[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE IMPACT OF THE 2008 OLYMPIC GAMES ON
HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF LAW IN CHINA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.cecc.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-150 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
House
Senate
SANDER LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota, Co-
Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana
CARL LEVIN, Michigan
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
PAULA DOBRIANSKY, Department of State
CHRISTOPHER R. HILL, Department of State
HOWARD M. RADZELY, Department Labor
Douglas Grob, Staff Director
Charlotte Oldham-Moore, Deputy Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
Opening statement of Hon. Sander Levin, a U.S. Representative
from Michigan, Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on
China.......................................................... 1
Dorgan, Hon. Byron, a U.S. Senator from North Dakota, Co-
Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China.......... 3
Pitts, Hon. Joseph R., a U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania,
Member, Congressional-Executive Commission on China............ 5
Smith, Hon. Christopher H., a U.S. Representative from New
Jersey, Member, Congressional-Executive Commission on China.... 7
Walz, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Representative from Minnesota, Member,
Congressional-Executive Commission on China.................... 8
Royce, Hon. Edward R., a U.S. Representative from California,
Member, Congressional-Executive Commission on China............ 9
Martella, Roger R., Jr., General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.............................. 10
Hom, Sharon K., Executive Director, Human Rights in China,
Professor of Law Emerita, City University of New York School of
Law, New York, NY.............................................. 12
Dietz, Robert, Asia Program Coordinator, Committee to Protect
Journalists, New York, NY...................................... 15
Richardson, Sophie, Asia Advocacy Director, Human Rights Watch,
Washington, DC................................................. 17
Munro, Robin, Research Director, China Labour Bulletin, Hong
Kong, China.................................................... 19
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements
Martella, Roger R., Jr........................................... 32
Hom, Sharon...................................................... 36
Dietz, Robert.................................................... 41
Richardson, Sophie............................................... 45
Munro, Robin..................................................... 48
Levin, Hon. Sander............................................... 53
Dorgan, Hon. Byron............................................... 54
Manzullo, Hon. Donald A.......................................... 55
Smith, Hon. Christopher H........................................ 55
Hagel, Hon. Chuck................................................ 57
Smith, Hon. Gordon H............................................. 58
Submissions for the Record
Prepared statement and responses to Commission's questions by
Mario Mancuso, Under Secretary for Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce......................................... 59
Cases of Political Imprisonment in China: List of political
prisoners, submitted by Senator Byron Dorgan................... 64
An Appeal From the Tiananmen Mothers to the Government: Set a
Timetable for Dialogue on the June Fourth Massacre, submitted
by Sharon Hom.................................................. 64
HRIC Olympics Take Action Campaign Individual Cases, submitted by
Sharon Hom..................................................... 66
China Labour Bulletin Article by Geoffrey Crothall and Han
Dongfang, submitted by Robin Munro............................. 68
Responses by Robin Munro to questions from Representative
Christopher Smith.............................................. 72
THE IMPACT OF THE 2008 OLYMPIC GAMES ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF
LAW IN CHINA
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008
Congressional-Executive
Commission on China,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m.,
in room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Representative
Sander Levin (Chairman of the Commission) presiding.
Also present: Senator Byron Dorgan, Co-Chairman; Senator
Mel Martinez; Representative Joseph R. Pitts; Representative
Tim Walz; Representative Edward R. Royce; Representative
Michael M. Honda; Representative Christopher H. Smith;
Representative Donald A. Manzullo; and Representative Marcy
Kaptur.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SANDER LEVIN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
FROM MICHIGAN, CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON
CHINA
Chairman Levin. Well, let's begin. We'll do so with opening
statements. There is going to be a House vote in 15 or 20
minutes, and Senator Dorgan and the other Commissioners will
carry on. We'll try to miss as little of the testimony as
possible.
All of you were excellent in submitting your testimony in
advance, and somewhat well in advance, which is not always
true, so we have all had a chance to read your testimony. Your
testimony will be entered into the record. As Senator Dorgan
and I will indicate, you can do whatever you want with your
five minutes, either going over it in its entirety if you can
do so in five minutes, or summarizing, hitting high points,
whatever you would like to do. We very much look forward to
this hearing and thank all of you for coming.
Indeed, this hearing embodies why this commission was
created some years ago. The Commission convenes this hearing to
examine the likely impact of the 2008 Summer Olympics on human
rights and the rule of law in China. In its Olympic bid
documents and its preparations for the 2008 Summer Games, China
made commitments pertaining to human rights and the rule of
law. Our witnesses today will help us to evaluate those
commitments and to
assess the openness with which China has allowed the rest of
the world to monitor its progress in fulfilling them.
In the days before the International Olympic Committee
voted to select Beijing, there was consideration of human
rights and related issues, as had been the case--and I
emphasize this--in previous deliberations about appropriate
sites for the Olympics. China made a point of raising the link
between human rights and the 2008 Games. On July 12, 2001, the
state-run China Daily reported that Wang Wei, the Secretary
General of the Beijing Olympics Bid Committee, said, ``We are
confident that the Games coming to China not only promotes our
economy, but also enhances all social conditions, including
education, health, and human rights.'' These words could not
have been clearer. Human rights in the 2008 Olympics were
linked before Beijing was awarded the Games, and China itself
linked them.
Just yesterday, China's Foreign Minister announced that
China is ready to resume the human rights dialogue with the
United States that was suspended in 2004. That announcement
underlines the relevance of this hearing--which was announced
several weeks ago--and means that there is considerable and
appropriate ground to cover today.
On press freedom, Beijing's bid documents state, ``There
will be no restrictions on journalists and reporting of the
Olympic Games.'' At the same time they also stated, ``There
will be no restriction concerning the use of media material
produced in China and intended primarily for broadcast
outside.''
On openness in general, Beijing's action plan for the
Olympics states, ``In the preparation for the Games we will be
open in every aspect to the rest of the country and the whole
world.''
On government transparency, more specifically, Beijing's
action plan for the Olympics states, ``Government work will be
open to public supervision and information concerning major
Olympic construction projects shall be made available
regularly.''
This last point deserves extra attention because it
underscores the importance of China's new regulation on the
public disclosure of government information which takes effect
on May 1 of this year. This new regulation promises people in
China the legal means to obtain access to government records
relating to construction, labor affairs, health and safety, the
environment, and much more before the Games begin, and also
after.
Much of the world's attention also has focused on China's
environment. Beijing's bid documents stated, ``By 2008, the
environmental quality in Beijing will be comparable to that of
major cities in developed countries, with clean and fresh air,
a beautiful environment, and healthy ecology. Meteorological
observations in the area of Beijing in the past 10 years have
indicated that July and August are good times to hold the
Olympic Games.''
I must note that China's security preparations for the
Olympics also have raised concerns. Congress banned the
transfer of crime control equipment to China after the
Tiananmen killings of 1989. Nonetheless, recent press reports
describe the export from the United States to China of
equipment identified as commercial, but with crime control
applications.
This merits attention because after the Olympics high-tech
surveillance products will be left in the hands of China's
public security and state security organs who could use them to
monitor political activists, religious practitioners, and
members of certain ethnic minority groups.
The Commission asked the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Industry and Security, Mario Mancuso, to testify today, but
he's in India on official business and unfortunately could not
join us. However, he has offered to respond to questions in
writing, and we will be submitting them.
So, finally, let me say this. China does not want to be
labeled as a gross violator of human rights, and yet it makes
its determination to eliminate dissent painfully clear to the
world. Thousands of prisoners of conscience languish in jails
across China. Just in the last few weeks, China has detained
individuals who have mentioned the Olympics when speaking out
for human rights. Officials have cast their public-mindedness
as a subversion of state power.
These same authorities assert that raising concern over
human rights in the context of the 2008 Games violates the
Olympic spirit. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Fairness on the field of play, fair judgments, and the
opportunity to witness human potential unleashed to the fullest
extent are the very essence of the Olympic spirit. They are
also the essence of freedom and fundamental human rights.
In seeking the 2008 Olympics, China made specific
commitments. Seven years have passed, and the Games begin in
less than six months. This hearing is a necessary part of
determining whether China is fulfilling its commitments. China
is, as we all know, an increasingly important part of the
international community and it is vital that there be
continuing assessment of its commitments, whether as a member
of the WTO or as the awarded host of the Olympics. Other
nations, including our own, have both the responsibility and a
legitimate interest in ensuring compliance with those
commitments.
Senator Dorgan, now it is your turn. This is an opportunity
for all of us to gather, and it is my pleasure that we can be
doing this together.
[The questions to Mr. Mancuso and his responses appear in
the appendix.]
[The prepared statement of Chairman Levin appears in the
appendix.]
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON DORGAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
DAKOTA, CO-CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON
CHINA
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Well, Congressman Levin, thank you very
much. I appreciate working with you as co-chair of this
important commission.
Let me say that the purpose of this hearing is to evaluate
whether the 2008 Olympics will in fact bring benefits, or any
lasting benefits, to the Chinese people by enhancing human
rights and accelerating rule of law development.
China views the 2008 Olympics as not merely just an
athletic event, but as recognition of its global, economic,
diplomatic, and military power. It is a way of extending
themselves to the world. It is, to them, a political event in
many ways, and one of great significance. It will confirm their
acceptance in China as a proud and prominent participant on the
international stage.
So, now how did China get to this position? China lost its
bid in 2000 to host the Olympics and I think in part because of
the long shadow cast by the government's crackdown in Tiananmen
Square.
The government negotiators for China worked a long time to
secure a better outcome on their second effort to host the
Olympics, and they were successful, in part, by promising
international Olympic Committee members and others that China
would commit itself to significant reforms that included
international reporters having the unfettered ability to
interview, to exercise free speech, and to report. China also
responded to the issue of the environment. There is so much
that the Chinese promised. Now the question for this hearing
is, to what effect, what should we, members of the
international community, expect?
Now, there was a hearing before the European Parliament,
and I believe I am told that Ms. Hom was a part of that
hearing. At that hearing a few months ago, there was a witness
named Hu Jia. He called in by telephone to that hearing before
the European Parliament. He, as a courageous dissident,
addressed the issue of the Olympics and the Chinese Government
at the hearing. Well, the hearing was very similar to this one,
as I understand it, with witnesses, and then a telephone
presentation by Mr. Hu.
One result of that hearing testimony was Mr. Hu being
dragged from his house by Chinese state police agents. He now
sits in jail. His wife and his three-month-old child are under
house arrest in their Beijing apartment. The Chinese Government
has a three-month-old under house arrest, mind you, and Mr. Hu
sits in jail. Their apartment's telephone and Internet
connections are cut. All this, for speaking to a committee--
before the European Parliament--very much like this commission.
So much for free speech and free expression.
Just last week, Yang Chunlin, an unemployed factory worker,
went on trial for subversion in northeast China. He was
arrested last year for reportedly helping nearby villagers seek
compensation for lost land. He had collected 10,000 signatures
from local farmers. The signatures were for a letter that read
in part: ``We Want Human Rights, Not the Olympics.''
Prosecutors said that that letter stained China's international
image, and that it amounted to subversion, so this unemployed
factory worker went on trial.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask that we include a list of
political prisoners in China, which I have attached to my
statement, to be a part of this hearing record. It is a short
list; not exhaustive, just representative. A short
representative list of those who now sit in prison for the very
thing that we will exercise in this room: speaking freely.
We were promised, all of us were promised, the world was
promised by the Chinese Government that they would move in the
direction of allowing more discussion, free speech, and other
freedoms. We are now discovering that that was just a promise.
We expect, I hope through this hearing, to hear more about
whether and how China is meeting its commitments.
I hope the Chinese Government is listening. I hope they
will hear the message from this commission that we expect
progress. We
expect the Chinese Government to keep its word. We expect the
Chinese Government to stop detaining under house arrest three-
month-old children. We expect them to release people like Mr.
Hu and others from their prisons, people who are jailed
precisely because, and only because, they had the courage to
speak out and exercise the right of free speech, something we
take for granted every single day of our lives here in this
great country.
So, Mr. Chairman, I will ask consent that we include in the
record this list of political prisoners that I have included in
my statement.
Chairman Levin. Without any objection, so ordered.
Would anybody else like to make a short statement?
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, let me also ask that
Senator Hagel's statement be included in the record, at his
request.
Chairman Levin. Without objection.
So this doesn't always happen at committee or commission
meetings. It's usually just two of us. So, let each of us who
would like make a short statement, then we'll hear from the
witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Co-Chairman Dorgan appears in
the appendix.]
[The list of prisoners appears in the appendix.]
[The prepared statement of Senator Hagel appears in the
appendix.]
Senator Martinez. Thank you. Let me just say from my
standpoint, I just associate myself with the comments of
Senator Dorgan and thank the Chair for holding this hearing.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator.
Representative Pitts? Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
PENNSYLVANIA, MEMBER, CONGRESSIONAL-
EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
Representative Pitts. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding
this important hearing on ``The Impact of the 2008 Olympic
Games on Human Rights and the Rule of Law in China.'' In
preparing for this hearing, I have been pleased to see some of
the positive changes occurring in China as a result of the
government's commitment to uphold the mandate of the Olympic
Charter; however, I remain concerned about the staying power of
any of these changes. The question remains as to whether or not
the people of China will benefit from the increased observation
of and attention to Chinese Government regulations on issues as
varied as refugees, migrant workers, and the peaceful
expression of religious faith.
Over the years, as I have watched changes in China, I have
been encouraged and discouraged during countless cycles of two
steps forward and then three steps backward. While some might
dispute that assessment, the fact that we continue to receive
numerous reports about Chinese officials' actions against North
Korean refugees, Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province, child
laborers, and Protestant house church leaders and congregants
reflects that there still is a long way to go. Unfortunately,
the government does not seem bent on protecting, assisting, or
improving the lives and/or the peaceful expression of beliefs
by any of these groups.
While this hearing focuses on the impact domestically of
the Olympics being held in China, there is another side to
China's recent and even long-term activities. China's support
for the government of Sudan is highly problematic, particularly
in light of the rape, death, and destruction occurring in
Darfur.
While the Chinese Government making a recent statement to
the government of Sudan on this issue is a small positive step,
much more pressure and leadership on behalf of the people of
Darfur should come from Chinese officials.
Chinese officials constantly use the refrain that they do
not interfere in the internal matters of other countries--that
is an interesting statement in light of the fact that their
presence, money, and resources automatically do interfere in
the internal matters of other nations. In Burma, for instance,
reports suggest that since 1989, the Chinese Government has
provided the dictators in Burma with over 2 billion dollars'
worth of weapons and military equipment. This Chinese weaponry
has allowed the regime to quadruple the size of its forces to
450,000. As a result, Chinese weaponry has directly contributed
to the brutal dictatorship's targeting of children, women, and
ethnic groups in its attacks against its population. Chinese
officials can't tell me that they have no responsibility for
what is going on in Burma--it's simply not true. As is well
known, the Burmese regime uses rape as a weapon of terror, uses
individuals captured in raids as human landmine sweepers, and
destroys food sources, homes, and places of worship.
Specifically, the dictators of Burma could not implement their
attacks without Chinese weaponry.
In terms of North Korea, the Chinese Government targets
North Korean refugees who have fled to China and sends them
back to certain torture and likely death at the hands of the
North Korean officials. If the Chinese Government refused to
deport North Korean refugees and instead allowed, as they
should under their international commitments, the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR] to assist and resettle the
refugees, it would undermine the North Korean Government.
China's actions against
refugees directly helps the brutal North Korean regime.
The Chinese Government must understand that statements that
it does not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations
is belied by its actions. If the Chinese Government wants to
curtail criticism of its actions, then it needs to implement
long-term, lasting changes that improve the lives and protect
the freedoms of the Chinese people and other peoples around the
world.
I sincerely hope that China's hosting of the Olympics is
the first step toward an era of new openness and positive
change that will benefit the Chinese people and others.
However, only time will tell. I stand with those Chinese
journalists, peaceful religious leaders, peaceful political
activists, and NGO leaders who continue, with great courage, to
fight for change in China.
I look forward to hearing from our very distinguished
witnesses and receiving their insights and recommendations on
steps the U.S. Government should take to further support the
people of China.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Representative Smith? And let me just mention, I think we
are going to have a vote soon. So if each of you could try to
summarize, your entire statement will be placed in the record.
Chris?
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
FROM NEW JERSEY, MEMBER, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON
CHINA
Representative Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman. Let me just say at the outset that I also serve
as Ranking Member on the Africa and Global Health Subcommittee
and we have a very important hearing on tuberculosis, so I will
have to return to that hearing. As the Ranking Republican, I
want to thank our witnesses in advance for the work they are
doing here. Like Mr. Pitts and all of our colleagues, all of us
have been joined at the hip with Mr. Levin in trying to promote
human rights and the rule of law in China.
A few weeks ago, the New York Times reported the arrest of
a 34-year-old Chinese dissident named Hu Jia. Mr. Hu's crime?
Using his home computer to disseminate information on human
rights violations. He joins a huge, ever-growing number of
cyber dissidents who today in China are being hauled off to
jail simply for promoting human rights and democracy.
The Times article suggests the obvious in the run-up to the
Beijing Olympics in August. The People's Republic of China
[PRC] is using its iron fist to eradicate dissent. Even Mr.
Hu's wife and two-month-old daughter, who are now under house
arrest, prompted the Times to note that the baby is probably
the youngest political prisoner in China.
But in this particular case we can, and must, take direct
action. I'm afraid that many American companies like Google,
Microsoft, and Yahoo! have cooperated with the Chinese
Government in turning the Internet into a tool of surveillance
and censorship. Last year, as some of you may know, I
introduced the Global Online Freedom Act, which is making its
way through Congress to prevent U.S. high-tech Internet
companies from turning information over to the Chinese police
that identifies individual Internet users and
requires them to disclose how the Chinese version of their
search engines censors the Internet. In October, the Foreign
Affairs Committee approved it and we hope it will be on the
floor soon.
In China--and I think this is the one issue that is often
not
focused upon--the whole issue of the one-child-per-couple
policy continues to be one of the most egregious human rights
violations, especially against women and especially against
children, ever perpetuated in human kind.
The one-child-per-couple policy, with its heavy reliance on
forced abortion and coerced sterilization, has led to an
unbelievable, disproportionate number of girl children and girl
babies. One estimate puts it at as many as 100 million missing
girls in China as directly attributable to more than 30 years
of one-child-per-couple, which went into effect in 1979. This
is gendercide. These children, these girls, are targeted simply
because they are little girls. My wife and I have four
children. If we lived in China, we would have one, maybe
Melissa. The other three would be dead, because brothers and
sisters are illegal in that particular country.
We also know that there is no religious freedom, that the
house church movement continues to be suppressed, the Falun
Gong, the Uighurs. I do believe the Olympics give us a window
of opportunity that we can ill afford not to seize to raise
these issues robustly, and hopefully have an impact. That is
why this hearing is being held.
Finally, the Chinese Government needs to crack down and we
need to investigate this whole issue of bodies. I know you are
all following it; ``20/20,'' Harry Wu, and so many others have
raised the issue, as it ought to be raised: how did those
individuals get the plasticization that has occurred to their
bodies, many of these men and women, very much in the prime of
their life?
I happen to believe, having actually been in a Laogai
prison camp soon after Tiananmen Square, Prison Camp #1 in
Beijing, that they have been shot. We were looking for more
evidence, but all of the evidence suggests--but has not yet
been proven--that they are there through a very nefarious way
and we need to investigate that as well.
Again, Mr. Chairman, my full statement will be made a part
of the record. But human rights in China are non-existent--and
I would just add this. The United Nations needs to step up to
the plate. The Human Rights Council has not done its work.
China is a member in good standing, and when that went from the
Human Rights Commission to the Human Rights Council, all of
these promises were made about how that new body would
represent an honest, transparent, aggressive, and incisive
look, particularly at countries that are part of the council.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Other treaty bodies,
genocide conventions, conventions against torture, all those
others need to step up to the plate because they have not done
the kind of scrutiny on China that they need to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Representative Smith appears in
the appendix.]
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan and I have quietly consulted. If each of the
rest of you could take just a minute, try to do that so that we
can get to the witnesses.
Representative Walz?
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM WALZ, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MINNESOTA, MEMBER, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
Representative Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and our
colleague from the Senate. I appreciate the opportunity, and
all of our witnesses.
The Olympic Games have great potential, as they embody the
greatness of the human spirit, to give us an opportunity to
look, as they should, at what it means to be part of the human
community. The issue of human rights obviously needs to be at
the center of that.
This commission and this body--and I would say the American
people--take very seriously that responsibility to look at it
as a world citizen and understanding what is there. I have had
the opportunity to live and work amongst my Chinese friends,
and having been in China during Tiananmen Square and after,
understanding that that spirit is there amongst the Chinese
people, too.
There is a sense of responsibility for us to probe deeply
as a people, looking at the Games and letting those Olympic
Games be a mirror to us also. The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights that this nation was party to in 1947, there are
some core beliefs there that I think, by asking these questions
about the Olympics, by asking these questions how the Chinese
Government is fulfilling their responsibility to their people,
lets us as a human nation get beyond some of these sticking
points and get to some true solutions.
So I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to be here, and
thank the witnesses.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Royce?
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD R. ROYCE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, MEMBER, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
Representative Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to serve on this commission. I think the
Olympic Games have put a light on China. It is soon going to be
a spotlight. I think many of us have come to view China's
hosting of these Games as some pretty key leverage in pushing
for greater press freedom, transparency, and human rights. I
think we have to be realistic. I think Secretary Rice put it
well the other day. ``Let us not get carried away,''she said,
``with what listening to Dvorjak is going to do in North
Korea.''
I think the same could be said of the Olympics in Beijing.
The Games are going to come and go, and they are going to go
pretty quickly. It is the long-term impact that we are
interested in.
I want to give one example, Mr. Chairman. It was announced
today that, sensitive of its image leading up to the Games,
China will resume its human rights dialogue with the United
States, and that is very positive. Yet, we have heard that
commitment before. We need to make sure that this isn't an
empty promise that disappears after those closing ceremonies.
I would also like just to point out that this commission
has been working on an issue which I hope we continue to work
on. This is an issue that humanitarians here have brought to
us, working on behalf of North Korean refugees inside China.
There are a number of North Korean refugees in China under
UNHCR protection, yet China has refused to issue them an exit
visa unless the UNHCR agrees not to process any more asylum
seekers until after the Beijing Olympics are over.
Now, I understand that China's policy is now undermining
the UNHCR's ability to bring additional refugees into
protection. Mr. Chairman, this is unacceptable. These refugees
could be quickly resettled in third countries. China knows
this, we know it. I hope that this is an issue that the
Commission can further explore, and I thank you again, Mr.
Chairman, Co-Chairman, for your good work here on the
Commission.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Honda?
Representative Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing
us to speak. I will yield my time to you and to our witnesses
so we can get on with the program.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Manzullo?
Representative Manzullo. I have no statement. I ask that my
written statement be entered into the record.
Chairman Levin. All right.
We are going to begin. The bell has rung. But Mr. Dorgan
will carry on.
I think what I will do, is introduce the five of you, and
again, thank you. The focus of this hearing is on human rights
and the rule of law in China. That is the basic purview of this
commission. That has really determined the kind of testimony
that we want today.
We will first hear from Mr. Martella, who is the General
Counsel for the Environmental Protection Agency. Each of you
has a long list of accomplishments, but I will just give the
titles, if I might.
Sharon K. Hom is the Executive Director of Human Rights in
China, and a Professor of Law Emerita at the City University of
New York School of Law. I stumbled over emerita; you are much
too young. I do not quite understand that.
Bob Dietz. Mr. Dietz is Asia Program Coordinator for the
Committee to Protect Journalists [CPJ]. Sophie Richardson is
the Asia Advocacy Director of Human Rights Watch. Robin Munro
is the Research Director for the China Labour Bulletin.
So, Mr. Co-Chair, take over. We will stay for a few
minutes. Is there just one vote? Does anybody know? I hope so.
[The prepared statement of Representative Manzullo appears
in the appendix.]
Co-Chairman Dorgan [presiding]. Mr. Martella, thank you
very much. Why don't you proceed? Your formal statements will
be part of the record. We will ask each of you to summarize
your statement now for us.
STATEMENT OF ROGER R. MARTELLA, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Martella. Chairman Levin, Co-Chairman Dorgan, members
of the Commission, thank you for providing me with the
opportunity and the honor to appear before you today.
The subject of today's hearing raises issues of critical
importance not just to China, but to the world. Beyond the
sporting events and pageantry, the Beijing Olympics, more
importantly, may offer spectators the broadest window yet into
a much more needed feat of strength: has the planet's fastest-
growing economy developed the fundamental legal pillars worthy
of the world's greatest stage?
After the torch is extinguished in August, international
opinion likely will remember less the medals Chinese athletes
take home, but more of the nation's achievements--or the lack
thereof--on the fundamental issues of human rights, the rule of
law, and environmental protection.
I am here today to address China's efforts to provide one
of the most vital pillars of human life: a safe, healthy, and
clean environment. Environmental leaders and scholars have
often framed environmental protection as critical to human
rights.
In September 2007, I instituted the EPA China Environmental
Law Initiative. The initiative is premised on the experience in
the United States that a strong environmental law framework is
a critical prerequisite to a strong environment. At the center
of our initiative is the only Web site we are aware of
dedicated to Chinese environmental laws.
In China, according to the World Bank, between 1981 and
2001 the proportion of those living in poverty fell from 53
percent to 8 percent. While this indisputably is a laudable
accomplishment, what is less clear in 2008 is the percentage of
those not living in economic poverty, but environmental
poverty. To give just one insight regarding air issues alone,
particulate levels in Beijing are as much as six times that of
New York City.
Reportedly, more than 300,000 people per year die
prematurely from air pollution in China. With this backdrop,
China is planning to build over 500 coal-fired power plants
before 2020. Just today on the Associated Press there was an
article: ``Pollution Turns China River Red and Foamy, Two
Hundred Thousand Lose Water.''
In the face of these issues it is important to make one
point clear. From my firsthand observations, what China does
will make a better environment. Several factors motivate that
goal, including the Olympics. As Senator Dorgan recognized a
few minutes ago, with the international media presence and all
eyes on Beijing this August, China knows the world is watching
not just its athletes, but its gray skies as well, and needs to
promote a positive image of the environment.
From the beginning, the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games
Organizing Committee (BOCOG) has promoted the event as the
``Green Olympics.'' A report from the United Nations last year
credited Beijing with significant strides in an investment of
$12 billion to improve the environment in advance of the
Olympics. At the same time, it recognized significant concerns
remaining with air pollution, particularly due to the
introduction of 1,000 new car registrations every day in
Beijing.
In its own way, the 2008 Beijing Olympics demonstrates both
everything China is doing well to provide a healthier
environment for its residents and the significant challenges
that lie ahead.
First, the Olympics demonstrate China's world-class
sophistication and ability to understand, communicate, and
address environmental issues and challenges. In other words,
the Olympics demonstrate clearly that China possesses the
scientific, technical, and financial resources needed to
promote a better environment.
Second, the 2008 Olympics demonstrate the government's
flexibility, prioritizing environmental concerns and targeting
solutions toward those concerns. However, questions that must
be considered after August include the extent to which, by
focusing on an Olympic priority, China merely transported
environmental concerns from one area to another, the extent to
which this Olympic priority was at the expense of other
existing environmental concerns, and to the extent to which the
lessons learned in Beijing will be applied elsewhere in China.
Third, critical to convincing the world of a message is the
assurance that the message is authentic, that the public trusts
it, and that it is enabled to participate through public
participation and a transparent process. In this way China has
arguably made less progress. The plethora of numbers, criteria,
and accomplishments cited by the government frequently come
without the transparency we would expect and which are critical
to other environmental law frameworks. This, in turn, can raise
doubts about authenticity. While on the other hand there are
some positive trends toward public participation in
environmental lawmaking, the pace must improve for the public
to have meaningful input.
Finally, perhaps the most significant contribution to the
Green Olympics will not be any specific measurable
environmental benefit, but hopefully an awakening to a new
approach toward achieving both economic success and
environmental protection long-term, as Commissioner Royce
suggested as well, looking for long-term solutions.
Beyond specific solutions for a single event, what is more
sorely needed are approaches on a national scale. This will
require a system of cooperative federalism that encourages
local governments to realize and achieve the goals of a clean
nation.
The PRC could overcome its most significant hurdle by
holding local governments accountable for environmental
protection in addition to pure gross domestic product [GDP]. We
may begin to see improvements in these lines in the coming
months, but I believe this remains the most significant hurdle
to a clean environment today in China.
Clearly, the Olympics have brought environmental
improvements to the residents of Beijing. What the 2008
Olympics hopefully will bring to all China is an environmental
awakening that it can realize a better environment and economic
prosperity as mutually achievable and not exclusive goals.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Co-Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martella appears in the
appendix.]
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Mr. Martella, thank you very much.
Next, we will hear from Ms. Hom. We will again encourage
you to know that your entire statements are part of the record,
and we will ask you to summarize.
STATEMENT OF SHARON K. HOM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS IN
CHINA, PROFESSOR OF LAW EMERITA, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
SCHOOL OF LAW, NEW YORK, NY
Ms. Hom. Congressman Levin, Senator Dorgan, and members of
the Commission, thank you for this opportunity to engage in
both the discussion and question and answer session afterward.
It is an honor to testify alongside of the distinguished
experts and my human rights colleagues on this panel.
With only about five months left to the opening of the
Games, we appreciate the Commission's timely attention to the
issue, and the rule of law issues as well. We particularly
welcome the Commission's ``2007 Annual Report,'' which not only
called for an end to the harassment of activists like Hu Jia
and other activities, but also raised the really important
issues that we will be continuing to discuss today.
There have already been references to the Beijing-specific
Olympic obligations, but I would like to put these obligations
and promises, and the issue of whether these Olympic promises
will lead to any lasting impact, within a broader framework of
China's international obligations, including its international
human rights obligations.
Additionally, the Olympic obligations and the international
obligations are implemented in relationship to domestic Chinese
law, in particular, the provisions of the Chinese Constitution,
which does include provisions for protecting freedom of speech,
press, assembly, association, privacy, correspondence, and the
right to criticize the government. So I think that that is the
normative universe for assessing the promises. They do not
exist in isolation. They did not exist in isolation prior to,
during, or after the Olympics. That is the way we can think
about leverage for lasting structural change.
Another key rule of law issue is that many of the
substantive and legal reforms that have been referenced,
including the Open Government initiatives [OGI], and some
others that I believe my colleagues will also be talking about,
have mostly been formal, law on the books. The real question is
implementation.
There are two implementation challenges. One is the
hostility of the Chinese authorities to any international or
domestic human rights-related criticism, especially criticism
related to the Olympics, because the Chinese authorities have
characterized any questioning of government policies in the
lead-up to the Games as an attack on China itself. This
intolerance of criticism and related nationalism conflates
China with the Chinese Government.
A government ready to host a major international event, a
mature government that respects the rule of law, needs to
demonstrate a much higher tolerance for thoughtful, critical,
and difficult individual decisions of the conscience. Instead,
for example, the recent response by the Chinese authorities to
Steven Spielberg's decision was to dismiss him as ``naive and
foolish.''
Domestically, as has already been referenced, there are
cases of individuals who are in detention and in prison for
raising Olympics-related criticisms. Many are being charged
with incitement to subvert state power, with procedural
consequences; criminal procedural protections that had been
introduced as part of the criminal procedure reforms back in
1997 are no longer available to those charged with subversion
or state secrets crimes, resulting in limited access to your
lawyer, family, the evidence, and an open trial.
Underlying these implementation issues is a rhetorical zero
tolerance for critical voices, despite guarantees in China's
own Constitution.
Going forward, a rule of law must be built on
accountability and an effective response to the justice claims
of the past. Today, at the request of the Tiananmen Mothers, a
group within China composed of the families of the victims of
June 4th, Human Rights in China [HRIC] is releasing an open
letter from the Tiananmen Mothers calling for justice in the
lead-up to the Olympics. These brave individuals have made it
quite clear that the authorities must address the past if China
is to move forward. I would ask that the full text of the
Tiananmen Mothers' open letter be entered into the record.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Without objection.
[The letter appears in the appendix.]
Ms. Hom. Thank you.
The Tiananmen Mothers' open letter states eloquently, ``The
disastrous aftermath of that brutal massacre, one of the
greatest tragedies of our times, even after 18 years is still
unresolved. The wounds deep in the heart of the people are not
healed. Because of this, the current political and societal
landscape continues to deteriorate into disorder and imbalance.
This proves that June 4th, this bloody page in history, has yet
to be turned and remains a knot deep inside the people's
heart.''
The letter calls on the Chinese authorities to meet face-
to-face and to dialogue with the Tiananmen Mothers. This is a
first-time request. In light of the Chinese authorities' recent
openness to dialogue with the United States, we would urge and
encourage them to also dialogue with their own people.
The Tiananmen Mothers clearly link the human rights issues
with the Olympics, asking, ``When the government has repeatedly
refused dialogue with the victims' families, how can it face
the whole world? Is it really possible that as the host of the
2008 Olympic Games the government can be at ease allowing
athletes from all over the world to tread on this blood-stained
soil and participate in the Olympics? ''
So let me take the remaining minute to wrap up and
highlight some of the suggestions and questions and concerns
that we have. HRIC is not calling for a boycott, as we believe
that the hosting of the Games still presents an opportunity and
the responsibility to get some traction on the human rights
issues and to advance rule of law.
This is up to each of the different actors within our
respective sectors: governments, athletes, sponsors, tourists,
business people, corporate leaders, and academic exchange
programs. For example, a number of journalism and media
programs have initiated exchange programs to send journalism
students to the BOCOG to help them draft their English-language
media work. I would suggest that some important areas to
examine include focusing on the
orientation for these students, and what kinds of actual media
assistance are being offered. We also urge the U.S. Government
to continue to raise individual cases at high-level visits and
other fora with the Chinese authorities. This sends very clear
messages of support. Secretary Rice's recently reported
engagement and raising of the case of Hu Jia and other
activists is a good example.
We would also like to enter into the record the list of 12
individual rights defenders that Human Rights in China's
Olympics Take Action Campaign has featured. These 12
individuals include Shi Tao, Chen Guangcheng, and Mao Hengfeng
for March, who has been in detention as a result of violating
the one-child population policy. Collectively, these 12,
imprisoned for rights-related work, represent the full range of
human rights issues addressed by the Campaign.
Regarding these 12 individuals, at least 5 of them have
received decisions from the United Nations Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention--an international, independent human rights
body--that their detentions are arbitrary and in violation of
international human rights law. Therefore, urging their
immediate releases could not be rejected as interference in the
internal matters of China.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Ms. Hom, we will include those
materials in the record. I want to ask you to summarize your
statement so that we can get on with the other witnesses.
[The list appears in the appendix.]
Ms. Hom. Thank you.
With respect to censorship and surveillance, we urge the
Commission to monitor two areas of concern presented by the
security preparations and technology: first is the appropriate
balancing of security concerns and protections for human
rights--the Johannesburg Principles set forth relevant and
appropriate standards; and the other is the post-Olympic use of
the advanced security technology that has already been
implemented, because there are post-Olympic use provisions in
the host city contracts of other cities.
Finally, we would urge the Commission to publicly express
your support for the Tiananmen Mothers and other domestic
rights defenders. Despite the dismissals of June 4th as
belonging to the past by the International Olympic Committee
[IOC] president and others, June 4th does not belong to the
past, and a peaceful resolution of it will enable a successful
future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hom appears in the
appendix.]
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Ms. Hom, thank you very much for being
here, and thank you for your testimony.
Next, we will hear from Mr. Dietz.
Mr. Dietz, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT DIETZ, ASIA PROGRAM COORDINATOR, COMMITTEE
TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS, NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Dietz. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Let me
cut right to the chase. China is the world's largest jailer of
journalists, and it has held that record since 1999. Currently,
CPJ counts 25 journalists behind bars. It is interesting to
note that that number is down from 29 of last year and 31 of
the year before.
Those raw numbers might make you think that there is a
downward trend going on, but in fact what we see is that in
China, with the state having advanced its censorship capacity
to such a level, that very few journalists, frankly, are
willing to take a risk. They are operating in a very
commercialized and competitive atmosphere, though, and they
continue to push the limits of news
coverage.
Let me address our greatest fear in terms of journalism and
journalists going into the Olympic Games. It is not the 25,000
to 35,000 foreign journalists who will go to China. Our
greatest fear is the Chinese journalists who will find
themselves in a heady, new, freer atmosphere, at least in terms
of ability for foreign journalists to operate, and that those
local journalists might suffer consequences once the spotlight
of the Games moves on.
Specifically, we are calling on the foreign media companies
which are going to China and will be hiring hundreds, and most
likely several thousands, of young people to assist them as
production assistants, runners, gofers, drivers, translators,
people who can arrange meetings.
We want international media to be aware that the rules
under which they are allowed to operate at this point in China,
which have been liberalized, do not apply to the Chinese
journalists. And that especially when you are dealing with
younger people who will be working for these foreign media
companies, we want to impress upon them that they must take
into concern the fact that even though these young people will
be eager to follow orders to try and prove themselves to their
new employers, they are doing that at some degree of risk. The
one thing we are trying to impress on all of our colleagues in
the media is, frankly, to be very aware of that.
Ms. Hom ran down the way that the Chinese use state
subversion laws to jail people. That is also the case with
journalists, too. More than one-half of the journalists in jail
are behind bars because of similar charges. The charge varies
at times, but basically ``state security'' is the catch-all
phrase that lets the judge throw the book at a journalist.
It is also interesting to note that more than half of the
journalists in jail are imprisoned because of Internet-related
activities. When we look at the Internet in China, we see a
very dynamic situation. There is still a battle being fought
between the government and people who would seek to make use of
the Internet and its free speech capabilities as is done in
much of the West.
The jury is out on who will win that technological battle.
I think what we see on the Internet now is a drive from
underneath, people using the Internet in rural villages in
protests and factory strikes, places where the local government
has come down and tried to suppress dissent. It is on the
Internet that we see the source material from the grassroots
that tends to rise up, and at times gets covered in mainstream
Chinese media.
We have three journalists who are due to be released
sometime before the Games start in August. It would be a
significant gesture on their part to release them immediately.
We really think that at this point China has to begin to move
ahead on these sorts of issues.
We are pleased to see that all of a sudden a door, an
apparent window of opportunity, is opening in which our
government will engage with them on pressing these issues. In
my longer testimony I have supplied the names of the three
journalists who are due out. Frankly, we think it should be
more than just the three. All 25 should be released. But we are
ready to take this just one step at a time.
It is also interesting to note that China is in a race with
Cuba to be the world's largest jailer of journalists. It would
be great if China were to lose that race to the bottom, to lose
that perverse contest.
I will end my remarks fairly quickly. All the people that
you see at this table know each other. We work together. We
have had this challenge on our plate for a couple of years now.
We saw the period as a window of opportunity. We jumped on it.
Last year we prepared this report, ``Falling Short,'' and we
are revising it for release again this year, detailing how
China controls journalists.
So, to the extent that we have seen any change, we would
like to think that we have had a role in that and their
activities. But, frankly, there has not been that much. The
situation for media in China is nowhere near what was promised
by either the IOC or the Chinese Government back in 2001 when
they assured everyone that this would be a much better
situation. It is just not.
I think we all agree that we have to call on you, the
members of this commission, and the members of our governments
to begin to bring this pressure, as well as us. We have done
what we can. We are going to continue to do this. But at some
point the onus falls on you as well.
In doing that advocacy, we hope that in addition to
pressuring China specifically on these media issues, that you
take on the International Olympics Committee, who entered into
an agreement in 2001 with the Chinese Government, reassured
everyone over very loud complaints, a very loud expression of
concern, about what would happen. They said, don't worry, this
is a done deal and it is going to work. Well, it is nowhere
near working and it certainly seems like it is not going to
change in any significant or acceptable way by the August
Games.
You have my testimony. I think I have hit the high spots,
and I am ready to allow others to speak and use up any time
that is left over.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dietz appears in the
appendix.]
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Mr. Dietz, thank you.
Congressman Levin has rejoined us. Perhaps----
Chairman Levin. No, keep going.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. We will continue with Ms. Richardson.
Chairman Levin. And we have, fortunately, a Motion to
Recommit. Hopefully, they will take the full 10 minutes, and
then we will have 15 minutes to vote. So if each of you could,
take five minutes if possible and then let us do some
questioning. Okay. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF SOPHIE RICHARDSON, ASIA ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, HUMAN
RIGHTS WATCH, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Richardson. Thank you. I will be brief.
Chairman Levin, Co-Chairman Dorgan, thank you very much for
inviting Human Rights Watch to join you today. This is a timely
hearing and it is always a privilege to participate with such
other distinguished panelists.
There are three key questions before us today. The first,
is whether the human rights situation in advance of the 2008
Beijing Games is improving as the Chinese Government has
repeatedly insisted it would. We regretfully submit that it is
not.
Over the past year we have continued to document not only
chronic human rights abuses such as the restrictions on speech,
assembly, and participation, but also abuses that are taking
place specifically because of the Games. Those issues are
discussed at length in our written testimony.
The second question is whether this negative impact will be
a lasting one. Human Rights Watch believes that these abuses
constitute a failure of the Chinese Government to fulfill its
own voluntary promises to improve rights in order to win the
bid to host the Olympics, and that unless significant pressure
is brought to bear, we fear the negative impact will not only
be very difficult to reverse, but it will also mean that in
effect the international community will have tacitly endorsed
the repression necessary to engineer this particular vision of
a modern cosmopolitan China that the Chinese Government so
badly wants to portray.
The third question, therefore, is what we can do to alter
the current situation to ensure a better outcome. Senator
Dorgan, in your opening remarks you suggested your hope that
what got discussed today in the messages of this hearing would
be heard by the Chinese Government. We think it is equally
important to explain to the Chinese people what exactly the
U.S. Government is going to do to help defend their human
rights.
The Administration and the State Department assure us that
they are constantly raising these human rights concerns, and
while we applaud those efforts--we really do--we question the
efficacy of quiet diplomacy and the absence of more public
measures. After all, the decreasing volume of U.S. criticism of
China's rights record over the past decade is in part to blame
for the current situation.
We are encouraged by Secretary Rice's public discussions in
Beijing about specific rights concerns and we strongly urge
similar
efforts over the coming months. The Chinese Government
desperately wants a positive international assessment of its
country during this time of unprecedented scrutiny and we
believe that, if pressed, it will make progress in order to get
such positive reviews, particularly from the United States.
To that end, we respectfully urge a number of steps,
including that all Members of Congress and senior
Administration officials who visit China in the coming months
speak publicly about human rights abuses, and when security for
all involved can be assured, that you visit those under house
or actual arrest for challenging the Chinese Government.
Second, we urge that the members of this commission request
public assurances, particularly from U.S.-based Olympic
sponsors, that their business practices in China do not
contribute to rights abuses.
Third, that the Administration be asked to articulate how
it will respond to rights abuses in the coming months,
particularly how it is prepared to assist American journalists
who themselves are harassed, detained, or abused while trying
to take advantage of the new freedoms that Bob spoke about a
moment ago.
Fourth, we ask that the Administration describe what
specific rights-promoting activities the President will engage
in while he is in Beijing this summer to demonstrate that his
rhetorical commitments will in fact be made real. These could
include making himself available for online discussions to
underscore the importance of Internet freedom, attending the
trials of dissidents who have been charged with inciting state
subversion, visiting unregistered churches to emphasize the
right to practice religion freely, or speaking publicly about
the constraints under which Chinese journalists continue to be
forced to operate.
Fifth, we urge that if the United States agrees to China's
proposal to resume the bilateral human rights dialogues, which
at the moment certainly appear like a fairly cynical gesture
from Beijing given the timing of this offer, that the United
States insist on including the kinds of timelines and
benchmarks that were absent from past dialogues and that would
have made them much more meaningful exercises.
Finally, we urge that if the current crackdown shows no
sign of abating in the current months that you ask the
Administration to publicly reconsider whether it is appropriate
for the President and other senior members of the
Administration to attend the opening or closing ceremonies of
the Games. If steps like these are not taken and taken soon,
the U.S. Government does run the risk of giving imprimatur of
approval to the Chinese Government's rights record.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate. I
will yield my time to Robin.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Richardson appears in the
appendix.]
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Dr. Munro, you may proceed. Thank you
very much.
STATEMENT OF ROBIN MUNRO, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, CHINA LABOUR
BULLETIN, HONG KONG, CHINA
Mr. Munro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
invited to testify at this important hearing today.
The focus of my comments will be on China's current labor
rights situation in general, and I would like to broaden this
theme somewhat to address the wider range of human rights and
labor rights problems faced by ordinary, non-elite members of
society, or what we at China Labour Bulletin in Hong Kong
sometimes call human rights for the millions. These are the
issues, the rights-related, deeper social issues which will be
with us during and long after the Olympics.
But, first, on the Olympics, on the question of whether the
upcoming Olympics will or may bring lasting benefits to Chinese
citizens and have a positive impact on human rights, I think
only one conclusion is possible. We have heard the evidence
from my colleagues in the human rights community here today and
I will not repeat that.
Basically, the official record to date, I think, makes a
mockery of Beijing's pledges to the IOC and to the world, that
holding the Games would advance the human rights cause in
China. I have been following human rights in China for many
years, and even I was surprised at the flagrant and
unrestrained way in which the authorities have dealt with
dissent or potential dissent in the run-up to the Games. I
think anything that moves on the human rights front is going to
be taken down.
Clearly, Beijing 2008 is not going to be anything like
Seoul 1988. I think it is possible that Beijing may produce a
human rights trump card or pull a rabbit out of the hat on the
eve of the Olympics, for example, by announcing ratification of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
[ICCPR], although that is a long shot, or by more probably
releasing one or more high-profile political prisoners.
We have just seen today the announcement that the U.S.-
China human rights dialogue will resume. I think, as much as I
wish the renewed dialogue well, I think it is a ploy by
Beijing. Things like this are used as a smokescreen to deflect
international attention away from the continuing Games-related
crackdown on civil liberties. Given the severity of that
current clamp-down, all these
gestures I have mentioned, I think, would be left as hollow and
meaningless.
The real danger, though, I think, is that the tight social
and political controls set in place for the upcoming Olympics
will, once the Games are over, simply become the new normal in
China's internal security regime. If that happens, the Games
will actually have set the clock back on human rights and civil
liberties there.
The government tries nowadays to project two images to the
world. One is of the harmonious society, and the other, through
the Olympics, is ``One World, One Dream.'' The reality, though,
is that China today is very far from being harmonious and it
embodies two very different worlds and dreams. On the one hand,
there are the dreams and the world of the rising new elite, who
enjoy unfettered access to all the best things in life. On the
other, you have those of the ordinary people, hundreds of
millions of citizens who have no meaningful vote and whose main
dream is somehow to make ends meet for the family until the
next payday. In the government's view, though, if the desired
social harmony cannot be achieved through consensus, then it
must be enforced by repression, by silencing popular discontent
and demands.
So what, then, are the main long-term social justice, or
human rights for the millions, issues I mentioned? Here are a
few key examples. First, I think the country's medical care
system needs to be completely redesigned to make it more
accessible and available to ordinary citizens. For at least the
past decade, the cost of medical treatment has been prohibitive
for ordinary Chinese citizens, even in the cities. Under the
present system, a major illness can bankrupt an entire family
within weeks.
Second, the rural education system needs to be completely
overhauled and properly funded. School fees are often extremely
high, and the result is that poor rural families increasingly
cannot afford to keep their children in school for the full
nine-year period of compulsory education. So, child labor is on
the rise in many parts of the country today. I think, after
more than a decade of 10-percent-plus annual GDP growth, the
government's failure to make a priority of providing decent
medical care and rural education for its citizens is
deplorable.
Third, the entrenched problem of official corruption which
is now endemic at every level of the administration. Corruption
by local officials is at the root of almost every major social
injustice and protest issue in the country today and is deeply
resented by the great majority of ordinary citizens.
Fourth, the basic livelihood of hundreds of millions of
urban and rural workers and their families needs to be
guaranteed and protected in terms of access to proper
employment, enforcement of legal minimum pay and maximum
working hours, and provision of safe working conditions. The
appalling situation in China's coal mines, where several
thousand miners die needlessly each year as a result of mine
bosses' disregard for workplace safety, is only the most
dramatic example. The construction industry is another.
The only effective remedy for these workplace problems is
for workers to be allowed to form effective self-protection
organizations. Trade unions would be the most obvious form, but
while legal prohibitions on such groups persist, workers should
at least be allowed to form front-line work safety committees
and to engage in real collective bargaining with their
employers aimed at negotiating minimally acceptable terms and
conditions of employment.
All these are the real factors promoting social and
political instability in China today, not, as the Chinese
Government claims, the dissidents, the civil rights lawyers,
and the massively over-exploited migrant workers who are
increasingly getting up and protesting.
I think the international community has less and less real
influence nowadays over Beijing, on how it treats its citizens,
because of China's economic rise and so forth. But does this
mean that future prospects for human rights and great social
justice in China are bleak? Perhaps surprisingly, I would argue
not. The other side of the story is that we are finally seeing,
after several decades of economic reform, the emergence of new
domestic social forces in China that may well have the will and
potential to transform the country's governance from the inside
and from the bottom up.
I am thinking of two things, mainly. One, there is now a
recognizable worker's rights movement of considerable size
taking shape in China, something scarcely conceivable just a
decade ago. Tens of thousands of mass labor protests and other
acts of worker unrest are taking place across the country each
year, despite the strict legal prohibition on trade unions.
These protests are spontaneous. They are not coordinated or
interconnected, but they are having a real and tangible effect
in promoting greater respect by employers for the country's own
labor laws. China's workers, especially the 150 million or so
migrant workers, are now clearly on the move. They are no
longer playing the role of passive victim to China's economic
success story. Instead, they are standing up for themselves and
their rights.
And the one-party state, which typically preys on the weak
and isolated--the dissidents, the civil rights lawyers, the
Falun Gong and others--but fears the strong and numerous, is in
turn showing the workers increasing attention and respect as a
social force. It is no coincidence that the start of 2008 saw
the introduction of three new labor laws in China: the labor
contract law, the law on employment promotion, and the law on
labor dispute mediation and arbitration. All of these new laws
have in significant ways raised the bar on employment standards
and labor rights.
Chairman Levin [presiding]. Mr. Munro, if you could wrap up
quickly to give us time before those darned bells ring again.
Mr. Munro. I will, thank you.
The second main force is the rise of the ``rights defense
movement'' in China, to my mind the most hopeful and optimistic
sign in the country on the human rights front for decades. For
reasons of time, I refer the panel to my written testimony for
more information on that.
I would like to conclude by giving several suggestions on
what the international community can do to best lend its
support to the promising new developments taking place at the
grassroots level in China. These developments, I should add,
are not ones fostered or initiated by the government, this is
ordinary Chinese people taking the initiative, creating the
social space, and fighting for their rights against local
officials.
First, I think Western governments need to continue to
press China to ratify core agreements on freedom of speech and
association. This is fundamental. If Chinese citizens cannot
freely associate to press for peaceful change and reform, the
country will
become more and more of a political powder keg on the world
stage.
Governments should also continue to press Beijing for the
release of individual prisoners of conscience. Human rights
dialogue or not, this should now, I think, be put back as a
major part of government policy by Western nations.
I think Western foundations should greatly increase the
kind of support they give to grassroots-based civic action
groups of all kinds in China. As I have indicated, these groups
are the country's main hope for the future.
Multinationals operating in China have a moral duty to
maintain strong codes of conduct and pursue corporate social
responsibility, but social justice in the workplace in China
cannot be planned and executed from corporate board rooms and
Western capitals. China's workers are quite capable of
protecting themselves, given the necessary rights and tools,
and there is no shortcut for them doing so.
Finally, I think both multinationals and consumers in the
West need to recognize that if acceptable labor standards are
to come in China, the cost of China's exported goods will have
to rise. These goods are too cheap, and under-priced Chinese
goods means continued labor rights violations in China.
In conclusion, China's hosting of the Games may be
momentous for reasons of national pride, but I would submit it
is largely irrelevant to the real social issues facing China
and its people today.
Unless these issues are addressed by the government, China's
Olympic slogan of ``One World, One Dream'' will end up being
viewed by its people as one more cynical diversion from
reality, to be added to the scrap heap of similar slogans used
by the party over the past 60 years.
Mr. Chairman, I request, following my written statement,
that an article drafted by my colleagues at China Labour
Bulletin be included in the hearing record. This is an article
to be published in the upcoming book, ``China's Great Leap,''
and it addresses the conditions of migrant workers both at
Olympic construction sites and across the country.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Without objection.
[The article appears in the appendix.]
[The prepared statement of Dr. Munro appears in the
appendix.]
Chairman Levin. We have a vote, but I'm going to ask a
question, if you would start discussing it. I don't know that
there's any controversy left about the need to engage China.
The issue of China's ascendancy to the WTO was very
controversial, but with its growth, with its importance, I do
not think any longer there is much debate that they are an
important part of the international spectrum. This commission
was set up as part of that debate to look at human rights
issues, including worker rights issues and the rule of law.
Let me just ask you this. I know there are various views as
to how our government and our private and public groups should
approach these issues of relationship with China, especially
human rights, worker rights issues, and rule of law.
I quote one person who was in a previous administration:
``It's a striking example,'' talking about the pressure to
raise these issues, ``of how single-issue groups of all kinds
are trying to use the Olympics to hammer China.'' Then he goes
on to say, ``Linking Darfur, for example, to the Olympic Games
will not help to resolve this issue. The Chinese tend to
respond badly to public pressure.''
React to that, what you believe is the appropriate
approach--you've commented on it in part. These are key issues,
human rights issues, worker rights issues, rule of law. How do
we approach these issues, both governmentally and non-
governmentally in this country?
Each of you, if you would take a crack at that, I'd give
each of you time to discuss it. You've touched on it, but this
is one of the nubs. We are holding this hearing on the
assumption that it is wise for this to be out in the open,
right? That it is wise for Congress to be engaged, it is right
for the Administration, which is part of this commission, to be
engaged, and you are here, Mr. Martella, as part of it. So just
comment on that: what should we do in these next months. You
want to go down the line?
Ms. Hom. Thank you. I think it is a difficult question. We
hear that a lot from different sectors, the media, the
corporate sector, the IOC, and most recently from the foreign
media representative for BOCOG, who had the misfortune, or
fortune, to be on the same panel with me on a recent NPR
program. He essentially denied that there are human rights
problems in China and claimed the list of human rights issues I
outlined--media control and censorship, attacks on defenders,
etc.--was ``hogwash.'' What is appropriate to expect? I think
what we would begin with, what is appropriate, totally
appropriate is to expect of the Chinese authorities what they
themselves have promised, what they promised the international
community, what they have promised to their own people, and
what China has promised to its Olympic Movement partners, its
government partners, et cetera.
Second, it is important that there be respect for diverse
approaches, which is not in the Chinese official universe.
Finally, on engagement, apropos of the resumption of
dialogue--and I want to align myself with many of the comments
that have already been made on the panel--any dialogue that is
resumed between the United States and China needs to really be
much more transparent to the public.
Perhaps two lessons from the EU-China dialogue might be
kept in mind. While the EU-China human rights dialogue does
have publicly announced benchmarks, the benchmarks have
produced limited results: benchmarks are only as good as the
level of transparency, and availability of accurate, reliable,
and comprehensive information, and that is a major problem, as
we know in China, primarily because of the state secrets
framework.
Second, the EU-China human rights dialogue is perhaps one
of the most advanced and developed ones, along with the
Norwegian dialogue, in terms of including different actors,
including civil society actors and NGOs. Yet, China has been
extremely active in its strategy to throw around its weight and
control, to shape the dialogue, and to exclude the very civil
society voices that the EU Government is trying to include.
Most recently, China's efforts to
exclude China Labour Bulletin and Human Rights in China from
the Human Rights dialogue seminar in Berlin, and then walking
out, is instructive.
Chairman Levin. All right. Good.
Mr. Dietz, if you would, all of you, briefly comment. Then
after, Mr. Smith and I have to leave and Mr. Dorgan is going to
wrap things up.
Mr. Dietz. I will give you the advice of my high school
defensive football coach who said, ``Hit 'em high, hit 'em
low.'' CPJ engages many countries, not just China, on these
sorts of issues. At times we pull back for fear of jeopardizing
someone's safety, other times we are very vocal, other times we
play a balance.
I was in Hong Kong at the beginning of last month, sitting
around the Foreign Correspondence Club with a bunch of
journalists from the Hong Kong Journalists Association, and I
said there are times when I'm not sure that I am doing anything
of value and that I am just making things worse for people in
jail. Their response was, if CPJ does not speak out, then who
will?
There was a journalist released just at the beginning of
February, Ching Chong, a Singapore Straits Times reporter who
had been held in jail for five years on state subversion
charges, state security violations. His wife had been very
active over the years, sometimes calling out, sometimes asking
us to make statements, other times withdrawing. When we were
having our annual press conference in Hong Kong in February,
this year she said, ``Bob, not this year. We're getting a
message that Ching might get out.'' Sure enough, the day after
that he was released and he is now free to walk around in Hong
Kong on parole.
I think, in dealing with China, that sensible engagement
around these issues is important. And specifically, given the
opportunity that we got with the IOC agreement with China about
media freedom issues, this is the time to push to fix these
things. It was a pledge that was made to the international
community, to all of us. I think we have an opportunity to
demand that these things be fixed--and we have a right to
demand it of China and the IOC.
Chairman Levin. You emphasized, as Sharon Hom did, the
commitments that were made in fulfillment. Mr. Martella, I
don't know if you, before Mr. Smith and I have to leave and Mr.
Dorgan takes over to finish, whether you feel comfortable
saying something. If so, please do.
Mr. Martella. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually
think you raise a very important question that I get in a
different format, which is why, from an environmental
perspective, should EPA or my office care about these issues. I
commend the Commission for recognizing the important
relationship between environmental issues and human rights
issues.
Briefly, I give three reasons. One is a purely altruistic
reason, which is, we've learned our lessons here in creating a
strong environment in the United States, and we should share
that with developing countries and help them do the same. The
less altruistic reason is that what happens in China affects us
here. Thirty percent of the particulate matter in the West is
created in China, 25 percent of the world's mercury emissions
come from China.
They are the largest polluter in the Pacific Ocean. They
are close, if not beyond us, as a greenhouse gas emitter for
climate change, and they have a tremendous thirst for energy,
as well as, we are concerned about imports, including lead in
toys from China, so we should be concerned about gauging what
is happening there as it affects us.
Then the third reason pertains to multinationals, both
organizations and companies that are operating there as a
matter of doing business in the global world. January 31, 2008,
China issued a press release that they are bringing 130
multinationals to the book, and these are their words, ``for
breaking environmental protection laws,'' but the press release
is very vague and ambiguous.
So I do think it is important from an environmental
perspective, as you say, that we gauge what is happening there,
both because we want to help advance the environment there,
which probably should be a primary concern, but also because it
does affect both people and organizations here in the United
States.
Chairman Levin. We have, Mr. Smith and I, just five
minutes. After I leave, if you would also put this in the
context of the Beijing Games. I think it is important for us to
ask ourselves, in terms of our efforts, whether it is
appropriate--which I think it is--to use this opportunity to
ask China--to insist--that they fulfill their commitments. I
will tell them to hold open the vote.
Representative Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a couple of questions, very
briefly, through you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for yielding.
A couple of points; this commission was formed to be kind
of a carbon copy of the Helsinki Commission. I chaired that
commission for 12 years, and have been on it for 26 of my 28
years as a Member of Congress. It works because of the
engagement. When the Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union were
absolutely intransigent, we were able to get concessions,
political prisoners out because we had some economic leverage.
We had a lot of things going for us.
Unfortunately, a lot of the economic leverage has been
forfeited with the permanent normal trade relations [PNTR], in
my opinion, and we have little more than moral suasion left in
our quiver. They do not get held to account by the United
Nations. I remember after Wei Jingsheng got out of prison, I
was in China during his release when the Beijing Government was
vying for the 2000 Olympics. I met with him for three hours
before he got rearrested and then was brutally beaten, as we
all know. When he was let out, his first stop was my committee
room. I chaired the Human Rights Committee.
He reiterated what he told me in that dinner conversation.
He said, this is counter-intuitive, but when you make nice and
when you, America and Europe, clank the champagne glasses, they
beat us more. But when you're tough and consistent, they get
the message that you mean business and they beat us less.
That's when prisoners may find release.
Your thoughts on that would be appreciated. Like the
Chairman, I am going to have to go for a vote, or the second
one, because I'll miss this one. But the idea of soft
diplomacy, it needs to be very consistent and strong and
equally applied over and over and over again--but I'm more for
just total transparency.
I remember when Frank Wolf and I met with Li Peng. We gave
him a list of prisoners. He wouldn't even touch it. But he was
so incensed by it that he brought it up the next day. Then we
heard that some of the people got more lenient treatment. Now,
we cannot for sure prove it, but we have to be bolder, but
diplomatic. I think, unfortunately, we have squandered a lot of
that.
Second, on the labor issue, a year ago Ben Cardin and I
went on record on an AFL-CIO complaint that was extremely well
written about labor issues. Dr. Munro, you might want to answer
this. The USTR would not even take it up. I mean, 10 to 15
cents per hour, 126,000 people killed; that is what they report
that could have been prevented if they had OSHA-type
protections. All the litany of problems, just on the labor
rights issue. They wouldn't even take it up. I hope it is not a
lost opportunity. Unfair labor is against our law. I hope that
maybe this commission could pressure the USTR to take that up
anew. Maybe your comments on that would be helpful.
The venues for the Olympics; have any of them been made
with gulag labor? I was just in Kinshasa in DR Congo for a
week. I went to a place where there is a huge Chinese effort of
building and I was told--and we have not verified it yet--but
the suspicion is that some of those who were working at that
venue, at that building, are gulag labor. Harry Wu has
testified many times about how forced labor is endemic. But are
any of the Olympic venues made by gulag labor? If not gulag
labor, were those who worked on the stadiums and the track and
field aspects of it paid? What was the situation there? I think
it is a very valid question.
Ms. Hom, you might want to touch on the issue, if you
could, briefly, of the missing girls in China. I said it at the
opening. Very often, the human rights community has been mum on
the fact that the family has been violated with impunity. Women
have been raped by the state. Forced abortion is rape. It is
horrible. It is used with particular impunity against the
Uighurs, against the Tibetans, and against girls.
The Chinese Government loves to say they have this policy
or that policy. Since 1998 or 1999, they've been saying we
signed the International Covenant for Civil and Political
Rights, usually when one of their heads of state are heading to
our shores, so that it allays concerns, just like the
resumption of the human rights dialogue. So perhaps, Ms. Hom,
you could speak to the issue of this terrible crime of missing
girls.
One demographer in China has said, by the year 2020, 40
million men will not be able to find a wife because, since
1979, systematically girls have been targeted for extinction.
It is genocide, gendercide, and it is only going to get worse.
It will exacerbate human trafficking because it will become a
magnet, the dearth of women, the disproportion will lead to
horrible consequences. So, if you could touch on that.
Finally, some of you might want to speak to the issue of
global online freedom. I know, Sophie Richardson, your
organization has strongly endorsed it.
Co-Chairman Dorgan [presiding]. I am going to ask now,
since you have got about eight questions on the table here that
we have the witnesses respond in writing to some of them.
Representative Smith of New Jersey. That would be good.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. I have limited time as well. I have to
go back to the Senate in a few moments.
But why don't we have Ms. Hom respond to the question that
you just asked about the women.
Ms. Hom. Very quickly, and we can submit some additional
information. I had mentioned that HRIC's Take Action Campaign
for the Olympics features an individual every month. The woman
we are featuring in March is Mao Hengfeng, who has been
tortured, detained, beat up, and subjected to all kinds of
abuse. She is currently serving a two-and-a-half-year prison
sentence for breaking a lamp. She is one example of a
particularly draconian and coercive implementation of the one-
child population policy.
On the Campaign Web site, www.ir2008.org, in addition to
finding out more about her case, there are also issue
backgrounders, both from the perspective of women's health and
women's rights, and the issue of petitioners, because Mao
Hengfeng is an example of the thousands of petitioners who
exercise their right to petition and then face detention and
abuse. Finally, one of the main reasons, in addition to the
economic reasons, that this policy continues is the devaluation
of female life. The value of female life is not as ``a future
wife''--that has to change.
Representative Smith of New Jersey. Right. Excellent.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Mr. Smith, you have a long history of
passionate care and concern about these issues and I hate to
cut you short.
Representative Smith of New Jersey. I understand.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. I'd like to ask just two questions.
Representative Smith of New Jersey. If you could provide
that for the record, the other individuals.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Yes. Let us ask if you would submit for
the record----
Representative Smith of New Jersey. As to the venue, if you
could find that out.
[The responses to Representative Smith's questions appear
in the appendix.]
Co-Chairman Dorgan. I think you have asked a lot of very
important questions and I think we will want responses on the
record.
Ms. Hom, do you believe that what you have said here today
would make you eligible for a criminal charge, and perhaps
jailing, in the country of China were you a resident of China
living in China at the time of making these statements?
Ms. Hom. Actually, I have made many of these statements
publicly, and I got an interesting hate e-mail on Monday from
someone who purports to be Chinese.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. But I'm saying, if you lived in
Beijing.
Dr. Munro, would you be jailed in China if you were a
Chinese citizen living in Beijing, speaking of the issues you
have addressed today?
Mr. Munro. Well, my subject today was more labor rights,
which is somewhat less controversial. But in general, the
things I've said on human rights in China over the years, I
have no doubt, yes, my feet wouldn't touch the floor. I'd be
straight off to prison.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Mr. Martella, my understanding is that
the steel production in China generates about three times the
amount of carbon per ton of production as steel production in
the United States. I believe that's the case. I understand that
the Chinese have decided to move one of the mammoth steelworks
away from Beijing to an island 140 miles or so away from
Beijing. Is that
correct?
Mr. Martella. That's correct, Senator. Yes.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. So that's the way they deal with air
pollution?
Mr. Martella. Well, you raise a very important point.
China's greenhouse gas intensity, this is how much greenhouse
gases you emit as you produce, say, $1 of GDP, is the highest
in the world, even higher than the developing countries as a
whole. So they are very energy inefficient and they anticipate
that their CO2 emissions will be going up. They have gone up 80
percent since 1990. They are projected to go up another 65 to
80 percent by 2020.
But you raise a very good point. When I was in Beijing,
there were many smokestacks. Virtually all the ones we saw had
been shut down. We asked--we would see new industrial
facilities built within 10, 15 years ago and we asked, where
are the businesses? This is 30 miles outside Beijing. They said
they've been relocated. We didn't know where they relocated to,
but they've been relocated.
So they have taken incredibly dramatic efforts, including
relocating entire industries outside Beijing, to prepare for
the Olympics. Having said that, if you were to go there today
there is a good chance the air quality would still be quite
poor despite those very dramatic efforts to relocate almost
entire industries.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Mr. Martella, I wrote a book a couple
of years ago called ``Take This Job and Ship It,'' about
shipping jobs overseas. I described in that book the China
haze, which is to say that we all live in the same fishbowl,
the same environment.
Mr. Martella. Yes.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. What they do in China, we breathe. It
is just a matter of fact. I understand, in one of the pieces of
testimony I read last evening, they are saying that some
athletes preparing for the Olympics are testing their ability
to train with face masks, anticipating an air quality problem
when they compete. Have you heard of this?
Mr. Martella. That was something we realized earlier this
month, that many countries that set up training camps,
apparently including the United States, I believe, outside of
China so people can fly in at the last minute, they are also
testing with dust masks on to give themselves kind of
acclimation to what they're anticipating once they get there.
My own personal view on this, I am 37 years old. I feel very
fortunate having grown up in a country where I have never had
ramifications from my environment. The only time that has ever
happened was spending a couple days in Beijing. It was the
first time in my life where I have actually had physical
reactions to the quality of the air.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. From my understanding, this issue of
human rights, making progress on human rights, progress on the
environment and so on, these are commitments that the Chinese
Government itself made, are they not? I mean, is this not the
case where, as they ramped up to try to get the International
Olympic Committee to select them for the Olympics, they made
representations about their commitments with respect to air
quality, environment, human rights. Is that right?
Mr. Martella. That is right.
Co-Chairman Dorgan. It is not a case of us saying to the
Chinese, look, here's what we expect you to do. It is a case of
the Chinese saying, here is what we will do, and now we are
saying, when, and why aren't you doing it now? Isn't that
right?
Mr. Martella. They held themselves out as the Green
Olympics. That's the name they adopted for themselves. To give
them credit, they have accomplished a great many things in that
time. But at the same time, particularly regarding air quality,
they have not achieved the goals. The other questions that
remain are, while they may have devoted all these resources
toward Beijing and the Olympics, what have they done in other
places and what has not been done as a result of prioritizing
these resources toward one event?
Co-Chairman Dorgan. Well, all of you, I know, have done a
lot of work. Dr. Munro, I am told you are back on an airplane,
is it tomorrow, back to Hong Kong? Ms. Richardson, I am very
familiar with your organization and the work you do. Mr. Dietz,
the journalists are soldiers in search of truth across the
world, and many not only risk losing their lives, as some do,
but others find themselves in prison for telling the truth and
printing the truth.
I really appreciate the work that all of you have done to
shed light on these issues before this commission. What we're
trying to do is to hold up a mirror and find out what was
promised and what has been the result. The fact is, China is
going to be a significant part of our future and our lives. The
question is, for good or ill? It is a major player on the world
stage. We, I think all of us, want the same thing for China and
its people. We want greater human rights, we want it through
engagement of trade and travel and opportunities such as this
one today to move China in a very constructive direction in
terms of the way it creates its society, being open and
providing opportunities for folks.
I must say, it has been a good many years since I served in
the U.S. House and I had forgotten about these bells and how
often they vote here. In the U.S. Senate, we do not vote until
it gets dark, so you notice I have not been interrupted. But
when the sun goes down and it gets dark, we will have Senators
show up on the floor demanding votes. That is the way the
Senate works.
So my colleagues, I know, feel badly that they had to rush
back and forth and back and forth, but you know by the number
of people who came at the start of this hearing, we care about
this very much. This commission is not just some afterthought,
this commission is very important. China is a very important
part of the world community. We are very concerned. We have put
in the record now I think two lists of Chinese prisoners. We
also have a database, I believe, at our Congressional-Executive
Commission on China that is the most credible database on those
individuals who are held in Chinese prisons as a result of what
we consider to be a violation of human rights.
So we are going to continue this work. We appreciate all of
you being willing to take some time from your schedule and to
attend this hearing.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements
----------
Prepared Statement of Roger R. Martella, Jr.
february 27, 2008
Chairman Levin, Chairman Dorgan, members of the Commission:
Thank you for providing me the opportunity and the honor to appear
before you today.
The subject of today's hearing, ``The Impact of the 2008 Olympic
Games on Human Rights and Rule of Law in China,'' raises issues of
critical importance not just to China, but to the world. Beyond the
sporting events and pageantry, the Beijing Olympics more importantly
may offer spectators the broadest window yet into a more needed feat of
strength: whether the planet's fastest growing economy has developed
the fundamental legal pillars worthy of the world's greatest stage.
After the torch is extinguished at the Beijing National Stadium in
August, international opinion likely will remember less the medals
China's athletes take home than the nation's achievements--or lack
thereof--on the fundamental issues of human rights, the rule of law,
and environmental protection.
I am here today to address China's efforts to provide one of the
most vital pillars of human life--a safe, healthy, and clean
environment. Environmental leaders and scholars have often framed
environmental protection as critical to human rights. For example, the
landmark National Environmental Policy Act provides that Congress
recognizes that ``each person should enjoy a healthful environment and
[that] each person has a responsibility to contribute to the
preservation and enhancement of the environment.'' \1\ In 1992 the U.N.
Conference on Environment and Development noted that ``human beings are
entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 42 U.S.C. Section 4331(c).
\2\ Rio Declaration, Principle 1, June 3-14, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With that backdrop, the 2008 Beijing Olympics are providing an
extraordinary front row seat to assess China's accomplishments and
challenges in providing a safe environment for the world's largest
population. Importantly, though, while the Olympics may provide the
world with its most vivid snapshots to date of China's environmental
efforts preparing for a single event, it likely will be harder to glean
China's ability to conquer the challenges facing the nation's
environment beyond Beijing in the years and decades to come.
epa's china environmental law initiative
In September 2007, I instituted the EPA China Environmental Law
Initiative after meeting in China with environmental officials,
academics, students, nongovernmental organizations, and multinational
corporations. The Initiative is premised on the experience in the
United States that a strong environmental law framework is the critical
prerequisite to a strong environment. In seeking to improve China's
environmental laws I identified three reasons why the United States
should help China advance its environmental laws, and thus its
environment as a whole.
First, the American environmental law framework is the strongest in
the world. Implementing the toolbox of environmental protection
statutes Congress started passing in the 1970s has resulted in heralded
improvements in environmental protection, and safe air, water, and
environment for the nation. From an altruistic point of view, we should
share this framework and our experience with China to help it develop a
thorough framework tailored to its own geographic, economic, and
political circumstances.
Second, and perhaps less altruistic, is the reality that what
happens in China increasingly affects the environment here in several
ways. Air pollution transported from Asia adds to levels of air
pollution in the United States--increasing the challenge of air quality
and public health protection. Researchers at Harvard University, using
models, have estimated that Asia contributes roughly 30 percent of the
background sulfate particulate matter in the Western United States.\3\
In 2000, China reportedly emitted over 25 percent of the total
estimated worldwide human-generated mercury emissions into the
atmosphere, contributing to the global pool of atmospheric mercury that
circulates around the northern hemisphere and falls out in Asia, North
America, and Europe.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ R. J. Park et al., Natural and Transboundary Pollution
Influences on Sulfate-nitrate-ammonium Aerosols in the United States:
implications for policy, 109 J. OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH (2004).
\4\ David Streets et al. (2004) US Geological Survey China-Mercury
Meeting. ``Mercury emissions in China: Update.''; Elisabeth Pacyna et
al., Global anthropogenic mercury emission inventory for 2000, 40
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT 4048, 4048 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some researchers believe that China already has overtaken the
United States as the leading emitter of greenhouse gas emissions while
others believe it inevitably will do so in the near term. China's
thirst for energy and other resources brings with it environmental
consequences across the globe.\5\ And less stringent controls over
exports such as lead in toys can lead to environmental harms on any
continent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ According to one account, to produce goods worth $10,000, China
uses six times the resources used by the United States. See Elizabeth
C. Economy, The Great Leap Backward?, FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sept/Oct 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, multinational organizations and corporations increasingly
are relying on China both as a growing market and a source of products,
while NGOs and academics see an increasing need to understand
environmental issues in China as well. Ambiguities in the Chinese
environmental law framework create unique challenges for those seeking
to understand environmental compliance in China. Thus, one goal of the
Initiative is to help digest this information in the interest of
advancing multinational understanding of the Chinese environmental law
framework.
The EPA China Environmental Law Initiative is continuing the dialog
between the United States and China, as well as other interested
stakeholders, to advance the Chinese environmental law framework. At
the center of this initiative is the first website we are aware of
dedicated to Chinese environmental law. The website, which can be found
at www.epa.gov/ogc, is a collaborative effort of institutions in the
United States and in China and is available in English and Chinese. In
the roughly three months since we started the website, the front page
has been viewed over 4000 times.\6\ Users have viewed the Chinese
translation of the front page over 2700 times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Each ``view'' does not necessarily correspond to a separate
person: some users undoubtedly viewed the front page more than once.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This April, I will participate with my staff in a second OGC-
organized symposium in China, focused on further development and
implementation of environmental laws and the need and opportunity for
public participation in environmental regulation.
the state of the environment in china
According to the World Bank, between 1981 and 2001 the proportion
of those living in poverty in China fell from 53 percent to 8 percent.
While this indisputably is a laudable accomplishment, what is less
clear in 2008 is the percentage of those living not in economic
poverty, but environmental poverty.
Robert Percival is the director of the acclaimed Environmental Law
Program at the University of Maryland Law School, and a collaborative
partner in the EPA China Environmental Law Initiative. As he has aptly
put it, ``the good news is that things have gotten so bad that high
officials cannot help but take note.'' \7\ Indeed, the challenge in
expressing the state of the environment in China is discerning which of
the plethora of bad fact scenarios gives the best understanding of the
dire situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Robert Percival, Still Needed: Enforcement, Public Role (Is
Chinese Environmental Law up to the Task?), 22 ENVIRONMENT FORUM 44
(2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, regarding air issues alone, particulate levels in
Beijing are as much as six times that of New York City. Reportedly,
more than 300,000 people per year die prematurely from air pollution in
China\8\ and each year 400,000 new cases of chronic bronchitis are
estimated to occur in 11 large Chinese cities.\9\ Emissions of sulfur
oxides in China are the highest in the world,\10\ double the output of
the United States in 2006,\11\ costing China an estimated 500 billion
Yuan (US$60 billion) in damage to buildings, crops, vegetation and
human health.\12\ Many Chinese citizens breathe air violating Chinese
national air quality standards.\13\ And, with this backdrop, China is
planning to build over 500 coal-fired power plants before 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, WORLD HEALTH REPORT 2002 (2002);
Clear Water, Blue Skies (World Bank ed., 1997).
\9\ ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION & DEVELOPMENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS, CHINA (2007).
\10\ Jianguo Liu & Jared Diamond, China's Environment in a
Globalizing World; How China and the rest of the world affect each
other, 435 NATURE 1179 (2005).
\11\ SEPA, State of the Environment Report, http://
english.sepa.gov.cn/standards--reports/soe/SOE2006/200711/t20071105--
112565.htm (China reporting 25,888K metric tons); U.S. EPA, National
Emission Inventory, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/trends06/
nationaltier1upto2006basedon2002finalv2.1.xls (U.S. reporting 12,490K
metric tons).
\12\ Li Xinmin, in The China Post (3 August 2006).
\13\ Mun Ho & Chris Nielsen, Cleaning the Air: Health and Economic
Damages of Air Pollution in China (MIT Press, 2007) (in 1999, over 200
Chinese cities with air pollution monitors were out of compliance with
at least one of the nation's air-quality standards for residential
areas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By way of context and fairness, it should be noted that in the
United States there were several decades of rapid economic growth
before we as a nation took seriously the challenge of creating an
environmental law framework in the face of pressing environmental
concerns such as the Cuyahoga River and Love Canal. As described below,
China clearly is taking measures to address environmental concerns
during its era of rapid economic growth. The question is less the
nation's motivation, but rather the sufficiency of its actions.
china's will is toward a better environment
At the outset, it is important to make one point clear. From my
first hand interactions and observations, China wills a better
environment. Several factors are motivating this goal.
First, the 2008 Olympics is putting more than China's athletes on
the world stage. With the international media presence and all eyes on
the events there, China knows the world is watching not just the
athletes, but its gray skies as well. With much of the world a
spectator, China wants and needs to use the spotlight to
promote a positive image about the nation that makes so many things the
world consumes; a positive image that necessarily includes a clean
environment.
Second, beyond the Olympics, China is aware that environmental
concerns are drawing increasing scrutiny from multinational
organizations and corporations. Just as poor labor conditions can lead
to bans and boycotts, increasingly there is interest in looking behind
products and into factories to ensure items are manufactured in an
environmentally sound way. As China grows into an increasing global
player in the world economy, it increasingly will be expected to
justify a stronger environmental record.
Third, government officials are not shy to express their concern at
protests of any sort. Knowing that environmental issues and advocacy
are cause for protests and civil unrest, the Chinese government would
appear to prefer addressing concerns in the first instance. In 2007,
thousands of citizens protested a chemical factory in Xiamen,
expressing concerns about leukemia and birth defects. And in June,
hundreds of Beijing residents protested the headquarters of the State
Environmental Protection Agency itself regarding a waste incinerator.
In personal conversations, Chinese officials have been very frank about
their motivation to work proactively to address environmental issues to
avoid more such unrest in the future.
Fourth, the government officials I have spoken with on this issue
expressed
concern and motivation for the environmental health of citizens,
regardless of other factors. There does seem to be great concern on how
to achieve both economic and environmental objectives simultaneously.
But I did observe among officials I met a genuine interest in improving
the health and well being of residents.
china's way toward a better environment is uncertain
China for many years has taken at least symbolic steps toward
adopting the laws that lead to a better environment. For example, since
1992 China has adopted environmental laws addressing air pollution,
water pollution, solid waste, and clean
energy production. However, many of these critical provisions lack
teeth of enforceability. Many of the laws are vague, and more akin to
guidance than regulations.\14\ Some were largely adopted from other
countries without being adapted to China's geographic, economic, and
political circumstances.\15\ And the role of public participation,
which is as essential to environmental laws in the United States as
substantive mandates, largely has been overlooked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Alex Wang, One Billion Enforcers, 24 ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM
(2007).
\15\ Country Environmental Analysis for the People's Republic of
China, ADB May, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reviewing the nexus between China's environmental law framework
and a better environment for China, four themes are apparent which
demonstrate both the strengths and weaknesses of the existing Chinese
environmental law framework. As discussed below, each of these themes
bears relevance to the 2008 Olympics.
First, the Chinese government's understanding and messaging of
environmental issues and possible solutions appears to be as
sophisticated as any other nation's. When speaking with Chinese
officials from the national State Environmental Protection Agency to
the local Environmental Protection Bureaus, it is easy to be impressed
by the depth of the understanding of environmental concerns, and the
ideal solutions needed to address them. So, in short, the messages
communicated by the government at all levels on environmental issues
are sophisticated and strong.
Second, the government appears to take a pragmatic approach of
prioritizing areas of immediate concern and takes steps toward
addressing those situations. For example, rather than address air
quality generally China might focus on acid rain specifically; rather
than address water quality generally China might focus on a specific
area of concern such as chemical oxygen demand. Undoubtedly an approach
of prioritizing environmental concerns makes common sense. At the same
time, though, absent an effective overall framework for addressing
broader environmental concerns such as clean air and water generally, a
concern lies with whether progress is being made on the plethora of
issues not identified as priorities.
Third, one of the significant limitations at this time toward
understanding the advancement of environmental protection in China
relates to the critical roles that transparency, public participation,
and authentication play in environmental law. It is relatively common
to hear news in China that some environmental measurement has improved
over a period of time. However, observers frequently raise doubts
regarding the authenticity of such figures given their inability to
``look behind the numbers'' at the raw data and challenge the
assumptions. This deficiency is compounded by the current presumption
of little to no public participation in the lawmaking process, although
as described below there is some evidence of progress in this area.
Fourth, and to me the most significant theme inhibiting the
implementation of a strong environmental law framework, goes to the
lack of a system of cooperative federalism and enforcement in China. In
the United States, cooperative federalism is the necessary method by
which the network of environmental laws works to ensure a clean
environment for all Americans. Our laws work, in general, by delegating
primary responsibility to states for implementation and enforcement,
but ensuring the Federal Government will enforce a floor of beneficial
measures and standards. In China in contrast, the national government
has limited mechanisms to ensure its environmental goals at the
regional and local level. To the contrary, the national government
largely awards local governments and officials based on their increase
in GDP, with little or no accountability for environmental protection
and harm.\16\ To me, the key to creating a strong framework in China is
developing a different kind of cooperative federalism there, and thus
eliminating this disjointedness between the goals of the national
government and the incentives driving the provincial governments. In
other words, a key way to implement cooperative federalism in China may
be as straightforward as holding government accountable for
environmental advancement along with economic growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Elizabeth C. Economy, supra note 5. Recently, China has
moved to incorporate at least some consideration of environmental
parameters. Charles R. McElwee II, Who's Cleaning Up This Mess?, CHINA
BUSINESS REVIEW , January-February 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the 2008 olympics: a better environment for beijing, but what about
china?
The Beijing 2008 Olympic Games Organizing Committee promoted the
event as the ``Green Olympics.'' Consistent with that commitment, the
Organizing Committee has identified scores of efforts to improve the
environment in Beijing prior to the Games.\17\ These efforts are as
basic as improving water quality, upgrading sewer capacity, and
promoting tree planting at a Beijing park. Other efforts are radically
bold by any standard, including experiments to restrict car traffic by
50 percent on certain days and shuttering and relocating entire
industries from greater Beijing, including the transitioning of the
mammoth Shougang steel works to an island 139 miles from Beijing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Beijing 2008, Green Olympics, http://en.beijing2008.cn/12/12/
greenolympics.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A report by The United Nations Environment Programme credited
Beijing with ``significant strides'' and an investment of $12 billion
to improve the environment in advance of the Olympics.\18\ At the same
time, it recognized concerns remaining with air quality despite the
relocation of industry, particularly due to the introduction of 1,000
new car registrations daily. Indeed, in what may be the most
qualitative assessment regarding Beijing's air quality, it was widely
reported earlier this month that dozens of countries have set up
training camps for the days ahead of the events not in China, but in
Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. Athletes are also testing their
ability to train with face masks in anticipation of the Beijing air
quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ U.N. Environment Programme, Beijing 2008 Olympic Games--An
Environmental Review, http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/
Default.asp?DocumentID=519&ArticleID=5687&l= en. See also Hazy Outlook
for Games, supra note 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its own way, the 2008 Beijing Olympics demonstrates both
everything China is doing well to provide a healthier environment for
its residents and the challenges that lie ahead.
First, the Olympics demonstrate China's world-class sophistication
and ability to understand, communicate, and address environmental
issues and challenges. Since 2005, China has identified scores of
environmental challenges confronting the 2008 Olympics and has devoted
significant resources toward organizing solutions and communicating the
results. This demonstrates a capacity and ability among China's
leaders, scientists, and industries to understand the most complex
environmental issues and develop solutions. In other words, the
financial and technical resources needed to promote a better
environment seem to be available.
Second, the 2008 Olympics demonstrates the government's flexibility
in prioritizing environmental concerns and targeting solutions toward
those concerns. In this case, China prioritized a better environment
for Beijing in time for the events. In many (but not all) ways it
appears to have realized that goal and in other ways it has
demonstrated the significant creativity and resources China can put
toward addressing a problem when it wants to. However, questions that
must be considered after August include the extent to which China
merely transported environmental concerns from one area to another, the
extent to which this Olympic priority was at the expense of other
existing environmental concerns, and the extent to which the lessons
learned in Beijing will be applied elsewhere in China.
Third, critical to convincing the world of a message is the
assurance that the message is authentic and that the public trusts it.
In this way, China arguably has made less progress. The plethora of
numbers, criteria, and accomplishments cited by the government
frequently come without the transparency we would expect and which are
critical to other environmental law frameworks. This in turn can raise
doubts about authenticity. For example, while China earlier this year
reported new statistics touting dramatically improved air quality in
Beijing, one observer discovered that in fact some monitoring stations
had been moved from inside the city core to less polluted areas.\19\ On
the other hand, there are some positive trends. When I was in Beijing,
it so happened that the government published in the newspaper the text
of a proposed water law, and solicited views on the law. But even with
a potentially encouraging trend of promoting increased public
participation into environmental regulation, the pace must improve for
the public to have meaningful input.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Stephen Q. Andrews, Beijing's Sky Blues, WALL STREET JOURNAL,
Jan. 9, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, perhaps the most significant contribution of the Green
Olympics will be not any measurable environmental benefit, but a
possible awakening to a new approach toward addressing both the economy
and the environment. While the Olympics demonstrate that China can
address a specific problem by prioritizing resources toward specific
solutions, what is more sorely needed are approaches on a national
scale. This will require a system of cooperative federalism that
encourages local governments to realize and achieve the goals of a
clean environment for the nation. While the American system of
cooperative federalism admittedly does not translate in China, the
government can emulate such a scheme by holding provincial and local
officials accountable for environmental protection and results in
addition to pure GDP. We may begin to see improvements along these
lines in the coming months, if predictions about elevation of China's
environmental agency stature and role are borne out and accompanied by
improved institutional relationships and legal authorities.
Clearly, the Olympics have brought environmental improvements to
the residents of Beijing. What the 2008 Olympics hopefully will bring
to all China is an environmental awakening that it can realize a better
environment and economic prosperity as mutually achievable--not
exclusive--goals.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Commission. I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Prepared Statement of Sharon Hom
february 27, 2008
Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, on behalf of Human Rights
in China (HRIC), thank you for the opportunity to make this statement.
It is also an honor to testify today alongside of the distinguished
experts and human rights colleagues on this panel.
HRIC is an international, Chinese, non-governmental organization
founded by Chinese students and scholars in March 1989. Our mission is
to promote international human rights and advance the institutional
protection of these rights in the People's Republic of China (China),
and to provide concrete support and solidarity to human rights
defenders. Through our Incorporating Responsibility 2008 Campaign, HRIC
focuses on individual case advocacy, monitoring human rights progress
in China, and promoting compliance with Beijing's Olympic Promises and
other international human rights obligations in the lead-up to and
beyond the 2008 Olympic Games.
With only about five months left until the opening of the 2008
Olympic Games, we appreciate the Commission's timely attention to the
impact of the Olympics on human rights and the rule of law. As
documented by the media, NGOs, United Nations, and government reports,
including the Commission's 2007 Annual Report, crackdowns on human
rights defenders in China have been increasing in the run-up to the
Olympics. We welcomed the Commission's 2007 Annual Report, which not
only called for an end to the harassment of Hu Jia and other activists,
but also
examined important issues regarding state secrets, civil society,
petitioners, and ethnic minorities.
the fallacy of ``with us or against us'' olympic rhetoric
One of the challenges to the advancement of human rights is the
hostility of the Chinese authorities to any international or domestic
human rights-related criticism, especially criticism tied to the
Olympics. Chinese authorities have characterized any questioning of
government policies in the lead-up to the Olympics as an attack on
China itself. This intolerance for criticism, nationalism, and
conflating of ``China'' with the Chinese government, was most recently
exhibited in the response to Steven Spielberg's decision to withdraw
from serving as artistic director of the opening and closing Olympic
ceremonies. Chinese authorities first expressed regret, then slammed
Mr. Spielberg. A government ready to host a major international event,
a mature government that respects the rule of law, could have
demonstrated a higher tolerance for thoughtful, critical and difficult
individual decisions of the conscience. Instead, state-run media
dismissed Mr. Spielberg as naive and foolish.
This ``with us or against us'' mentality surrounding the Olympics
fails to account for the legitimate concerns of domestic and
international actors about the long-term impact of the Olympics, on
both China's own people and the international community. Already we
have seen that instead of serving as a catalyst for positive change,
the Olympic preparations have been marked by or accompanied by
crackdowns on dissent, massive displacements of residents,\1\ and
strain on already stretched environmental resources,\2\ in order for
China to put on its ``best face'' for the outside world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Centre On Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE)'s report,
``Fair Play for Housing Rights: Mega-Events, Olympic Games and Housing
Rights'', June 2007, http://www.cohre.org/store/attachments/
COHRE%27s%20Olympics%20Report.pdf.
\2\ See Chris Buckley, ``Beijing Olympic Water Scheme Drains
Parched Farmers,'' Environmental News Network, January 23, 2008, http:/
/www.enn.com/wildlife/article/29488.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
china's olympic and human rights obligations
By hosting the Games, Beijing is obligated to honor the commitments
it made in the bidding process, which influenced the International
Olympic Committee's (IOC) selection of the 2008 host city, and
Beijing's own Olympic Promises.\3\ During its 2001 bid for the Games,
Beijing promised ``complete freedom'' for the media,\4\ and IOC
President Jacques Rogge stated in August 2001 that Beijing's host city
contract included provisions guaranteeing media freedom for accredited
press.\5\ In March 2002, after the Games were awarded to Beijing, the
Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (BOCOG) released a
Beijing Olympic Action Plan laying out the overall guidelines and plans
for the preparation of the Olympics, shaped by the idea of ``New
Beijing, Great Olympics,'' with an emphasis on ``Green Olympics,''
``High-Tech Olympics,'' ``Free and Open Olympics,'' and ``People's
Olympics'' as the key to successful Games.\6\ The 2002 Olympic Action
Plan includes specific standards, such as technical environmental
standards, to which Beijing would hold itself accountable in
governance, construction of venues, and increasing social and economic
development.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Sharon Hom, ``The Promise of a `People's Olympics,' '' in
China's Great Leap: The Beijing Games and Olympian Human Rights
Challenges, ed. Minky Worden (Seven Stories Press, forthcoming May
2008).
\4\ ``Beijing Awaits Olympic Verdict'', BBC, July 12, 2001, http://
news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/in_ depth/2001/olympic_votes/1434964.stm.
\5\ ``Rogge: IOC Will Stick to Sports, Not Politics,'' Associated
Press, August 27, 2001.
\6\ Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games (BOCOG),
Beijing Olympic Action Plan, March 2002. www.usembassy-china.org.cn/
fcs/pdf/boap.doc
\7\ Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games (BOCOG),
Beijing Olympic Action Plan, March 2002. www.usembassy-china.org.cn/
fcs/pdf/boap.doc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As presented in the Action Plan, Beijing made the following Olympic
Promises:
Green Olympics. ``By 2008, we will achieve the goal of
building the capital into an ecological city that features
green hills, clear water, grass-covered ground, and blue sky.''
High-Tech Olympics. ``We will make all-out efforts to
guarantee the security during the Olympic Games on the basis of
a sound social order, reliable public transport and fire
fighting systems, safe medical and health structures, and well
planned supporting measures.''
Free and Open Olympics. ``In the preparation for the Games,
we will be open in every aspect to the rest of the country and
the whole world. We will draw on the successful experience of
others and follow the international standards and criteria.''
People's Olympics. ``The Olympic Games will give an impetus
to economic development and urban construction and management,
and bring about increasing benefits for the people. We will
make the preparations for the Olympic Games a process of
substantially improving the people's living standard, both
materially and culturally.''
The Olympic Games is an event grounded in human dignity and the
spirit of international cooperation of the Olympics movement. Liu
Jianchao of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has himself stated, ``The
Chinese Government will always be dedicated to improving and protecting
human rights, be it prior to, or in the midst of or beyond the Beijing
Olympics.'' \8\ Indeed, we are all on the same page: the Olympics are
China's opportunity to demonstrate to the world it is a responsible
international citizen, one that lives up to its commitments, prior to,
in the midst of, or beyond the Olympics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao's Regular Press
Conference on February 21, 2008,'' February 22, 2008, http://
www.chinaembassy-canada.org/eng/xwfw/s2510/2511/t409230.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The obligations of a country in hosting the Olympic Games, a major
international event, are also part of and related to a country's
overall international legal obligations, including human rights. As
China's role in the international community expands and deepens, these
international commitments are all inextricably linked. The link between
human rights, democracy, and the Olympics was also made by Chinese
officials during China's bid to host the 2008 Games and is reflected in
the actual host city promises made. It is only by honoring these
commitments that the Chinese authorities can host a truly successful
Olympics, an event with a positive impact on China's people and the
international community.
Additionally, China's actions in hosting the Olympics must be
consistent with Chinese domestic law, including, for example, Article
35 of the Chinese Constitution, which protects ``freedom of speech, of
the press, of assembly, of association, of
procession and of demonstration,'' and other constitutional provisions
that protect freedom of privacy of correspondence (article 40) and the
right to criticize the government (article 41).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ However, the right to freedom of expression is constrained in
China through the criminal and state secrets legal framework, and
supported by broader police and social controls as well as
sophisticated technology censorship and surveillance tools. HRIC and
other groups have documented the use of state secrets crimes against
lawyers, journalists, Internet activists and other human rights
defenders as a means of controlling dissent. See Human Rights in China,
State Secrets: China's Legal Labyrinth, June 12, 2007, http://
hrichina.org/public/contents/41421.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the critical role of the rule of law
Progress in building a rule of law is reflected in key benchmarks,
including an independent judiciary and legal profession. China's
criminal lawyers, however, face a number of impediments to providing an
adequate defense: constraints on meeting with their clients,
constraints on access to evidence, and in sensitive cases, lawyers
themselves are sometimes harassed or intimidated. Over the past few
years, there have been numerous cases of lawyers and legal advisors
being intimidated and even beaten by the authorities or with official
complicity. Rights-defense lawyers have been the target of varying
levels of surveillance and harassment because of their work.\10\ This
lack of independent rule of law has implications in the realms of
security (particularly post-Olympic use of sophisticated Olympic event
surveillance equipment), media freedom, the development of civil
society, and protection of human rights as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For more information, see HRIC's ``About the Issue: Olympics
and the Rule of Law,'' http://www.ir2008.org/02/issue.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, there has been progress toward rebuilding the
legal system in China in the last three decades, including legislation,
training of legal personnel, and development of legal and
administrative institutions and processes. Foreign actors such as
foundations, governments, and academic institutions have supported
exchanges and capacity-building initiatives. Substantive legislative
initiatives to date have focused on economic law, civil law and other
regulatory areas necessary to promote market reforms, along with
administrative law and administrative procedure law.\11\ Building a
rule of law is a complex challenge, and China has been making
encouraging strides in this respect, particularly with its enactment of
the new Labor Contract Law\12\ and revisions to the Lawyers' Law.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For more, see Sharon Hom, ``Circling Towards Law,'' http://
hrichina.org/public/PDFs/CRF.2.2007/CRF-2007-2_Circling.pdf.
\12\ Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, issued
at the 28th Session of the Standing Committee of the 10th National
People's Congress, June 29, 2007 and effective Jan. 1, 2008.
\13\ Law of the People's Republic of China on Lawyers (2007
Revision), revised by the 30th Session of the 10th Standing Committee
of NPC, October 28, 2007, to be enforced on June 1, 2008 (hereinafter
as 2007 Lawyers Law). The Chinese text is available at: http://
www.gov.cn/jrzg/2007-10/28/content_788495.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule of law going forward must also be built on accountability
and effective responses to the justice claims for past abuses. Today,
at the request of the Tiananmen Mothers, a group within China comprised
of family members of victims of the June 4, 1989 crackdown, HRIC is
releasing the Tiananmen Mothers' letter calling for justice in the run-
up to the Olympics. The open letter demonstrates the urgently-felt need
of China's own people for rule of law. (Included as an addendum to this
statement is the open letter, ``An Appeal from the Tiananmen Mothers to
the Government: Set a Timetable for Dialogue on the June Fourth
Massacre.'')
These brave individuals make clear in their letter that ``the
disastrous aftermath of that brutal massacre, one of the greatest
tragedies of our times, even after 18 years, is still unresolved. The
wounds deep in the heart of the people are not yet healed. Because of
this, the current political and societal landscape continues to
deteriorate into disorder and imbalance. This proves that June Fourth,
this bloody page in history, has yet to be turned, and remains a `knot'
deep inside the people's heart. . . . The proper settlement of the
`June Fourth' question would represent not only a conclusion, but also
a new beginning.'' The letter calls on the Chinese authorities to use
legal means to investigate the tragedy and bring justice to the
victims, so that China's society can heal and move forward in an open
democratic way. The Tiananmen Mothers clearly link these challenges to
the Olympics, asking, when the government has ``repeatedly refused
dialogue with the victims' family members . . . How can [it] face the
whole world? Is it really possible that, as the host of the 2008
Olympic Games, the government can be at ease allowing athletes from all
over the world to tread on this piece of blood-stained soil and
participate in the Olympics? ''
making the impact of the olympics a positive one
The IOC's selection of Beijing as host of the 2008 Olympic Games is
an incredible honor for the people of China, an honor that brings with
it the potential for long-lasting, positive impact on the lives of
individuals. HRIC is not calling for a boycott, and believes the
hosting of the Games still presents an opportunity--and
responsibility--to impact human rights and advance rule of law in
China. It is up to each of the different actors and sectors\14\--
governments, athletes, sponsors, tourists, businesses, corporate
sponsors, academic exchange programs--to support the calls for reform
coming from within China, and assess their roles and interactions with
China. Each actor can use different opportunities to advance the rule
of law, a successful Olympics, and the human rights of China's people.
It is clear that we can no longer continue ``business as usual.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The projected attendance for the Olympics is staggering, and
includes the following: 20,000-30,000 journalists; 10,500 athletes;
500,000-550,000 foreign visitors; over 2,000,000 domestic visitors;
70,000 volunteers working at the Olympics; and 30,000 volunteers for
the Paralympics. See ``Factbox: Olympics--Beijing By the Numbers,''
Reuters, August 7, 2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/
idUSSP176476; Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games,
``Beijing 2008: Volunteer Recruitment Goes International,'' http://
en.beijing2008.cn/68/95/article214029568.shtml; ``Beijing Holds Grand
Olympic Hopes,'' Associated Press (via CNN), August 11, 2007, http://
edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/08/05/china.olympics.ap/index.html;
``Computerized Polyglots to Serve Beijing Olympics,'' People's Daily,
September 11, 2007, http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90781/
90879/6260185.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The international community needs to first get behind the hype and
the spin to find accurate information about what's really going on in
China. We would like to close with some recommendations and suggestions
for the Commission:
Raise individual cases in U.S. high-level visits and
other fora with Chinese authorities: Such action sends a clear
message of support and concern for human rights. Secretary
Rice's recently reported engagement with Beijing on human
rights issues is a good example. We urge the Commission members
to support the cases of the individuals featured in HRIC's
Incorporating Responsibility 2008 Campaign.\15\ These 12 human
rights defenders, including Shi Tao, Chen Guangcheng, and other
individuals imprisoned for rights-related work, collectively
represent the range of human rights issues that are of serious
concern in China today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The campaign website is located at http://www.ir2008.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particular attention should also be paid to cases that
involve individuals who have raised Olympics-related
criticisms, including:
Hu Jia: HIV/AIDS activist Hu Jia posted an article on the
real situation of China in the lead-up to the Olympics.\16\ He
was detained on December 27, 2007, on charges of ``inciting
subversion of state power.'' He is currently being held at
Beijing Municipal Detention Centre and has been denied release
on bail pending investigation for reportedly being a danger to
society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Teng Biao and Hu Jia, ``The Real Situation in Pre-Olympics
China,'' available at http://hrichina.org/public/PDFs/CRF.4.2007/CRF-
2007-4_Situation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gao Zhisheng: In September 2007, Gao Zhisheng wrote a 16-page
open letter to the U.S. Congress detailing the human rights
situation and anti-Olympics sentiment in China, and called for
a boycott of the Olympics, alleging that the CCP was using the
Games as a tool to assume legitimacy.\17\ Gao was detained in
mid-September 2007; his current situation is unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``China Dissident Urges Boycott of Olympics,'' The Washington
Times, September 21, 2007, http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/
pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070921/NATION/109210069/1002/
NATION&template=nextpage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yang Chunlin: Yang Chunlin is a Heilongjiang land rights
activist detained in July 2007 after organizing the ``We Want
Human Rights, Not the Olympics'' (also known as ``Human Rights
Over the Olympics'') petition that gained over 10,000
signatures. He was formally arrested in August 2007 and charged
with incitement to subvert state power.\18\ In February 2008,
Yang's trial opened in the city of Jiamusi, but no verdict has
yet been reached. Yang's arrest and trial are notable because
the case is one of the first that openly ties opposition to the
Beijing Olympics to allegations of subversion.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ``Chinese Land Rights Activist Who Opposed Olympics Will Go On
Trial Next Week, Lawyer Says,'' Associated Press (via International
Herald Tribune), February 15, 2008, http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/
2008/02/15/news/China-Activist.php.
\19\ ``China Tries Land Activist Who Opposed Olympics,'' Radio Free
Asia, February 19, 2008, http://www.rfa.org/english/news/2008/02/19/
china_olympics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ye Guozhu: Ye Guozhu is a 52-year-old housing advocate and a
Beijing resident, who was evicted from his home in May 2003 to
make way for Olympic construction. In August 2004, Ye applied
for permission to organize a demonstration of 10,000 against
forced Olympic evictions. After the application, he was
detained on August 28, 2004, on suspicion of ``disturbing
social order'' and other public order offenses. He was formally
arrested on September 15, 2004, after two weeks of
detention.\20\ In December 2004, Ye was sentenced to four years
in prison by the Dongcheng city court for ``picking a quarrel
and making trouble.'' \21\ He is due for release in mid-July
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ `` `Key Protester' for `Troublemaking' Arrested in China,''
Kyodo News, September 28, 2004.
\21\ ``Chinese Activist Gets Four Years in Jail for Planning
Demonstration,'' Agence-France Presse, December 17, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wang Dejia: Wang wrote articles criticizing Beijing for human
rights abuses, and stated that China's central government was
ignoring the needs of common people in the lead-up to the
Olympics and was more concerned about cracking down on
dissidents and building new venues. Wang was detained on
December 14, 2007, on a charge of ``subverting state
authority.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Anita Chang, ``Chinese activist held for subversion,'' AP,
December 19, 2007, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071219/ap_on_re_as/
china_dissident_detained_1;_ylt=Am75FBgA k5.2qzyFGJnC85NPzWQA.
Monitor censorship and surveillance: We are pleased to
see the U.S. National Olympic Committee has not issued any
orders to U.S. athletes limiting their speech while in China,
and we hope U.S. dialogue with China will serve as one way to
engage on human rights issues and support freedom of
expression. Regarding surveillance, the Chinese government is
responsible for providing appropriate security during the
Olympics and beyond. We urge the Commission members to monitor
two areas of concern: first, the appropriate balancing of
security and protections for human rights; and second, the
post-Olympic uses of the advanced security technology being
developed and implemented for the Olympics. This technology
will be in place long after the Games are over and the
international media have packed up, and further consideration
is required regarding its impact on human rights.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Keith Bradsher, ``China Finds American Allies for
Security,'' New York Times, December 28, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of dual-use export control regulations by the
Commerce Department: We understand the Commerce Department is
currently revisiting U.S.-China dual-use export control
regulations, specifying what security equipment American
companies can sell to China. In response to rapid advances in
surveillance technology and the increasing involvement of
American companies in the Chinese market, the Commerce
Department was reported as singling out biometric technology--
face-recognition software--which Chinese security agencies
could misuse against rights defenders and others. Through
appropriate channels with Commerce, Commission members should
raise human rights concerns, including concerns regarding
corporations that sell equipment directly to the Chinese
police.
Finally, HRIC strongly urges the Commission members to
publicly express their support for the Tiananmen Mothers, and
other domestic rights defenders. Despite the dismissals of June
Fourth as belonging to the past by IOC President Jacques Rogge
and others, the June Fourth crackdown still plays a defining
role in the lives of China's people today.
Respected members of the international community emerge not through
elaborately orchestrated spectacles, expensive stadiums, mascots or
international fanfare--but by respecting human rights at home and
abroad. HRIC hopes the Chinese government will take the opportunity of
the Olympic Games, as the whole world is watching, to do just that.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
______
Prepared Statement of Robert Dietz
february 27, 2008
Dear Chairman and distinguished members of the Congressional-
Executive Commission on China:
Thank you for inviting the Committee to Protect Journalists to
participate in the discussion of ``The Impact of the 2008 Olympic Games
on Human Rights and the Rule of Law in China.'' CPJ has been monitoring
press freedom conditions in China and around the world for more than 25
years. The organization was founded in 1981 by a group of American
journalists who believed that the strength and influence of the
international media could be used to support journalists who are
targeted because of their work. CPJ is independently funded by
individuals, foundations and corporations, and accepts no government
funds whatsoever.
Recognizing that with the advent of the 2008 Beijing Games we were
presented with an opportunity to exert greater than usual influence
around China's media policy, last year CPJ produced a report, ``Falling
Short: As the 2008 Olympics Approach, China Falters on Press Freedom,''
which we are in the process of revising for this year. Our intention
was to speak to the more than 25,000 journalists expected to descend on
China for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games. We wanted to give them
practical advice on how to work as a journalist in China, as well as
tell them of the conditions under which their Chinese colleagues are
working.
That second point, conditions for Chinese journalists, is a
critical one. We are concerned that when foreign news teams arriving in
Beijing hire local Chinese assistants they will place demands on them
that might put them in jeopardy. Reporters who ask their Chinese hires
to arrange potentially dangerous meetings, say with activists, or to
visit an AIDS village, or get advance information on potential
demonstrations that the government will want to quash, might be putting
their Chinese colleagues at risk. It is not inconceivable that they
will be made to pay a price, if not during the Games, then after them,
when the world's media attention has moved on.
Watching China make preparations for the Games, it is clear the
government wants them to come off without a flaw. That preoccupation
could lead to overly aggressive attempts to control the media, a
pattern we believe we are already seeing. While those attempts will
most likely be futile, past experience has shown that China tends to
err on the side of heavy-handedness when it comes to media control and
threats to China's image as a unified nation with little internal
dissent. We are not as concerned about the threat that foreign
journalists will face in China during the Games, but it seems that the
Chinese journalists working with them as translators, fixers, and
coordinators--many of whom will be enthusiastic young people with
relatively little journalism experience--make up a high-risk group.
Just how high are the risks for Chinese journalists in China? It is
a mixed picture. Here are the harshest facts first:
With less than one year to go before the 2008 Olympic Games, China
is holding at least 25 reporters and editors behind bars because of
their work. Most journalists are being held on vague security-related
charges such as revealing state secrets or inciting subversion of state
power. By hiding behind such broad accusations of threats to civil
stability, China has been the world's leading jailer of journalists
since 1999. That number of 25 behind bars is down from 29 last year.
Typical is the case of Shi Tao, whose mother has called on CPJ to
pressure the international community to insist Chinese authorities to
release her son ahead of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. ``My son is
not guilty. You should keep up pressure on the Chinese government to
release him,'' Gao Qinsheng said when she visited CPJ's office in June
of last year. Shi is serving a 10-year prison term for the crime of
``leaking state secrets abroad.'' He was jailed in 2004 for sending an
e-mail describing Communist Party propaganda department orders to his
newspaper Dangdai Shangbao (Contemporary Trade News). The information
included orders to news editors on how to report the anniversary of the
1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square demonstrators.
But there has been a thaw of sorts in recent weeks. Li Changqing
and Yue Tianxiang were both released within the past two months because
their sentences were due to expire. The Singapore Straits Times
journalist Ching Cheong was released unexpectedly on February 7 after
campaigns for his health, while Southern Metropolis News journalist Yu
Huafeng was released on February 11 after his sentence was commuted
through a lengthy appeal process. It is worth noting that all but one
of these men was a fairly senior print journalist. And we believe the
December 2006 release of a former Xinhua reporter, Gao Qinrong after
serving eight years of a 12-year sentence falls into the same category.
Senior journalists working in what are government-controlled
publications seem to receive softer government treatment, possibly
because their arrests and sentences were so egregious in the first
place--if we dare to think that reduced time behind bars for simply
having worked as a journalist can be classified as ``softer
treatment.''
Are these recent releases an indicator of a change of heart on the
part of the Chinese government? It is difficult to say, but my feeling
is that it is most likely not, though China has used prisoner releases
to ease international criticism in the past. And remember, on about the
same day Ching Cheong was released and allowed to return to his family
in Hong Kong, Lu Gengsong was sentenced to four years in prison on
subversion charges by the Intermediate People's Court in the eastern
Chinese city of Hangzhou, after his one-day, closed-door trial on
January 22. Lu was sentenced for ``inciting the subversion of state
power.'' Lu is a strong populist who openly criticized corrupt
officials, and wrote several articles for overseas Web sites and
reported on the trial of a human rights defender the day before he was
arrested.
Mo Shaoping, a veteran Beijing-based lawyer who has represented
many jailed journalists, told CPJ that he did not take the recent
releases as encouraging signs. ``There has been no reduction in cases
where subversion charges are brought against people for articles they
have written. If anything,'' Mr. Mo told us, ``these cases have
increased in the past one or two years.''
CPJ's records show that three more jailed journalists are due to be
released before or around the time the Games start on August 8.
Hua Di is a Stanford University researcher and U.S.
resident who was charged with revealing state secrets while
visiting China in January 1998 after publishing articles about
China's defense system in academic journals. We have been
unable to confirm his whereabouts.
Zhang Wei was arrested in July 2002 for illegally
publishing underground newspapers that officials said ``misled
the public'' in Chongqing, central China. He is due out in
July.
Fan Yingshang printed 60,000 copies of a magazine
and was subsequently charged with profiteering in October 1995.
Fan is due to be released sometime before October.
CPJ is calling on China to release these men immediately, and then
begin a review of its media policies. It seems clear that China's
leaders have grasped the importance of the open flow of information to
a modern economy. Jailing journalists goes back to an era when the
government thought it could control every aspect of a Chinese citizen's
life. It long ago relinquished that notion, but it persists in jailing
journalists as if China were still at the height of the Cultural
Revolution.
An important fact to remember is that more than half of the
journalists behind bars in China are there for Internet-related
activities. But despite having the world's greatest Internet censorship
apparatus, the government seems unable to fully stem the flow of frank
discussion and open criticism that ricochets across China from e-mail,
blogs, foreign and domestic Web sites, message bulletin boards, instant
messaging and telephone texting. The highly vaunted Great Firewall of
China is under constant pressure, and is turning more into an
increasingly leaky dike holding back a rising digital flood of
information with constantly updated technology, some of it supplied by
United States companies. The government is struggling to stay on top of
the growth of the Internet.
And the Internet is not the only place where China's attempts to
control the flow of information are not meeting with success.
The number of journalists jailed in China does not tell the whole
story. The overwhelmingly vast majority of journalists in China are not
in jail. Many reporters in the country's ever-more commercialized media
are pursuing news stories and readers with energy and enthusiasm, while
their editors fully understand how far they can push the limits of a
story. To rein in that energy, the government propaganda machine hands
down a daily stream of directives covering issues that range from the
most sensitive--how to handle the annual commemoration of the 1989
Tiananmen demonstrations, or a toxic chemical spill into a river, say--
to the most mundane tabloid-level stories. Reporters and editors know
they are being watched and a running tally of their missteps is kept.
Too many errors could mean a demotion or reassignment to a less
prestigious publication, far away from home. Successful journalists and
editors pick their battles carefully, knowing their readers and viewers
increasingly expect reliable and accurate reporting. Many others simply
resign themselves to the restrictions, write the party line, and take
home their paycheck.
It is interesting to note the directives from the Central
Propaganda Department are no longer always delivered by e-mail anymore,
according to journalists we have spoken with in Hong Kong earlier this
month. Increasingly, directives are given by telephone, so that there
is no electronic trail of the department's messages. We have been told
that the method changed after our use of some of those messages
appeared in ``Falling Short,'' CPJ's report on the Olympics, which I
mentioned at the beginning of these remarks.
The method of transmission of censorship directives is one change
in China's well-oiled control system, and not necessarily one for the
better. And it is not the sort of change we were assured we would see
after Beijing was awarded the 2008 Olympic Games. The International
Olympic Committee and the government assured skeptics that the influx
of Olympic ideals would wean the government from its obsession with
regulating the flow of information.
That scenario never came to pass and doesn't look likely to, though
some restrictions on foreign journalists were lifted in January 2007.
Under the new rules
foreigners are allowed unrestricted travel and are free to ask
questions of anyone willing to talk to them--rules that were largely
ignored anyway. Government officials have talked about the possibility
that those restrictions will be fully lifted sometime soon, never to
return--though it should be noted that travel to Tibet and the Xinjiang
Autonomous Region are still forbidden.
Foreign journalists in China do report fewer hassles and
restrictions since the new regulations were handed down, although many
local officials and powerful businessmen have yet to get the message at
the grassroots level. There continue to be disturbing reports of the
harassment of Chinese citizens who have given interviews to foreign
reporters. And most foreign journalists still operate under the
assumption that their phones are tapped and e-mail monitored.
For Chinese journalists things have gotten worse. Many of them have
told CPJ that while they wish they had the freedoms their foreign
colleagues now have, they would be reluctant to exercise them anyway.
They fear retribution once the spotlight of the Games has moved on and
the country reverts to business as usual.
Still, the government is clearly fighting a rear-guard action in
trying to control the flow of information. Increasingly media--
particularly print media--push those limits. Internet-based citizen
journalists abound and bona fide press-card holders regularly put their
stories online if they can't convince their papers to run with them.
The journalism instinct is alive and well in China. It is the
government that is still stuck in its Mao-era approach, trying to cope
with the demands of increasingly sophisticated journalists and their
readers and viewers.
This is the atmosphere into which some 20,000 to 30,000 foreign
journalists and technicians will find themselves in August 2008. Given
that it does not look like China will soften its stance any more, and
that it has even come down harder on its own journalists in recent
months, what can be done?
CPJ and other groups have not had any apparent
success in dealing with the International Olympic Committee
around these issues. We are calling on governments,
particularly our own, and the Games' corporate sponsors to
press the International Olympic Committee to insist that the
Chinese government fully meet its promises of press freedom for
the 2008 Games. And we want to ensure that freedom is extended
to Chinese journalists, though I suspect our Chinese colleagues
would be wary of immediately taking advantage of those
freedoms.
We ask everyone to continue to call on China to meet
the pledge made to the IOC in 2001 when it was awarded the
Games to remove media restrictions. In particular, eliminate
restrictions on local journalists, who continue to face the
same severe constraints they did before China was awarded the
Games in 2001.
We do not think it is unrealistic to call on China
to release all the journalists currently imprisoned for their
work. For them to be in jail when the Games begin on August 8,
2008, would make a travesty of China's pledge of greater press
freedom and the IOC's acceptance of that pledge.
In the broadest sense, China should stop censoring
news and dismantle the archaic system of media control that has
evolved over several decades. Halt Internet censorship and
monitoring activities and let information flow freely on every
digital platform.
Narrow the use of state secret and national security
laws, bringing them into compliance with the Johannesburg
Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression, and
Access to Information. These principles, endorsed by the U.N.
special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, allow
restrictions only in cases of legitimate national security.
Ratify the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, which China signed in 1998. Article 19 of the
Covenant states: ``Everyone shall have the right to freedom of
expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive,
and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of
frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form
of art, or through any other media of his choice.''
As a member of the United Nations, honor Article 19
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:
``Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.''
And, perhaps most important, we are calling on the international
media organizations that will be in China to do two things and do them
with the same dedication and energy they will use to cover the Games:
Use all means to insist that China honor its media
pledges to the IOC and extend to Chinese journalists the same
freedoms that visiting journalists enjoy.
For the safety and well-being of our Chinese
colleagues, take extra steps to ensure that all employees
covering the games, either on the ground in China or on
editorial desks at home offices, to be aware of the
restrictions and threats that their Chinese colleagues face.
Chinese journalists are not allowed to operate under the same
rules that foreign journalists take for granted. To forget that
reality can endanger their freedom.
I thank the Commission for the opportunity it has granted CPJ to
outline these issues. Along with this testimony, we have submitted a
copy of our report, ``Falling Short,'' for your reference.
______
Prepared Statement of Sophie Richardson
february 27, 2008
Chairman Levin, Co-Chairman Dorgan, and other Distinguished Members
of the Commission,
Human Rights Watch first wishes to thank the CECC for convening
this timely hearing. It is a privilege to participate along with such
distinguished panelists.
There are three key questions before us today. The first is whether
the human rights situation in advance of the 2008 Beijing Games is
improving, as the Chinese government has repeatedly insisted it would.
We regretfully submit that it is not. Over the past year, we have
continued to document not only chronic human rights abuses inside
China, such as restrictions on basic freedoms of speech, assembly, and
political participation, but also abuses that are taking place
specifically as a result of China's hosting the 2008 Summer Games.
Those include an increasing use of house arrest and charges of
``inciting subversion'' as means of silencing dissent, ongoing
harassment of foreign journalists despite new regulations protecting
them, and abuses of migrant construction workers without whose labors
Beijing's gleaming new skyline would not exist. More detail about these
and other abuses are included in our written testimony.
The second key question is whether this negative impact will be a
lasting one. Human Rights Watch believes that these abuses constitute a
failure of the Chinese government to fulfill its own voluntarily made
promises to improve rights in order to win the bid to host the
Olympics. These were promises made to the international community, to
the International Olympic Committee, and, indeed, to the Chinese
people. It is clear that the Chinese government has no intention of
following through on these commitments, and unless significant pressure
is brought to bear to make it do so, we fear the negative impact will
not only be very difficult to reverse in the future, but will also mean
that in effect the international community has tacitly endorsed the
repression necessary to engineer a vision of a modern, cosmopolitan
China.
The third question, therefore, is what we can do to alter the
current situation to ensure a better outcome. The administration and
State Department assure us that they are constantly raising these
concerns, and while we do not doubt their efforts, we question the
efficacy of ``quiet diplomacy'' in the absence of more public
measures--after all, the decreasing volume of American criticism of
China's rights record over the past decade is in part to blame for the
current situation, and President Bush and Secretary Rice managed over
the course of just a few days last week to contradict one another as to
whether the United States feels it is appropriate to raise rights
issues in the context of the Olympics. The Chinese government
desperately wants a positive international assessment of its country
during this time of unprecedented scrutiny; we believe that if pressed,
they will make progress in order to get such reviews, particularly from
the United States.
To that end, Human Rights Watch respectfully urges that:
1. All members of Congress and senior administration
officials who visit China in the coming months speak publicly
about these abuses, and, when security for all involved can be
ensured, visit those under house or actual arrest for
challenging the Chinese government's rights abuses.
2. The members of this Commission request public assurances
from US-based Olympic sponsors that their business practices in
China do not contribute to rights abuses.
3. That the Administration be asked to articulate how it will
respond to rights abuses in the coming months, including how it
is prepared to assist American journalists who are intimidated,
harassed, or detained while trying to do their jobs.
4. That the Administration explain what specific rights-
promoting activities the President will engage in while in
Beijing to demonstrate that his rhetorical commitments be made
real. These could include making himself available for on-line
discussions to underscore the importance of internet freedom,
visiting unregistered churches to emphasize the right to
practice religion freely, or speaking publicly about the
constraints under which Chinese journalists are forced to
operate.
5. And, if the current crackdown shows no sign of abating in
the coming months, ask the Administration to publicly
reconsider whether it is still appropriate for the President to
attend the opening or closing ceremonies.
If steps like these are not taken--and taken soon--the U.S.
government runs the risk of giving an imprimatur of approval to the
Chinese government's rights record.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate and for the
Commission's ongoing commitment to human rights issues.
background on human rights abuses in advance of the 2008 beijing
olympics
Despite China's official assurances that hosting the 2008 Olympic
Games will help to strengthen the development of human rights in the
country, the Chinese government continues to deny or restrict its
citizens' fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, freedom
of association, and freedom of religion.
The government's extensive police and state security apparatus
continues to impose multiple layers of controls on civil society
activists, critics, and protesters. Those layers include professional
and administrative measures, limitations on foreign travel and domestic
movement, monitoring (covert or overt) of internet and phone
communications, abduction and confinement incommunicado, and unofficial
house arrests. A variety of vaguely defined crimes including ``inciting
subversion,'' ``leaking state secrets,'' and ``disrupting social
order'' provide the government with wide legal remit to stifle critics.
human rights and the 2008 olympics
Despite temporary regulations in effect from January 1, 2007, to
October 17, 2008, that give correspondents freedom to interview anyone
who consents, foreign journalists continue to be harassed, detained,
and intimidated by government and police officials. The temporary
regulations do not extend to Chinese journalists or foreign
correspondents' Chinese assistants, researchers, and sources, who
continue to risk reprisals for violating government directives on taboo
reporting topics.
Official efforts to rid Beijing of undesirables ahead of the
Olympics have accelerated the eviction of petitioners--citizens from
the countryside who come to the
capital seeking redress for grievances ranging from illegal land
seizures to official corruption. In September-October the Beijing
municipal government demolished a settlement in Fengtai district that
housed up to 4,000 petitioners.
The countdown to the Olympics has also sparked a construction boom.
An estimated one million migrant construction workers are integral to
this effort, yet their labor conditions are harsh and unsafe, and
workers are often unable to access public services. When a subway
tunnel under construction collapsed in March, trapping six workers, the
first step the employer took was to prevent workers from reporting the
accident by confiscating their mobile phones.
freedom of expression
In 2007 the Chinese government stepped up its efforts to control
increasingly vibrant print and online forms of expression, and
sanctioned individuals, journalists, and editors for failing to conform
to highly restrictive but inconsistently implemented laws and
regulations.
China's system of internet censorship and surveillance is the most
advanced in the world. Filtering, blocking, and monitoring technologies
are built into all layers of China's internet infrastructure. Tens of
thousands of police remotely monitor internet use around the clock. The
elaborate system of censorship is aided by extensive corporate and
private sector cooperation--including by some of the world's major
international technology and internet companies such as Google, Yahoo,
and Microsoft. Writers, editors, bloggers, webmasters, and journalists
risk punishments ranging from immediate dismissal to prosecution and
lengthy jail terms for sending news outside China or posting articles
critical of the political system. For example, Zhang Jianhong, former
editor-in-chief of the Aegean Sea website, was sentenced to six years'
imprisonment on March 19 for ``inciting subversion.''
The countdown to the Beijing Olympics has seen the threshold
lowered for internet content considered ``sensitive'' by China's
censors and prompted closure of access to thousands of websites in
2007, including popular international sites such as Wikipedia and
Flickr. The government has expanded its traditional criteria for
internet censorship from topics including references to the 1989
Tiananmen Massacre, the outlawed Falungong ``evil cult,'' and content
perceived as sympathetic to ``separatist'' elements in Tibet, Xinjiang,
and Taiwan, to include ``unauthorized'' coverage of everything from
natural disasters to corruption scandals that might embarrass the
Communist Party of China (CPC). By official estimate the government
shut down more than 18,000 individual blogs and websites since April
2007, and in August censors widened their focus to include shutting
down numerous internet data centers. Official measures to filter or
remove ``sensitive'' content from domestic websites sharply accelerated
in the run up to the 17th CPC Congress in October.
Chinese journalists continue to risk severe repercussions for
pursuing stories that touch on officially taboo subjects or threaten
powerful private interests. Miao Wei, former executive editor of
Sanlian Life Weekly, confirmed in April that he had been demoted in
connection with a cover story on the aftermath of the Cultural
Revolution (1966-1976). Lan Chengzhang, a reporter with China Trade
News, was murdered in January while investigating an illegal coal mine
in Datong, Shanxi province. In mid-August five journalists, including a
reporter from the government mouthpiece People's Daily, were
interviewing witnesses to the Fenghuang bridge collapse in Hunan
province when plainclothes thugs interrupted the interviews and kicked
and punched the journalists, who were then detained by police.
legal reform
Legal reforms proceeded at a fast pace in 2007 in order to achieve
the CPC's overriding goal of making the rule of law ``the principal
tool to govern the country.'' New legislation was adopted on a wide
range of issues such as property rights, labor contracts,
administration of lawyers, access to public records, and the handling
of emergencies. But the party's continued dominance over, and
interference with, judicial institutions, as well as weak and
inconsistent enforcement of judicial decisions, means that overall the
legal system remains vulnerable to arbitrary interference.
Ordinary citizens face immense obstacles to accessing justice, in
particular over issues such as illegal land seizures, forced evictions,
environmental pollution, unpaid wages, corruption, and abuse of power
by local officials, a situation that fuels rising social unrest across
the country. The authorities have stopped disclosing figures about the
number of riots and demonstrations after they announced a decline from
over 200 incidents per day in 2006, but large-scale incidents were
reported in 2007 in almost all of China's 34 province-level
administrative units. Several demonstrations involved tens of thousand
of people, such as in Yongzhou (Hunan) in March 2007 and Xiamen
(Fujian) in June. In speeches and articles top security officials
acknowledged the heightening of social conflicts, but remained defiant
toward greater independence of the judiciary, blaming ``hostile'' or
``enemy forces'' for trying to use the nation's legal system to
undermine and westernize China. A string of lawyers defending human
rights cases have been suspended or disbarred under a yearly licensing
system that acts as a general deterrent to taking cases viewed as
``sensitive'' by the authorities.
The rights of criminal defendants continued to be sharply limited
and violated by law enforcement agencies. Defense lawyers face chronic
difficulties including accessing defendants in custody, consulting
court documents, and producing exculpatory evidence before the court.
Despite the reiteration by the Supreme People's Court in September that
judges ought to ``pay more attention to evidence and treat confessions
with more skepticism,'' torture, especially at the pretrial stage,
remains prevalent. The Public Security Bureau continues to make wide
use, including for political and religious dissidents, of the
Reeducation-Through-Labor system, which allows
detention for up to four years for ``minor offenders,'' without trial.
human rights defenders
Chinese human rights defenders, seizing on the official promise of
lawful governance, are becoming more assertive and skillful at
documenting abuses and mounting legal challenges. But the authorities,
who have never tolerated independent human rights monitoring, have
retaliated with harassment, unlawful detention, forced disappearances,
and long prison sentences, often on trumped-up charges.
Authorities have targeted a small, loosely-organized network of
lawyers, legal academics, rights activists, and journalists, known as
the weiquan movement, which aims to pursue social justice and
constitutional rights through litigation. The movement focuses on the
protection of ordinary citizens over issues such as housing rights,
land seizures, workers' rights, and police abuse. Yang Chunlin, a land
rights activist arrested in July, was found guilty in February 2008 of
``inciting subversion'' for his role in organizing a petition titled
``We want human rights, not the Olympics.'' Lu Gengsong, a former
lecturer turned activist who documented illegal eviction cases and
official collusion, was found guilty in February 2008 on charges of
subverting state power. In August 2007 environmental activist Wu Lihong
was sentenced to three years' imprisonment under ill-defined business
fraud charges; his wife reported he had been tortured while held
incommunicado. Yang Maodong, a Guangzhou-based land rights activist
arrested in September 2006 and still awaiting trial, also reported that
he had been repeatedly tortured in detention.
Defenders who document and report abuses against other activists
are particularly vulnerable. In September lawyer Li Heping was abducted
in broad daylight, held for six hours, severely beaten, and told he
should leave Beijing. Li Jianqiang, a renowned human rights lawyer, was
disbarred without reason. The human rights monitor Hu Jia has been
maintained in house arrest in Beijing for the most part of the year out
of any legal procedure. Yuan Weijing, the wife of the blind activist
Chen Guangcheng who is currently serving a three-year sentence for
exposing family planning abuses, was also prevented from traveling
abroad to collect a human rights prize on his behalf.
labor rights
Chinese workers continue to be forbidden to form independent trade
unions, as the government maintains that the party-controlled All-China
Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) adequately protects workers' rights.
This restriction on legally-sanctioned labor activism, coupled with
increasingly tense labor disputes in which protesting workers have few
realistic routes for redress, have contributed to increasing numbers of
workers taking to the streets and to the courts to press claims about
forced and uncompensated overtime, employer violations of minimum wage
rules, unpaid pensions and wages, and dangerous and unhealthy working
environments.
Workers who seek redress through strike action are often subject to
attacks by plainclothes thugs who appear to operate at the behest of
employers. In July a group of 200 thugs armed with spades, axes, and
steel pipes attacked a group of workers in Heyuan (Guangdong), who were
protesting over not having been paid for four months; they beat one
worker to death.
Human Rights Watch will soon release a report detailing abuses of
migrant construction workers in Beijing.
freedom of religion
The Chinese government recognizes the right to believe, but limits
worship to a state-controlled system of registered and controlled
churches, congregations, mosques, monasteries, and temples.
The official registration process requires government vetting and
ongoing scrutiny of religious publications, seminary applications, and
religious personnel. The government also closely monitors the
membership and financial records of religious institutions and the
personnel they employ, and retains the right to approve or deny
applications for any group activities by religious organizations. Those
who fail to register are considered illegal and are liable for criminal
prosecution, fines, and closure.
Reprisals against non-registered religious organizations have
primarily focused on arrests of Protestants who attend ``house
churches,'' for Bible study meetings and training sessions. The
majority of those arrested are rapidly released, some after paying
fines, but leaders of such underground churches are sometimes held on
fabricated charges including ``illegal business practices.'' The
freedom of belief of certain groups designated by the government as
``evil cults,'' including Falungong, continues to be severely
restricted.
______
Prepared Statement of Robin Munro
february 27, 2008
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify at this
important hearing. The focus of my comments today is on China's current
labor rights situation, but I would like to broaden this theme to
address the wider range of human and labor rights problems faced by
ordinary, non-elite members of society--or what we at China Labour
Bulletin sometimes call ``human rights for the millions.'' Because time
is short, I'm not going to say much about the Beijing Olympics
themselves, but instead will simply offer a few broad-brushstroke
thoughts and conclusions on the implications of the upcoming Games for
the rights situation in China. I shall then fast-forward to the post-
Olympics period and issues--or rather, try to review the basic
underlying problems in society that are going on right now and which
will still be there, virtually unchanged, after the Olympic athletes
and visitors have all gone home.
The public notice for today's hearing poses the question of
``whether the Olympics will bring lasting benefits to Chinese
citizens,'' or, conversely, ``have a negative impact on their human
rights.'' With less than six months to go before the Games begin, I
feel only one conclusion is possible here. Over the past year or so,
the Games have led to a harsh and growing crackdown against the
domestic civil rights movement, and to increasingly unrestrained rights
violations by the government and security forces in general. Rights
activists have been rounded up by the police and jailed, civil rights
lawyers have been intimidated and punished, and even the wives of
dissidents have been persecuted in an effort to ensure their silence as
the Olympic Games approach. As other speakers have noted, several
rights activists are now facing criminal trials in China merely for
calling on the government to give human rights a modicum of priority in
the run-up to the all-important Games. In short, the official message
being sent to China's citizens today is that any kind of public
activity that in any way threatens to tarnish the authorities' image,
or that introduces a negative note into the coming Olympics
festivities, is de facto a crime. This official record makes a mockery
of Beijing's pledges to the IOC and the world that holding the Olympic
Games would advance the human rights cause in China. Clearly, Beijing
2008 is not going to be anything like Seoul in 1988.
Unfortunately, this outcome was largely to be expected. So much is
riding on the forthcoming Games being a success, in terms both of the
image the Chinese leadership wishes to project at the international
level, and also of the message of rosy domestic contentment and rising
popular prosperity that it wishes to impose on the Chinese people, that
nothing is to be allowed to spoil the Olympics party. There is little
the rest of the world can do about this, except to protest loudly and
strongly as the crackdown continues. The one issue so far on which
Games-related international pressure appears to have had a noticeably
positive effect is the Darfur situation, via China's belated support
for a U.N. peacekeeping force. But with Western governments no longer
being willing to back up their words of censure with meaningful action
or sanctions of any kind, and with China's economy now playing such a
pivotal role on the world stage, Beijing clearly considers that it has
little really to lose by toughing things out internationally while
maintaining tight political control at home.
I should stress that the above remarks are not meant to suggest
that Olympics-related pressure campaigns at this stage are pointless.
Far from it: such campaigns are a vital means of ensuring that the
Chinese authorities at least avoid the worst excesses of repression, in
their zeal to present a smiling and united national face to the world
this August. My point is simply that we should not hold any real hopes
that the Games may somehow turn out to be a plus factor for the human
rights or labor rights cause in China. It is conceivable that Beijing
may produce a ``trump card'' on the eve of the Olympics--for example,
by announcing ratification of the ICCPR, or by releasing one or more
high-profile political prisoners--but that would serve mainly as a
smokescreen to deflect international attention away from the continuing
Games-related crackdown on civil liberties. Given the severity of the
current clampdown on rights, such a gesture would be hollow and
meaningless.
Nonetheless, because so many ordinary Chinese feel real pride at
Beijing's hosting of the Games, I hope they will be a success. China is
a great nation, and its people deserve their turn at the Olympics, even
if the government does not. Also, if hosting the Games smoothly makes
the Chinese leadership feel more secure domestically, that's probably a
good thing: a more relaxed and confident government in Beijing is more
likely to take steps, eventually, toward some degree of liberalization
than a chronically scared and brittle one. The danger, however, is that
the tight social and political controls set in place for the upcoming
Olympics will--once the Games are over--simply become the ``new
normal'' in China's internal security regime. If this happens, the
Games will have set the clock back on human rights and civil liberties.
a socially divided nation--and an emerging civil society
The Chinese government nowadays strives to project the twin images
of ``the harmonious society'' and (through the Olympics) of ``one
world, one dream.'' The reality, however, is that China today is far
from being harmonious, and it embodies two very different worlds and
dreams. On the one hand, there are those of the rising new elite, who
enjoy unfettered access to all the best things in life; and on the
other, those of the ordinary people, hundreds of millions of citizens
who have no meaningful vote and whose main dream is somehow to make
ends meet for the family until the next payday. In the government's
view, however, if the desired ``social harmony'' cannot be achieved
through consensus, then it must be enforced via repression, by
silencing popular discontent and demands.
What then are the main, long-term social justice--or ``human rights
for the millions''--issues that urgently need to be addressed in China,
if society is to be made more fundamentally stable and equitable in
nature? Here is a brief list of four of the most pressing issues:
The country's medical care system needs to be
completely redesigned to make it more accessible and available
to ordinary citizens. For at least the past decade, after the
hospital system was basically privatized and turned into a
for-profit concern, the cost of medical treatment has been
prohibitive for the majority of China's citizens, even in the
cities. Under the present system, a major illness can bankrupt
an entire family within a few short weeks--and in many rural
areas, there is no public healthcare system worth mentioning.
The rural education system also needs to be
completely overhauled, and for similar reasons. Both the
quality and provision of education in the countryside is
massively under-funded by the government, and school fees are
often extremely high. The result is that poor rural families
increasingly cannot afford to keep their children in school for
the full nine-year period of compulsory education, and so child
labor is on the rise in many parts of the country today. In
addition, the under-educated migrant workforce is increasingly
inadequate to the developing needs of the Chinese economy, and
this problem will only get worse unless action is taken
swiftly. After more than a decade of 10 percent-plus annual GDP
growth, the government's failure to make a priority of
providing decent medical care and rural education for its
citizens is deplorable.
The entrenched problem of official corruption, now
endemic at every level of the administration, needs to be
seriously and systematically addressed by the central
government. Corruption by local officials is at the root of
almost every major social injustice issue in the country today,
and it is deeply resented by the great majority of ordinary
citizens. The central government regularly
attacks dissidents, civic action groups, and petitioners or
whistleblowers and others as posing a ``threat to social and
political stability.'' In reality, the persistence of unchecked
corruption at all levels of official life is what poses the
primary threat to the country's stable and peaceful
development, both now and in the future. Since one-party rule
seems set to last for a long time, the only available
counterweight to official corruption remains the emergence of a
functioning civil society in China--something that is now
happening despite government controls.
The basic livelihood of hundreds of millions of urban
and rural workers and their families needs to be guaranteed and
protected, in terms of access to proper employment, enforcement
of legal minimum pay and maximum working hours, and provision
of safe working conditions. The appalling situation in China's
coal mines, where several thousand miners continue to die
needlessly each year as a direct result of mine bosses' callous
disregard for workplace safety, and with the collusion of local
officials who unlawfully invest in the mines, is only the most
dramatic example. Similar conditions prevail throughout the
country's vast construction industry and elsewhere, and the
only effective remedy is for workers to be allowed to form
effective self-protection organizations. Trade unions would be
the most obvious form, but while legal prohibitions on such
groups remain, workers should at least be allowed to form
frontline work-safety committees, and also to engage in real
collective bargaining with their employers aimed at negotiating
minimally acceptable terms and conditions of employment.
Again looking ahead to the post-Olympics period: if the
international community has less and less real influence and leverage
nowadays over Beijing on how it treats its own citizens, does this mean
that future prospects for human rights and greater social justice in
China are bleak? Surprisingly enough, perhaps: far from it. For we are
finally seeing, after three decades of economic reform, the emergence
of new
domestic social forces in China that may well have the will and the
potential to transform the country's governance from the inside, and
from the bottom up. For a variety of reasons, there is considerably
more space for civic action of all kinds in society nowadays than even
five or ten years ago. This is not the result of government steps
toward liberalization: rather, it's because angry citizens are now
demanding justice in much larger numbers, and more vocally, than ever
before. Ordinary people across the country, in both town and
countryside, are themselves creating this new and indispensable social
space, through a wide range of collective rights campaigns and
activities. All this is ultimately the outcome of three decades of
highly inequitable economic reform in China, and where issues of social
injustice are concerned, the chickens are now coming home to roost for
the Chinese leadership.
new forces for change from within
In short, I believe that China is now entering a stage where
progress toward greater social justice, including human and labor
rights--or ``human rights for the millions''--will henceforth be
determined mainly as a result of internal forces and developments, with
the international community playing a secondary (though still vital)
role in events. In my view, this development is warmly to be welcomed,
and I see two such new social forces, primarily, at work in China
today.
First, there is now a recognizable workers' rights movement of
considerable size taking shape in China, something that was scarcely
conceivable only a decade ago. Tens of thousands of mass labor protests
and other acts of worker unrest are taking place across the country
each year, despite the continued strict legal prohibition on forming
independent unions. These worker protests are mostly spontaneous in
nature, and are neither coordinated nor interconnected, but they are
having a real and tangible effect in promoting greater respect by
employers, at local level, for the country's own labor laws. China's
workers, and especially the 150 million or so migrant workforce (mostly
female) from the countryside that provides the muscle for urban
manufacturing and exports, are clearly on the move.
Workers are no longer playing the role of passive victim to China's
economic success story, and instead are increasingly standing up for
themselves and their rights. And the one-party state--which preys on
the weak and isolated (the political dissidents, civil rights lawyers,
Falun Gong and others) but fears the strong and numerous--is in turn
showing the workers steadily increasing attention and respect as a
social force. It is no coincidence that the start of 2008 saw the
introduction of three new labor laws in China: the Labour Contract Law,
the Law on Employment Promotion, and the Law on Labour Dispute
Mediation and Arbitration. All of these new laws have, in various
significant ways, raised the bar on employment standards and labor
rights. (The main continuing problem is that employers and local
authorities conspire to ignore such laws in practice; but here again,
workers are challenging the system to live up to its own promises by
bringing increasing numbers of labor rights lawsuit to court--and for
the most part they are winning.) In the human rights movement, we have
long known that, if properly applied, international pressure works; so
it is heartening to report that in China today, pressure from domestic
actors and forces is likewise starting to work.
Second, there is currently emerging in China a sizable, grassroots-
based rights movement of great significance, one that is focused on
issues of real and pressing concern to the local community and is
therefore winning widespread popular support. Citizens around the
country are forming pressure groups to campaign for the redress of
local acts of injustice or bad governance, and they are increasingly
taking their cases to the courts in the form of lawsuits against local
government agencies and officials. Known in China as the ``weiquan''
movement--usually translated in English as the ``rights defense
movement''--it in many ways constitutes China's emerging civil rights
movement. It shares many of the features of civil rights movements
elsewhere--for example, the coalition of elite social groups, including
civil rights lawyers, the news media and local legislators, alongside
and in support of grassroots-based rights campaigners--a phenomenon
that was also evident in the case of the Civil Rights Movement in the
United States, despite the different issues involved.
Crucially, much of China's fast-growing ``weiquan'' movement is
inspired by rising levels of popular indignation over the flagrant
levels of official corruption seen across the country nowadays.
Increasing income polarization may be an unavoidable feature of
economic development, but official greed and contempt for rule of law
is now directly ruining more and more Chinese citizens' basic
livelihood--whether via unlawful land grabs, catastrophic pollution of
the environment, or other widespread acts of malgovernance. More and
more officials in China are nowadays acting as if they fear the party
may be over tomorrow: grabbing as much as they can, without apparent
concern for the probably irreversible decline in government legitimacy
that their actions are prompting in the eyes of ordinary citizens.
What characterizes both these new social forces--the workers on the
one hand, and the popular ``weiquan'' or civil rights movement on the
other--is their shared commitment to peaceful and constitutional
methods of social action and pressure for change. They have wisely, for
the most part, avoided politicizing the very diverse social justice
issues on which they campaign--even when, as is usually the case, these
problems are the direct product of official corruption; and they have
based their campaigns on the provisions of China's own laws. Both
tactics are vital if these movements are to prosper and grow in the
future, and they essentially boil down to demanding genuine rule of law
in China. Again, these are popular, grassroots-based campaigns and
concerns, and it is the first time in monitoring human rights in China
for some 30 years that I have seen anything quite so positive and
momentous occur.
taking the longer view
How can the international community best lend its support to these
promising new developments taking place at the grassroots level across
China? Here are a few pointers and suggestions:
Western governments should give a high priority to
pressing China, through the U.N. and the ILO, to ratify core
international agreements and conventions on freedom of speech
and association, notably the ICCPR and ILO Conventions No. 87
and 98. If Chinese citizens cannot freely associate to press
for peaceful change and reform, the country will become more
and more of a political powder keg on the world stage.
Western governments should continue to press Beijing
for the release of individual prisoners of conscience. The
handing of such prisoner lists to senior
Chinese officials should be restored as a routine component of
all high-level diplomatic and governmental meetings with the
Chinese leadership. As history has repeatedly shown, one freed
individual can inspire millions of others.
Western foundations should greatly increase the level
of support they give to grassroots-based civic action groups of
all kinds in China, whether environmental, civil rights,
women's rights or labor-movement-related, while continuing to
support a limited number of official projects via the more
progressive government agencies. The overwhelming majority of
these grassroots activist groups are both socially responsible
and politically self-restrained, and their common goal is to
develop a secure and stable rule of law in China. They are the
country's main hope for the future.
Multinationals operating in China, where independent
trade unions are banned by law and labor is cheap and
plentiful, have a moral duty to maintain strong codes of
conduct and pursue effective corporate social responsibility
programs. However, social justice in the workplace in China
cannot be planned and executed from corporate boardrooms in
Western capitals. The experience of all other countries where
minimum labor standards have been won shows that there is no
substitute for real trade unions, and that freedom of
association is the indispensable key. China is no exception
here, and there is no convenient short cut to real labor rights
for hundreds of millions of people. China's workers are
perfectly capable of protecting themselves, given the necessary
rights and tools. What they need is support and encouragement
to do so.
In addition, both multinationals and consumers in the
West need to recognize that, in order to really achieve better
and more acceptable labor standards for ordinary working people
in China, the cost of China's exported goods will inevitably
have to rise. Increased productive efficiency can only go so
far toward providing the funds needed to provide Chinese
workers with acceptable pay, reasonable working hours,
mandatory work-related insurance coverage and safe factory
conditions. The real problem is that these goods are much too
cheap--and under-priced Chinese goods in Western shopping malls
means continued labor rights violations in China.
Both citizens and governments in the West should
recognize, moreover, that higher labor standards for Chinese
workers will also directly benefit the workforces in their own
countries. By making it possible for Chinese workers to enjoy
minimum acceptable standards, Western citizens and consumers
will find that their own jobs become more secure, the trend
toward casualization and part-timing of labor will reduce, and
working-class families in many countries will benefit as a
result.
In conclusion, China's hosting of the Olympic Games may be
momentous for reasons of national pride and as a symbol of the
country's long-delayed emergence as a great power economically. But it
is largely irrelevant to the real social and political issues facing
China and its ordinary working population today. The foremost of these
are, first, the continued sharp polarization of society in terms of
basic livelihood and access to vital public services; and second, the
steadily growing range of severe social injustice issues--mostly
generated by official corruption--that affect huge numbers of citizens
and are fuelling rising levels of popular discontent and anger.
Unless these urgent social problems are addressed by the central
government, by imposing an effective system of public accountability on
officials and by allowing civil society to develop as a real
counterweight to the one-party system, China's Olympics slogan of ``One
World, One Dream'' will probably end up being viewed by its people as
merely one more cynical diversion from reality, to be added to the
scrap-heap of similar political slogans used by the Party over the past
sixty years and more.
Finally, Mr.Chairman, with your permission, I would like to draw
the Commission's attention to an article drafted by my colleagues at
China Labour Bulletin, Geoff Crothall and Han Dongfang. This article,
which will be published in the forthcoming book, ``China's Great
Leap,'' provides a vivid analysis of the causes and conditions of the
harsh environment in which Chinese migrant workers generally labor,
both at the Olympic construction sites and across the country as a
whole.
Thank you all for your time and attention.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sander Levin, a U.S. Representative From
Michigan, Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China
february 27, 2008
The Commission convenes this hearing to examine the likely impact
of the 2008 Summer Olympics on human rights and the rule of law in
China. In its Olympic bid documents and in its preparations for the
2008 Summer Games, China made commitments pertaining to human rights
and the rule of law. Our witnesses today will help us to evaluate these
commitments and to assess the openness with which China has allowed the
rest of the world to monitor its progress in fulfilling them.
In the days before the International Olympic Committee voted to
select Beijing as the site of the 2008 Olympics, there was
consideration of human rights and related issues, as had been the case
in previous deliberations about appropriate sites for the Olympics.
China made a point of raising the link between human rights and the
2008 Games. On July 12, 2001, the state-run China Daily reported that
Wang Wei, Secretary General of the Beijing Olympic bid committee, said,
``We are confident that the Games coming to China not only promotes our
economy, but also enhances all social conditions, including education,
health and human rights.'' These words could not have been clearer.
Human rights and the 2008 Olympics were linked before Beijing was
awarded the Games, and China itself linked them.
Just yesterday, China's Foreign Minister announced that China is
ready to resume the human rights dialogue with the United States that
it broke off in 2004. This announcement underlines the relevance of
this hearing, which was announced several weeks ago, and means that
there is considerable and appropriate ground to cover today.
On press freedom, Beijing's bid documents stated, ``(t)here will be
no restrictions on journalists in reporting on the Olympic Games.'' At
the same time, they also stated, ``(t)here will be no restriction
concerning the use of media material produced in China and intended
principally for broadcast outside.''
On openness in general, Beijing's Action Plan for the Olympics
states, ``in the preparation for the Games, we will be open in every
aspect to the rest of the country and the whole world.'' On government
transparency more specifically, Beijing's Action Plan for the Olympics
states, ``Government work will be open to public supervision and
information concerning major Olympic construction projects shall be
made public regularly.''
This last point deserves extra attention because it underscores the
importance of China's new Regulation on the Public Disclosure of
Government Information, which takes effect on May 1 of this year. This
new Regulation promises people in China the legal means to obtain
access to government records related to construction, labor affairs,
health and safety, the environment, and much more before the Games
begin and also after. The Commission looks forward to reporting on the
implementation of this important new Regulation in the weeks and months
ahead.
Much of the world's attention also has focused on China's
environment. Beijing's bid documents stated, ``By 2008, the
environmental quality in Beijing will be comparable to that of major
cities in developed countries, with clean and fresh air, a beautiful
environment, and healthy ecology. Meteorological observations in the
area of Beijing in the past 10 years have indicated that July and
August are good time to hold the Olympic Games.''
I must note that China's security preparations for the Olympics
also raise concerns. Congress banned the transfer of crime control
equipment to China after the Tiananmen killings of 1989. Nonetheless,
recent press reports describe the export from the United States to
China of equipment identified as commercial, but with crime control
applications. This merits attention because after the Olympics, high-
technology surveillance products will be left in the hands of China's
public security and state security organs, who may use them to monitor
political activists, religious practitioners, and members of certain
ethnic minority groups.
The Commission asked Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and
Security Mario Mancuso to testify today, but he is in India on official
business and unfortunately could not join us. However he has offered to
respond to questions in writing. A list is being prepared, and I invite
members to add to it.
China does not want to be labeled as a gross violator of human
rights. And yet it makes its determination to eliminate dissent
painfully clear to the world. Thousands of prisoners of conscience
languish in jail cells across China. Just in the last few weeks, China
has detained individuals who have mentioned the Olympics when speaking
out for human rights. Officials have cast their public-mindedness as a
subversion of state power. These same authorities assert that raising
concern over human rights in the context of the 2008 Games violates the
Olympic spirit. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Fairness on
the field of play, fair judgments and the opportunity to witness human
potential unleashed to the fullest extent are the very essence of the
Olympic spirit. They are also the essence of freedom and fundamental
human rights.
In seeking the 2008 Olympics, China made specific commitments.
Seven years have passed, and the Games begin in less than six months.
This hearing is a necessary part of determining whether China is
fulfilling its commitments. China is an increasingly important part of
the international community, and it is vital that there be continuing
assessment of its commitments, whether as a member of the WTO or as the
awarded host of the Olympics. Other nations, including ours, have both
the responsibility and a legitimate interest in ensuring compliance
with those commitments.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Byron Dorgan, a U.S. Senator From North
Dakota, Co-Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China
february 27, 2008
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for holding this hearing today.
It will
explore what I believe has been a largely unexamined issue: whether the
2008 Olympics will in fact bring lasting benefits to the Chinese people
by enhancing their human rights and accelerating rule of law reform.
The 2008 Olympics have focused the world's attention on China's
support for repressive regimes, such as Sudan and Burma. And, this has
been all for the good. Our government and the international community,
however, have paid too little attention to the potential impact of the
Games on the human rights of ordinary Chinese citizens.
China views the 2008 Olympics as not merely an international
athletic event, but as recognition of its global economic, diplomatic
and military power. It is a political event of great significance. It
will confirm China's acceptance as a proud and prominent participant on
the international stage. Whether Beijing will seize the opportunity
presented by the Olympics to improve its record and recast its human
rights legacy remains a vital open question.
Beijing lost its bid to host the 2000 Olympic Games, in part,
because of the long shadow cast by the Chinese government's crackdown
on the Tiananmen Square democracy movement in 1989.
Government negotiators worked to secure a better outcome for their
second effort to the host the games. They were successful, in part, by
promising the International Olympic Committee that China would commit
itself to significant reforms. These included allowing international
reporters unfettered access across the country, and substantial
improvements in air quality. Today, however, foreign journalists say
they and their Chinese colleagues and interviewees are being harassed.
And, the smog in Beijing remains as thick as ever.
The Games are now just six months away. The human rights situation
on the ground is deeply troubling. Already, China has begun detaining
citizens who have tied the Olympics to their peaceful criticism of the
government's human rights record. Recently, China jailed Hu Jia, a
courageous dissident who did nothing more than address a hearing on the
Olympics. The hearing was quite similar to this one, and before the
European Parliament. China insists that Mr. Hu's actions violated its
laws on state secrets. As a result, he was dragged from his home by
state police agents and now sits in jail. His wife and three-month old
daughter remain in their apartment under house arrest. Their telephone
and Internet connections are cut.
Just last week, Yang Chunlin, an unemployed factory worker, went on
trial for subversion in northeast China. Mr. Yang was arrested last
year for reportedly helping nearby villagers seeking compensation for
lost land. He had collected more than 10,000 signatures from local
farmers. The signatures were for a letter which read, ``We Want Human
Rights, not the Olympics.'' Prosecutors have said that the letter
stained China's international image, and that it amounted to
subversion.
What if China had done the opposite? Instead of punishing Yang for
his activism, what if the government had instead acknowledged his
underlying message? Had that course been chosen, China would have
improved its international image in one fell swoop. Instead, China
further stained it.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the following list of political
prisoners in China be entered into the hearing record. It is a short,
representative list of individuals detained in recent years by the
government for Olympics-related or other activities. The most important
thing to notice about this list, Mr. Chairman, is that each of the
people on it is in jail for having done nothing wrong. They did nothing
wrong.
I am not only concerned by China's detention of citizen activists.
I am also
concerned about the treatment of large numbers of migrant workers who
have been employed to manufacture Olympic merchandise and construct
Olympic sites. These migrant workers, like millions of others across
China, are required to work under the most hazardous conditions. They
are routinely cheated out of their wages, and rarely have work-related
medical insurance or labor contracts.
China has passed new and important legislation in the labor area,
but implementation does not appear yet to be addressing the needs of
those most in need of relief, those whom these laws were intended to
protect. This Commission will remain focused on problems of
implementation in the year to come.
The rights of workers, the right to speak freely, the right to
challenge the government--all of these are enshrined in China's
constitution. Yet, all of these are chronically violated. In such
circumstances, it is crucial that we who can exercise these rights and
defenses debate the reality in China, and question whether China is
fulfilling its commitments on the Olympics.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Donald A. Manzullo, a U.S. Representative
From Illinois, Member, Congressional-Executive Commission on China
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this important hearing on the
impact of the Beijing Olympics on human rights, the rule of law, and
media freedom. I am delighted to be a part of the Congressional-
Executive Commission and this first hearing. I believe that it is our
duty as Members of Congress to do all we can to urge all nations to
respect fundamental human rights and to protect life in all its forms.
We must give voice to the voiceless and not shy from confronting
oppression.
The People's Republic of China will for the first time in its
history host the Olympic Games, which is one of the most prestigious
events in the world. Undoubtedly for the Chinese, the Games symbolize
much more than athletic prowess; it is after all a golden opportunity
for China to demonstrate to the world its emergence as a global power.
And for the rest of the world, the Games represent an important
occasion to urge China to continue making progress in its reforms.
Unfortunately, some of China's actions both domestically and on the
international arena have led me to believe that they are
counterproductive to its stated goal of becoming a more responsible
player in the international community. On a range of issues ranging
from human rights abuses and Internet censorship to arms sales in
Darfur and forced abortion, China has proved to be less than the
responsible stakeholder it claims to be. Even on the environment,
China's rapid development has left an unmistakable imprint of pollution
and harm. Part of the problem for China is its immense size and
influence; everything it does has a global impact.
Mr. Chairman, I welcome this Commission's inquiry into China's
human rights record and respect for the rule of law. I originally
supported permanent normalized trade relations for China because I
believed it would help speed reforms and liberalization. Eight years
after the passage of PNTR, China's progress on human rights, religious
prosecution, forced abortion, and censorship remains mixed. I am
disappointed by this lack of progress; however, I still believe
proactive engagement is the best path to take to encourage more
progress.
Thank you for holding this hearing. I look forward to the
testimonies.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher H. Smith, a U.S. Representative
From New Jersey, Member, Congressional-Executive Commission on China
february 27, 2008
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to everyone.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. I remember that
you were one of the Congressmen who in 2000 led the fight to create
this Commission, ensuring that Congress not lose its focus on human
rights in China. The fact that the Olympics will be held in China this
summer should be of grave concern to Congress.
A few weeks ago, the New York Times reported the arrest of a 34-
year-old Chinese dissident named Hu Jia.
Mr. Hu's crime? Using his home computer to disseminate information
on human rights violations. He joins a huge, ever-growing number of
cyber dissidents who today, in China, are being hauled off to jail
simply for promoting democracy and human rights.
The Times article suggests the obvious: in the run-up to the
Beijing Olympics in August, the PRC is using its iron fists to
eradicate dissent.
Even Mr. Hu's wife and 2-month old daughter are now under house
arrest, prompting the Times to note that their baby is ``probably the
youngest political prisoner in China.''
How sad is that?
But in this particular case we can take direct action against this
abuse. I am afraid that many American companies, like Google,
Microsoft, and Yahoo!, have
cooperated with the Chinese government in turning the Internet into a
tool of surveillance and censorship. Last year I introduced the Global
Online Freedom Act to prevent U.S. high-tech Internet companies from
turning over to the Chinese police information that identifies
individual Internet users, and to require them to disclose how the
Chinese version of their search engines censors the Internet. In
October, the Foreign Affairs Committee approved the bill, and we are
hoping to move it to the floor of the House soon.
The fact of the matter is that the scale of human rights violations
perpetrated by the Chinese government exceeds that of any other
government on earth.
In China, forced abortion is pervasive as a means of enforcing the
government's draconian one child per couple policy, a policy which has
made brothers and sisters illegal. Government officials have coerced
compliance with this inhuman policy through a system marked by
pervasive propaganda, mandatory monitoring of women's reproductive
cycles, mandatory contraception, mandatory birth permits, coercive
fines for failure to comply, and, in many cases, forced sterilization
and forced abortion. The Chinese government's population planning laws
and regulations contravene international human rights standards at
every level, not only through the horror of forced abortion, but also
by limiting the number of children that women may bear, by coercing
compliance with population targets through heavy fines, and by
discriminating against ``out-of-plan'' children.
The one-child policy has led to a social plague of gendercide, the
annihilation of tens of millions of girls, just because they were
girls. According to the Chinese government's official figures, the
ratio of boys to girls born in China is 120 to 100. In some provinces
of China it is 140 to 100, and even higher. And these are official
figures; the real figures are probably higher.
The Chinese government has no notion of religious freedom. It
arrests members of the house church movement merely for gathering in
each other's homes to read Scripture and pray. This happens all the
time. Seven days ago, the China Aid Association reported the arrest of
more than 40 house church members in Inner Mongolia. Eleven days ago,
China Aid reported that 21 major house church leaders were sent to
labor camps in Shandong.
The Chinese government even invents human rights violations that no
one else had thought of. Two weeks ago, ABC News' ``20/ 20'' reported
that dissected bodies, coated in plastic, which are being displayed in
touring shows across America, were the bodies of executed prisoners,
sold, by the very officials who had a hand in killing them, on a black
market for dead bodies. Here too the crime touches American soil, so I
have requested a hearing on this matter, written to the Attorney
General requesting an investigation, and am drafting legislation to
require independent experts to verify the identity, manner of death,
and consent to display, of any corpses to be commercially displayed in
the United States.
In China there is no freedom of speech, press, or assembly, and
internationally recognized labor rights simply don't exist.
Despite enormous concessions by the West, robust trade with the
United States, Europe, Africa and Latin America, and WTO accession, the
Chinese government's brutal crackdown on religious, labor,
environmental, and democracy activists has continued, unabated, and
even worsened, since the Tiananmen Square Massacre almost 20 years ago!
Men and women of conscience--so many of China's best and bravest,
who if freed could transform their country--are today in Laogai--the
Chinese Gulag.
Given the nature and scale of human rights violations by the
Chinese government, it is a shame that the Olympics will be held in
China. But I believe we cannot let the Olympics pass without asserting
our solidarity with the victims--those who have been hurt, or even
destroyed, by the myriad human rights violations perpetrated by the
Chinese government.
Their sufferings must not be forgotten!
I look forward to learning from the representatives of so many
distinguished human rights NGOs what is the best way we can speak up on
behalf of the imprisoned in the run-up to the Olympics.
The Olympics will certainly not be a time to remain silent. I
remember how Wei Jingsheng, the great Chinese democracy activist who
spent more than 14 years in prison, told me in Beijing about a paradox.
When Americans or others boldly and tenaciously demand that the Chinese
government release prisoners, some do get out, others get more lenient
treatment. On the other hand, he said, when you forget us, kow-tow to
the government, or engage in diplomatic niceties, the guards aren't
nice to us in return, they beat us more.
The human rights dissidents of China need friends and advocates.
They need us to turn this window of pre-Olympic opportunity into a
season of hope, justice, and freedom. No one has more clout than the
representatives of the human rights NGOs present today. Together we
need to find our voice--for them.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chuck Hagel, a U.S. Senator From Nebraska,
Member, Congressional-Executive Commission on China
february 27, 2008
The Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) meets today
to discuss the 2008 Summer Olympic Games and its impact on human rights
and the rule of law in China. This is the first Commission hearing
under its new leadership, and I thank my distinguished colleagues,
Chairman Sander Levin and Co-Chairman Byron Dorgan, for bringing us
together here today. I look forward to working with you, as well as my
fellow Ranking Member, Congressman Chris Smith, and each of the
Commission members to continue the good work and prominent reputation
that the Commission has established over the past seven years.
I would like to thank each of the distinguished witnesses for
coming today to discuss these important issues, and I look forward to
hearing your testimony.
There is no strategic relationship more important to the United
States than China. U.S.-China relations cover the full arc of our
national interests -- economic growth, national security, financial,
social, and regional stability, as well as political reform, individual
rights, the rule of law and religious freedom. From civil and
intellectual property rights to the balance of trade, we continue to
have clear differences with the Chinese government.
In the recently published 2007 CECC Annual Report, the Commission
found that China's record of compliance with international human rights
standards has been mixed. The Commission does recognize the progress
that China has made in bringing its legal statutes and regulations
nominally in line with international standards. These reforms may one
day provide the legal backdrop for constraining the arbitrary exercise
of government authority in China.
China should also be commended for its achievements in the economic
realm. Its success in lifting more than 400 million Chinese citizens
out of extreme poverty since the early 1980's should not be overlooked.
However, China's progress on civil and political rights has
unfortunately not kept pace with its economic progress. Significant
human rights abuses and problems with the application of the rule of
law in China need to be addressed.
In the 2007 CECC Annual Report, the Commission found that despite
legal and regulatory reform, the changes ``have not necessarily
translated into the everyday practice of local law enforcement.'' Major
concerns remain over religious freedom, property rights, corruption,
and the right of political dissent. China will not be a full and
responsible member of the global community, nor will it reach its own
potential, until political reforms move forward as economic development
has done.
The 2008 Summer Olympics present China and the international
community with a significant opportunity for progress and dialogue--
especially with regard to human rights and the rule of law in China.
Beijing has made a number of important commitments to domestic
political and legal reforms in the lead-up to the Olympics--among them,
promises to advance religious, economic, civil, and social freedoms
inside China. As a responsible member of the international community,
China should meet those important commitments.
The international community should also take advantage of this
opportunity to enter into expanded dialogue with China on areas of both
disagreement and of mutual concern. The Olympics present a chance to
take another step toward engagement and common purpose, but we need to
remember that it is but one step on this path.
Lasting and stable progress on liberalization and domestic reform
takes time. Change does not happen overnight, and our disagreements
with China will not be resolved by the time the Olympics leave Beijing.
At some point, late this summer, the Olympics will be over, but our
differences over human rights, the rule of law, trade issues, and
others will likely still remain.
The global community should use this opportunity to help frame a
constructive, long-term, strategic relationship with China where our
differences can be aired and areas of mutual concern can be found. In
the coming months, we must be realistic, balanced, measured, focused
and clear headed in our approach to China.
The Commission looks forward to hearing the testimony from this
distinguished panel of witnesses. Thank you all for coming. We
appreciate your time and presentations.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon H. Smith, a U.S. Senator From Oregon,
Member, Congressional-Executive Commission on China
february 27, 2008
I wish to thank Chairman Levin for holding this important hearing.
I also wish to thank our distinguished guests who will testify before
the Commission today. I appreciate their willingness to join the
Commission today and answer questions as they may arise.
2008 is a crucial year for China as it hosts the Summer Olympics.
The moment has finally come for Beijing to demonstrate to the world
that it is a respectful and responsible member of the global community.
China is quickly finding itself a dominant regional power with
considerable influence around the world. But to become a world leader,
Beijing must demonstrate its ability to lead in a responsible manner.
2008 is China's year of opportunity to prove that it can handle the
benefits and responsibilities newly bestowed upon it. Benefits include
a booming economy and reformed financial and industrial sectors.
Responsibilities include the necessity of respecting human rights,
adhering strongly to the rule of law, and abiding by the norms of the
international community. It is vital that Beijing end its political and
economic support of rogue regimes around the world, from North Korea to
Burma to Sudan. Unfortunately, China's behavior is troubling;
opposition to strong UN action on Iran or Darfur, the mass relocation
of people, suppression of dissidents, and the censorship of Chinese
journalists are just a few of several recent troubling events.
Beijing must also take greater measures to respect the minority
religions in the country. Religious persecution must end before China
will ever be recognized as an honorable world power. The Chinese people
should feel comfortable practicing their own religion in a fashion of
their own choosing. I urge the Chinese government to allow all
religious sects to worship freely and without fear of persecution.
The 2008 Summer Olympics will be an excellent opportunity for
Beijing to demonstrate that China can be a responsible power with an
open society, not only for the countless visitors, but for the Chinese
people. I look forward to hearing our expert's projection on how the
Olympics will impact China's society. While I would like to remain
optimistic, I am not convinced the Games will have the positive impact
many are hoping for.
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement and Responses to Commission's Questions by Mario
Mancuso, Under Secretary for Industry and Security, U.S. Department of
Commerce
may 1, 2008
I. Background on U.S. Crime Control Policy
U.S. crime control policy fits within the broader U.S. foreign
policy objectives of promoting human rights abroad. The Bureau of
Industry and Security (BIS) at the U.S. Department of Commerce is
entrusted with the responsibility of licensing the export of crime
control and detection items to most countries around the world,
pursuant to the Export Administration Act (EAA) of 1979 as amended.
Pursuant to Section 6(n) of the EAA, the U.S. Government requires a
license for the export of crime control and detection instruments,
equipment, related technology, and software on the Commerce Control
List (CCL) to all destinations, except Australia, Japan, New Zealand,
and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Certain
restraint-type devices, such as handcuffs, and discharge-type items,
such as tasers, however, require a license to all countries except
Canada. The list of items controlled for crime control reasons, and
countries subject to these controls, is compiled with the concurrence
of the Department of State.
In addition to these licensing requirements, it is important to
note the policy BIS applies to all applications for licenses to export
items controlled for crime control reasons. BIS implements a policy of
denial for any license application to export specially designed
implements of torture, thumbscrews, and thumbcuffs. Furthermore, BIS
applies a general policy of denial for license applications to export
crime control items to countries in which the government engages in the
consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized
human rights. For other countries, BIS considers license applications
for crime control items favorably, unless there is civil disorder in
the country or region, or there is evidence that the government may
have violated internationally recognized human rights. In making all of
the above determinations, BIS determines whether the judicious use of
export controls would be helpful in deterring the development of a
consistent pattern of such violations, distancing the U.S. Government
from such abuses, and avoiding the contribution to civil disorder in a
country or region. BIS crime control policy can be found in the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR) in 15 C.F.R.Sec. Sec. 742.7 and
742.11.
II. Crime Control Policy: China
As the U.S. Government has certain positive exceptions to its crime
control licensing policy for some of its closest allies, there are also
certain countries, such as China, Indonesia, Rwanda, and the Ivory
Coast, for which U.S. policy is more stringent. With respect to China,
Congress passed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal
Years 1990-1991, Title IX of which is often referred to as the
``Tiananmen Sanctions''. Pursuant to the Tiananmen Sanctions, the
issuance of licenses for the export of any crime control or detection
instruments or equipment controlled on the CCL for crime control
reasons has been suspended to China. Only the President may terminate
this suspension by reporting to Congress that China has conducted
political reforms or that it is in the national interest to terminate
such a suspension. The President has not exercised this authority to
date.
Detailed below are specific responses to the Congressional-
Executive Commission on China's inquiries that seek to explain the
place of China in BIS's overall crime control policy.
III. Responses to Questions
Question 1: The current list of crime control items that are
indefinitely suspended from export to China includes items such as
handcuffs and fingerprinting equipment. Please briefly describe how the
Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) ensure[s] this list is current
and takes into account changing technologies relating to crime control
equipment, which have occurred since the ``Tiananmen Square'' crime
control restrictions went into effect 18 years ago. How many reviews of
this list have you conducted over the last 18 years, what prompted
those reviews, and what were the results of such reviews (i.e. in terms
of whether items were added or removed from the list)?
Response: BIS conducts an annual review of EAR crime controls, and
all foreign policy-based export controls, in the context of the Foreign
Policy Report to Congress. Under the provision of Section 6 of the EAA
as amended, export controls maintained for foreign policy purposes
require annual extension. Each year BIS publishes a notice in the
Federal Register requesting public comments on the effects of foreign
policy-based export controls. The notice states that BIS is reviewing
those controls to determine whether they should be modified, rescinded,
or extended. To help make these determinations, BIS seeks public
comments on how existing foreign policy-based export controls have
affected exporters and the general public. Over the years, BIS has
received few comments on the controls on crime control items. The last
such comment was received in October 2004 and was a statement of
support for our high level of crime controls and an exhortation to win
more multilateral support for human rights controls.
In addition, as part of a larger review of the entire Commerce
Control List (CCL), BIS has proactively initiated a comprehensive
review of our crime control regulations. The Department has published a
Notice of Inquiry in the Federal Register (73 FR 14769 of March 19,
2008) specifically seeking public comments by June 17, 2008 on the
crime control export and reexport license requirements contained in the
EAR. In particular, BIS is seeking public input on whether the scope of
items currently subject to crime control license requirements should be
revised to add or remove items. The Notice specifically seeks comment
on whether items such as biometric devices, integrated security
systems, and training software, specifically firearms training
software, should be subject to crime control licensing requirements.
BIS is also seeking public comments on whether the destinations to
which crime control license requirements apply should be revised.
Potential changes to crime controls would not be limited to China.
Control of the export of items for crime control reasons predates, and
is not limited to, China, but applies to a wide range of countries,
such as North Korea and Burma. The Tiananmen Sanctions require Commerce
to prohibit, absent Presidential waiver, export of any items classified
as crime control items to China. In other words, the Tiananmen
Sanctions were based on the already existing crime control regulations
that required licenses for the export of crime control items to many
countries, including China, by prohibiting such items from being
exported.
Some of the past changes to the CCL include: (i) removing
thumbcuffs from Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 0A982 and
placing them into ECCN 0A983 (2007); (ii) adding pepper spray to ECCN
1A984 as a result of a commodity jurisdiction decision by the
Department of State 2004; (iii) expanding controls on restraint devices
and on discharge type arms controlled under ECCNs 0A982 and 0A985, and
creating ECCN 0A978 for Saps and ECCN 0A979 for shields and helmets
(2000); and (iv) interpreting Tasers to be controlled as a discharge
type arm under ECCN 0A985 (1994).
Question 2: Export administration regulations provide that the
``judicious use of export controls is intended to deter the development
of a consistent pattern of human rights abuses, distance the United
States from such abuses and avoid contributing to civil disorder in a
country or region.'' Please briefly explain how BIS monitors
developments in China to ensure that U.S. companies are not
contributing to ``the development of a consistent pattern of human
rights abuses'' through the export of their products. Does BIS attempt
to conduct its own fact-finding to determine whether the sale of a
certain product to China has or will likely have an adverse impact on
human rights in China? If so, please describe briefly how BIS conducts
this fact-finding. If not, on whose fact-finding does BIS depend? If
externally sourced findings were deficient, would BIS have any way to
know?
Response: Under authority delegated by the President, the Secretary
of State designates nations guilty of particularly severe violations of
religious freedom as countries of particular concern under the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (H.R. 2431) and its
amendment of 1999 (Public Law 106-55). In addition, in compliance with
Sections 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as
amended, and Section 504 of the Trade Act of 1974, the Department of
State submits Country Reports on Human Rights Practices annually to the
Congress. The designations and findings of the Department of State with
respect to human rights concerns provide the foreign policy guidance to
BIS with respect to China. In addition, under the EAA, the Department
of State has joint jurisdiction and responsibility for the CCL and the
licenses that BIS issues for items controlled for crime control reasons
on the CCL. The Department of State's participation in the review of
all applications for individual licenses from BIS, including those for
crime control reasons, provides the foreign policy guidance to BIS with
respect to whether the sale of a certain product to China has or will
likely have an adverse impact on human rights in China. As part of the
review process, the Department of State considers the human rights
record for the export destination.
Question 3: Please briefly describe what factors other than impact
on human rights BIS considers when determining whether a specific crime
control item should be restricted from export to China. Specifically,
how much weight is given to those other factors relative to the weight
given to human rights concerns, and how is that weight assigned?
Response: Pursuant to the Tiananmen Sanctions, the Department of
Commerce implements a policy of denial of export license applications
for items that are controlled on the CCL for crime control reasons.
There is only one very limited circumstance in which specific crime
control items may be temporarily exported to China. BIS does authorize
the temporary export of defective Chinese-origin commercial rifle
scopes from the United States to China for repair and return to the
United States. Such warranty items are not operational at the time of
their return for repair to China. As these items were manufactured in
China, their return for repair and export back to the U.S. customer has
no impact on the human rights situation in China.
Question 4: It appears that some items, such as surveillance
equipment and routers, have not been included on the list because they
are not designed solely to serve a ``law enforcement purpose'' and may
be used for legitimate civilian purposes. Please explain the rationale
for why such items are not currently on the list. Some products may be
used primarily for ``law enforcement purposes,'' even though their
original design may not be solely for that purpose. How does BIS
account for this? How much weight is given to evidence, if any, that
either the seller knows such item will be used for ``law enforcement
purposes'' or has marketed it for such purpose?
Response: Items primarily associated with human rights abuses, such
as instruments of torture, are controlled for crime control reasons. In
addition, items designed exclusively or primarily for law enforcement
purposes are generally also controlled for crime control reasons
because they could be used to abuse internationally recognized human
rights. The intent of crime control regulations is to support U.S.
foreign policy to promote the observance of human rights throughout the
world. These controls are generally not limited, or specifically
geared, to law enforcement or police activities. Not all items used by
law enforcement are susceptible to human rights abuses. Conversely, in
practice, license applications for many crime control items, such as
scopes and shotguns, are not destined for police or government agencies
but instead for sporting use. Items that are not currently controlled
for crime control reasons are not on the list because, so far as BIS is
aware, they do not meet the aforementioned criteria.
Routers and surveillance equipment have significant use in
commercial environments. This is especially so for routers. With
respect to surveillance systems, these can be as simple as the cameras
and monitors used in banks, stores, and sporting arenas, or they can be
larger integrated systems such as those used at ports or factory sites.
Moreover, a review of the Internet shows that a number of countries,
including China, manufactures and openly markets many of these systems
and their components. However, technologies and markets for items
change and in BIS's March 19 Federal Register Notice of Inquiry, one of
the items about which we specifically request comments is integrated
security systems.
BIS has initiated the current comprehensive evaluation of the crime
control regulations to examine what new technologies are currently
available in the marketplace, and what additions or deletions might be
proposed in order to enhance the current controls.
Question 5: High-tech companies around the world are helping the
Chinese government design and install one of the most comprehensive
public surveillance systems ever for the 2008 Olympic Summer Games in
Beijing. The Commerce Department reportedly has said that American
companies' involvement in such projects does not run afoul of the post
Tiananmen ban on providing China with ``crime control or detection
instruments or equipment.'' At the same time, the Commerce Department
has recently conducted a review of its policies on the sale of crime-
control gear to China. Please explain briefly what triggered the
review. If helping the Chinese government design and install these
public surveillance systems does not cause an American company to run
afoul of the ban, then there must have been something else that
triggered the review.
Response: The current crime control Notice of Inquiry was not a
result of an increase in interest in the Chinese market or any actions
of the Chinese government, but instead a determination that a much more
detailed review of all aspects of crime control items, including the
destinations to which the controls apply, license exceptions, and new
technologies, was due. BIS is also undertaking a larger review of the
CCL to ensure our controls are keeping pace with technological
innovation and changing international economic conditions. Review of
crime controls is included in this effort as well.
BIS has seen an increase in interest in the Chinese security-
related market, with some of it certainly connected to the Olympics.
However, China is a large, multifaceted market and items of interest
include explosive detection systems for airports, X-ray systems for
packages and bags for people entering buildings or arenas, biometric-
controlled entrance and lock systems, fire protection, rescue
equipment, and radiation detection systems. Many of these items are not
subject to export controls but are related to public safety. Those that
are subject to export controls and controlled for reasons other than
crime control can be approved for legitimate end-uses in China. For
example, Commerce, with interagency review, has approved export
licenses for explosive detection systems to Beijing International
Airport and other airports in China.
Question 6: If BIS' review was prompted by a prospective
determination of increased ``human rights risk'' and increased
likelihood of companies' running afoul of the ban due to changes in the
environment in which firms operate (rather than change in company
behavior or activities), please identify the human rights risk
assessment method, index or indicators the department relies upon.
Please also explain the method the department uses to relate levels of
risk to corresponding courses of action with respect to export
controls.
Response: As noted in response to question #4, BIS has initiated
the current comprehensive evaluation of the crime control regulations
to examine what new technologies are currently available in the
marketplace, and what additions or deletions might be proposed in order
to enhance the current controls. The goal of the review is to ensure
that the Commerce crime control regulations are up to date and that
Commerce is knowledgeable about the most current technologies that may
have a crime control application.
Question 7: The surveillance equipment sold by Western companies
that will remain in China after the Olympics will leave Chinese
authorities with tools that are newer and better than ever before to
track dissidents, and not just criminals. Please describe, in your
judgment, how significant a role export controls can play in mitigating
that risk.
Response: To the extent that items are controlled on the CCL for
crime control reasons, they are subject to a licensing policy of denial
if destined to China. If the on-going review of Commerce crime controls
leads to the identification of certain surveillance-related equipment,
processing equipment, software, or system upgrades that need to be
controlled for crime control reasons, then potential upgrades or
software, even for previously exported systems, would require licensing
and would be subject to denial policy under the Tiananmen Sanctions.
Such controls would only impact U.S. and foreign companies exporting or
reexporting crime control items subject to the EAR.
For items that are controlled on the CCL for national security or
other reasons, reviewing agencies evaluate the end-user and make a
determination in the course of adjudicating the license application.
For example, if an item requires a license for reasons other than crime
control, such as a thermal imaging camera that is controlled for
national security reasons, and the end-use is one that poses human
rights concerns, that would be a factor to be considered along with
national security and non-proliferation concerns when reviewing the
license application. Some controlled items, such as X-ray screeners and
bomb detection equipment for airports, have legitimate security and
public safety uses, that do not raise human rights concerns, that the
U.S. Government, in particular the Federal Aviation Administration,
promotes.
Question 8: The autumn issue of the magazine of China's public
security ministry listed places of religious worship and Internet cafes
as locations to install new surveillance cameras. When BIS learns of
information such as this, what standard procedures are triggered? What
alternatives have been identified for responding to it?
Response: When such information comes to the attention of the
Executive Branch, the Department of State factors it into their overall
human rights policy and evaluation of export license applications.
Based on BIS's technical review to date, it appears much of this
equipment is made in China, and the components of surveillance systems
are widely available. The current BIS crime control review, however,
does single out complete surveillance systems as a new technology
possibly warranting control for crime control reasons. The crime
control Notice of Inquiry specifically addresses such systems. Please
see also the answer to question #2.
Question 9: On December 28, 2007, the International Herald Tribune
quoted a ``Commerce Department official who insisted on anonymity'' as
saying that ``the sale of crime control gear to China is on a special,
fast-track review.'' Please comment.
Response: The statement in the article is not accurate with regard
to our crime control policy for China. As discussed in the response to
question #3, BIS denies export license applications for items that are
controlled on the CCL for crime control reasons. Under this licensing
policy of denial, no other factors are considered. BIS is seeking
comments on a review of the crime control list.
Question 10: The International Herald Tribune Reported on December
28, 2007 that BIS ``bars exports whose sole use is law enforcement,
like equipment for detecting fingerprints at crime scenes. But video
systems are allowed if they are ``industrial or civilian intrusion
alarm, traffic or industrial movement control or counting systems,'
according to the regulations.'' Do all systems so allowed comply fully
with the spirit of the post Tiananmen export control laws?
Response: Yes. As discussed in the response to question #3, BIS
denies export license applications for items that are controlled on the
CCL for crime control reasons. Moreover, BIS has denied licenses for
items controlled for other reasons to public security apparatus in
China.
The article misinterprets the exception in the EAR ``for industrial
or civilian intrusion alarm, traffic or industrial movement and control
or counting systems.'' This exception applies only to certain imaging
cameras that contain certain controlled ``focal plane arrays,'' which
exempts the cameras from control under ECCN 6A003. This exception is
not in any way tied to the Tiananmen Sanctions but instead is a note
agreed upon by members of the Wassenaar Arrangement. As video systems
are currently not controlled for crime control reasons, they are not
subject to the Tiananmen Sanctions, which did not require imposing a
licensing requirement on all commodities destined for the police. China
makes many video systems and related components. As noted in earlier
responses, our Notice of Inquiry seeks comments on whether the current
list of items is adequate given changing technologies.
Question 11: China last winter created a nationwide ``safe cities''
program, establishing surveillance camera networks in more than 600
cities across China. Does this program figure into BIS' review and
possible revision of export controls? If so, how?
Response: The BIS crime control review is not specifically directed
toward China. As discussed in response to question #2, the designations
and findings of the Department of State with respect to human rights
concerns provide the foreign policy guidance to BIS with respect to
China. In addition, the Department of State has joint jurisdiction and
responsibility for the CCL and the licenses that BIS issues for items
controlled for crime control reasons on the CCL.
Specifically regarding urban video surveillance systems, such
systems are not unique to China or even to law enforcement activities.
The public comments on the Notice of Inquiry on crime control items
will help inform the United States Government's view on controls on
such systems.
Question 12: Media outlets have reported that China lacks enough
security guards to watch the video feeds from so many cameras. As a
result, security industry executives report that Chinese authorities
have been shopping for foreign computer systems that automatically
analyze the information. How has BIS responded or intend to respond to
this development?
Response: The current BIS crime control review does single out
complete surveillance systems as a new technology possibly warranting
control for crime control reasons. The Notice of Inquiry specifically
addresses such systems and public comments will help inform the United
States Government's view.
Question 13: Part of the sales pitches from American security
companies is that their systems can protect the local police against
false allegations of police abuse. Does this figure into BIS' review of
export controls? If so, how? If not, why not?
Response: The current BIS crime control review does single out
complete surveillance systems as a new technology possibly warranting
control for crime control reasons. The Notice of Inquiry specifically
addresses such systems and public comments will help inform the United
States Government's view.
Question 14: On August 8, 2007, the Department of Commerce co-
sponsored a webinar entitled ``Understanding and Accessing the Security
Market in China'' (http://www.buyusa.gov/eme/chinawebinar.html)
described as ``providing U.S. electronic and physical security
manufacturers valuable insight into this dynamic market, including
entry-strategies and long-term market penetration plans'' (http://
www.siaonline.org/research/index.cfm# Webinar). Please describe the
consultation with BIS that went into this program, and the extent to
which BIS' input was reflected in the hour-long final product,
available on line (http://www.siaonline.orp/international/china
security webinar.wmv). Do programs such as this act at cross-purposes
with BIS' current review and mandate?
Response: As part of the Commerce webinar, International Trade
Administration presentations included: ``Market Entry Strategies'' and
``Intellectual Property Rights in China,'' which appear to be aimed at
the public safety-related market writ large and not any particular
technology or sector such as the video market. In addition, BIS's
export control attache in Beijing gave a presentation on the
``Tiananmen Sanctions and the Export of Crime Control Items to China.''
As the overall public security and safety market is a varied one, these
presentations provided both the market opportunities and export control
requirements associated with exporting certain technologies to China,
which is consistent with the mandate of BIS.
______
Cases of Political Imprisonment in China
list of political prisoners submitted by senator byron dorgan
1. Hu Jia: A prominent activist who has advocated on behalf of HIV/
AIDS patients, environmental issues, and other rights defenders, Hu was
detained by Chinese authorities on December 27, 2007, on suspicion of
``inciting subversion of state power.'' Hu's detention may be linked to
comments he made at a European Parliament hearing that were critical of
China's hosting of the Olympics.
2. Yang Chunlin: As a land rights activist, Yang reportedly
collected more than 10,000 signatures from farmers for a letter titled
``We Want Human Rights, Not the Olympics,'' protesting the farmers'
loss of land. Yang was detained in July 2007, and stood trial on
charges of ``inciting subversion of state power,'' on February 19.
3. Wu Lihong: An environmental activist from Jiangsu province, Wu
spent more than a decade documenting pollution in Lake Tai, including
providing environmental information to the government and the media.
Shortly after Wu was detained in April 2007, Lake Tai experienced one
of the worst blue-algae blooms, with millions of area residents without
water for a few days. Wu was sentenced in August 2007 to three years in
prison on the pretext of extortion and fraud.
4. Guo Feixiong: Guo is a prominent lawyer who was active in
helping ordinary Chinese citizens defend their rights. In November
2007, Guo was sentenced to five years in prison for ``illegal operation
of a business,'' for allegedly distributing a publication without the
necessary government license. The publication, which concerned a
political scandal, reportedly angered local officials.
5. Ronggyal Adrag: A Tibetan nomad, Adrag was detained in August
2007 after he walked onto the speakers' stage at a horse-racing
festival and called for the Dalai Lama's return to Tibet, the release
of the Panchen Lama identified by the Dalai Lama, and Tibetan
independence. In October, a court sentenced him to eight years in
prison on the charge of ``inciting splittism.''
6. Adrug Lupoe: A nephew of Ronggyal Adrag, Adrug Lupoe is a monk
who was sentenced by the same court to 10 years' imprisonment on
charges of splittism and espionage. He allegedly helped two other men
attempt to send digital photos out of China of the local security
crackdown.
7. Nurmemet Yasin: He is an ethnic Uighur writer from Xinjiang who
wrote a short story in 2004 about a caged bird who chooses suicide over
living without freedom. Chinese authorities viewed the story as an
attack on government policy in Xinjiang, and sentenced him in 2005 to
10 years in prison for ``inciting splittism.''
______
Attachment: An Appeal From the Tiananmen Mothers to the Government: Set
a Timetable for Dialogue on the June Fourth Massacre
[submitted by sharon hom]
On the eve of the Eleventh National People's Congress and the
Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, we, a group of
mothers of those killed in the June Fourth Massacre and, therefore,
victims ourselves, earnestly request the following of you, the newly
elected representatives of the NPC and the CPPCC:
On behalf of those who lost their lives during the June Fourth
Massacre, we seek justice and equity to soothe the wounds of history.
We wholeheartedly implore each of you: do not disregard the great trust
that has been placed in you, do not insult your mission as
representatives. Instead, we urge you, the two Congresses, to carry out
a direct, equal, and sincere dialogue on the issue of the June Fourth
Massacre with the victims and victims' families.
This is the eleventh time we have made an appeal to the NPC and
CPPCC sessions. You who serve as the people's representatives and hold
sacred legislative power: if you have any trace of conscience left, if
your hearts retain even the smallest amount of sympathy, then how can
you be so callous and indifferent?
In the past years, to facilitate this dialogue, we repeatedly
requested the impartial and rational resolution of the following three
points:
1. That the Standing Committee of the NPC form a specialized
investigation committee on the June Fourth Massacre. Such
committee should conduct an independent, open, and impartial
investigation into the June Fourth Massacre and openly publish
the results of the investigation, including the names and
numbers of those killed in the June Fourth Massacre.
2. That the Standing Committee of the NPC require the bureau
in charge of the June Fourth Massacre to issue a public apology
to the family of each casualty of the Massacre in accordance
with the law. The Standing Committee of the NPC should draft
and pass a specialized ``Law on the Compensation of Victims of
the June Fourth Massacre'' and give the victims and relatives
of the June Fourth Massacre their lawful compensation.
3. The Standing Committee of the NPC should designate a
prosecutorial organ to file and investigate cases from the June
Fourth Massacre, and punish those found responsible in
accordance with the law.
At the same time, we have repeatedly stated: ``Issues remaining
after June Fourth must be resolved through the legal system, in
accordance with the law, without interference by any party, faction or
individual. They must not be resolved according to the pattern of
previous political campaigns, after which the government has always
issued its own account of a `re-evaluation and exoneration.' In light
of this, we call upon the National People's Congress to make use of the
legislative process to discuss, review and issue a resolution on June
Fourth issues.''
However, we are disappointed that our requests, year after year,
have come to nothing. Now that the 19th anniversary of June Fourth is
approaching, and the splendid Olympic Games will be held in Beijing,
China's capital, people will say: ``This is a government that has sent
tanks and armored vehicles into its capital to kill countless innocent
students and civilians; a government that for more than 18 long years
has not dared to confront the aftermath of the tragedy and has
repeatedly refused dialogue with the victims' family members. How can
this government face the whole world? Is it really possible that, as
the host of the 2008 Olympic Games, the government can be at ease
allowing athletes from all over the world to tread on this piece of
blood-stained soil and participate in the Olympics? ''
``China is making `progress.' He is like a newly awakened giant,
rushing forward in huge strides. The floor shakes because of his
footsteps. Yet, how many people know that this giant is rushing forward
with an extremely deep wound? '' This was written by female Taiwanese
writer Long Yingtai. Yes, over the past 18 years, China has witnessed
dramatic changes in its economic, political and social arenas. The West
has long since given up their sanctions against and isolation of China
following June Fourth, and has resumed cooperation in the areas of the
economy and trade, technology, culture and even the military. At
present, Chinese leaders are making use of high-profile slogans such as
``harmonious society'' and ``peaceful rise.'' Nevertheless, who can
deny the fact that the disastrous aftermath of that brutal massacre,
one of the greatest tragedies of our times, even after 18 years, is
still unresolved. The wounds deep in the heart of the people are not
yet healed. Because of this, the current political and societal
landscape continues to deteriorate into disorder and imbalance. This
proves that June Fourth, this bloody page in history, has yet to be
turned, and remains a ``knot'' deep inside the people's heart.
Over these past 18 endless years, we, the victims of the crackdown,
along with many persons of upstanding moral conscience, have made an
effort using many different methods to return historical justice to
``June Fourth.'' We have gradually come to understand from our blood,
tears, and pain, that ``June Fourth'' is not only the misfortune of
individual households, but also that of the whole nation. This
misfortune originates from suspicion and hostility between individuals,
from the Chinese people's indifference toward human life and values,
and from a lack of civility and legal order in this land. However, the
way to rectify this misfortune is not to counter violence with
violence, nor is it for us to murder those of our own social class, as
has often happened in Chinese history. One cannot rely on the present
rulers' repeated slogans like the ``three represents'' or ``people-
friendly strategies.'' We can only rectify this misfortune by
peacefully ending traditional authoritarian politics on Chinese soil
and upholding the authority of modern democracy and constitutionalism.
Let each citizen cast away the submissive nature and historical
inertia that have been passed down from the imperial era. Let each
establish an understanding of the importance of universal human values.
Based on this common understanding, we have abandoned the intolerant
idea of ``an eye for an eye'' and the extreme position of countering
evil with evil; we have decided instead to use the greatest sincerity
and restraint as we seek to peacefully resolve the ``June Fourth''
heartache. For us, the victims' families, it is difficult and painful
to make this rational decision. However, in order to avoid the
escalation of conflict and the upheaval of society, we have done so.
We firmly believe history will prove that dialogue is the necessary
route for justice and the reasonable settlement of the ``June Fourth''
problem; there are no alternatives. Nevertheless, history only offers
limited opportunities for resolution, and to reject this present
opportunity would be to continue this crime against the nation. Now is
the time: those leaders who are truly open-minded and have the courage
to fulfill their duties should wake up and make some kind of decision.
The world has entered the age of dialogue, yet mainland China
remains behind, stagnant, in the age of resistance. This embarrassing
and intolerable situation, which no one is willing to face, must end as
soon as possible. We note that the Chinese government advocates the use
of dialogue to solve differences and disputes in international affairs;
we also note that the central government has already set a timetable
for the direct election of Hong Kong's Chief Executive. We therefore
have even stronger ground for our request that the government solve
domestic differences and disputes through a similar method. If China,
with its historical tradition of despotic rule, can strive to replace
hostility with dialogue, it would benefit the entire nation and be a
blessing to all people.
As this country enters into more dialogue, it will manifest more
civility and legal order and less ignorance and despotism. We do not
blindly believe in the idea of dialogue. It is difficult and tedious.
But compared with resistance, dialogue is obviously the higher road.
Dialogue should not lead society into opposition and hatred, but
rather, into tolerance and reconciliation. In its past history and
present reality, our country China has been enormously deficient in
this kind of tolerance and reconciliation. Over the past millennium,
including these last 100 years, our ancestors have suffered the side-
effects of malignant interaction between the government and the people!
Today, those with any amount of vision in China should step up their
efforts and bravely make new strides forward to end the history of
misfortune in our nation.
We are now living in a time of change from despotism to
constitutional democracy. This is an unavoidable trend that is in
accordance with popular sentiment. In this process of political change,
the ``June Fourth'' incident has stood like a barrier that cannot be
passed. The proper settlement of the ``June Fourth'' question would
represent not only a conclusion, but also a new beginning. We hope
wholeheartedly that all the representatives will, through your
pragmatic endeavors, establish and strengthen the power of the
lawmaking body so that settlement of the ``June Fourth'' issues can
soon be added to the agenda. We sincerely hope for each of you that
during this session of the NPC and the CPPCC, you do not go against
your consciences or let your people down.
Finally, we also sincerely urge China's governing authorities to
consider the situation as a whole. Grasp this golden, historic
opportunity to respond positively to our aforementioned requests, and
propose a timetable for dialogue on the ``June Fourth'' issues as soon
as possible.
HRIC Olympics Take Action Campaign Individual Cases
[Submitted by Sharon Hom]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detention+Sentence
Case Category Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shi Tao........................ Journalist....... 11/24/04 Detained
4/27/05 Sentenced to
10 years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chen Guangcheng................ Barefoot Lawyer.. 3/06 Detained
8/24/06 Sentenced to
4 years and 3
months
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mao Hengfeng................... Petitioner/ 6/30/06 Detained
Women's Rights. 1/12/06 Sentenced to
2\1/2\ years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hada........................... Mongolian 3/09/96 Detained
Journalist. 11/11/96 Sentenced
to 15 years + 4
years deprivation
of political rights
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yao Fuxin...................... Labor Activist... 3/17/02 Detained
1/15/03 Sentenced to
7 years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hu Shigen...................... June 4 Activist/ 12/16/94 Sentenced
Writer. to 20 years + 5
years deprivation
of political
rights. Reduced to
18 years after 2
reductions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tenzin Delek Rinpoche.......... Tibetan Religious 4/07/02 Detained
Leader. 12/02/02 Sentenced
to Death Penalty
with 2-year
reprieve
1/26/05 Sentence
commuted to Life
Imprisonment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shuang Shuying................. Evictions/Housing 2/09/07 Detained
Petitioner. 2/26/07 Sentenced to
2 years + fined
2,000 yuan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guo Feixiong (Yang Maodong).... Lawyer/Editor.... 9/14/06 Detained
11/14/07 Sentenced
to 5 years + fined
40,000 yuan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huang Jinqiu (Qing Shuijun).... Cyber Dissident.. 9/13/03 Detained
9/27/04 Sentenced to
12 years + 4 years
deprivation of
political rights
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Li Chang....................... Religion/Falun 7/20/99 Detained
Gong. 12/29/99 Sentenced
to 18 years + 5
years deprivation
of political rights
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nurmemet Yasin................. Uyghur Journalist 11/29/04 Detained
2/02/05 Sentenced to
10 years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China Labour Bulletin Article by Geoffrey Crothall and Han Dongfang
submitted by Robin Munro (to be published in the forthcoming book
``China's Great Leap'')
The slogan of the 2008 Beijing Games is ``One World, One Dream.'' The
Chinese word used for ``One'' in the original slogan is ``tongyi,''
which means ``the same.'' This word was chosen because it highlights
the idea, as explained on the official Beijing Olympics website, that
``the whole mankind lives in the same world and seeks the same dream
and ideal.'' Yet this lofty message is at odds with the harsh
conditions for the migrant workers who labored at the construction of
the Olympic venues, often for the equivalent of five dollars per day.
Han Dongfang was jailed for nearly two years for his participation in
the 1989 Tiananmen democracy movement. In 1994, he founded China Labour
Bulletin, a Hong Kong-based group that promotes labor rights and
democratic trade unionism in mainland China. Geoffrey Crothall is the
editor of China Labour Bulletin's English language website. He has
reported on China since 1985.
On August 8, 2008, China will formally announce its emergence on
the world stage as a powerful, prosperous and modern nation with a
spectacular party attended by representatives from just about every
nation on earth. For the Chinese government, the Olympic Games will be
the culmination of nearly two decades of work stretching back to the
original bid for the Games in the early 1990s. China's current leaders
are determined that the political mission initiated by their
predecessors, to make the Olympics both an international success and a
source of pride for the Chinese nation, will be completed on time and
without a hitch. By showcasing breathtaking new venues, Olympic
medalists and Beijing's clean streets, the Games will doubtless be a
success. But at what cost?
The all-consuming process of gaining, preparing for and hosting the
Olympics has become highly politicized. Indeed, the government's
mission to demonstrate its greatness through the Games could overshadow
and distract from the increasingly serious social and economic problems
Chinese workers have to contend with every day of their lives.
Some of these problems, such as the appalling health and safety
record of Chinese construction sites, are right under the noses of
Beijing's Olympic organizers. The construction workers who built the
Olympic stadiums and support facilities, and completely overhauled
Beijing's transport system in readiness for the Games, are almost
exclusively migrant laborers who work in extremely hazardous
conditions, usually have no labor contract, no work-related medical
insurance, cannot form a trade union and have no right to collective
bargaining.
olympic torch fails to shine on construction sites
In late July 2007, Sports Pictorial, a magazine published under the
auspices of the Chinese Olympic Committee, interviewed a group of
fifty-seven migrant workers on Beijing's Olympic construction sites
about their work and living conditions. Most workers earned between
forty yuan (about US$5) and sixty yuan a day, although a few earned
more than eighty yuan. Many said they did not know how exactly they
would be paid, and more than a third said they only got paid at the end
of the year and received a small monthly allowance to live on. ``I earn
more than 1,000 yuan a month and get paid at the end of the year,''
said twenty-eight-year-old Hu Yaowu from Hebei ``I've been married four
years but can't afford to start a family.''
Nearly all the interviewees worked ten-hour days, and only took
days off if they were sick or had to go home to help with the harvest.
They did not get weekends off, certainly no paid vacation, and most had
no work contract or medical insurance. All those who suffered from
minor injuries or illnesses at work paid for their own over-the-counter
medicine or treatment at the local clinic. One worker, Liu Jiafu, who
required surgery after incurring serious chest and leg injuries in a
work-related accident, did have his medical expenses paid by his boss.
However, when Liu, fifty-five, was released from the hospital, his boss
had vanished and he received no compensation for his disability or loss
of work. ``Right now, I'm good for nothing,'' Liu told Sports
Pictorial.
These problems are by no means confined to the construction
industry. Lu Guorong lost her fingers while operating crude machinery
at a small factory in a rural town on the Hebei-Shandong border, less
than a day's drive from Beijing. Not only did the factory owner refuse
to help her, he fired her two days after the accident because without
her fingers she could no longer operate the machinery. Lu sought
redress at the local labor bureau but in the arbitration hearing her
official trade union representative appeared on behalf of the factory
owner.
In the metallurgical industry, there has been a spate of accidents
over the last few months. Thirty-two workers at a steel plant in
Liaoning were killed in April 2007 when nearly thirty tons of molten
steel poured onto the shop floor. And in August, fourteen mainly
migrant workers died and fifty-nine were injured following an aluminum
spill at a factory in Shandong.
Coal mining is probably still the most dangerous profession in
China, and one of the most dangerous in the world. The number of
accidents and fatalities has decreased from the horrendous highs of
2004 and 2005, when about 6,000 miners died each year, but there were
still, according to official statistics, 1,066 accidents and 1,792
fatalities in the first half of 2007 alone. In August 2007, 181 miners
died after two coal mines in Xintai, Shandong, flooded following
torrential rains in mid-month. It is also important to note that the
majority of accidents occur in small-scale illegal mines, precisely the
kind of operations most likely to conceal accidents. The State
Administration of Work Safety claimed on July 14 that it had uncovered
forty-six coal mine accident cover-ups in the first half of the year,
which suggests many others remain covered up and that the actual death
toll is much higher than officially acknowledged.
In factories across China, workers are forced under threat of
dismissal to labor in hazardous, even life-threatening conditions. In
gemstone-processing factories where dust concentrations exceed
permitted levels and visibility is down to one meter, workers must
operate equipment without any form of silica dust protection; to
complete order contracts, many workers in toy factories are forced to
do overtime until they faint at their machines or even die from
exhaustion. In these factories, bosses often illegally confiscate
identification papers to prevent workers from quitting or running away
when they can no longer endure the conditions, and many factories
withhold most of workers' monthly wage packets, allowing them only
pocket money.
fair play for workers?
These conditions are commonplace across China, but the government
usually takes action when specific outrages are brought to public
attention by an outside agency. When a report by Playfair in June 2007
exposed the use of child labor at factories producing official Olympic
merchandise, the Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games
revoked the license of one company and suspended three others. BOCOG's
prompt response to the revelation of abusive labor practices at its
licensee factories is a good first step, but it is little help to the
workers if the government stops there. The workers are out of a job and
have no guarantee that even if they find another job their work
conditions will be any better. Instead of merely punishing employers
caught in the act, the government should give workers the power to
protect their own interests by granting them the fundamental freedoms
to organize their own unions and the right to strike.
The response by the Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic
Games to the Playfair expose is very much in keeping with the
government's heavy-handed approach to potentially embarrassing labor
issues. On June 29, more than 3,000 workers at the giant Shuangma
Cement Plant in Mianyang, Sichuan Province, went on strike to protest
against the company's proposed severance package. Shuangma, a former
state-owned enterprise, was in the process of restructuring after being
acquired in May by the world's leading building materials company,
Lafarge. Shuangma's proposed severance package of 1,380 yuan for each
year of employment was the equivalent of the average monthly wage in
Mianyang and included a clause which meant workers agreed to forgo all
other retirement, medical and welfare benefits. When this package was
presented to the workers on June 27 as the company's final offer, it
was immediately rejected. Nevertheless, management went ahead and
attended a planned banquet in Mianyang City with local government
officials to
celebrate their good fortune after the Lafarge buyout. They had just
started the banquet when the strike began. Management and local
government officials rushed back to the plant, but instead of
addressing the strikers' demands, they sealed off the town, surrounded
the plant with police and removed all Internet postings related to the
dispute.
Likewise, when news emerged that the entire workforce of the
Jinzhou bus company in Liaoning had gone on strike on July 19-bringing
the town to a standstill-the authorities did not address the drivers'
concerns over pay and privatization but merely blocked all news related
to the strike. By contrast, the rescue of sixty-nine miners from a
flooded coal mine in Henan in July 2007 was given extensive national
coverage and portrayed in the official media as a miracle, without any
analysis of how the miners became trapped in the first place. Blame for
the accident was put on nature, rather than the human abuse of it. The
August 2007 Xintai mine disaster killed 181 coal miners and was
initially given much publicity, as authorities hoped it would provide
them with another miraculous rescue story. However, as hopes faded for
the trapped miners, we once again saw the usual media clampdown as
families of the miners were ordered not to talk to the media. Those
journalists who attempted to interview relatives were threatened with
violence. After seven days, the government ordered a complete news
blackout and all coverage in the official media of what had been a
major news story ceased overnight.
one world, one dream?
The intensification of news management in the run-up to the
Olympics has been obvious to all; while foreign journalists have been
told they will have unfettered access to all news stories in China
during the run-up to the Games, domestic journalists have been warned
not to report ``false'' (bad) stories, their movements have been
restricted, and critical blogs and websites taken down. The television
journalist who created the infamous ``cardboard pork dumpling'' story
in Beijing, which claimed that vendors were selling dumplings made of
pulped cardboard to unsuspecting customers, was jailed for one year and
fined 1,000 yuan on August 12, 2007 for faking news reports and
``infringing the reputation of commodities.'' Even the most innocuous
criticism has been punished. At the end of July, two high school
teachers on Hainan Island were given fifteen days administrative
detention for posting bawdy song lyrics critical of local officials.
All this does not bode well for the Olympics. If, as seems very
likely, these domestic controls are maintained, how will petitioners or
protestors arriving in Beijing be treated? Will this traditional avenue
for seeking redress be allowed any public expression at all in the
capital next year? We have already seen an attempted march on Tiananmen
Square on August 28, 2007, by 300 migrant workers demanding the payment
of their rightful wages broken up by police before it could even begin.
What will happen to the millions of migrant workers in Beijing who have
no permanent residency? Will they be forced to return to their home
towns? Will other social undesirables, beggars and mentally ill people
be removed from the streets too?
It seems from the evidence so far that Beijing is more concerned
with image management than dealing with the underlying causes of its
problems. We believe, however, that the government should take
precisely the opposite approach. Instead of trying to conceal the less
flattering side of China in order to protect its own image, the
government should grasp the opportunity presented by the international
media spotlight to openly discuss the real problems facing the country.
If the Chinese people and the global community could better understand
these issues, everyone including the government would be in better
position to resolve them.
child labor in the shadows
The specter of child labor, which BOCOG sought to exorcise so
swiftly after the Playfair 2008 report, is an obvious example.
Statistics related to child labor in China are designated ``highly
secret,'' and apart from occasional highly publicized crackdowns on
employers the government has done little to address the problem. If,
however, the use of child labor is brought out in the open and the
government encourages the active involvement of all sectors of society
in addressing the problem at its root, the greater the chances are that
child labor can be checked and reduced in the future. Moreover, the
government for its part should take urgent measures to reform the rural
education system and provide sufficient funds to ensure that children
stay in school, thereby cutting off the supply of child labor at its
source. Many primary and middle schools in rural areas are currently
funded almost entirely by fees charged to students' parents. And
increasingly, these parents are deciding there is little point in them
paying out thousands of yuan each year if there is little or no chance
of their child going on to high school or university. As such, many
children drop out in their second year of middle school (about age
fourteen) and go straight to work, even though the legal minimum
employment age in China is sixteen. The government could solve this
problem by providing enough funding to ensure that the compulsory nine
years of schooling in China are free and universally available.
However, the government currently only spends about 3 percent of the
gross domestic product on education, half the United Nations
recommended minimum level of 6 percent.
In addition to the state's chronic underinvestment in education,
public healthcare has declined to the point where millions of ordinary
workers' families cannot afford to seek medical treatment or risk
crippling debt if they do. In the past, workers' health care was
covered by the state-owned enterprises. However, with the break-up of
the state-owned enterprise system over the last decade or so, the
healthcare system has broken down too. Many workers laid-off in the
privatization process had limited or no healthcare benefits and were
forced to seek work in the private sector where the intense competition
for jobs meant that employers could very often set their own terms and
conditions of employment. Moreover, the migrant workers who have now
replaced state-run enterprise employees as the backbone of China's
working class come predominantly from an agricultural background and
have never had medical insurance, and are therefore less likely to
demand it from their employers in the cities.
tilting the balance of power
Many employers ruthlessly exploit the passivity and stoicism of
migrant workers, however many of those migrant workers are now
beginning to stand up for their rights and demand not only appropriate
wages but decent working conditions and proper health care. China's
labor legislation, especially the newly promulgated Labor Contract Law,
which gives individual workers a wide range of rights and safeguards,
should in theory provide workers with adequate protection from
exploitation and abuse. However, as has been demonstrated time and
again since the enactment of the Labor Law in 1994, the Chinese
government has routinely failed to enforce its own legislation. All the
power resides in the hands of the enterprise owners, who in collusion
with corrupt government officials (often part-owners themselves) can
dictate how hard and for how long their employees have to work and for
what reward. In some extreme cases, such as the 2007 Shanxi brick
factory scandal in which thousands of workers were forced or abducted
into slavery, that reward was imprisonment and physical abuse.
Not only can the government not enforce national labor laws, it can
not even enforce labor related regulations and directives issued by the
country's most senior leaders. In 2003, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao made
it his personal mission to resolve the endemic problem of wage arrears
in China; however, four years later, migrant workers, school teachers
and factory workers across the country are still only receiving a small
proportion of their promised salary. Again, following the spate of
coal-mining disasters in 2004 and 2005, the prime minister spearheaded
a campaign to improve mine safety. While visiting the families of
victims of the Chenjiashan Coal Mine disaster of November 2004 in which
166 miners died, Wen Jiabao stated, ``We must improve safety in the
workplace. We cannot let another tragedy like this happen again. We
must take responsibility for our miners.'' However the economic demand
for coal in China combined with local level corruption in the coal
fields has meant that production routinely exceeds safe capacity, and
thousands of miners continue to die each year.
Given the government's persistent failure to enforce its own laws
and regulations, the Chinese government should not merely draft more
legislation to plug the gaps but empower the workers to defend their
own rights. If workers had the right to organize their own grassroots
democratic trade unions and the legal right to strike if necessary,
they could literally play a life-saving role in ensuring coal-mine
safety. Workers could demand that employers pay collectively negotiated
wages in full and on time. Moreover, unions could act as an important
facilitator bridging the gap
between workers and management so that many of the violent protests
that have erupted all over China in the last decade could be resolved
or at least addressed through negotiation before protest became
imperative. However, despite its commitment to ``putting people first''
and creating a ``harmonious society,'' the Chinese government shows
little sign of granting its citizens the rights or the ability to
protect themselves. Rather we have seen a disturbing trend in which
workers (like miners trapped in flooded coal mines) are portrayed as
weak, pitiable and in need of rescue. And of course in this scenario,
the only body that can rescue them is the government.
fleeting glory for a few
Chinese workers are dying every single day in China, from
industrial accidents and work-related illness. Most cannot afford
decent medical treatment and have to suffer further from breathing
polluted air, drinking polluted water and eating contaminated food.
While the supreme health and fitness of the elite will be celebrated
during the Olympics, the overall health of the nation is not advancing.
There are state-of-the-art sporting facilities all over China-
private gyms, swimming pools, tennis courts and golf courses-but only
the very rich can make use of them. The majority of Chinese citizens
have limited or no access to such facilities. If the massive sums of
money spent over the last two decades on bringing the Olympics to China
had been spent on education, health care and sporting facilities
accessible to everyone, Chinese people would be in a better position to
actually enjoy the Games. And though the money has already been spent,
there is still a chance that the international exposure brought by the
Olympics will have a positive effect on workers' rights, which would
indeed provide some lasting benefit to the country as a whole.
The opening date of the Olympics on the eighth day of the eight
month of the eighth year should signify good fortune for the people of
China as a whole and not just the privileged few. Thus far, however,
the Olympics have failed to inspire even those ordinary workers closest
to the project. Indeed, for many migrant workers interviewed at the
city's Olympic construction sites, their contribution to China's
Olympic dream is just another job.
``We don't need to know what these buildings are for. As long as we
do the work and get paid, that's fine,'' a nineteen-year-old migrant
worker named Dai told the Sports Pictorial. One quarter of the migrant
workers interviewed by Sports Pictorial said they did not know exactly
what they were working on and less than a third could correctly
identify the opening date of the Games. The majority of interviewees
had no interest in the opening ceremony or who would light the Olympic
torch. Eight workers thought President Hu Jintao would light the torch,
others nominated themselves, their work mates or famous movie stars
such as Chow Yun-Fat. Many workers had no idea if they would still be
in Beijing during the Olympics, most said they would go wherever the
work was. For those who were confident they would still be in the
capital, most did not think they would ever be able to enter the
facilities they had built. ``Attending the Olympics? That is for rich
people! We can watch it on television, we can't expect any more than
that,'' said thirty-year-old Zhu Wanming from Sichuan.
Zhu Wanming and hundreds of millions like him will be faced with
great hardships for a long time after the Olympic closing ceremony, and
it is the Chinese
government's responsibility not only to ease those hardships but to
give ordinary workers the power and the right and the ability to
improve their own lives.
______
Responses by Robin Munro to Questions From Representative Christopher
Smith
Question 1. Unfair labor is against our law. I hope that maybe this
commission could pressure the USTR to take that up anew. Maybe your
comments on that would be helpful.
Answer. As I stated in my written testimony for this hearing, ``In
addition, both multinationals and consumers in the West need to
recognize that, in order to really achieve better and more acceptable
labor standards for ordinary working people in China, the cost of
China's exported goods will inevitably have to rise. Increased
productive efficiency can only go so far toward providing the funds
needed to provide Chinese workers with acceptable pay, reasonable
working hours, mandatory work-related insurance coverage and safe
factory conditions. The real problem is that these goods are much too
cheap--and under-priced Chinese goods in Western shopping malls means
continued labor rights violations in China.
``Both citizens and governments in the West should recognize,
moreover, that higher labor standards for Chinese workers will also
directly benefit the workforces in their own countries. By making it
possible for Chinese workers to enjoy minimum acceptable standards,
Western citizens and consumers will find that their own jobs become
more secure, the trend toward casualization and part-timing of labor
will reduce, and working-class families in many countries will benefit
as a result.''
For the above reasons, I think the AFL-CIO's submission to the USTR
was well-founded and should have been acted on by the administration.
Lack of labor rights in China clearly does, from the point of view of
U.S. workers and those from other countries that import goods from
China, amount to unfair competition. This directly disadvantages
workers in the West, while at the same time preventing Chinese workers
from achieving acceptable labor standards. In short, it's a lose-lose
situation for workers everywhere.
Question 2. The venues for the Olympics. Have any of them been made
with gulag labor?
Answer. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that prison labor has
been used in the construction of the Beijing Olympic venues. However,
it is well-documented that many prisons in China operate quarries and
factories that produce raw materials for use in the construction
industry, including stone and quartz goods and also cement, produced by
prisoners and ``reeducation through labor'' camp inmates. For more
information on this topic, I refer the CECC panel to a report I
researched and wrote for Human Rights Watch in 1995, titled ``The Three
Gorges Dam in China: Forced Resettlement, Suppression of Dissent and
Labor Rights Concerns'' (http://www.hrw.org/summaries/s.china952.html).
Appendix IV of the report contains a list of several dozen prisons and
labor camps known to be directly involved, at that time, in producing
raw materials for China's construction industry.
Question 3. Harry Wu has testified many times about how forced
labor is endemic. But are any of the venues made by gulag labor? If not
that, those who did work on the stadiums and the track and field
aspects of it, what were they paid? What was the situation there? I
think it is a very valid question.
Answer. As I said above, to my knowledge there's no evidence that
prison labor has been used in the Olympic construction sites. As to how
much the workers at these sites were paid, and what the working
conditions were like: Nearly all construction workers in China are
migrant workers from the countryside, and they typically work in
dangerous working environments and are not provided by their employers
with work-related insurance coverage, although that is mandatory for
all workers under the Chinese labor law. Serious workplace accidents
are common among construction workers, and it tends to be a lottery as
to how much compensation--if any--they or (in fatal cases) their
families are paid. Some employers pay a reasonable amount, but most try
to pay out as little as possible, and they especially don't want to be
saddled with the medical bills for workers injured on their sites.
Also, construction workers in China typically have to work very long
hours, often way in excess of the legal maximum working hours, and they
often don't get paid once they've finished the job. Employers often try
to withhold all or part of the wages, and workers then have to go to
great lengths and expense--via the labor arbitration disputes system or
via the courts--to get their wages paid. Since the official claims
process is so onerous, many construction workers simply give up and
never get paid.
Question 4. You might want to touch on the issue, if you could,
briefly, of the missing girls in China. I said it at the opening. Very
often, the human rights community has been mum on the fact that the
family has been violated with impunity. Women have been raped by the
state. Forced abortion is rape. It is horrible. It is used with
particular impunity against the Uighurs, against the Tibetans, and
against girls.
The Chinese government loves to say they have this policy or that
policy. Since 1998 or 1999, they've been saying we signed the
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, usually when one
of their heads of state are heading to our shores, so that it allays
concerns, just like the resumption of the human rights dialogue.
Answer. I have nothing particular to add on this issue, except to
say that the government's coercive application of the one-child policy,
and especially the use of forced abortion, is indeed a serious human
rights issue in China. When the blind lawyer Chen Guangchen tried, a
couple of years ago, to expose the widespread use of forced abortions
in his rural hometown area in Shandong Province, he was arrested and
sent to prison for over four years on trumped-up charges (``damaging
property and organizing a mob to disturb traffic''). The government
should have awarded him a prize for his civic-minded activities, but
instead they persecuted him like this. That speaks volumes, I think,
about the government's mindset on this issue.