[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OPEN FORUM ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES
=======================================================================
ROUNDTABLE
before the
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
AUGUST 5, 2002
__________
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
81-645 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
Senate
House
MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska, Co-
CARL LEVIN, Michigan Chairman
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JIM LEACH, Iowa
BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota DAVID DREIER, California
EVAN BAYH, Indiana FRANK WOLF, Virginia
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOE PITTS, Pennsylvania
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire SANDER LEVIN, Michigan
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JIM DAVIS, Florida
EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
PAULA DOBRIANSKY, Department of State
GRANT ALDONAS, Department of Commerce
D. CAMERON FINDLAY, Department of Labor
LORNE CRANER, Department of State
JAMES KELLY, Department of State
Ira Wolf, Staff Director
John Foarde, Deputy Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
Togochog, Enhebatu, president, Southern Mongolian Human Rights
Information Center, Jackson Heights, NY........................ 1
Shea, Christine, group coordinator, Amnesty International,
Annapolis, MD.................................................. 3
Saydahmat, Sokrat, member, Board of Directors, Uyghur American
Association, McLean, VA........................................ 5
Wong, Derek, summer intern, Senate Agriculture Committee,
student, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.......... 6
Zhou, Shiyu, assistant professor, Department of Computer and
Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
PA............................................................. 8
Polias, Kathy, co-director, Uyghur Human Rights Coalition,
Washington, DC................................................. 10
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements
Togochog, Enhebatu............................................... 20
Shea, Christine.................................................. 23
Saydahmat, Sokrat................................................ 24
Wong, Derek...................................................... 25
Zhou, Shiyu...................................................... 27
Submission for the Record
Purohit, Raj, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights............. 30
OPEN FORUM ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES
----------
MONDAY, AUGUST 5, 2002
Congressional-Executive
Commission on China,
Washington, DC.
The roundtable was convened, pursuant to notice, at 2:32
p.m., in room SD-215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Ira Wolf
(Staff Director of the Commission) presiding.
Also present: John Foarde, Deputy Staff Director of the
Commission; Matt Tuchow, Office of Representative Levin; Holly
Vineyard, U.S. Department of Commerce; and Alison Pascale,
Office of Senator Levin.
Mr. Wolf. I would like to welcome all of you to this open
forum, one of the staff-led roundtables held by the
Congressional-Executive Commission on China.
This is our second open forum to provide an opportunity for
any interested person or group to appear on any issue related
to human rights and the rule of law in China, make a short
statement, and put their views into the formal record of the
Commission. So, we are happy and pleased that you have all come
here today.
We are happy to receive additional written statements from
any of you, which will also become part of the formal record.
Let us start with Mr. Enhebatu Togochog, who is president
of the Southern Mongolian Human Rights Information Center.
Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF ENHEBATU TOGOCHOG, PRESIDENT, SOUTHERN MONGOLIAN
HUMAN RIGHTS INFORMATION CENTER, JACKSON HEIGHTS, NY
Mr. Togochog. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Enhebatu
Togochog, and I am from Inner Mongolia. I am grateful to the
Commission for giving me this opportunity to talk about Inner
Mongolian human rights issues.
Inner Mongolia, home to 4.5 million indigenous Mongolian
people, was established in 1947. The pattern of repression of
the Mongols over the past 50-year period has been documented
elsewhere, so I will restrict my comments to the current human
rights situation.
I will bring to the Commission's attention two specific
cases. The first, concerns two individuals, Mr. Hada and Mr.
Tegexi, the second, the forceful displacement of Mongolian
herdsmen from their traditional pastureland.
The first individual is Mr. Hada, who was the president of
Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance. The mission of this
organization was to promote and preserve Mongolian culture,
language, and to peacefully find ways to obtain greater
autonomous rights for ethnic Mongols in the region, as
guaranteed by the Chinese Constitution.
However, in 1995 he was arrested by the authorities, and in
1996 he was sentenced to 15 years in jail for ``separating the
country and engaging in espionage.'' Currently, Mr. Hada is
serving his sentence in Inner Mongolia Jail Number 4 at Chifeng
City.
According to Mrs. Xinna, wife of Mr. Hada, he was beaten by
inmates with rubber clubs provided by prison guards, and on two
occasions a gun was held to his head by a prison official who
threatened to kill him.
Mr. Tegexi was the vice president of Southern Mongolian
Democratic Alliance, and was also arrested at the same time and
sentenced to 10 years in jail for the same crime. Currently,
Mr. Tegexi's prison situation and health condition, and even
the prison location, are unknown.
The second case concerns the Chinese Government's ongoing
coercive displacement of Mongolian herding populations.
According to official Chinese documents, recently the Chinese
Government has adopted a new policy targeting the Mongolian
herding population under the pretext of ``giving rest to the
grassland and recovering the ecosystem.''
This policy is called ``Environmental Immigration,'' whose
aim seems to be the relocation of the Mongolian herding
populations from their native lands to overwhelming Han Chinese
populated agricultural and urban areas.
Over the past 2 years, at least 160,000 ethnic Mongolians
have been forcibly relocated from their pasturelands. The
Mongolian herders who have already lost their homes, livestock,
and lands have been relocated with little regard for their
social, and other needs, nor has appropriate compensation been
made for their losses.
Members of the Commission, today, Mongols who struggle to
maintain and promote their distinct culture continue to be
subjected to harassment and intimidation. Recent cases of
individuals arrested for distributing ``separatist''
literature, and another arrest for merely wanting to celebrate
Chinggis Khan's birthday, attest to the continuing pattern of
repression.
In addition, since 1998, at least five expatriate Inner
Mongolians have been refused entry into China and forced to
return directly from the airports in Beijing and Hong Kong,
apparently for being associated in one form or another with
individuals the Chinese Government has blacklisted.
We also know of six cases of expatriates--five of them are
United States green card holders and one of them is even a
United States citizen--who were detained, questioned, and
monitored by the authorities during their visit to Inner
Mongolia.
Let me end by noting that recent releases of Tibetan
political prisoners indicate that the United States
Government's dialog with China and international pressure in
general regarding human rights issues can have some positive
results.
I would like to ask the Commission to urge the Chinese
Government to, first, release Mr. Hada and Mr. Tegexi. Second,
provide adequate compensation and social service to the
displaced Mongols and stop the upcoming larger displacement.
Third, allow expatriates to visit their homeland. Finally, I
request the Commission to hold a special hearing devoted to
Inner Mongolian human rights issues. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Togochog appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much, Mr. Togochog.
Next is Ms. Christine Shea of Amnesty International.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE SHEA, GROUP COORDINATOR, AMNESTY
INTERNATIONAL, ANNAPOLIS, MD
Ms. Shea. My name is Chris Shea, and I am the coordinator
of Amnesty International Group 284, Annapolis, MD.
Group 284 was formed in 1983. During the last 19 years, we
have worked on behalf of prisoners from the Soviet Union, South
Korea, East Germany, and China. We have 100 people on our
mailing list, and approximately 10 people who attend meetings
regularly. We meet once a month and have a quarterly
newsletter.
I am here to talk about our work on behalf of Mr. Tegexi.
Mr. Tegexi is a citizen of the Inner Mongolian Autonomous
Region in China and is currently serving a 10-year prison
sentence. It stems from his involvement with the Southern
Mongolian Democratic Alliance.
Amnesty International considers Mr. Tegexi to be a prisoner
of conscience, detained solely because of the peaceful exercise
of his right to freedom of expression and association.
Following Mr. Tegexi's arrest and sentencing, Amnesty
International researchers investigated his case. Once they had
determined that he was a victim of human rights abuses and that
he had not used or advocated violence, local groups were asked
to adopt his case. Group 284 agreed to work on Mr. Tegexi's
behalf. Local groups in the Netherlands, Germany, and Portugal
have also adopted Mr. Tegexi's case.
As an Amnesty International group, our concern is not based
on Mr. Tegexi's beliefs or political affiliation. We believe
that Mr. Tegexi, like everyone else, has the right to
peacefully express his beliefs and to associate with others who
share his beliefs.
The primary tool that we use in advocating for Mr. Tegexi
is the personal letter. Our group has written hundreds of
letters to various government officials since 1997. Each letter
states that Mr. Tegexi is imprisoned for the peaceful exercise
of his basic human rights, and asks that he be released from
prison immediately and unconditionally. Although each letter is
unique, these two core ideas are always included.
Members of Amnesty International Group 284 have written
letters to national and local Chinese Government officials,
elected representatives in the United States Government, and
the State Department.
The case coordinator directs the actions taken on Mr.
Tegexi's case. Amnesty International provides a support network
of country experts, and in addition, e-mail information and
occasional updates from London that help the coordinator
develop a strategy for each case.
Letter writing to Chinese Government officials is organized
so that one or two officials are targeted each month. On a
national level, we have written to President Jiang Zemin, and
other officials such as the Vice President, the Premier, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of Justice.
On the local level, we have written to the Chairwoman of
the Inner Mongolian Government, the Secretary of the Party
Committee, and the Chief Procurator. Letters have also been
sent to prison officials and the directors of the prison where
Mr. Tegexi has been detained.
Unfortunately, we have never received a reply to any of our
letters to Chinese officials. However, prisoners who have been
released from Chinese prisons have reported that such letters
did seem to have an impact.
One former prisoner, Wei Jingsheng, said that he believed
that the letters sent by Amnesty International groups affected
his treatment in prison. He also said that, although he never
saw these letters, he did learn of their existence and that
``the mental inspiration this gave me greatly surpassed any
small improvement in my living conditions.''
Another facet of our work on Mr. Tegexi's behalf has
involved requests for assistance from U.S. Government officials
and elected representatives. We sent letters and e-mails to
Presidents Clinton and Bush concerning Mr. Tegexi. These
letters preceded Presidential visits to China. We also wrote to
Secretary of State Albright before she traveled to China.
In each of these letters, we requested that Mr. Tegexi's
case be brought up during discussions with Chinese officials.
We have received replies from the White House and from the
State Department.
In February 2001, Christopher Sibilla from the State
Department Office of Bilateral Affairs wrote that they have
been following closely the case of Mr. Tegexi and that the
State Department views this case as a source of continuing
concern. However, we do not know if the case was raised with
Chinese officials. We would like to find out if the case was
discussed, and how Chinese officials responded.
Group 284 also wrote to Senators Paul Sarbanes and Barbara
Mikulski, and Representatives Wayne Gilchrest and Steny Hoyer.
We received replies from the offices of the elected officials.
Senator Sarbanes forwarded our letter to the State Department,
as did Senator Mikulski. Senator Mikulski also sent a copy of
our letter to the Chinese Ambassador.
We have sent occasional letters to Mr. Tegexi in prison.
Although we do not know if he receives the letters, they will
let prison officials know that Mr. Tegexi has not been
forgotten.
This message that Mr. Tegexi has not been forgotten is the
essence of our work. Despite the unresponsiveness of Chinese
officials, we have kept the letters coming. Our hope is that
these letters will help Mr. Tegexi, and prevent others from
suffering as Mr. Tegexi has suffered.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Shea appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
Next is Mr. Sokrat Saydahmat, who is a member of the Board
of Directors of the Uyghur American Association. Welcome to you
today. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF SOKRAT SAYDAHMAT, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
UYGHUR AMERICAN ASSOCIATION, McLEAN, VA
Mr. Saydahmat. My name is Sokrat Saydahmat. Good afternoon,
Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, speakers, and
guests.
I am here representing the Uyghur American Association and
to raise two troubling issues that indicate trends away from
civil society and toward the cultural genocide of the people of
Eastern Turkestan, also called the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous
Region in Chinese.
Despite the Constitution of the People's Republic of China
[PRC] and the laws that are supposed to guarantee and protect
the non-Chinese peoples, new regulations have been enacted that
ignore their rights and place the Uighur people on the path to
destruction.
The first regulation is the recent change to Xinjiang
University that prohibits the Uighur language in the classroom.
Identified as needed for improving the standard of education,
the Chinese Government has extinguished the source of higher
education the language of a civilization that stretches back to
the 9th century.
The Uighur language and script have been used for over a
thousand years and have documented religious texts of Buddhism,
Christianity, and Islam, and the rich culture of Central Asian
Turkic peoples.
For the Chinese Government to ban higher level instruction
and thought is insulting to the Uighur people on the grounds of
``improving education.'' Such a policy change represents the
beginning of the purposeful destruction of the Uighur language
and culture. It is a challenge to world civilization.
The second policy maintains the same goal, banning and
burning Uighur language books that disagree with today's
Chinese Government opinion. A total of 330 titles have been
deemed problematic, and witnesses in Kashgar city have watched
while thousands of literary and scientific works were burned
just 2 months ago in June 2002.
These books have such titles as ``Ancient Uighur
Craftsmanship,'' and ``A Brief History of Huns and Ancient
Literature.'' Although the Chinese Government once approved of
the publication of these books, they are now deemed too
controversial to read. We believe that the change in policy
represents another facet of the purposeful destruction of
Uighur language and culture.
It should also be noted that another reason given by the
Chinese Government authorities for ending Uighur language
instruction at Xinjiang University was a supposed lack of
textbooks. How can someone publicly burn books on one hand,
while declaring the cessation of Uighur language instruction
based on the lack of books?
We have raised concrete examples reported in the media that
demonstrate that the Chinese Government violates human and
civil rights guaranteed under various United Nation
instruments, as well as the laws of the People's Republic of
China.
We would ask for an open, unfettered referendum to
determine the future of the people of East Turkestan, by the
people of East Turkestan only.
The Uighur people, language, and culture are under attack
and the Uighur people must watch helplessly and alone as the
Chinese Government authorities continue the devastation.
We implore the U.S. Government to put teeth into the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. Please staff and fund the
effort to raise issues at least as much as the Chinese spends
to table it.
Twelve million Uighur people need a friend. We also implore
the United States Government to create and fund a position of
Special Coordinator for Human Rights in East Turkestan, much as
has been created to assist the Tibetan people.
There are many problems that need to be solved in East
Turkestan, but we hope that the visibility produced by these
two suggestions will cause more of the problem to be solved and
for conditions to improve for our people.
Thanks for your time and attention to this important
matter.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saydahmat appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
Next we have Mr. Derek Wong. I am especially pleased that
Derek is here today, as Derek is going into his senior year at
the University of Pennsylvania and is working at the Senate
this summer as an intern at the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Please, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF DEREK WONG, SUMMER INTERN, SENATE AGRICULTURE
COMMITTEE, STUDENT, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA,
PA
Mr. Wong. Thank you.
I wish to thank the Commission for the opportunity to speak
at this open forum. Again, my name is Derek Wong, and I am a
student at the University of Pennsylvania. I am also interning
on the Hill this summer.
The purpose of my presentation is to advocate further
educational and academic exchanges between the United States
and China, and to discuss the ways in which these exchanges can
contribute to the promotion of human rights and the rule of
law.
During fall 2001, I studied for a semester at the
prestigious Qinghua University in Beijing. My program was
unique in that I was able to enroll in classes with Chinese
students, as opposed to the majority of study-abroad programs
in China, which limit foreign students to language classes and
``island programs'' often taught in English.
While I took a variety of humanities courses in history,
international relates, law, and moral ideologies, the
underlying premise of Marxism was evident throughout each of
these courses, although in varying degrees.
Having studied in both the United States and China, it is
clear to me that Americans and Chinese lack understanding of
each other. Some of my Chinese professors have studied or
taught in the United States, and this was evident in their
teaching.
Other professors lectured with an obvious bias against the
United States and Western society in general. It was apparent
that they had little, and many times incorrect, understanding
of our country.
In an informal poll I conducted of students at three top
universities in Beijing, the majority of respondents said they
base their opinions of the United States primarily on reports
in the Chinese news media. Most of the students admired
American affluence and lifestyle, and indicated that, given the
opportunity, they would want to study in the United States.
Yet they were also highly critical of President George W.
Bush and his policies toward China and Taiwan, accusing the
United States Government of being hegemonic and overly
aggressive in its foreign policy.
This dualistic attitude was well illustrated in the Chinese
reaction to the events of September 11. Immediately after the
attacks, there was an air of shock, as well as regret for those
who died in Washington and New York, some of whom were Chinese
citizens. Chinese President Jiang Zemin was one of the first
world leaders to offer his condolences and condemn the
terrorist attacks.
Yet in the days and weeks that followed, each action by the
Bush administration was criticized by my professors and fellow
classmates--not to mention the media--as a subtle mistrust of
the United States became evident.
During one lecture, a number of students applauded as a
photograph was shown of a plane crashing into one of the twin
towers. I was stunned as I realized that the sentiment among
some of the students was that the United States got what it
deserved.
With China's accession to the World Trade Organization, I
hope and believe that change is on the horizon. The increasing
globalization of China presents a golden opportunity for the
United States to play an active part in promoting human rights
and the rule of law in China. Many Americans possess skills and
expertise in law, language training, and other areas that are
in high demand in China.
When Chinese students and academics come into contact with
their American counterparts, there is an exchange of
information, ideas, and beliefs. The results of these exchanges
were evident by listening to the varying lectures of China
professors who had lived in the United States compared to those
who had not.
During my semester in China, I had a number of candid
discussions with classmates about Sino-American relations and
so-called Western values. These conversations were mutually
beneficial in helping us gain an understanding of each other's
culture.
I got the sense that at least some of my classmates did not
subscribe to the Marxist ideals that are the basis for
education in China, but instead have an interest in learning
about other ideologies, including Western systems of democracy.
While the United States issues thousands of visas to
Chinese students each year, many more are turned down for
various reasons. Clearly, we cannot accept all Chinese students
who wish to study in the United States, but we can bring
American education to China, and with it our understanding of
human rights, liberties, and freedoms.
One such example is the joint program in Nanjing
administered by Johns Hopkins University and Nanjing
University. It offers classes in Mandarin Chinese for Mandarin
students, and in English for Chinese students, in a variety of
social sciences.
Additionally, American students are typically paired with a
Chinese roommate, allowing for a daily exchange of ideas and
opinions between these students.
The fact remains that very few Americans understand China
and very few Chinese understand the United States. We need to
send more students, teachers, academics, and legal experts to
China if we are to grasp the complexity of its culture, as well
as the implications for future bilateral ties.
A dramatic increase in the availability of federally funded
programs or grants would certainly provide additional incentive
for such standards. I urge this Commission to promote programs
that encourage academic interaction between the United States
and China, not only for the benefit of the 1.3 billion people
in China, but also for students like me who aspire to be
shapers of Sino-American relations.
I thank you again for the opportunity to share my
experiences and thoughts, and will be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wong appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Derek.
Next is Professor Shiyu Zhou, who is also from the
University of Pennsylvania.
Please go ahead, Professor.
STATEMENT OF SHIYU ZHOU, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PHILADELPHIA, PA
Mr. Zhou. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak
on the subject of human rights and the rule of law in China.
Of particular concern right now are what appear to be
compromised, or even waning, freedoms in Hong Kong, what some
say might mark the beginning of the end of the democratic rule
in the PRC's Hong Kong Special Administration Region [SAR].
It is nothing new that mainland authorities would
manufacture bogus so-called ``laws'' to justify harsh,
repressive political measures, or even to apply such laws
retroactively to punish persons and groups for past actions and
affiliations. But what is new, is the appearance of such
tactics in Hong Kong, a region that Beijing promised would
retain its freewheeling, open way of life under a principle of
``One Country, Two Systems'' for at least 50 years; that is, 50
years from the time it first became a part of the PRC in 1997.
Now, after only 5 years, this promise is waning, or even
crumbling, at an alarming pace.
The past year has seen constant debate among Hong Kong's
ruling elite, led by Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, over the
adoption of so called ``anti-cult'' and anti-subversion laws.
These laws, analysts and observers note, would give legal
grounds for Hong Kong to ban and suppress religious and other
groups deemed unfavorable by Beijing authorities, the most
notable example being the Falun Gong. These laws, while
allegedly patterned after France's anti-cult laws, go far
beyond their European counterparts in both their intention and
scope.
As we speak, a second matter in Hong Kong is of perhaps
even greater immediate concern. Sixteen practitioners of Falun
Gong are at present being put through a show-trial, officially
labeled a ``criminal trial,'' for allegedly disrupting social
order this past March when they supposedly ``obstructed a
sidewalk'' by meditating and are accused of ``attacking the
police.'' The location was outside the Chinese--that is PRC--
Government Liaison Office in Hong Kong. Of the 16, fully 4 are
Swiss nationals. The group was forcefully arrested without any
warrant by Hong Kong police. However, eyewitness reports and
video documentation reveal that it was actually the police who
obstructed the sidewalk and attacked persons. The footage which
is available online, shows the peaceful meditators in two
short, orderly rows, taking up a 7-square-meter spot in a 140-
square-meter open area, and being overwhelmed by throngs of
police, probably several dozen, and choked, gouged in the eyes,
and jabbed in their pressure points as they are removed to
police vans.
What is significant is that the arrests and removal took
place reportedly under pressure from the Liaison Office; the
office was irate that Hong Kong citizens and foreign nationals
would demonstrate outside its premises against human rights
abuses in the PRC; irate, that is, that they would dare use
Hong Kong's constitutionally-enshrined freedoms of assembly and
speech to embarrass the ruling Beijing regime.
The significance of this show trial cannot be understated.
CNN recently reported that the trial has ``raised concerns that
the `one country, two systems' policy is eroding, and that Hong
Kong is beginning to yield to pressures from the mainland.''
What astute observers realize is that pressure from Jiang Zemin
to restrict Falun Gong from Hong Kong is jeopardizing a once-
proud legacy of freedoms and just legal system. The trial is
very much a litmus test, a touchstone, if you will, for
democracy and rule of law in Hong Kong. The very existence of
this trial marks the negation of rule of law in the Hong Kong
SAR, and the beginning of the end. Legal analysts say that this
trial never should have happened to begin with. It marks the
arrival of the ``rule of Jiang'' and the departure of rule of
law. This is something Hong Kong cannot afford, and this is
something the free world and America cannot afford.
I would like to suggest, in closing, that this situation in
Hong Kong must assume a much greater importance for United
States leaders. We have already seen in the past year and a
half, on two occasions, scores of Americans and citizens of
other nations being barred from entering Hong Kong due to their
beliefs--they practiced Falun Gong; we learned, to our horror,
that they were on a blacklist, presumably assembled by the PRC.
Now we see a show trial being used to discredit a peaceful
group of meditators, and second to justify the harsh,
repressive legislation that is in the works and that will
appease Jiang and the Beijing authorities. This is rule by
fiat, or rule by Jiang, manifesting in Hong Kong. This is
something we need to pay attention to and we need to address,
with all due seriousness.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zhou appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
The last presentation is by Kathy Polias, who is co-
director of the Uyghur Human Rights Coalition.
STATEMENT OF KATHY POLIAS, CO-DIRECTOR, UYGHUR HUMAN RIGHTS
COALITION, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Polias. First, I would like to sincerely apologize for
my lateness. I actually came here to talk about the role of
United States corporations in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous
Region.
But, first, I would like to say a few words about September
11 and how it has impacted the Uighurs. As you might know, the
Chinese Government has used the events of that day to portray
the Uighurs to the international community as violent
terrorists, Islamic fundamentalists. They have also used it as
a justification to intensify their crackdown on the Uighurs and
to portray it as part of America's war on terrorism.
Fortunately, the United States Government has expressed to
the Chinese Government that we do not consider the Uighur
dissident movement to be a terrorist movement, and we do not
want the events of September 11 to be used as an excuse to
oppress innocent people.
But the crackdown is continuing pretty severely, and we
would really like to ask Congress to pass a resolution strongly
condemning what the Chinese Government is doing and how it is
distorting America's global war on terrorism. We really
appreciate everything that the United States Government has
done till now, but more is really needed.
Second, I would like to talk about what I came here to talk
about, the role of U.S. corporations in the region. As you
know, Xinjiang has large oil and gas reserves and many United
States companies have invested in the region because of that.
Recently, Exxon-Mobil joined an international consortium
that is being led by Royal Dutch Shell to assume a 45 percent
stake in a huge gas pipeline from the Tarim Basin in Xinjiang
to Shanghai.
This project is the second largest project in Chinese
history, after the Three Gorges Dam. It is going to pass
through 10 provinces. The consortium is forming a joint venture
agreement with PetroChina, which is one of China's largest oil
and gas companies.
The problem is, with past economic development in Xinjiang,
the Uighurs have not been the ones who have benefited. The
Chinese Government systematically discriminates against the
Uighurs in employment in favor of Chinese migrating from
inland.
The rate of unemployment among the Uighurs is very high. We
would like to ask the United States Government's help, or more
specifically the Congressional-Executive Commission on China,
to help us in urging Exxon and other United States companies
that get involved with oil and gas activities in Xinjiang to
reverse this trend by implementing job training programs for
Uighurs and by assuring that the majority of the jobs go to the
local people.
Exxon and other companies profess a commitment to giving
back to the communities that they work in, but we are concerned
that they are going to be pressured by the Chinese Government
to do otherwise.
In addition, we would also like them to contribute to
building infrastructure in Xinjiang, including schools,
hospitals, and roads.
That is basically what I wanted to say. I thank you very
much for the time.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
I will begin with the questions. My first question is to
Mr. Saydahmat. Regarding the decision at Xinjiang University to
end instruction in the Uighur language, could you explain, or
do you know, why the decision was made now rather than several
years ago? Did something happen to instigate a change in policy
now?
Mr. Saydahmat. I was a graduate from Xinjiang University in
1992, and I was an instructor in the Xinjiang University. I was
teaching Uighur students in Uighur on western European
philosophical history. At that time when I was an instructor,
school officials had already many times talked to me,
approached me, to teach my subject in Chinese and I rejected
it.
The Xinjiang University, to my knowledge, is one of the
oldest universities, established in 1924. It has tens of
thousands of Uighurs who have graduated from that university.
There is already a Medical Institute, Polytechnic
Institute, Agriculture Institute, and art and law schools that
have already converted into Chinese teaching. Xinjiang was the
last university that still continued teaching in Uighur.
I think the Chinese, after they joined the WTO, already
feel comfortable with international organizations and they had
achieved what they wanted, and they had a free hand now. After
September 11, they had the other support which labeled all
Uighurs as terrorists, in collusion with the United States and
all Western countries. That has fueled the fire and prevented
Uighurs from having higher education, to have education in
their language.
So I feel like there is absolutely a trend of distrust and
cultural genocide. This is a challenge to world civilization in
which every people group, ethnic people, has for education in
their own language. This has put the Uighur people on the path
of destruction.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Togochog, you talked about the Chinese Government's
threat to the maintenance of traditional culture. What is the
threat that they see from Mongolian people and Mongolian
culture?
Mr. Togochog. The Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region was
established in 1947 under the Chinese Communist Party's
instruction. Then after that, during the Cultural Revolution,
there was a big genocide in Inner Mongolia which is still
unknown to the world.
During that 10-year period, according to the Chinese
official data, there were 700,000 Mongolian people who were
sent to jail, tortured, and maimed and 162,222 were people
killed. This is Chinese official data.
After that, government authorities cracked down on a lot of
peaceful student movements and civil movements. But because of
the Chinese Government's policy, the situation in Inner
Mongolia was really unknown to the world.
After that, during the 1990's, more than 100 ethnic
Mongolian people were arrested because of the promotion of
Mongolian culture and Mongolian basic human rights.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Next will be John Foarde, the Deputy Staff Director on the
Commission.
Mr. Foarde. Thanks to all of you for coming and sharing
your views with us today.
I would like to address this question to Ms. Shea, if you
do not mind. A little bit more detail, please, on Mr. Tegexi.
What was he doing at the time of his detention in 1995? What
was his job?
Ms. Shea. He was an instructor at the Inner Mongolian
University in Mongolian language, I believe.
Mr. Foarde. All right. So he was a State employee, in the
sense that he was working in a public university, but teaching
Mongolian language. Is that correct?
Ms. Shea. Right. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Foarde. Let me ask for just one other detail.
When you write letters to the Chinese officials, do you
write them in English?
Ms. Shea. We do, because we do not have anybody that speaks
Chinese.
Mr. Foarde. Do you think it would be better to communicate
with Chinese officials if you were able to either write the
letters, or have them translated into Chinese?
Ms. Shea. I imagine it would be.
Mr. Foarde. Do you think that this has any impact on the
reason you have not heard a response from the Chinese
Government or Chinese officials?
Ms. Shea. I do not know. I really do not know how critical
that is. We are a small volunteer group. I do not know how we
would manage that. Whether it would make any difference, I do
not know. Maybe somebody who is more familiar with the Chinese
Government would know how critical that is.
I guess my philosophy has been that we do what we can. Even
though the person who is getting my letter may not be able to
catch all the subtleties, I try to underline Mr. Tegexi's name,
I repeat it often. I try to keep the basic information very
clear so that my basic point is stated as clearly and simply as
it can be.
Mr. Foarde. Just a final detail on the letter writing
campaign. You said that each letter from the individual
volunteer is different than other ones, although they all have
a couple of common themes. I take it that those are themes that
you, as the group coordinator, help them with.
Ms. Shea. Right.
Mr. Foarde. But each letter is not identical.
Ms. Shea. No. No, not at all.
Mr. Foarde. I would go to Professor Zhou, please, to ask a
couple of questions about the proceedings in Hong Kong against
the Falun Gong practitioners.
Are the 16 practitioners that are on trial in Hong Kong
represented by legal counsel?
Mr. Zhou. Yes, they are. They have their attorneys.
Mr. Foarde. And the attorneys were chosen by the
practitioners themselves and not by someone else?
Mr. Zhou. I believe the attorneys were chosen by
practitioners themselves. However, the judge was selected by
the government. Also, there is no jury in the trial. Thus, the
final judgment was totally up to the judge. It has happened
that the defense attorney had requested the judge step down,
citing a clear bias toward the prosecution and an apparent
hostility toward the defense. But the judge rejected the
request.
Mr. Foarde. Let us assume that in these legal proceedings,
which I take it are public and open to public scrutiny, that if
these 16 people are convicted of the charges against them, what
would be the maximum penalty for each individual under Hong
Kong law, do you know?
Mr. Zhou. I am not quite sure. I heard it might be up to 2
years.
Mr. Foarde. Two years in prison?
Mr. Zhou. In prison. That was what I heard.
Mr. Foarde. A question, please, to Mr. Saydahmat. Are
Uighur language educational materials still published in the
autonomous region? Are they still available or has publication
totally ceased? Are all educational materials now in the
Chinese language?
Mr. Saydahmat. I think the publication is still there, but
they have censorship. Since September 11, they have already
labeled 330 titles of publications as problematic and
suspicious of the content, and then burned them in public. Then
they proclaimed that they teach in Chinese because of a
shortage of books. On the other hand, they are burning them,
using censorship, and not letting them be published.
I think they are giving the reason that they are teaching
Chinese because it improves education and helps people be more
open to scientific books and information. But their intention
was to put people on the path to destruction and to restrict
Uighur language teaching, which is going to end up as a kind of
cultural genocide.
There are publications, but they are getting less. I
believe, if this kind of trend continues and there is going to
be in the future a shortage, there will be no need to publish
anything in the Uighur language.
Mr. Foarde. Thank you all.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Next will be Matt Tuchow from the office of Congressman
Sander Levin.
Mr. Tuchow. My first question is for Mr. Togochog. I wanted
to ask you about Inner Mongolia and whether there are any
issues regarding publication of books in the Mongolian language
in the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region.
Mr. Togochog. Yes. Since 2 years ago, there have been at
least more than 10 Mongolian books being banned. Those books
were not really related to political issues. Some of them are
just regular books just expressing the desire for freedom.
For example, just last year, two authors, one is called Mr.
Ulziitogtah, another is called Mr. Unag, published a book
called ``I Am From Har-Horom.'' Har-Horom was an ancient
Mongolian capital, now located in the independent country
Mongolia. In the book they say, ``We are Mongolian. We are real
Mongolians. We came from Mongolia.'' Now, that is the problem
for which the Chinese Government banned this book, and the two
authors were detained for several weeks.
For example, another magazine which was published in
Mongolian in 1992 is called Voice of Mongolia. This magazine
was actually published by Mr. Hada, who is now in prison for 15
years. That magazine was banned in 1995, after the arrest of
Mr. Hada and the crackdown on the Southern Mongolian Democratic
Alliance.
Mr. Tuchow. Are there any universities in Inner Mongolia?
Mr. Togochog. Yes. There are the Inner Mongolia University,
an Inner Mongolian Industrial University, and the Agricultural
and Animal Husbandry University. But there are few Mongolians
there. Right now, it is maybe 10 percent that are Mongolian
students and around 90 percent are Han Chinese students.
Mr. Tuchow. And are any of the courses taught in the
Mongolian language there?
Mr. Togochog. There are some courses. I was a graduate from
Inner Mongolia University, Mongolian Literature and Linguistic
Department, which was taught in Mongolian. But we had to learn
Chinese ancient literature and Chinese contemporary literature.
That is actually not really every course in Mongolian. It is
just symbolic.
Mr. Tuchow. Thank you.
The next question is to Mr. Saydahmat. I wanted to ask,
following up again on the situation at Xinjiang University.
What percentage of the students are Uighur?
Mr. Saydahmat. I emigrated to the United States in 1988.
When I was an instructor at the university, there were about 50
or 55 percent Uighur students and the rest were Chinese.
Mr. Tuchow. Do you know what the figure is today? Is it
more Han Chinese?
Mr. Saydahmat. I assume so, but I do not have that
information.
Mr. Tuchow. When you say there is no instruction in the
Uighur language, is that meaning for all persons, or can
someone go to the Xinjiang University to study the Uighur
language?
Mr. Saydahmat. That is for all the courses.
Mr. Tuchow. That is it?
Mr. Saydahmat. Yes. That is all the courses that are taught
in Uighur. If you are an instructor and you are not doing that,
then you are fired. I am looking at it this way. Think about a
university, society, or ethnic group and how long it takes to
build a university, to have qualified professors, how much
money you have spent, how many years you had to wait for the
people to grow up and qualify for the teaching.
If you ban all the teachers teaching in Uighur and fire all
of the professors, and one day the world says, rebuild Xinjiang
University and teach the Uighurs, I do not know how much money
and how much time it will take.
Mr. Wolf. In May, I was at Xinjiang University. The student
population is still about 50 percent Uighur today and 50
percent Han.
Next is Holly Vineyard, who works at the U.S. Department of
Commerce for one of our Commissioners, Under Secretary of
Commerce Grant Aldonas.
Ms. Vineyard. Thank you all for coming forward to testify
today.
Derek, I was struck by the note of optimism in your
testimony, especially related to China's accession to the WTO.
I was wondering if you could share with us any comments or
attitudes that you picked up while you were in China from your
fellow students regarding China's entry into the WTO.
Mr. Wong. Well, I think with the increased globalization of
China, one of the things that Chinese students are focused on
is learning English. It's a requirement at universities. It's
becoming a requirement at secondary, and even primary schools
now.
So, a lot of the local students would want to meet
Americans or other foreign students just to learn English or
learn other languages. They are curious about how we live back
home. A lot of them obviously express interest in studying
abroad. Unfortunately, the opportunity is not always there.
Ms. Vineyard. I was wondering if anyone else on the panel
had also encountered attitudes about the WTO as being related
to bringing about positive change. Mr. Zhou, would you care to
comment?
Mr. Zhou. Yes. China's admittance to the WTO should not be
taken by the Communist leadership as the acquiesce from the
international community in its human rights abuses, nor should
it become an excuse for more brutality and suppression. The
international community should not neglect the human rights and
rule of law situation in China, including Hong Kong, and should
urge the Chinese Government to stop the human rights abuses
against their own citizens.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
The final questions will come from Alison Pascale, who
works for Senator Carl Levin.
Ms. Pascale. Hi. Thank you.
I wanted to ask a broader question of anyone on the panel
who might have given some thought to this. What is the most
effective pressure you think that can come from the United
States Congress or the United States Government to try to
effect change within the Government of China?
We have this Congressional-Executive China Commission that
was established when we voted to grant China PNTR [permanent
normal trade relations] as a way to keep pressure on China
regarding human rights and rule of law, and those types of
things.
Right now, we are developing our first report and our
recommendations and we want to think of the most effective
things that we can say and do. I wanted to ask the panel for
their ideas on what would be most useful, such as providing
resources for more judicial training in China, maintaining
lists of political prisoners, doing exchanges with our
Secretary of Labor.
Have you thought of certain things that you think we can do
as a Congress or a government that will be effective in getting
some kind of positive response from the Government in China?
Mr. Wong. I read a recent report that the Chinese legal
system is trying to create a more independent judiciary. I
think that one of the things we can do is send legal experts
over there to help train them, not only in the creation of
laws, but also in enforcement.
Uniform enforcement of laws is one of the biggest
contradictions in China throughout the local regions where the
central government may say one thing, but it's not enforced in
the local regions. I think that having the legal experts in the
United States, we can send them over there and we can actually
effect some sort of change.
Mr. Zhou. May I say something?
Ms. Pascale. Please.
Mr. Zhou. I heard a story that was widely reported in
January 2002, and think it may give people a sense of the
situation of rule of law in China.
It was reported that a Hong Kong businessman was sentenced
to 2 years in prison in China for smuggling several thousand
Bibles into the mainland. The charge leveled against him was
that he violated the so-called ``anti-cult law,''--the Chinese
Government somehow thought that the Bibles he smuggled in were
cult materials.
Where did this anti-cult law come from? It was rushed
through the Chinese legislature in October 1999, 3 months after
the persecution of Falun Gong started, and was enacted
specifically to persecute Falun Gong at the time. It was,
indeed, applied retroactively to justify the persecution. And
it has later been used to persecute Christian ``house
churches'' and other faith groups.
As we can see, the Communist regime can simply make up laws
to justify their unconstitutional human rights abuses.
So the fundamental problem is not whether China has law, or
rule of law. They do. Jiang Zemin is the law in China, and the
Communist dictatorship is the rule of law. They can simply
violate the laws, and even make up laws to justify their
illegal persecution and brutality. Also, they exert pressure
even on the people and governments from the democratic society
to let them bend their democratic values and moral principles.
For example, this pressure even can be felt in the United
States now, as was mentioned in the U.S. Concurrent Resolution
188 that was passed unanimously in the House. The resolution
condemned not only the persecution of Falun Gong in China, but
also the harassment and threats against United States citizens
and local government officials who support or practice Falun
Gong in the United States.
The fundamental problem is that China's communist regime is
a dictatorial state that is committed to the suppression of
freedom of belief; the suppression of freedom of the press; and
the suppression of legal rights; and it makes liberal use of
forceful indoctrination, violence, and fear in order to
terrorize and dominate ordinary citizens. These traits are
precisely those that identify a terrorist state as such.
This fundamental problem of lawlessness and state terrorism
in the PRC must assume much greater importance for U.S.
policymakers.
After all, when a leader attacks his own citizens who are
peaceful, non-violent, and good people, what will that leader
do on the world stage? Could we possibly expect him to have any
greater regard for the lives of good citizens in other nations?
Ms. Pascale. But what would be your recommendations as to
how to effect change, maybe introducing resolutions that
condemn those actions?
Mr. Zhou. I think the U.S. Government should voice more on
the human rights issues in China, and the voice is definitely
powerful. It puts pressure on the regime to prevent them from
doing whatever they want to abuse the rights of their own
citizens and export the persecution abroad. I believe that the
voice from the U.S. Congress can help.
Mr. Wolf. Go ahead. The last word from you, Kathy.
Ms. Polias. I just wanted to add that this is not to so
much to do with China itself, but the countries surrounding
China. There has been a huge problem with neighboring countries
forcibly returning Uighur and Tibetan refugees--for Tibetans,
Nepal, and for Uighurs, Kazakstan and Kyrgyzstan.
We would really like it if the Commission could help
advance asylum laws in these countries so that these refugees
are adequately protected, and also look more into the impact of
the Shanghai Six, which is an alliance that was set up between
China, Central Asian countries, and Russia to help each other
crack down on what they consider terrorist movements.
Mr. Wolf. All right. I would like to thank all of you for
appearing here today. It has been very useful. As I said, this
will all become part of the permanent record for the
Commission.
For the rest of you, the roundtables that we have been
holding will begin again in early September. The next open
forum that we will hold like this will be on December 9.
So, thank you all very much. Today's session is over.
[Whereupon, at 3:31 p.m. the roundtable was concluded.]
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements
----------
Prepared Statement of Enhebatu Togochog
august 5, 2002
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My name is Enhebatu Togochog and I am a native Mongol from Inner
Mongolia. I am grateful to the Commission for giving me the opportunity
to make this presentation about my homeland which I left for political
reasons in 1998.
Inner Mongolia is home to 4.5 million indigenous Mongolian people
and is that part of the historical Greater Mongolia which was ceded to
China by Stalin following World War II against the wishes of the
majority of the Mongol leaders in the region. Over the past 50+ years,
the Chinese government policy encouraging Han Chinese population
transfer into the region has turned the Mongols into a minority in
their own lands and the ratio of Han Chinese to Mongols today is 5:1.
The pattern of repression of the Mongols over this 50 year period has
been documented elsewhere so I will restrict my comments to the current
human rights situation. In the addendum of the written report, I have
provided additional examples and
references. I will bring to the Commission's attention two specific
cases. The first concerns two individuals, Mr. Hada and Mr. Tegexi and
the second, the forcible displacement of Mongolian herdsmen from their
traditional pasturelands.
The first individual is Mr. Hada who was born in eastern Inner
Mongolia's Horchin Right Wing Front Banner (banner is a geographical
designation). In May 1992, Mr. Hada and other Mongolian students and
intellectuals established the Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance
(SMDA), with Mr. Hada as President. The mission of this organization
was to promote and preserve Mongolian language, history and culture and
to peacefully find ways to obtain greater autonomous rights for ethnic
Mongols in the region as guaranteed by the Chinese constitution. In
December 1995, the authorities denounced the Southern Mongolian
Democratic Alliance as an illegal organization ``engaging in separatist
activities'' and arrested Mr. Hada along with more than 70 members and
demonstrators. In December 1996, Mr. Hada was sentenced to 15 years
jail for ``separating the country and engaging in espionage.''
Currently, Mr. Hada is serving his sentence in Inner Mongolia Jail No.4
at Chifeng City. Hada's wife, Ms. Xinna, and young son Uiles have been
subject to police intimidation and allowed only limited visitation
rights. According to Ms. Xinna, because of the hard labor and constant
torture by the police and inmates, Mr. Hada's health condition is
extremely poor. Ms. Xinna has also reported that Mr. Hada was beaten by
inmates with rubber clubs provided by prison guards and on two
occasions, a gun was held to his head by a prison official who
threatened to kill him. Equally disturbing, in June 2001, the
``Mongolian Study Bookstore'' owned by Ms. Xinna was shut down and
denounced as an ``illegal business'' by the authorities. Mr. Hada's
wife and young son have been denied the right to pursue a livelihood.
Mr. Tegexi was born in Horchin Left Wing Rear Banner and was the
Vice President of the Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance. He was
also arrested in
December 1995. In December 1996, Mr. Tegexi was sentenced to 10 years
jail for ``conspiracy to subvert the government and separate the
country.'' Currently, Mr. Tegexi's prison situation and health
condition and even the prison location are unknown. His family members
and friends have been denied the right to visit him.
The second case concerns the Chinese government's on-going coercive
displacement of Mongolian herding populations. The Inner Mongolian
grasslands were considered to be one of the finest natural grasslands
in the world, perfectly suited for a herding lifestyle. However,
according to the ``Inner Mongolia Daily News,'' 81 percent of the
territory of the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region has turned to
desert. The officials do not state that the decertification is
primarily due to the intensive over-cultivation of the grasslands by
the millions of Han Chinese farmers, as documented by scientific
studies, but instead have made the Mongol herders bear the brunt of the
new policies aimed to end the continuing decertification. The Chinese
Government has recently adopted a new policy targeting Mongolian
herding populations under the pretext of ``giving rest to the grassland
and recovering the eco-system.'' This policy is called ``Environmental
Immigration'' (Sheng Tai Yi Min in Chinese) whose aim seems to be the
relocation of the Mongolian herding populations from their native lands
to overwhelmingly Han Chinese populated agricultural and urban areas.
Over the past 2 years, at least 160,000 ethnic Mongolians have been
forcibly relocated from their pasturelands. We see no mention of Han
Chinese farmers being relocated. The Mongolian herders who have already
lost their homes, livestock and lands have been relocated with little
regard to their social and other needs, nor has appropriate
compensation been made for their losses. These polices are targeted to
the wrong populations and their discriminatory nature are a violation
of human and civil rights.
Members of the Commission, today, Mongols who struggle to maintain
and promote their distinct culture continue to be subjected to
harassment and intimidation. Recent cases of individuals arrested for
distributing 'separatist' literature and another arrest for merely
wanting to celebrate Chinggis Khan's birthday attest to the continuing
pattern of repression. In addition, since 1998, at least 5 expatriate
Inner Mongolians have been refused entry into China and forced to
return directly from the airports in Beijing and Hong Kong, apparently
for being associated in one form or another with individuals the
Chinese government has blacklisted. We also know of 6 cases of
expatriates (5 of them are United States green card holders and 1 of
them is even a U.S. citizen) being detained, questioned and monitored
by the authorities during their visit to Inner Mongolia.
Let me end by noting that recent releases of Tibetan political
prisoners indicate that the United States government's dialog with
China and international pressure in general regarding human rights
issues can have some positive results. I would like to ask the
commission to urge the Chinese government to: (1) Release Mr. Hada and
Mr. Tegexi immediately and restore Ms Xinna's right to open and run her
bookstore, (2) provide adequate compensation and social services to
Mongols displaced by the anti-decertification programs and stop the
upcoming larger displacements, and (3) allow expatriates to return to
visit their friends and relatives. Finally, I request the commission to
hold a special hearing devoted to Inner Mongolian human rights issues.
Thank you!
addendum
Details and References on Prominent Human Rights Violation Cases in
Inner
Mongolia
According to official Chinese data, from 1967-77, 346,000 ethnic
Mongolians were arrested, tortured, maimed, and sent to jail; 16,222
Mongolians were killed during the Central Government's ``Unearthing and
Cleansing'' movement (see attached document ``Chinese Genocide Against
Mongols'').
In 1981, a 3-month long Mongolian student's peaceful protest
against the Central Government's so-called No.28 document authorizing
large-scale Han Chinese immigration into Inner Mongolia was harshly
suppressed (see the attached ``Crackdown in Inner Mongolia'' and
``Continuing Crackdown in Inner Mongolia'' by Human Rights Watch).
In August 1987, two leaders of the student movement, Mr. Baatar and
Mr. Bao Hungguang, were sentenced to 8 years jail for driving across
the border and
attempting to seek political asylum in the Mongolian People's Republic
(see the attached ``Crackdown in Inner Mongolia'' and ``Continuing
Crackdown in Inner Mongolia'' by Human Rights Watch).
In May 1991, Chinese authorities ordered a major crackdown on two
Mongolian organizations, Ih Ju League National Culture Society and the
Bayan Nuur League National Modernization Society. Mr. Huchuntegus and
Mr. Wang Manglai, two leaders of these organizations, and 26 other
members were arrested (see the attached ``Crackdown in Inner Mongolia''
and ``Continuing Crackdown in Inner Mongolia'' by Human Rights Watch).
Later that year, Mr. Huchuntegus was sentenced to 5 years jail and Mr.
Wang Manglai was sentenced to 4 years jail. In May 1991, Mr. Ulan
Shovo, a professor at the University of Inner Mongolia, was arrested
and later tried in secret and sentenced to 5 years jail for discussing
the Inner Mongolian human rights situation with a foreigner (see the
attached ``Crackdown in Inner Mongolia'' and ``Continuing Crackdown in
Inner Mongolia'' by Human Rights Watch).
In 1995, Mr. Hada, President of the Southern Mongolian Democratic
Alliance (SMDA), and Mr. Tegexi, Vice President of the organization,
were arrested by the authorities along with 70 other members. In 1996,
Mr. Hada was sentenced to 15 years jail for ``separating the country
and engaging in espionage,'' and Mr. Tegexi was sentenced to 10 years
jail for ``conspiracy to subvert the government and separate the
country'' (see attached document ``Huhhot Municipal Intermediate
People's Court's verdict on Hada and Tegexi''). More than 10 others
were sent to labor camp for 3-9 months and many student members were
expelled from their schools. According to Mr. Hada's wife Xinna,
because of the hard labor and constant torture by the police and
inmates, Mr. Hada's health condition is extremely poor. In her
communication to the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights,
Ms. Xinna said that Mr. Hada was beaten by inmates with rubber clubs
provided by prison guards in Inner Mongolia No.4 jail at Chifeng City.
On two occasions, a gun was allegedly held to his head by a prison
official who threatened to kill him (see the attached ``The United
Nations report on Hada''). Recently, Ms. Xinna has also revealed that
the prison authorities have constantly demanded Mr. Hada sign his name
on a prepared affidavit stating that Mr. Hada is suffering from serious
heart disease.
In 1999, two writers, Mr. Narandalai and Mr. Chingdalai were
arrested and tortured during 6 months detention. (see the attached
report `` Mr. Hada's 16 years old son arrested in Huhhot City,'' by
SMHRIC, July 6, 2001).
In June 2001, the ``Mongolian Study Bookstore'' and ``Mongolian
Study Bookstore's Reading Club,'' both owned by Ms. Xinna, wife of Mr.
Hada, were shut down and the documents about the reading clubs were
confiscated for ``the activities under the name of social association
without authorization'' (see the attached official document ``The
Document of Huhhot City Associations Registration Administration'' and
``Huhhot City Non-governmental Organization Register Administration
Social Association Legal Status Checking Form''). According to Ms.
Xinna more than 200 students who were members of the reading club were
questioned and intimidated by the police. (personal communication Ms
Xinna to me, July 15, 2001).
In May 2001, Mr. Dalai, known as Bao Xiaojun was detained for
several weeks just for ``trying to celebrate Genghis Khan's Birthday''
in western Inner Mongolia (see the attached report `` An Inner
Mongolian dissident arrested because of the Ginggis Khaan
celebration,'' by SMHRIC May 18, 2001).
In June 2001, Mr. Altanbulag, and Badarangui, two musicians, were
detained for several months for ``distributing separatists' document''
which were in fact some open letters published on the Internet
regarding Inner Mongolian human rights situation (see the attached
report ``Two Inner Mongolian Musicians Arrested,'' by SMHRIC June 8,
2001).
The statement that 81 percent of the whole territory of the Inner
Mongolian Autonomous Region has become eroded and turned to desert is a
quote from ``Inner Mongolia Daily News'' newspaper (July 14, 1995). The
claim that the decertification is due to the intensive over-cultivation
is taken from ``Grasslands and Grasslands Science in Northern China''
(page 70, Washington, D.C. 1992, by the United States Committee on
Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China (CSCPRC)).
Relocation of the Mongolian herding populations from their native
lands to overwhelmingly Han Chinese populated agricultural and urban
areas is documented in the attached document ``Inner Mongolian
Autonomous Region Shiliin-Gol League's (Xi Lin Guo Le Meng) Provisional
Regulation on Implementing the Policies of Strategic Encircling and
Transferring'').
``. . . Over the past 2 years, at least 160,000 ethnic Mongolians
have been forcibly relocated from their pasturelands. We see no mention
of Han Chinese farmers being relocated . . . .'' (see the attached
document `` A Complaint Against Chinese Government's Forced Eviction of
Ethnic Mongolian Herders'' by SMHRIC). ``. . . The Mongolian herders
who have already lost their homes, livestock and lands have been
relocated with little regard to their social and other needs, nor has
appropriate compensation been made for their losses. . . .'' (see the
attached document ``Bagarin Right Banner (``Ba Lin You Qi'' in Chinese)
People's Government Document'' and ``A Complaint By Bayan-Khan
Township's Zuun Khar Mod Gachaa and Khoroochin Gachaa's Herders in
Bagarin Rights Banner).
According to the Chinese official news CCTV (China Central
Television), starting from this year, 125,000 people will be displaced
from their pasture land in eastern Inner Mongolia's Chifeng area. (see
the attached document ``Inner Mongolia's Largest Environmental
Immigration Project Starts'' and its original Chinese version
``????????????????,'' June 5, 2002, by CCTV and An Hui Online on June
4, 2002) In December 2001, Mr. Ulziitoghtokh and Mr. Unag, co-authors
of a book called ``I Am From Khara-Khorin,'' were detained by the
authorities for expressing their pro-
Mongolian national sentiments through the book (see the attached report
``Inner Mongolian Poet and Author Persecuted by the Authorities'' by
Radio Free Asia on December 5, 2002).
July 2002, Ms. Toli, wife of the President of the Inner Mongolian
People's Party, an exile organization based in the United States, was
refused entry at Beijing Airport and deported. Since 1998, at least 7
expatriate Inner Mongolians have been refused to enter China and forced
to return directly from the airports in Beijing and Hong Kong or
detained and questioned after their visits to Inner Mongolia because of
their personal relationships with some members of Inner Mongolian exile
organizations (see the report ``Mongolian dissident's wife deported
from Beijing'' and ``Today's special report'' by Radio Free Asia on
July 25, 2002); among these 7 Inner Mongolians, 1 is a permanent
resident of Germany, 5 are United States green card holders and 1 of
them is a U.S. citizen.
______
Prepared Statement of Christine Shea
august 5, 2002
Amnesty International Group 284 has been working on the case of an
Inner Mongolian citizen named Tegexi since 1997. Tegexi is 36 years old
and has a wife and son. Prior to his arrest, he was employed at the
Inner Mongolian Bureau of Foreign Affairs. He has a Master's Degree in
Mongolian.
Tegexi was arrested on December 12, 1995. His arrest came as a
result of his involvement with an organization called the Southern
Mongolian Democratic Alliance. The group's aims were to promote human
rights, Mongolian culture, and a high degree of autonomy for China's
minority nationalities. This autonomy is guaranteed in the constitution
of the People's Republic of China.
According to reports, an internal document circulated by the
Chinese Communist Party identified Tegexi and other alleged members of
the SMDA as ``nationalist separatists'' and called the SMDA a
``counter-revolutionary organization that is carrying out activities
aimed at splitting the nation.'' A number of others were arrested at
about the same time as Tegexi, and protest demonstrations were held at
the Mongolian Language College following these arrests. Eventually, all
of those detained were released, with the exception of Tegexi and Hada,
who was the proprietor of a local bookstore.
On March 9, 1996, Tegexi and Hada were formally arrested and
charged with ``conspiring to overthrow the government'' and
``espionage.'' They were brought to trial and sentenced on December 9,
1996. Tegexi was sentenced to 10 years in prison and Hada to 15 years
imprisonment.
Amnesty International considers Tegexi to be a prisoner of
conscience, detained solely because of the peaceful exercise of his
right to freedom of expression and association. He has not used or
advocated violence. Following Tegexi's arrest and sentencing, Amnesty
International researchers investigated his case. Once they had
determined that he was a victim of human rights abuses and that he had
not used or advocated violence, local groups were asked to ``adopt''
his case. Group 284 agreed to work on Tegexi's behalf. Local groups in
the Netherlands, Germany, and Portugal have also adopted Tegexi's case.
As an Amnesty International group, our concern is not based on
Tegexi's beliefs or political affiliation. We believe that Tegexi, like
everyone else, has the right to peacefully express his beliefs and to
associate with others who share his beliefs. The primary tool that we
use in advocating for Tegexi is the personal letter. Our group has
written hundreds of letters to various government officials since 1997.
Each letter states that Tegexi is imprisoned for the peaceful exercise
of his basic human rights and asks that he be released from prison
immediately and unconditionally. Although each letter is unique, these
two core ideas are always included.
Our work on Tegexi's behalf has several facets. During our monthly
meeting, each member of the group writes at least one letter on
Tegexi's behalf. A typical meeting may be attended by between five and
ten people. The group's quarterly newsletter also includes information
on Tegexi's situation and readers are asked to write a
letter. The mailing list includes approximately 100 people. Finally,
the group occasionally sponsors special events, such as an annual
Write-a-Thon. Tegexi's case is included in letter writing actions
during these events also.
The case coordinator is the one who decides how letter writing will
be targeted. Amnesty International provides case coordinators with a
support network of country experts. In addition, e-mail information and
occasional updates from the London office help the coordinator to
develop a strategy for each case. In our work on Tegexi's case, we have
written to both local and national Chinese government officials. We
have also written to our elected representatives and officials at the
United States Department of State.
Letter writing to Chinese government officials is coordinated, so
that one or two officials are targeted each month. On the national
level, we have written to President Jiang Zemin on several occasions.
We have also written to other national officials such as the Vice
President, the Premier, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the
Minister of Justice. If possible, copies of letters are sent to the
Chinese Ambassador in Washington, DC, and we have written directly to
the Ambassador.
On the local level we have sent letters to the Chairwoman of the
Government of the Inner Mongolian Region, the Secretary of the Party
Committee in Inner Mongolia, and the Chief Procurator of the Inner
Mongolian Region. In addition, we've written to prison officials, such
as the Director of the Regional Bureau of the Reform-Through-Labor
Administration, and the directors of the prisons where Tegexi has been
detained.
Unfortunately, we have never received a reply to any of our letters
to Chinese officials. However, prisoners who have been released from
Chinese prisons have reported that letters to officials did seem to
have an impact. One former prisoner, Wei Jingsheng, said that he
believed that the letters sent by Amnesty International groups affected
his treatment in prison. He also said that although he never saw these
letters, he did learn of their existence and that ``the mental
inspiration this gave me greatly surpassed any small improvement in my
living conditions.''
Another facet of our work on Tegexi's behalf has involved requests
for assistance from United States government officials and elected
representatives. Our group sent letters and e-mails to Presidents
Clinton and Bush concerning Tegexi. These letters preceded Presidential
visits to China. We also wrote to Secretary of State Albright before
she traveled to China. In each of these letters, we requested that
Tegexi's case be brought up during discussions with Chinese officials.
We have received replies from the White House and from the State
Department. In February 2001, Christopher Sibilla, from State
Department Office of Bilateral Affairs, wrote that they ``have been
following closely the case of Tegexi,'' and that the State Department
``views this case as a source of continuing concern.'' However, we do
not know if President Clinton, President Bush, or Secretary Albright
discussed Tegexi's case with Chinese officials.
Group 284 also wrote to our elected representatives asking them to
adopt Tegexi and write letters on his behalf. We have written to
Senators Paul Sarbanes and Barbara Mikulski, and Representatives Wayne
Gilchrest and Steny Hoyer. We
received replies from the offices of the elected officials, and
although they were sympathetic to Tegexi's case, none were willing to
write letters on his behalf. Senator Sarbanes forwarded our letter to
the State Department, as did Senator Mikulski. Senator Mikulski also
sent a copy of our letter to the Chinese Ambassador.
During the past year, we have sent occasional letters and cards to
Tegexi in prison. We have never received a reply and we do not know if
he receives the letters. We send simple messages of hope and support.
Our hope is that, even if the letters are not delivered to Tegexi, they
will let prison officials know that he has not been forgotten.
This message, that Tegexi has not been forgotten, is the essence of
our work. Despite the unresponsiveness of Chinese officials, Group 284
has continued to write to them consistently for the past 5 years. We
hope that our work will help Tegexi to be released, but we also hope
that the consistent pressure will prevent others from suffering as
Tegexi has suffered.
______
Prepared Statement of Sokrat Saydahmat
august 5, 2002
As the representative of the Uyghur American Association, I am here
to raise two troubling issues that indicate trends away from civil
society and toward the cultural genocide of the people of East
Turkistan, a.k.a. Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. Despite the
constitution of the Peoples Republic of China and laws that are
supposed to guarantee and protect the non-Chinese peoples, new
regulations have been enacted that ignore their rights and place the
Uyghur people on a path to
oblivion.
The first regulation of concern is the recent change to Xinjiang
University that prohibits the Uyghur language in the classroom.
Identified as needed for improving the standard of education, the
Chinese government has extinguished the source of higher education the
language of a civilization that stretches back to the 9th century. The
Uyghur language and script have been used for over a thousand years and
has documented religious texts on Buddhism, Christianity and Islam and
the rich culture of Central Asian Turkic peoples. For the Chinese
government to ban higher level instruction and thought is insulting to
the Uyghur people on the grounds of 'improving education.' Such a
policy change should be seen for the malevolent act it represents, the
beginning of the purposeful destruction of Uyghur language and culture.
The second policy maintains the same goal, banning and burning
Uyghur language books that disagree with today's Chinese government
opinion. A total of 330 titles have been deemed problematic and
witnesses in Kashgar have watched while thousands of literary and
scientific works were burned this past June (2002). These books have
such titles as, ``Ancient Uyghur Craftsmanship,'' and ``A Brief History
of the Huns and Ancient Literature.'' Although the Chinese government
once approved of the publication of these works, they are now deemed
too controversial to read. We believe that the change in policy
represents another facet of the purposeful destruction of Uyghur
language and culture. It should also be noted that another reason given
by the Chinese government authorities for ending Uyghur language
instruction in Xinjiang University was a supposed lack of textbooks.
How can someone ban and publicly burn books on one hand while declaring
the cessation of Uyghur language instruction based on the lack of
books?
We have raised concrete examples reported in the media that
demonstrate that the Chinese government violates human and civil rights
guaranteed under various United Nation instruments as well as the laws
of the Peoples Republic of China. We would ask for an open, unfettered
referendum to determine the future of the people of East Turkistan, by
the people of East Turkistan.
The Uyghur people, language and culture are under attack and the
Uyghur people must watch helplessly and alone as the Chinese government
authorities continues the devastation.
We implore the United States government to put teeth into the
United Nation Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. Please staff and
fund the effort to raise issues at least as much as the Chinese
government spends to table it.
Twelve million Uyghur people need a friend. We also implore the
United States government to create and fund a position of Special
Coordinator for Human Rights in East Turkistan, much as been created to
assist the Tibetan people.
There are many problems that need to be solved in East Turkistan,
but we hope that the visibility produced by these two suggestions will
cause more of the problems to be solved and for conditions to improve
for our people.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.
______
Prepared Statement of Derek Wong
august 5, 2002
Thank you for the opportunity to speak at this open forum. My name
is Derek Wong, and I am a student at the University of Pennsylvania. I
speak today not as an expert on China or U.S.-China relations, but as a
Chinese-American who has had first-hand experience with the Chinese
educational system. The purpose of my presentation is to advocate
further educational and academic exchanges between the two countries,
and to discuss the ways in which these exchanges can contribute to the
promotion of human rights and the rule of law in China.
During the fall of 2001, I studied for a semester at the
prestigious Tsinghua University in Beijing. My program was unique in
that I was able to enroll in classes with Chinese students, as opposed
to the majority of study-abroad programs in China, which limit foreign
students to language classes and ``island programs,'' often taught in
English. While I took a variety of humanities courses in history,
international relations, law, and moral ideologies, the underlying
premise of Marxism was evident throughout each of the courses, although
in varying degree.
What soon became apparent to me was the lack of understanding some
Chinese students and professors have of the United States. To be fair,
the same could be said of their American counterparts. Some of my
Chinese professors had studied or taught in the United States, and it
was evident in their teaching. Other professors lectured with an
obvious bias against the United States and Western society in general--
it was clear that they had little, and many times an incorrect,
understanding of our country.
In an informal poll I conducted of students at three top
universities in Beijing, the majority of respondents said they based
their opinions of the United States primarily on reports from the
Chinese news media. Most of the students admired American affluence and
lifestyle, and indicated that given the opportunity they would want to
study in the United States Yet they were also highly critical of
President George W. Bush and his policies toward China and Taiwan,
accusing the U.S. Government of being hegemonic and overly aggressive
in its foreign policy.
This dualistic attitude was illustrated in the Chinese reaction to
the events of September 11th. Immediately after the attacks, there was
an air of shock, as well as regret for those who died in Washington and
New York, some of whom were Chinese citizens. Chinese President Jiang
Zemin was one of the first world leaders to offer his condolences and
condemn the terrorist attacks. Yet in the days and weeks that followed,
each action by the Bush administration was criticized by my professors
and fellow classmates--not to mention the media--as a subtle mistrust
of the United States became evident. During one lecture, a number of
students applauded as a photograph was shown of a plane crashing into
one of the twin towers. I was stunned as I realized that the sentiment
among some students was that the United States got what it deserved.
With China's accession to the World Trade Organization, change is
on the horizon. Use of the English language in all parts of society is
becoming increasingly important. Additionally, Beijingers are eager to
learn simple English phrases in anticipation of the 2008 Summer Olympic
Games. Students at top universities in China are required to study
English or another foreign language, a requirement which is spreading
to secondary, and even some primary schools. Many wealthier Chinese
families hire English tutors for their children, or enroll them in
language learning centers.
The increasing globalization of China presents a golden opportunity
for the United States to play an active part in promoting human rights
and the rule of law in China. Many Americans possess skills and
expertise in law, language training, and other areas that are in high
demand in China. When Chinese students and academics come into contact
with their American counterparts, there is an exchange of information,
ideas, and beliefs. The result of these exchanges was evident by
listening to the varying lectures of Chinese Professors who had lived
in the United States compared to those who had not. During my semester
in China, I had a number of candid discussions with classmates about
Sino-American relations and
so-called ``Western values.'' These conversations were mutually
beneficial in helping us gain an understanding of each other's culture.
I got the sense that some of my classmates did not give into the
Marxist ideals that are the basis for education in China, and had an
interest in learning about other ideologies, including Western systems
of democracy.
Several faith-based organizations are already taking advantage of
China's need for English language instructors. Although they do not use
religious or political materials in their classrooms, the personal
relationships they forge with students are every bit as effective in
promoting values we as Americans hold dear. While U.S. embassies and
consulates in China issue thousands of student visas each year, many
more are turned down for various reasons. Clearly we cannot accept all
Chinese students who wish to study in the United States, but we can
bring American education to China, and with it, our understanding of
human rights, liberties, and freedoms. One such example is the Hopkins-
Nanjing Center for Chinese American Studies, which is jointly
administered by Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
and Nanjing University. It offers classes in Chinese for international
students, and in English for Chinese students in a variety of social
sciences, such a history, economics and Sino-American relations.
Additionally, American students are typically paired with a Chinese
roommate, allowing for daily
exchange of ideas and opinions between these students.
The United States can also help advance the rule of law in China by
contributing to WTO-related legal training. Christian Murck of the
American Chamber of Commerce in China testified before this Commission
earlier in the year, and said, ``the American government, though it
takes an active public role of advocating improvements in the rule of
law in China, has been conspicuous by its absence.'' He called our
government's record ``meager . . . compared with that of the European
Union, individual European countries and American private sector
donors.'' Increased assistance on our part would also be seen as a sign
that the United States welcomes China's increased role in the
international community.
We need to send more students, teachers, academics, and legal
experts to China if we are to understand the complexity of its culture,
as well as the implications for future bilateral ties. A dramatic
increase in the availability of federally funded programs or grants
would certainly provide additional incentive for such exchanges. I urge
this Commission to promote programs that encourage academic interaction
between the United States and China, not only for the benefit of the
1.3 billion
people in China, but also for students like me, who aspire to be
shapers of Sino-American relations.
Prepared Statement of Shiyu Zhou
august 5, 2002
Human Rights and Rule of Law in China . . . or Lack Thereof
Mr. Chairman, members of this Commission, ladies and gentlemen:
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on the subject of
human rights and rule of law in the People's Republic of China.
Looking back at the 50 year history of communist China, what we see
is pitifully not a history of rule of law, but a history of rule of
man, and one that neglects human rights. From the Cultural Revolution
of the 1960s and 1970s, to the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, to
the brutal suppression of Falun Gong and other faith groups today, one
traces a bloody history in which the ruling, communist regime has
carried out a program of State terrorism against its own culture and
citizens.
In what follows, I would like to briefly discuss the current State
of human rights and the rule of law in China from three different
perspectives. I will use the ongoing persecution of Falun Gong as an
illustration. There are, of course, other examples of persecution
campaigns in China at present, including the official suppression of
Tibetan Buddhists and Christian ``house churches.'' The government's
campaign against Falun Gong, though, distinguishes itself by virtue of
the sheer number of persons affected and the intensity of the campaign.
the first perspective: rule of outlaw
The first perspective to consider is that the communist authorities
in Beijing flatly ignore and violate existing laws in order to deprive
Falun Gong practitioners and other Chinese citizens of their human
rights.
In the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, Articles 33
through 50 explicitly State the ``fundamental rights'' of Chinese
citizens, which include freedom of speech, assembly, association, and
religious belief. However, numerous reports from human rights groups
around the world and international media reveal exactly the opposite.
Most notably, in the government's campaign against Falun Gong, the
rights of adherents which are supposedly set forth in every single one
of these Articles have been violated, and in many cases violated
flagrantly. Perpetrators of these abuses, such as police and prison
wardens, have been promoted for their brutality; outside investigations
are blocked; and authorities insist across the board that no
transgressions have occurred.
The primary mechanism used by Jiang Zemin to persecute Falun Gong
is a notorious and unconstitutional organization called the ``6-10
Office,'' which spans multiple levels of government, having absolute
power over each level of administration in the Party as well as over
the political and judiciary branches. Since its establishment in June
1999, the 6-10 Office has become nothing short of China's modern day
equivalent to the Gestapo, orchestrating a 3-year long, horrific
persecution against Falun Gong and its practitioners that has resulted
in hundreds of thousands of cases of arbitrary detention, false
imprisonment, defamation, kidnapping, torture, sexual and psychiatric
abuse, disappearance, and murder.
But the terror of the 6-10 Office is experienced not only by
practitioners of the Falun Gong, but by virtually the entire population
of China. The office incites hatred against Falun Gong through imposing
direct pressure on even those who have no connection to Falun Gong.
Examples of this include, in many regions, children in grade school
being forced to sign statements denouncing Falun Gong at the threat of
expulsion; adults being forced to sign similar statements or lose their
jobs or pensions; and police, too, being threatened with loss of
salary, residential privileges, or even employment should they not
carry out the orders of the 6-10 Office; neighbors and co-workers are
forced, via threat, to monitor those around them who might practice
Falun Gong and report on them. The constitutional rights of virtually
everyone in Chinese society have been violated by this government-
sanctioned and official terrorist organization.
the second perspective: rule of bogus law
The second perspective is that of arbitrarily contrived laws. The
communist authorities in Beijing can simply make up so-called ``laws''
to justify their unconstitutional human rights abuses where there is
no, and should never be any, justification. The law is re-engineered to
suit the political needs of the day.
In January of 2002, a number of media reported the story of a Hong
Kong businessman who was sentenced to 2 years in prison in China for
smuggling thousands of Bibles into Mainland China. The charge leveled
against him was that he violated a so-called ``anti-cult'' law; Chinese
authorities considered the Bibles he smuggled in ``cult materials.'' So
where did this ``anti-cult'' law come from? It was rushed through the
Chinese legislature on October 30, 1999, 5 days after president Jiang
Zemin was quoted in a French newspaper labeling Falun Gong a ``cult,''
and 3 months after the government launched its suppression of Falun
Gong. The ``law'' was made specifically to aid the persecution of Falun
Gong at that time. Chinese authorities applied this so-called law
retroactively to justify and heighten their violent persecution of
Falun Gong. Sadly, this ``law'' was later used to persecute Christian
``house churches'' and other faith groups.
Laws should serve the purpose of protecting justice and freedom.
But laws in Jiang Zemin's hands only become a suppressive tool for
maintaining political power.
the third perspective: rule by fiat
It is nothing new that Mainland authorities would manufacture bogus
so-called ``laws'' to justify harsh, repressive political measures, or
even to apply such laws retroactively to punish persons and groups for
past actions and affiliations. But what is new is the appearance of
such tactics in Hong Kong, a region that Beijing promised would retain
its freewheeling, open way of life under a principle of ``one country,
two systems'' for at least 50 years; that is, 50 years from the time it
first became a part of the PRC in 1997.
Now after only 5 years, this promise is waning, or even crumbling,
at an alarming pace.
The past year has seen constant debate among Hong Kong's ruling
elite, led by Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, over the adoption of so-
called ``anti-cult'' and ``anti-subversion'' laws. These laws, analysts
and observers note, would give legal grounds for Hong Kong to ban and
suppress religious and other groups deemed unfavorable by Beijing
authorities, the most notable example being the Falun Gong.
As we speak, a second matter in Hong Kong is of perhaps even
greater immediate concern. Sixteen practitioners of the Falun Gong were
recently put through a show-trial, officially labeled a ``criminal
trial,'' for allegedly disrupting social order this past March when
they supposedly ``obstructed the sidewalk'' by meditating and are
accused of ``attacking the police.'' The location was outside the
Chinese (that is, PRC) Liaison Office of Hong Kong. Of the 16, fully 4
are Swiss nationals. The group was forcefully arrested without any
warrant by Hong Kong police. However, eyewitness reports and video
documentation reveal that it was actually the police who obstructed the
sidewalk and attacked persons. The footage, which is available online,
shows the peaceful meditators in two short, orderly rows, taking up a
seven-square-meter spot in a 140-square-meter open area, and then being
overwhelmed by throngs of police, probably several dozen, and violently
choked, gouged in the eyes, and jabbed in their pressure points as they
are removed to police vans.
What is significant is that the arrests and removal took place
reportedly under pressure from the Liaison Office; the office was irate
that Hong Kong citizens and foreign nationals would demonstrate outside
its premises against human rights abuses in the PRC; irate, that is,
that they would dare use Hong Kong's constitutionally enshrined
freedoms of assembly and speech to embarrass the ruling Beijing regime.
The trial ended on August 15, 2002, with all 16 Falun Gong
practitioners being ``convicted'' and given fines. Many analysts agreed
that the trial was partial, politically motivated, and a foregone
conclusion. The defendants are now in the process of filing an appeal
against the conviction.
The significance of this show trial cannot be understated. CNN
recently reported that the trial has ``raised concerns that the 'one
country, two systems' policy is eroding, and that Hong Kong is
beginning to yield to pressures from the mainland.'' What astute
observers realize is that pressure from Jiang Zemin to restrict Falun
Gong in Hong Kong is jeopardizing a once-proud legacy of freedoms and
just legal system. The trial was very much a litmus test, a touchstone,
if you will, for democracy and rule of law in Hong Kong. The very
existence of this trial marks the negation of rule of law in the Hong
Kong SAR, and the beginning of the end. Legal analysts say that the
trial never should have happened to begin with. It marks the arrival of
``rule of Jiang'' and the departure of rule of law. This is something
Hong Kong cannot afford, and this is something the free world and
America cannot afford.
I would like to suggest that this situation be taken much more
seriously. We have already seen in the past year and a half on two
occasions scores of Americans and citizens of other nations being
barred from entering Hong Kong due to their beliefs (they practiced
Falun Gong); we learned, to our appall, that they were on a blacklist,
presumably assembled by the PRC. Now we see a show trial being used to
discredit a peaceful group of meditators and, second, to justify harsh,
repressive legislation that is in the works and that will appease Jiang
and the Beijing authorities. This is rule by fiat, or rule by Jiang,
manifesting in Hong Kong.
concluding remarks
The fundamental problem is not whether the P.R.C. has ``law'' or
``rule of law.'' It does have law, only ruler Jiang Zemin is ``the
law'' in China, and the communist dictatorship is the ``rule of law.''
The dictatorship is more than willing to override existing statutes, or
even to manufacture new so-called ``laws'' as fitting, to serve its
political purposes or maintain power. A crude veneer of ``law'' is used
to justify and veil what is by any account illegal and criminal
behavior. And now, as we see in the case of Hong Kong and other
nations, such as Iceland, most recently, Jiang and his leadership can
even pressure governments and peoples of democratic societies to
compromise their democratic values, institutions, and practices. This
pressure has even been felt in the United States, as described in U.S.
House Concurrent Resolution 188, passed just a few weeks ago by
unanimous vote; the resolution goes beyond condemning the Jiang Zemin
regime's persecution of Falun Gong in China to warning the regime
against its attempts to bring its hate campaign to the U.S., where
American citizens and local government officials who support or
practice Falun Gong have been targeted by threat, harassment, and even
violence.
The fundamental problem is that China's communist regime is a
dictatorial State that is committed to the suppression of freedom of
belief; the suppression of freedom of the press; and the suppression of
legal rights, such as due process; and it makes liberal use of forceful
indoctrination, violence and fear in order to terrorize and dominate
ordinary citizens. These traits, as you will recognize, are precisely
those that identify a terrorist State as such.
I would like to suggest, in closing, that this fundamental problem
of lawlessness and State terrorism in the P.R.C. must assume much
greater importance for U.S. policymakers. To not do so, to overlook the
problematic nature and ruling of the Beijing regime, is to build Sino-
U.S. relations on shaky, faulty grounds. There are many things we can
turn a blind eye to, but wishful thinking cannot be expected to bring
about any real resolution or improvements on this front. Instead, it
only allows the problem to fester, and worse yet, with our silence we
embolden that very same leadership; silence, to the Jiang Zemin regime,
is acquiescence. This is a grave mistake, I believe. We need look no
further than the lessons of 9-11 to realize what evil can brew when it
is left unchecked or overlooked.
After all, when a leader attacks his own citizens who are peaceful,
non-violent, and good people, what will that leader do on the world
stage? Could we possibly expect him to have any greater regard for the
lives of good citizens in other nations?
Thank you for your attention.
Submission for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Raj Purohit,
the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights
august 5, 2002
introduction
The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (LCHR) is an independent
non-governmental human rights organization. Our work is focused on
holding governments
accountable to the international standards of human rights and on
developing stronger models of corporate accountability in the global
market place.
The Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) is charged
with a mandate to monitor human rights and the development of the rule
of law in China, and to submit an annual report to the President and
the Congress. As the Commission prepares to write its first annual
report, the Lawyers Committee urges that the Commission maintain a
strong focus on its human rights agenda, and, in particular, on the
implications of economic liberalization and WTO membership for Chinese
workers. LCHR urges the Commission to use its voice to influence
Congress and the Administration to put concern for Chinese workers hurt
by the liberalization of China's economic and trade policies at the
forefront of the United States' trade relationship with China.
impact of economic and trade liberalization on chinese workers
Chinese workers protesting labor conditions, corrupt management of
wages and pension plans, and the loss of thousands of State enterprise
jobs, are frequently detained and their cause ignored by the Chinese
government. The well-known case of the Daqing oil workers at the
Liaoyang Ferroalloy Factory, where protest leaders were arrested, is
only one example of the Chinese government's repressive response to
workers' allegations of management corruption in private companies or
in state-run enterprises.\1\ In fact, Amnesty International noted
recently that many worker protests are unreported by local governments
attempting to hide evidence of unrest and instability.\2\ According to
a Lawyers Committee interview with Han Dongfang, a Chinese labor
advocate, the frustration of workers with the dire employment
conditions in China is rapidly reaching a boiling point:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Chinese Labour Bulletin, Updates on Workers' Protests in
Liaoyang and Daqing, July 25, 2002 at http://iso.china-labour.org.hk/
iso/news--item.adp?news--id=2038; Chinese Labour Bulletin, 2000 Brick
and Tile Workers Take Over Factory for Pension Benefits in Inner
Mongolia, July 19, 2002 at http://iso.china-labour.org.hk/iso/news--
item.adp?news--id=2006.
\2\ Amnesty International, Workers want to eat--workers want a job,
April 30, 2002 at http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/
ASA170222002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES/CHINA.
``The discontent I hear in the workers' voices is like a
ticking time bomb. The first time I heard someone say,
``There's no way out, this country needs an all-or-nothing
revolution,'' I felt excited. But Chinese workers need to be
aware of the implications of such a revolution. Each time I
hear this kind of talk, I ask people--the price of revolution
is high, but who is going to pay most dearly for it? Will it be
the rich officials who can fly out of the country as soon as
they feel the need to run? Or will it be the hard-up workers?''
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Interview with Han
Dongfang, Chinese Labor Advocate, at http://www.lchr.org/workers--
rights/wr--china/wr--china--1.htm (last visited July 30, 2002).
Although workers have attempted to address their complaints through
legal channels, there are few options available in China's legal
system. A recent New York Times article described how Chinese workers
sued their employer, the Shenzhen Jianye Construction Company, for lost
pension plans. Eight percent of workers' salaries were automatically
deducted from each paycheck for the plan, but when retiring workers
attempted to claim their pensions, they were informed the money was not
available. The Shenzhen workers' lawsuit in the Communist Party-
controlled judicial system failed to remedy the construction company's
abuses of the pension scheme, further frustrating workers and
demonstrating the serious limitations of legal remedies for China's
workers.\4\ Despite a revised trade union law, China's workers still
lack the right to organize independent trade unions, cannot strike to
protest working conditions, and cannot vote out local officials that
support private or government-owned businesses.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Philip Pan, Chinese workers' rights stop at courtroom door, New
York Times, June 28, 2002, at A01.
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reality of China's accession to the WTO involves far more than
expanding access to huge, untapped markets. China is the world's
leading exporter of apparel and textiles, and the majority of global
apparel production will likely move to China in the near future. The
expiration of export-regulating quota agreements in 2005 will further
this growth.\6\ However, the benefits of economic liberalization are
not realized by many of China's workers, who suffer under working
conditions that include forced labor, child labor, excessive overtime,
substandard wages, and exposure to hazardous substances. China has
labor laws governing these conditions, but those laws are rarely
enforced and workers lack legal channels through which they can reform
working conditions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Workers Rights in China, at
http://www.lchr.org/workers--rights/wr--china/wr--china.htm (last
visited July 30, 2002).
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although China has only ratified two of the International Labor
Organization's fundamental conventions,\8\ it has made significant
international commitments to the rights of its workers. China's
membership in the ILO binds it to the Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work\9\ and commits China to respect freedom
of association, the right to collective bargaining, and the elimination
of forced labor, child labor, and employment discrimination.\10\
Additionally, the election of China's All-China Federation of Trade
Unions (ACFTU) to the Governing Body of the ILO in June 2002\11\ offers
an opportunity for the international community--including the United
States--to remind China of its international obligations toward workers
rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ C. 100, Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 and C. 138, Minimum
Age Convention, 1973 (See International Labor Organization,
Ratification of the ILO Fundamental Conventions, at http://
webfusion.ilo.org/public/db/standards/normes/appl/appl-
ratif8conv.cfm?Lang=EN.)
\9\ International Labor Organization, Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work, available at http://www.ilo.org/public/
english/standards/decl/declaration/text/.
\10\ Id.
\11\ International Labor Organization, Governing Body 284th
Session, June 2002, at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/
relm/gb/docs/gb284/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
recommendations
The Lawyers Committee recommends that the Commission focus on
workers rights in its evaluation of China's WTO membership and the
liberalization of China's markets. The Commission should consider the
Ambassadorial role of American companies in China and work to ensure
that those companies respect the letter of China's labor laws when
producing goods in China. Providing humane working
conditions and basic human freedoms for Chinese workers is not only
guaranteed by international law; it is also a priority for American
consumers and investors, who are increasingly concerned with how their
goods are produced.\12\ Although ensuring equitable trade access for
American companies to China's vast markets is of obvious importance,
especially in a time of recession, in its first annual report the
Commission should prioritize the preservation of workers rights in
China's trade liberalization efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Respondents said they would be more likely to invest in a
company that invested in companies that didn't harm the environment (70
percent), had a good record of hiring and promoting women (63 percent)
and minorities (62 percent), and are not involved in sweatshop labor
practices(57 percent).'' (See Yankelovich Partners, 1999 study, at
Calvert Group, Ltd. website, ``Know What You Own''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-