 1000 a day) and collect material from the mountains. We worked eight hours a day. The wind which came across from Lao would cause problems for us.
Sometimes we were too cold and at other times we were too hot and could only work slowly. The prison keeper could beat us if we did not work quickly or whenever he liked. We were regarded as animals. Many prisoners died after severe beatings and from illnesses related to beatings and the lack of food.
On November 2nd, 1987 I left the prison under Nguyen Van Linh's amnesty. After I was released I still had to report to the local police station regularly. I could not go out of the area without permission and had to do unpaid labour when required.
My parents used to earn their living by fishing, but they were becoming old and so I would go with them to help them. One time when I was with them on our boat, the police came and arrested us. They thought that we were trying to make contact with the Chinese. The police confiscated our boat. They had no evidence against us and after interrogation they set us free.
I had no livelihood so I tried to get a job as a porter in the market but they forbade me to do this job. I had no rights in Vietnam. The police arrested me, beat me and threatened me, whenever they liked. I was afraid that they would put me back in the re-education camp, so when the opportunity came to escape to Hong Kong, I did.
I know that if I am returned to Vietnam I will be arrested. By escaping I have transgressed the rules of my parole. I have never done any harm to the Vietnamese communists regime and yet I have been severely punished. After a decade of searching for freedom and justice, Hong Kong is my last hope of survival.
Text Inserted by SIMON (D-IL):
Vu Danh Phi -- 72296, Sec. 1, Whitehead Detention Centre. Tran Thi Phong -- 72297, wife of Mr. Phi; Vu Dan Quang -- 72298, son; Vu Danh Ninh -- 72299, 2 yrs old; Vu Cong Hoang -- 24502, 4 mths old; Pham Thi Thu -- 72301, niece, 12 years (parents drowned during voyage). VRD: 755/89.
These are the conditions and reasons why I left my homeland and set forth on a dangerous journey to seek freedom.
My father: Vu Danh Loc, born 1926. (He died 1968 in a communist prison).
In 1952-1954, my father served in the French army.
In 1955, my father was re-educated and kept under surveillance. In 1960, the Vietnamese authorities re-issued the re-education policy. He was arrested and placed in detention at Lao Cai Prison on charges of being a reactionary; 1968, my father died in prison after being beaten severely. During the eight years that my father was in prison none of us was allowed to visit him. Following the death of my father my mother requested that his body be returned to her so that she could arrange for a proper burial. Her request was denied.
My mother: Vu Thi Thom born 1928 at Hai Duong.
Before and after 1955 she traded in fruit. After the arrest of my father life became very difficult for her. She had six children to bring up and very little merchandise to sell. When she heard that my father had died she suffered greatly. She now lives in Haiphong 267 Ly Thong Kiet St.
My sisters and brothers:
My eldest brother: Vu Danh Phuong born 1954 in Haiphong. He was penalized because of his father's former association with the French. He was denied job educational and opportunities. He remained at home to help my mother. After the death of my father he became neuropathic and was paralysed. He received no medical attention.
My eldest sister: Vu Thi Mai born 1950 in Haiphong. She was not allowed to attend school and stayed at home with my mother. She is now married and lives away from home.
My elder sister: Vu Tai Tam, born 1956 in Haiphong. She also was not allowed to attend school. She is now married and lives away from home.
My younger sister: Vu Tai Thao born 1959 in Haiphong. She was not allowed to attend school. She has since married and moved away from home.
My youngest sister: Vu Thi Huyen, born 1960. She attended school up to second grade. She is now married.
Information about Vu Danh Phi:
I was born into a family that was classified as being of a reactionary composition by the Vietnamese authority. I wasn't allowed to attend school. When I was seven years old I went to live with another family until 1966. At that time my boss made arrangements for me to study at night school. I managed to attend school to the seventh grade.
In 1973 I came back to my family to help my mother.
In 1974 I worked for Mr. Tran Quoc Trieu who owned a boat. My job was to ferry passengers across the river.
In 1976 I married Ms. Tran Tai Phuong who was the sister of my boss, Mr. Trieu.
January 1980 I was arrested by the Vietnamese police. They informed me that my boss Mr. Tran Quoc Trieu and his family had escaped from Vietnam. They assumed that because he was my brother-in-law that I had aided his escape. I had known nothing about his escape but the police did not believe me. They beat me severely. To escape further beatings I eventually agreed to sign a confession to a crime which I had not committed. I was detained for twenty one days, then transferred to Tran Pho Prison Haiphong. In this prison I was tortured by the police. All the time they said I was the organizer of my brother-in-law's escape.
After three months I was released but had to wait my trial. My family were not allowed to continue with our work on the river. Our livelihood had been taken away from us. I was very afraid what would happen when my trial came up.I explained my situtation to my friend Mr. Hung, who agreed to help me escape.
We left Vietnam in a small boat. After six days we approached the border area. Our boat was discovered and we were shot at. We managed to escape the Vietnamese guards but our boat, which had been badly damaged started to sink. We were helped by the Chinese authorities and taken to Dong Xing.
The conditions in Dong Xing camp were very difficult. Many people had been there some time and their situation was much like ours. Some people tried to escape and were shot. Mr. Sy was shot in his stomach. We were all very angry and distressed. We gathered in the compound and demanded that we be allowed to leave for Hong Kong. Mr. Xam Pac said we could go. We all left through the gates. Later when we were walking toward the town the police came and after some struggles they took us back to the camp.
Several men were arrested as a result of this incident. We heard that they were tortured and put in prison. Some of them were released. We think others were punished by being taken to the border and forced to cross back into Vietnam. The Chinese authorities regularly looked for ways to frighten us into joining a special group to be trained as spies. They wanted us to act against the Vietnamese government.
While at Dong Xing our relative Mrs. Viet Ha was pregnant. She was not in good health because we did not get sufficient good food and we did not receive adequate medical care. There was a small room separated for women who were ready to deliver their babies.
After giving birth to her son Mrs. Viet Ha was very weak and as the condition in this camp was not fit for the birth-women, Mrs. Viet Ha caught a cold. She became weaker. One night (It was during February or March) her husband Mr. Cao Duc Duong came shouting and beating at the door. He made the best loud noise he could to announce to the camp master and other staff that his wife needed a doctor. A few minutes later the camp master came. Then he went for the doctor, or the vet as we named her. (The vet was not qualified as a doctor, but for our camp she acted as a doctor. She was slow and dirty. That's why we called her the vet.)
The vet came slowly with her medical box. She did not care that Mrs. Viet Ha was fighting for her life. She came in the room and began to examine Viet Ha. After thinking for awhile she opened her medical box, took a syringe and medicine, then gave Viet Ha an injection. But, after pulling out the syringe Viet Ha gave a cry and died. We believe the vet gave Mrs. Viet Ha the wrong medicine. Mr. Duong didn't know what to do but he knew that his wife was dead. She died when she should not have. Mr. Duong made a cry.
Then the camp began to spread the news of Viet Ha's death. Everyone knew that Duong and Viet Ha were a newly married couple and that they loved each other very much. But now Viet Ha had died. Many people in the camp came to see Viet Ha and pay their respects.
Mrs. Viet Ha was carried out to a stone bend out of the camp. She laid on that cold bend before when she was sick but now she laid there unknowing this world's bad thing to her, unknowing that she was free from the camp's control. Her body was there for the whole night. (We Vietnamese take very much care for the body of our people, relatives and friends. We want their body to be cleaned and have a good tomb. We would let the dead body wear new clothes and we bury them nicely.) But what a pity for Viet Ha. She had to lay on a cold stone bend in the open air without any care.
The next day, the camp master, Xam Pac, told us to move her body to the road side where we went to the stream. We wrapped Viet Ha with a plastic cloth and Mr. Duong was there to watch his wife with a guard. After another day still no coffin came. On the third day the coffin came. It was just six pieces of wood badly nailed together.
We went to the mountain nearby the stream and buried Viet Ha. The Vietnamese say that if a mother dies when she was breast-feeding her child, her spirit would go back to the child and take him or her with her. We made a false child in her arms with a banana tree so that she might think that it was her baby and that it might save her baby's life.
After buryng her Mr. Duong gave the baby to my wife to take care of him. But things happened as we thought, the baby died three months later. We buried him near his mother.
Some said it was Viet Ha who came back to take her baby and breast feed him. She had died when she was young: their spirits are always godly. (This is another of our Vietnamese sayings.)
But on the other hand we know that her baby died because of the camp's bad conditions.
The vet had indirectly killed two lives. What kind of punishment did she get from the Chinese government? Indeed, she got no punishment. To the camp master our lives were nothing. We were his enemies.
Many days later the vet avoided us, then she moved.
The weather at that time was quite wet and cold, drizzling rain all day and night. It added a more terrible feeling in our hearts, in our minds, for the death of Viet Ha and her baby in the year of 1981.
Three years later Mrs. Viet Ha's husband Cao Duc Duong knew that he must take his young wife and son's bones back to Vietnam. He believed that after three years her spirit would return and wish to be taken back to Vietnam. He escaped from Fangcheng. He knew that to escape was dangerous and he knew that to return to Vietnam was even more dangerous. He did this because he loved his wife and son. He went back to the mountain where his family were buried. He dug up their bones and took them back to Vietnam. He was arrested in Vietnam when crossing the border and charged with espionage. The Vietnamese authorities did let the family of Mrs. Viet Ha collect her bones and bury them. Cao Duc Duong received five years imprisonment. We do not know what has become of him.
On June 1984 I decided that there was little future for my family if we stayed in the camp, therefore I decided to escape with my wife and child. We were able to get to the beach before we were arrested by the police. They took us back to Dong Xing camp. They accused me of being a Vietnamese spy and beat me severely. After some days they took me and my son to the Vietnamese border. They kept my wife in Dong Xing. She was pregnant by three months at that time.
At the border the Chinese police pulled out their guns. They said that they would shoot us if we turned back. I was afraid for my wife who was left behind and I was also afraid for myself and my son to cross the mine field which extended for several miles either side of the border. We had no choice but to cross the border.
When we arrived on the Vietnamese side we were picked up by the frontier guards at post 212. For seven days at the frontier I was locked in a stone cellar without food. I was continuously beaten and interrogated. My little son was locked in another place. We were then taken to police post 14 in Quan Ninh. While in this prison I was accused of being a lackey for the Chinese and of acting against Vietnam.
During April 1986, I was taken to a re-education camp called Phi Liet Prison, Hai Phong. During the day time -- 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. I had to work very hard. Our work was also very dangerous. We had to make holes in the rock to place mines. After the rock side had been blown up we had to climb up. We would bring the boulders down. Each person was assigned three cubic metres. We received no protection to help us with our task. There were many accidents. We did not have sufficient food so our bodies were weak. I had two accidents. There were others who died as a result of their accidents.
At night time -- 9 p.m. to 12 p.m., I had to study politics. This was really their method of brain washing us. 1) We had to study the regulations of the camp. 2) We had to study the Communist party and the authority's line of policy. They instructed us in the superiority of socialism over capitalism. They instructed us that the Communist party belonged to the people who wished happiness for the people without private enterprise. They instructed us that the Capitalist system was represented by the ruling class, who were by nature corrupt. The majority of people living under the Capital system were miserable and unemployed. There was rampant inflation etc, etc.
On December 17th 1987 I was released to the charge of the local authorities. After three days my wife Tran Thi Phuong was released. After three years of separation we were together again. She told me of her experiences.
EXPERIENCES OF TRAN THI PHONG
After our attempted escape from Fangcheng we were taken to Dong Xing. I was placed in a separate room from my husband and son. Xampac and other staff beat me severely which caused me to have a miscarriage. After some days I was taken back to Fangcheng. I was very distressed because of the loss of our baby and distressed that I could not get any information about my husband and son. I cried and pleaded with the camp master to tell me about my husband and son. For a long time he refused to tell me anything. Much later he informed me that they had been forced back to Vietnam across the border.
My desperate situation and this news of my husband and son, led me to make a decision to kill myself. I set fire to my body. Some people in the camp prevented me from killing myself, although as a result of my actions I was seriously burned on my shoulder.
The camp master Xam Pac, who had come from Dong Xing tried to force me to have a marriage relationship with his friends. On May 1985 he forced me to have a relationship with Mr. Sang. Then in October 1985 he tried to force me to go with an official driver of the camp. He used many methods to try to persuade me. He would attempt to seduce me, then when I refused he would threaten me. After each of these two occasions he beat me.
On November 1985 I escaped from the camp with a girlfriend. We were on the beach when the police arrested us and took us back to the camp. I was locked in a cell for a month and beaten many times.
On February 1986 I escaped with Dam Khac Luc, but we were discovered and pursued by the camp staff. We ran to the Phong Thanh bridge where they arrested us. They beat Mr. Luc to death. I was beaten and fainted. When they revived me they took me to prison. They detained me for three months. Before releasing me they told me that if I told any Vietnamese that they had beaten Mr. Luc to death, I would be punished.
In July 1986 I made another escape attempt with three friends. We planned to go back into Vietnam. I thought that from Vietnam I could find my family then we could get a boat and sail to Hong Kong. We spent two days crossing the forest before reaching the border. After we had crossed the border we were arrested by the guards post 212. They took us to Ha Lam prison (police post 14, in Quang Ninh.) We were all locked in isolation cells.
While I was in prison I was accused of being a spy for the Chinese and of acting against the Vietnamese regime. They used many methods of interrogation and torture. They beat me and they used electric current through my nipples.
On March 1987 I was taken to Tran Phu Prison in Haiphong. I was kept locked in a cell with leg irons. I received very little food.
On December 20th 1987 I was released into the custody of the local authorities. I was always under surveillance. I lived in my mother's house at no 58 Tam Bac St, Haiphong. After three years of separation I met my husband again.
On February 1988 the local authorities expelled my family to the New Economic Zone called Dong Cuong Yen Bai. This area was reserved for the people considered to be dangerous to the communist regime. The conditions in this economic area were miserable and punitive. There was no clinic or medicine for people who became sick. There was no school for the children. There were no homes for the labourers. We built what shelter we could from leaves and sticks.
Our work was to strip the bark from the cinnamon trees. Each person was assigned five trees a day. This meant fifteen trees for my family. My wife was pregnant and my son was small. We were unable to complete our task of fifteen trees. The management not only cut down our rations but also threatened that I would be put back in prison. I knew that it wasn't possible for my family to work any harder and I knew that the management would happily carry out their threat. I felt that I had no choice but to risk the dangers of escaping again and get my family out of Vietnam.
After five days of crossing the forest we arrived at my relatives home in Ben Dun, Haiphong. With help from our relatives we arrived in Hong Kong October 7th 1988.
Hong Kong is our last hope. We have spent ten years seeking freedom. We have not yet attained it. Our fear is we never will. If we are returned to Vietnam my wife and I will be imprisoned. I do not know the fate of my young children. -Remarks by SIMON (D-IL) and DODD (D-CT)
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have inserted these stories into the Record because these are people who have been turned down for refugee status. Yet they face overwhelming problems, and I hope that we can work out something for them. Not all of the 45,000 boat people are political refugees, but some who are not now categorized as refugees are, and those I have mentioned here are illustrations of that. Ms. Stroud has provided the names and cases of some 27 about whom she knows the details and, she believes, are clearly political refugees. On the basis of their statements, they appear to fall into that category.
But again, unless the United States changes its basic policy toward Vietnam, we will continue to proliferate this kind of problem, even if we were suddenly to admit the 45,000 who are refugees in Hong Kong to our country, which no one advocates. The policy that we now have toward Vietnam serves our national passion, but not our national interest. We need a policy that serves the national interest. Vietnam is the third largest Communist country, behind only China and the Soviet Union, in numbers of people. Its people are desperate.
Let me commend here our colleague, Senator John McCain, and Senator Bob Kerrey and Senator John Kerry, all three of whom fought in Vietnam, and all three of whom are asking for reappraisal by our Government of our policies there.
I welcome the two forward steps that the administration has taken recently regarding Vietnam. Opening an office in Hanoi will improve our ability to deal with our national priority of resolving the status of those missing in action from the Vietnam war. Providing a token amount of aid to Vietnam -- a million dollars of humanitarian assistance for prosthetic devices for the people of Vietnam -- will help to bring closer the day that our Nation and Vietnam share a normal relationship, finally closing a painful chapter in our history.
Vietnam has become more cooperative with us on the MIA/POW issue. All of my suggestions for improvement in the relationship are contingent on their continuing to cooperate with us on these issues.
The British are critical of the United States, saying that our policy toward Vietnam is causing much of the problem and also that we criticize them for returning Vietnamese people, and yet we return people to Mexico and to other countries. There are differences, but there is also some validity to the British criticism.
I hope we can work out a policy that brings opportunity to these people who are now virtually imprisoned and brings a little more justice, freedom, and opportunity to the people of Vietnam.
Hong Kong is a vibrant city with an amazing economic growth, an average income of approximately $12,000, and an unemployment rate of approximately 1.2 percent.
But hanging over dynamic and vibrant Hong Kong like a heavy cloud is the agreement that has been reached between the PRC and the British on the future of Hong Kong. On July 1, 1997, Hong Kong will become Chinese territory.
As we consider what should be done on granting most- favored-nation status to the People's Republic of China, our concerns should be the long-term impact on civil liberties in the PRC. Our friends in Hong Kong are concerned about the short-term economic impact, and I understand that. But this is one occasion when we should be looking beyond short-term considerations.
The joint declaration in 1984 of Great Britain and the People's Republic of China included this language:
The current social and economic systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged, and so will the life-style. Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research, and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Private property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance, and foreign investment will be protected by law.
There are other good provisions in it. Article XIII of Annex I says:
Religious organisations and believers may maintain their relations with religious organisations and believers elsewhere, and schools, hospitals and welfare institutions run by religious organisations may be continued. The relationship between religious organisations in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and those in other parts of the People's Republic of China shall be based on the principles of nonsubordination, noninterference and mutual respect.
However, on April 4, 1990, President Yang Shangkun of the People's Republic of China issued what is called The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. The Basic Law is a sort of constitution for Hong Kong to apply beginning July 1, 1991. When reading the Joint Declaration of 1984, there is the feeling of a great deal of self-government and autonomy granted to the 5.6 million people of Hong Kong. There are also positive things in the Basic Law, but there are other things that are deeply disturbing. For example, the Basic Law provides: "Any law returned by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the PRC shall immediately be invalidated." That gives the dictators in Beijing the power to kill all Hong Kong legislation. When it comes to selecting members of the legislative body, we are told that it must be "in accordance with the assigned mumber of seats and the selection method specified by the National People's Congress of the PRC." Immigration decisions are to be made by China, not Hong Kong: "The number of persons who enter the region for the purpose of settlement shall be determined by the competent authorities of the Central People's Government."
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region "shall enact laws * * * to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies." That could halt all political ties with the West, as well as Japan and Taiwan. As to selecting the chief executive for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Basic Law provides:
The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress.
Presumably, the authorities in the People's Republic of China will determine what is "in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress." That the PRC views things in somewhat less than a democratic fashion is illustrated by article 50:
If * * * the Legislative Council refuses to pass a budget or any other important bill introduced by the government, and if consensus still cannot be reached after consultations, the Chief Executive may dissovle the Legislative Council.
Imagine a free and democratic government living with this one sentence of article 74:
The written consent of the Chief Executive Officer shall be required before bills relating to government policies are introduced.
Since the Chief Executive will be under the thumb of the PRC, China cannot only prevent any bill from being passed, but can prevent any bill from being introduced. Toward the end of the Basic Law is article 158:
The power of interpretation of this law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the PRC.
The courts are to comply with the interpretations of the law that come from Beijing.
All of this is significant because if China is this insensitive to civil liberties in Hong Kong now and is not sensitive to the civil liberties of its own people, it is unlikely that it will be sensitive to the civil liberties of the people of Hong Kong when it suddenly takes over in 1997. There are those who argue that it is in China's economic self-interest to maintain the status quo in Hong Kong. My answer to that is first, there is no such thing as status quo. You either will move ahead or you will move back in civil liberties. Unless things change in China, Hong Kong will move back.
The British could give one great gift to the people of Hong Kong before they leave in 1997: self-rule. Unless civil liberties are accompanied by self-rule when the PRC takes over Hong Kong, I have serious doubts whether basic civil liberties are going to be protected after 1997. Dictatorial regimes, historically, have not been generous to new territory they acquire. The leaders of the PRC should remember that political freedom and economic growth in Hong Kong go together, and if one is diminished, the other will be diminished. Let me assure the leaders of the People's Republic of China that, just as certain as I am standing on the floor of the Senate, if you deny basic civil liberties the people of Hong Kong now have, the goose that lays the golden eggs -- the Hong Kong economy -- will lay far fewer golden eggs, and the economy of all of mainland China will be hurt. It is in the economic self-interest of the PRC that the political rights of the people of Hong Kong should be respected, but there is ample reason for fear on the part of the people of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong has a Legislative Council, which is the Parliament for the 5.6 million people. It is not too much to suggest to our friends in Great Britain that this Parliament be freely elected just as the House of Commons is.
I join the members of the British Parliament who have said in clear terms that the citizens of Hong Kong are entitled to the right to choose their legislators, as are people in free countries elsewhere. Listen to what a few of the members of the House of Commons have said in recent years:
The highly respected Edward Heath:
Far greater than any danger of haste is the danger of not having fully representative working government with experience by the time the handover takes place.
Dennis Canavan:
It would surely not be unreasonable to suggest the target that by, say, 1991, the entire Legislative Council should be directly elected on a universal franchise * * *. The head of that Council -- the Governor, Chief Executive or whatever he is called -- should also be elected from the membership of the Legislative Council.
A friend of some years, George Robertson:
The progress towards the more elected and representative government that is proposed in the White Paper is perhaps unduly cautious. The Government of Hong Kong must be ready in the 1987 review to consider holding direct election * * *. The danger now is not of Chinese over-reaction to democratic reform but of insufficient time before 1997 in which to create a strong, viable, locally based system which will withstand the inevitable pressure and tremors as 1997 advances.
The British tradition of freedom should not be compromised at this point. That British tradition of freedom has not been expressed as fully as it should be in Hong Kong. It is symbolized by one line in a National Geographic article on Hong Kong describing "politics, a path of public expression long denied to Hong Kongers." The British have generally done better. Unless there is a resolve on the part of the British and the People's Republic of China to expand the basic civil liberties of the people of Hong Kong, inevitable there will be slippage.
That makes it imperative that Great Britain give as much freedom as possible to the people of Hong Kong now, so that whatever narrowing of rights takes place after 1997, there will be less jeopardy to the basic liberty of the people of Hong Kong.
But it appears that is not what will happen, and I regret to say the Government of the United States has not spoken out strongly on behalf of freedom for the people of Hong Kong. The surest way to preserve freedom in this type of situation is to give it away, and the British should do a better job of giving it away.
The people of Hong Kong have had no serious voice in the Basic Law that the People's Republic of China has propounded. Even in Hong Kong today, the citizens of Hong Kong have too little voice in selecting their Legislative Council. Majority of membership is by various organizations, such as the Bar Association or the Medical Association. But no one pretends that those elected in this fashion are truly representative of the people of Hong Kong.
Underscoring the problem in Hong Kong was an article that appeared in the New York Times magazine of May 5, 1991, "Escape from Tiananmen Square, A Chinese Odyssey" written by Nicholas D. Kristof.
I shall quote a few sentences from that article about Liu Xiang, one of the leaders of the Chinese Student Democracy Movement in Tiananmen Square:
What Liu's 2-year ordeal also underscores is the way British overseers of Hong Kong sometimes seem to be doing Beijing's bidding. Sending a democracy movement activist back to China, to face the possibility of a long prison sentence is hardly in keeping with the professed British ideals of fair play an common decency. However, British authorities hold the view that the best way to manage Hong Kong is not to vex China but to maintain stability and allow for a graceful exit in 1997. Liu seems to have been a victim of that policy.
Liu managed to escape China and get into Hong Kong and then was turned over by the Hong Kong Government to the officials of China. Listen to what the article says at that point: "It was contemptible," he says. "We'd been betrayed by the Hong Kong Government. We were so shocked and angry, and we figured we'd be sentenced to 10 years in prison."
Then follows this paragraph:
The territory's British overseers have briefly, and as secretly as possible, provided refuge to some prominent democracy activists from China before sending them on to Europe or the United States. But the Hong Kong authorities have done this unenthusiastically, worried about the reaction from Beijing, and have systematically moved to curb criticisms about China that would upset its leadership. Hong Kong has not allowed some prominent Chinese dissidents living abroad to visit the territory. Films critical of China are censored.
If, before Hong Kong becomes part of the People's Republic of China, things have not improved significantly in terms of basic freedoms, it is certain they will not improve after 1997.
The British Parliamentarians who have suggested that their Government now give the people of Hong Kong the full right to elect their Legislative Council should receive the backing of the United States. If that were to happen today, it would make it a little more possible that Hong Kong could have a government in which the people of Hong Kong have a real voice after 1997.
While it is in China's economic best interest to avoid any curtailment of freedom in Hong Kong, when it comes to questions of basic freedom, China does not act in its own economic self-interest, Tiananmen Square being the most graphic example of that.
I would like to see the British give the people of Hong Kong greater freedom and greater voice in shaping their own destiny. I would also like to see the U.S. Government do more than sit on the sidelines twiddling our thumbs, pretending there is no problem. We ought to stand up for freedom wherever and whenever we can. Our relationship with the British is such that while they may not appreciate our doing it, it will not sour our strong and friendly relations with the United Kingdom.
The PRC can hardly be expected to show greater sensitivity to basic civil liberties and the right of self-rule if there is so little British leadership in this field. The official British reaction to the publication of the Basic Law, with its massive restrictions on the civil liberties of citizens, was that it was a "remarkable document." Indeed, it is.
In these days when democratic forces are sweeping through much of the world, it is amazing to find a country like China that still does not welcome democracy and does not even provide a figleaf of protection to hide its harsh statements.
Martin Lee, one of the most articulate government leaders I have found in any nation, who is a member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, says bluntly: "No United States policy towards Hong Kong currently exists." That is, unfortunately, an accurate assessment. Hong Kong has approximately $7 billion of American investment and is the world's busiest port. It is the world's 4th largest financial center, and the 11th largest trading country in the world. The United States should not be indifferent to that nor to the fate of 5.6 million people there. The People's Republic of China should understand that we have a deep concern for the situation in Hong Kong.
Our administration should abandon its silence and speak openly and vigorously for the cause of freedom and democracy. That voice is needed now.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe these steps should be taken:
First, greater identification of this country with the Government of Taiwan, which has shown in recent months and years much greater sensitivity to civil liberties. Taiwan now has a genuine democracy.
Second, the United States should modify its policy on Vietnam, so that we reduce the cause of the flow of citizens from that country. As that is done, we can deal in a more realistic fashion with those who have fled the country.
Third, the United States should make clear our adherence to basic civil liberties and self-government for the people of Hong Kong, now and after 1997.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Robb). The Chair recognizes the Senator from Connecticut Mr. Dodd.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before our distinguished colleague from Illinois leaves the floor, I wish commend him on his statement, one of the most thoughtful I have heard in some time, an accurate description of events there.
I think the Senator from Illinois is 1,000 percent correct in identifying the absence of policy on Hong Kong, and I commend him for his remarks here this afternoon and hope our colleagues will pay attention to them and hope he might go a bit further and see if there is not some possibility of formulating some sort of legislative statement wherein this body might be able to express itself more definitely on the position he has articulated here this afternoon.
It is an event which is no longer in the public eye. It has been absent from any real debate or discussion. I think the Senator's comment about what authoritarian or totalitarian governments have done in the past where they were engaged in expansionist policy is correct and borne out by historical evidence.
We do not find an opening of democratic institutions. In fact, quite the contrary. They seem to expand not only territorially but also ideologically and philosophically. I think to allow that to occur without some sort of statements or expressions by this body would be a tragedy.
I am just moved by the Senator's comment and wanted to express those by him, Mr. President, before he left the floor.
I am glad to yield to my colleague.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut, who is a highly respected member of the Foreign Relations Committee. I note that on the floor right now the Presiding Officer is Senator Robb, also a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator McConnell, who is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
I hope we can fashion some kind of a bipartisan statement that puts the United States very clearly on the side of freedom for the people of Hong Kong. I will work with my colleagues who are on the floor and others on the Foreign Relations Committee to try and get that done.
(end texts)
NNNN
File Identification: 05/22/91, PX-303
Product Name: Wireless File
Product Code: WF
Keywords: SIMON, PAUL; TAIWAN-US RELATIONS; VIETNAM-US RELATIONS; HONG KONG-US
RELATIONS; EMBARGOES; CIVIL RIGHTS; CHINA-HONG KONG RELATIONS; HONG KONG/Politics & Government; REFUGEES; HUMAN RIGHTS; POLITICAL PRISONERS; CHINA-US RELATIO
Document Type: REP
Thematic Codes: 1EA; 2FP
Target Areas: EA
PDQ Text Link: 184445
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
