SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
27–067PDF
2006
HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA: IMPROVING OR DETERIORATING CONDITIONS?
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
APRIL 19, 2006
Serial No. 109–169
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey,
Vice Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
RON PAUL, Texas
DARRELL ISSA, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
CONNIE MACK, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
MICHAEL McCAUL, Texas
TED POE, Texas
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM SMITH, Washington
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel
ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California,
Vice Chairman
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DIANE E. WATSON, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
MARY M. NOONAN, Subcommittee Staff Director
GREG SIMPKINS, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member
NOELLE LUSANE, Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHERI A. RICKERT, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member and Counsel
LINDSEY M. PLUMLEY, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
WITNESSES
Mr. Ethan Gutmann, Author, ''Losing the New China: a Story of American Commerce, Desire and Betrayal''
Ms. Rebiya Kadeer, Human Rights Advocate, former political prisoner
Mr. Joseph Kung, Director, Cardinal Kung Foundation
Ms. Thea Lee, Director of Public Policy, AFL–CIO
Steven Mosher, Ph.D., President, Population Research Institute
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Harry Wu, Executive Director, Laogai Research Foundation
Mr. Lu Decheng, 1989 Tiananmen Square protester
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations: Prepared statement
Mr. Ethan Gutmann: Prepared statement
Ms. Rebiya Kadeer: Prepared statement
Mr. Joseph Kung: Prepared statement
Ms. Thea Lee: Prepared statement
Steven Mosher, Ph.D.: Prepared statement
Mr. Harry Wu: Prepared statement
Mr. Lu Decheng: Prepared statement
APPENDIX
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Reporters Without Borders: Staff briefing on ''The Human Rights Situation in China: An Update''
HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA: IMPROVING OR DETERIORATING CONDITIONS?
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights
and International Operations,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee hearing will come to order. And I want to wish everybody a very good morning.
Today's hearing of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Human Rights and International Operations will examine the Chinese human rights record, especially such areas as China's censorship of the Internet, implementation of the right of Chinese citizens to worship freely, the protection of minority rights, compliance with international labor standards, China's barbaric practice of organ harvesting, and the destructive effects on Chinese society—especially on women—of its government's coercive one-child-per-couple policy.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the years, I have held more than 25 hearings on human rights abuses in China. While China's economy has improved somewhat, the human rights situation remains abysmal. So-called economic reform has utterly failed to result in the protection of freedom of speech, expression, or assembly.
This week's visit of President Hu Jintao of China to the United States provides the United States Congress, and the people, an opportunity to bring to the attention of United States policymakers, and the world community, the terrible human rights situation that exists in China today.
It will also help provide the vital context for any relationship that we would have with China.
And it will, I hope, convey our unshakeable resolve and commitment to press Beijing for serious, measurable, and durable reform. The people of China deserve no less. It is our moral duty to stand with the oppressed, not the oppressor.
The State Department human rights reports and the consistent reporting from very reputable NGOs indicate that Chinese Government's repression of its citizens continues unabated. In fact, the current Chinese regime is one of the very worst violators of human rights in the entire world and continues to commit egregious crimes against its own citizens every single day.
At a rough count, the most recent State Department human rights report for China ran about 45,000 words. Before it even get down to the details, the report lists 22 major human rights problems. Few, if any, nations can begin to match this unseemly record from the systematic denial of political freedom, to the use of torture, to interference in the most private matters of family and conscience.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I note, parenthetically, that China continues to be regarded by the U.S. State Department as a country of particular concern, a CPC country, joining only a handful of countries around the world that persecutes people of faith. In China, those who want to practice Falun Gong, a spiritual exercise, are so roughly treated that China has been designated as a CPC country, and that is a very dubious distinction indeed.
The State Department report, and I will only list a couple of these and put the report in the record, talks about the denial of the right to change the government, a right that every democracy enjoys. If we don't like what the Republicans or Democrats are doing, elections can hold the key for reform or change in any given election. And so it is with democracies all over the word. You can't change the Government of China.
Physical abuse resulting in deaths in custody, torture and coerced confessions of prisoners, again, these are State Department concerns expressed in their report along with politically-controlled judiciary, the house arrests, nonapproved surveillance, and detention of the dissidents.
The use of coercive birth limitation policies, in some cases, result in forced abortions and sterilizations. Increased restrictions of freedom of press. And it goes on and on and on.
The restrictions on labor rights, including the freedom of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, worker health and safety, and forced labor, including prison labor. Beijing as we know, ladies and gentlemen, has increasingly viewed the information available on the Internet as a potential threat to the party's ability to control the population and monopolize political power.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It has turned China into one of the most Internet restrictive countries in the world. It is important to note that the freedoms that we enjoy in America, allow individuals to publish information and news on the Web unfiltered.
Those freedoms do not exist in China. Individuals who attempt to speak freely are imprisoned and even tortured. At the very least, United States corporations should not be aiding and abetting that process.
Yet, at a February hearing I chaired on the Internet in China, we learned in greater and disturbing detail how some of the biggest corporations in America have partnered with the much-hated Chinese secret police to find, apprehend, convict, and jail pro-democracy advocates.
Yahoo! told us at the hearing how profoundly they regret sending Shi Tao to prison for 10 years. But they couldn't tell us, and didn't seem to want to know, how many others were condemned to jail and torture because of Yahoo!'s complicity with the secret police. When I asked under what terms and conditions, court order, police demand, fishing trips, Yahoo! surrendered emails and address files, Yahoo! told us they couldn't reveal that information to us because it would break Chinese law.
Google, for its part, created an exclusively Chinese search engine that only Joseph Goebbels would love. Type in any number of vile words like human rights, Tiananmen Square or Falun Gong, and you will get rerouted to government propaganda, much of it heavily anti-American and anti-George Bush and filled with hate, especially for the Falun Gong.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
How did Google respond to our deep concern about their enabling a dictatorship to expand its hate message? According to the New York Times report in late March, they hired big-time Washington lobbying firms like Podesta-Mattoon and DCI group to put a good face on it all and presumably to kill my pending legislation, the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006.
Amazingly, Cisco showed no sellers remorse whatsoever when its technology, especially Policenet—a tool for good in the hands of honest cops and legitimate law enforcement, but a tool of repression in the hands of Chinese police—has now effectively linked and exponentially expanded the capabilities of the Chinese police and the Chinese military as well.
Microsoft also centers and shuts down blogs that Big Brother objects to. You can be sure that no serious discussion on human rights was on the agenda when President Hu visited with Bill Gates at Microsoft.
China's continued repression of religion is among the most despotic in the world. In February, the BBC reported that China has warned Hong Kong's newly appointed cardinal, Joseph Zen, a well-known critic of China's suppression of religious freedoms, to remain quiet on political issues. Citizens practicing a faith other than officially sanctioned religions are often subjected to torture and imprisonment and death, at which time prisoner organs are frequently harvested to meet demand.
Christians, Tibetan Buddhists and Muslim Uighurs are all being persecuted for their faith. Today, numerous underground Roman Catholic priests and bishops and protestant pastors languish in the infamous Chinese concentration camps, known as the Laogai, for simply proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the early 1990s, I met with Bishop Su of Baoding, a gentle and kind man that celebrated mass for our small delegation. And Joseph Kung remembers and knows this case extremely well. I was deeply inspired by his faith, he had recently been let out of jail, and also by his compassion for those who had jailed and mistreated him.
He had no animosity for them, I found that amazing, only compassion and forgiveness. What kind of regime incarcerates a truly noble man like this, I thought. Soon after our visit, he was rearrested on false charges, released, rearrested and jailed again. He has now spent at least 27 years of his life for loving God and loving his neighbor.
What kind of barbaric regime hurts a man like this?
And then there is a special hate Beijing pours out on the Falun Gong. Nearly 7 years ago, the Chinese Government began its brutal campaign to completely eradicate Falun Gong through whatever means necessary. Many party members and army officials had begun to practice Falun Gong. Like all dictators in totalitarian terrorist systems, the PRC fears and hates what it cannot control. So it decided to destroy and intimidate those who practice Falun Gong.
We see before us a Stalinist nightmare revived for the 21st century. Hundreds, perhaps thousands dead as a result of torture, tens of thousands jailed without trial, held in labor camps, prisons and mental hospitals where they are forced to endure torture and brainwashing sessions.
Just over a year ago, Beijing finally released the reknowned human rights activist Rebiya Kadeer from prison, where she had been held for years on trumped up charges for defending the rights of her fellow Uighur Muslims in China. We had hoped this signaled some sort of genuine improvement in Beijing's treatment of human rights. But now we know better.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since Rebiya, who is now living in America and will speak shortly to us, has continued to campaign for recognition of the legitimate rights of her fellow Uighurs, her relatives and business associates still in China are being subjected to renewed harassment by authorities.
Again, she is here to testify and we are grateful for her attendance.
Let me make just brief mention of another issue, and that is coercive family planning policy. China has slaughtered more innocent children than any war in human history. Coercive family planning has wounded Chinese women by the millions. And one of the psychological consequences is that some 500 Chinese women commit suicide every day. Every day. China's one child per couple decreed in 1979 has killed hundreds of millions of babies, by imposing draconian fines up to 10 times annual salaries on their parents to force them to abort.
Who can fight that kind of economic coercion?
In China today, brothers and sisters are illegal, sex selection abortions, a direct consequence of allowing only one baby per couple, has led to gendercide, approximately 1 hundred million girls are missing in China.
One Chinese demographer has admitted that by the year 2020, 40 million Chinese men won't be able to find wives because Beijing's weapon of mass destruction—population control—has destroyed the girls.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Gendercide.
Ongoing and pervasive in the PRC.
Then there is the lack of recourse for millions of Chinese laborers, trapped in poor working conditions. Those who protest unjust wage and labor practices outside of the government controlled labor union are arrested and imprisoned. Chinese citizens are often persecuted just for going to court to secure rights, which, even under current Chinese law, as restrictive as it is, guarantees them.
And the lawyers, who seek to help them, are threatened, harassed, beaten, disbarred and jailed, for simply doing their duty.
They join countless prisoners of conscience in China's modern day concentration camps. They are found everywhere in China, the Laogai that Harry Wu has spoken so eloquently about and has spent some 16 years of his life in and will be testifying about shortly. There are now more than 1,100 of those terrible Laogai littered throughout China.
Finally, we will hear testimony about China's barbaric policy of harvesting human organs for sale and transplant. China admits it does this. According to the Chinese ministry of health, since 1993 there have been over 65,000 transplant procedures performed in China. China's deputy health minister recently stated that 95 percent of the organs for organ transplants performed in China are from executed Chinese prisoners.
Of course, it claims that it only harvests the organs of executed prisoners and only if they or their families consent. But what value can such a statement have in a country where the death penalty is virtually an assembly-line process where, according to the State Department's human rights report for 2005, foreign experts estimate between 5,000 and 12,000 people are executed every year.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chinese courts hand down the death sentence for an ever expanding range of crimes, including nonviolent and political crimes. Appeals are conducted hastily, if at all.
In an effort to boost profits, it is reported that some provincial or local officials in China have begun to allow mobile medical vans at execution sites to facilitate the ease and efficiency at which prisoners organs may be harvested.
We have all heard the recent horrific stories that China is now targeting the thousands of innocent Falun Gong prisoners it holds for organ harvesting and perhaps not even waiting until they are dead. The State Department and U.N. Special Rapporteur for torture, Manfred Nowak, has been investigating. They must get to the truth of these blood curdling stories and do everything to stop this shameful practice.
Finally, let me say to my friends and colleagues that human rights are everyone's rights. Governments are instituted to secure, protect, and safeguard those rights. Human rights aren't privileges and they are indivisible. Human rights are worth fighting for, even when they are costly and even when it is inconvenient, especially when it is inconvenient to trade. I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to talk about these vitally important issues, especially on the eve of President Hu's visit to the White House tomorrow.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Subcommittee will come to order, and good morning to everyone. Today's hearing of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations will examine China's human rights record, especially such areas as China's censorship of the internet, implementation of the right of Chinese citizens to worship freely, protection of minority rights, compliance with international labor standards, China's barbaric practice of organ harvesting, and the destructive effects on Chinese society—especially on women—of its government's coercive one-child policy.
Over the years, I have held more than 25 hearings on human rights abuses in China. While China's economy has improved somewhat, the human rights situation remains abysmal. So-called economic reform has utterly failed to result in the protection of freedom of speech, expression, or assembly.
This week's visit of President Hu Jintao of China to the United States provides the U.S. Congress and people an opportunity to bring to the attention of U.S. policy makers and the world community the terrible human rights situation as it exists in China today. It will also help provide the vital context for any relationship we should have with China. And it will, I hope convey our unshakeable resolve and commitment to press Beijing for serious, measurable and durable reform. The people of China deserve no less. It is our moral duty to stand with the oppressed, not with the oppressor.
State Department human rights reports and the consistent reporting from very reputable NGOs indicate that Chinese government repression of its citizens continues. In fact, the current Chinese regime is one of the very worst violators of human rights in the world, and continues to commit every single day egregious crimes against its own citizens. At a rough count, the most recent State Department Human Rights Report for China ran to about 45,000 words. Before it even gets down to details, the report lists 22 major rights problems. Few if any nations can even begin to match this unseemly record, from the systematic denial of political freedom and use of torture to interference in the most private matters of family and conscience.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1. denial of the right to change the government
2. physical abuse resulting in deaths in custody
3. torture and coerced confessions of prisoners
4. harassment, detention, and imprisonment of those perceived as threatening to party and government authority
5. arbitrary arrest and detention, including nonjudicial administrative detention, reeducation-through-labor, psychiatric detention, and extended or incommunicado pretrial detention
6. a politically controlled judiciary and a lack of due process in certain cases, especially those involving dissidents
7. detention of political prisoners, including those convicted of disclosing state secrets and subversion, those convicted under the now-abolished crime of counterrevolution, and those jailed in connection with the 1989 Tiananmen demonstrations
8. house arrest and other nonjudicially approved surveillance and detention of dissidents
9. monitoring of citizens' mail, telephone and electronic communications
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
10. use of a coercive birth limitation policy, in some cases resulting in forced abortion and sterilization
11. increased restrictions on freedom of speech and the press; closure of newspapers and journals; banning of politically sensitive books, periodicals, and films; and jamming of some broadcast signals
12. restrictions on the freedom of assembly, including detention and abuse of demonstrators and petitioners
13. restrictions on religious freedom, control of religious groups, and harassment and detention of unregistered religious groups
14. restrictions on the freedom of travel, especially for politically sensitive and underground religious figures
15. forcible repatriation of North Koreans and inadequate protection of many refugees
16. severe government corruption
17. increased scrutiny, harassment and restrictions on independent domestic and foreign nongovernmental organization (NGO) operations
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
18. trafficking in women and children
19. societal discrimination against women, minorities, and persons with disabilities
20. cultural and religious repression of minorities in Tibetan areas and Muslim areas of Xinjiang
21. restriction of labor rights, including freedom of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, and worker health and safety
22. forced labor, including prison labor)
Beijing has increasingly viewed the information available on the internet as a potential threat to the Party's ability to control the population and monopolize political power. It has turned China into one of the most internet restrictive countries in the world. It is important to note that the freedoms that we enjoy in America allow individuals to publish information and news on the Web unfiltered. Those freedoms do not exist in China. Individuals who attempt to speak freely are imprisoned and even tortured. At the very least, U.S. corporations should not be aiding in that process. Yet at a February hearing I chaired on the Internet in China, we learned in greater—and disturbing—detail, how some of the biggest corporations in America have partnered with the much-hated Chinese secret police to find, apprehend, convict and jail religious believers and pro-democracy advocates.
Yahoo told us at the hearing how profoundly they regret sending Shi Tao to prison for 10 years but then couldn't tell us—and didn't seem to want to—how many others were condemned to jail and torture because of Yahoo's complicity with the secret police. When I asked under what conditions—court order, police demand, a fishing trip—Yahoo surrenders emails and address files, Yahoo told us that they couldn't reveal this information to us because it would break Chinese law.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Google, for its part, created an exclusively Chinese search engine that only a Joseph Goebbels could love. Type in any number of vile words like human rights, or Tian An Men Square massacre, or Falun Gong, and you will get rerouted to government propaganda—much of it heavily anti-American and anti-President Bush, and filled with hate, especially for the Falun Gong. How did Google respond to our deep concern about their enabling a dictatorship to expand its hate message? They hired big-time Washington lobbying firms like Podesta-Mattoon and the DCI group to put a good face on it all—and presumably kill my pending legislation, the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006,
Amazingly, Cisco showed no seller's remorse whatsoever that its technology—especially ''Policenet''—a tool for good in the hands of honest cops and legitimate law enforcement, but a tool of repression in the hands of Chinese police has now effectively linked and exponentially expanded the capabilities of the Chinese police.
Microsoft also censors and shuts down blogs that ''Big Brother objects to. You can be sure that no serious discussion on human rights was on the agenda at President Hu visit with Bill Gates at Microsoft.
China's continued repression of religion is among the most despotic in the world. In February, the BBC reported that China had warned Hong Kong's newly-appointed Cardinal, Joseph Zen, a well-known critic of China's suppression of religious freedoms, to remain quiet on political issues. Citizens practicing a faith other than officially sanctioned religions are often subject to torture, imprisonment, and death, at which time prisoner organs are frequently harvested to meet demand. Christians, Tibetan Buddhists, and Muslim Uighurs are all being persecuted for their faith. Today, numerous underground Roman Catholic priests and bishops and Protestant pastors languish in the infamous concentration camps of China for simply proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the early 90's I meet with Bishop SU (Zhimin) of Baoding Province—a gentle and kind man who celebrated Mass for our small delegation. I was deeply inspired by his faith (he had recently been let out of jail) and by his compassion for those who jailed and mistreated him. He had no animosity for them—only compassion and forgiveness. What kind of regime incarcerates a truly noble man like this? Soon after our visit, he was re-arrested on false charges, released, and re-arrested and jailed again. He has spent at least 27 years of his life—for loving God. What kind of barbaric regime hurts a man like this?
And then there is the special hate Beijing pours out on the Falun Gong. Nearly seven years ago the Chinese government began its brutal campaign to completely eradicate Falun Gong through whatever means necessary. Many Party Members and Army officials had begun to practice Falun Gong. Like all dictators and totalitarian terror systems, the PRC fears and hates what it cannot control. So it decided to destroy and intimidate those who practice Falun Gong. We see before us a Stalinist nightmare revived for the 21st century—hundreds, perhaps thousands, dead as a result of torture; tens of thousands jailed without trial, held in labor camps, prisons, and mental hospitals, where they are forced to endure torture brainwashing sessions.
Just over a year ago Beijing finally released the renowned human rights activist, Rebiya Kadeer, from prison, where she had been held for years on trumped up charges for defending the rights of her fellow Uighur Muslims in China. We had hoped this signaled some sort of genuine improvement in Beijing's treatment of human rights, but now we know better: since Rebiya, who is now living in America, has continued to campaign for the recognition of the legitimate rights of her fellow Uighurs, her relatives and business associates still in China are being subjected to renewed harassment by the authorities. Rebiyah is with us here today to testify about China's continuing campaign against her peoples.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Coercive family-planning policy in China has slaughtered more innocent children than any war in human history. Coercive family planning has wounded Chinese women by the millions and one of the psychological consequences is that 500 women commit suicide every day. Every day! China's one-child per couple policy, decreed in 1979, has killed hundreds of million babies by imposing Draconian fines—up to ten times annual salaries—on their parents to force them to abort. Brothers and sisters are illegal. Sex selection abortions—a direct consequence of allowing only one baby per couple, has led to gendercide—approximately 100 million girls are missing—in China. One Chinese demographer has admitted that by 2020, forty million Chinese men won't be able to find wives because Beijing's weapon of mass destruction—population control—destroyed the girls.
There is no recourse for millions of Chinese laborers trapped in poor working conditions. Those who protest unjust wage and labor practices outside of the government-controlled labor union are arrested and imprisoned. Chinese citizens are often persecuted just for going to court to secure rights which even current Chinese law, as restrictive as at is, guarantees them. And the lawyers who seek to help them are threatened, harassed, beaten, disbarred and jailed for doing their simple duty. They join countless prisoners opf conscience in China's modern day concentration camps. These are found everywhere in China—more than 1,100 by one count.
Finally, we shall hear testimony about China's barbaric policy of harvesting human organs for sale and transplant. China admits it does this. According to China's Ministry of Health, since 1993, there have been over 65,000 transplant procedures performed in China. China's Deputy Health Minister recently stated that 95 percent of the organs for organ transplants performed in China are from executed Chinese prisoners. Of course it claims it only harvests the organs of executed prisoners, and only if they or their families consent. But what value can such a statement have in a country where the death penalty is virtually an assembly line process? Where according to the Department of State's Human Rights Report for 2005, foreign experts estimate between five and twelve thousand people are executed every year? Chinese courts hand down the death sentence for an ever-expanding range of crimes, including nonviolent and political crimes. Appeals are conducted hastily, if at all. In an effort to boost profits, it is reported that some provincial or local officials in China have begun to allow mobile medical vans at execution sites to facilitate the ease and efficiency with which prisoners' organs may be harvested. We have all heard the recent horrific stories that China is now targeting the thousands of innocent Falun Gong prisoners it holds for organ harvesting, and perhaps not even waiting until they are dead. The State Department and the UN Special Rapporteur for Torture, Manfred Nowak, have been investigating. They must get to the truth of these blood-curdling stories, and do everything to stop this shameful practice.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Human rights are everyone's rights. Governments are instituted to secure, protect, and safeguard those rights. Human rights aren't privileges. Human rights are worth fighting for, even when they are costly, and even when it is inconvenient. I thank our witnesses for being willing to talk about these vitally important issues today.
Mr. SMITH. I would like to now introduce our first panel, and thank them for being here. And panel 1 will begin with Mr. Ethan Gutmann, who is the author of Losing the New China: a Story of American Commerce, Desire and Betrayal. He has also written for the Weekly Standard and other publications, a former counselor at APCO China, and a former visiting fellow at the Project for the New American Century. Mr. Gutmann won the spirit of Tiananmen and Chance Journalism Awards in 2005 for exposing American corporate participation in censorship and surveillance of the Chinese Internet.
We will then hear from Mrs. Rebiya Kadeer, who is the most prominent Uighur human rights advocate and a leader who spent nearly 6 years in a Chinese prison for standing up to the authoritarian Chinese Government, Mrs. Kadeer is the mother of 11 children and former laundress turned millionaire. Earlier this year, she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Mrs. Kadeer was released for medical parole by the Chinese Government on March 17, 2005, after pressure from the United States Government, the Congress, and relentless protestations of international human rights organizations. And in October 2005, Mrs. Kadeer established the International Uighur Human Rights and Democracy Foundation in Washington, DC.
We will then hear from Mr. Joseph Kung, director of the Cardinal Kung Foundation, one of a much smaller group of Chinese refugees to emigrate to the United States under special quota back in 1955. A frequent guest on TV and radio programs, Joseph Kung has spoken before many Catholic organizations and before this Committee in the past.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a matter of fact, I had the privilege of traveling with him to China on a human rights trip in the 1990s, and it was fascinating how he was able to engage, especially the Catholic patriotic church on what they leave out and how they comply and are complicit with the dictatorship. It was very fascinating and I appreciated his insights. He was the recipient of the Freedom Award from the Cardinal Brezinski Foundation in 1995 and the Freedom House's Center For Religious Freedom in 2001.
Mr. Gutmann, if you would begin please.
STATEMENT OF MR. ETHAN GUTMANN, AUTHOR, ''LOSING THE NEW CHINA: A STORY OF AMERICAN COMMERCE, DESIRE AND BETRAYAL
Mr. GUTMANN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to make a contribution to the Committee's profoundly important work.
Approximately 2 months ago, your Committee heard representatives of Google, Microsoft, Cisco and Yahoo! defend their companies' role in constructing China's Internet. Simultaneously, the Committee floated an extremely important draft, the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006, which appeared to place this Committee and the aforementioned companies on a collision course.
Some commentators, particularly those searching for a middle way, characterized the Online Freedom Act as an overreaction. I don't agree. I believe it is better characterized as a tragedy.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would guess that few people in this room actually desire intrusive government intervention and oversight of U.S. companies. I certainly don't.
I am a former consultant to American cooperations operating in China and a former Vice Chair of the Government Relations Committee for the American Chamber of Commerce in Beijing.
I am also a former believer in the concept that we would change China, not that China would change us.
But I now believe that the Internet Freedom Act may not be comprehensive enough, particularly in explicitly sanctioning Internet surveillance technologies. And I believe that the tragedy did not start with this Committee, but in the very early stages of American involvement in the Chinese Internet. It is the history of a collision course, not so much between Washington and American Internet companies, but between American corporate decisions and American values. And we can study that history for insights and potential solutions from the current dilemma.
Two months ago, company representatives told the history of the stunning expansion of the Chinese Internet using impressive statistics, 110 million users, over 13 million bloggers. And I don't dispute these. But lost in all these figures is the simple point that Chinese Internet freedom has actually been contracting since 1998 when I arrived in China. Censorship was already present on the Chinese Web, the dissident e-mails, spam or samizdat, depending on your perspective, flashed continuously on Chinese users screens, censorship didn't matter if you used proxy servers—that is linking up to another computer that would act as an intermediary, hiding the Web footprints, evading the filter, circumventing the government controls. The most common search words in China at that time were not ''Britney'' and ''Hooters'' but ''free'' and ''proxy.''
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And about 40 percent of the Chinese users employed proxies and a week after arriving, so did I.
A year later, working in my Beijing office, I received an e-mail from a United States friend with the words ''China,'' ''unrest,'' ''labor,'' and ''Xinjiang'' in strange half-tone brackets, as if the words had been picked out by a filter. Now, I had really never seen anything like this, but what I didn't realize at the time was that the capability to search inside my Hotmail account actually came from an American company operating in China.
During construction of the first Chinese public accessed Web in 1996, Chinese authorities suddenly became interested in blocking forbidden Web sites and keyword searching—that is ''looking into the packets.'' Why? Well, because they are Marxists, and as my former colleague, Peter Lovelock, explained, that means you must embrace the means of communication, then control it.
Fill it with Chinese voices. Block the outside and block relationships between Chinese voices.
Blocking the outside was relatively easy. Three companies were competing for Chinese Net contracts in 1997: Bay Networks, Sun Microsystems, and Cisco Systems. Cisco prevailed by selling the authorities a firewall box at a significant discount, which would allow the Chinese authorities to block the forbidden Web.
Now, Cisco's general counsel denies selling any special configuration. Chinese engineers who actually worked on the firewall project are equally adamant that it was a custom made device. Either way, as early as 1998, any industry-wide restraints on the transfer of censorship technologies were already being weighed against Cisco's captured 80 percent of the Chinese router market, which is an unprecedented Chinese success story. Yet, Cisco's success may be more closely linked to a Cisco manager's statement that ''we have the ability to look more deeply into the packets end.'' And I will return to that point.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By 2000, Yahoo! began censoring its search engine and patrolling chat rooms to preserve its position as the top portal in China. According to Yahoo!'s former China manager, ''It was a precautionary measure. The State Information Bureau was in charge of watching and making sure that we complied. The game is to make sure that they don't complain.''
Let's apply that statement to more recent events. When Microsoft began suppressing such words as democracy and human rights in Chinese blogger headings, and when Google rolled out a castrated Chinese version of its search engine, company representatives made the argument that they were merely respecting local laws.
Yet the laws are vague and contradictory at best, for example, the words ''democracy'' and ''human rights'' are enshrined in the Chinese constitution, so I think Yahoo!'s manager put it right the first time, make sure that they don't complain. These were preemptive self-censoring policies when Yahoo! first employed them. They still are today. Thus, any assertion that the Chinese censorship issue is purely a government-to-government issue is premature until these companies dare to explicitly and systematically test the limits of Chinese laws. And until they perform that test, they should not be viewed as simply following Chinese law, but as working for Chinese Communist party objectives.
Chinese Internet history can be divided into two periods, before the crackdown and after the crackdown. From October 2000 until May 2001 the Chinese authorities unveiled new laws; installation of internal monitoring software in cyber cafes across the Web; Internet service providers were ordered to hold all Chinese user data for 60 days; proxy servers were hunted, blocked and killed; and a national police digital network, the Gold Shield, was constructed.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now this crackdown period signaled that censorship objectives were actually secondary to surveillance, yet blocking relationships among Chinese forces and monitoring alternate sources of political power was far more technically demanding. For Western Internet companies, the crackdown should have signaled an end to cyber utopia and illusions. Instead, it signaled a new boom market for companies such as Nortel, Cisco and Sun Microsystems.
By 2003, Cisco's Policenet was deployed as the Internet backbone of the Chinese State security system. Two months ago, Harry Wu exhibited slides to this Committee, Cisco brochures from the Shanghai Gold Shield trade show in December 2002. And they demonstrate the depth of Cisco's involvement with Chinese state security. These brochures are irrefutable evidence, so I will only add 3 points.
Zhou Li, a systems engineer from Cisco's Shanghai branch, explained to me that the Cisco brochures did not give the full story. A policeman or PSB agent using Cisco equipment could now stop any citizen on the street and by simply scanning an ID card, remotely access his danwei: That is, his work unit files, political behavior, family history, fingerprints, and other images. The agent could also access his or her surfing history for the last 60 days and read his e-mail—all in real-time.
Newly-translated documents explicitly show that Cisco was training the Chinese police in surveillance techniques as early at 2001, and detailed information on more than 96 percent of the Chinese population is now recorded on police databases according to recent Chinese state media.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now there was justifiable outrage when journalist Shi Tao received a 10-year sentence after Yahoo! surrendered his private e-mail to Chinese security, and there is more about another case today. But we really don't know how many Falun Gong practioners, Christians, and small-time labor activists arrests that don't get publicized, can be attributed to Cisco's Policenet. And an integrated system like this does not appear in the court records. And if recent reports are given credence, a hospital basement near Shenyang was being filed with thousands of Falun Gong practitioners for organ harvesting while Cisco was training the Chinese police.
It is my view that the situation with Cisco has already attained IBM Holocaust status and it will only get worse, whether carried out by the enhancements to the Online Freedom Act or by the Commerce Department simply enforcing existing laws forbidding the sale of crime control or detection instruments to the Chinese police, Cisco should leave China.
I have no illusions they will leave without a fight. By Cisco's own admission, it has contracts with Chinese state security at a minimum to service equipment. Perhaps these contracts include training or upgrades as well. Yet the Israeli defense industry had an existing contract with the Peoples Liberation Army to perform major upgrades to the Harpy assault drone. Under United States pressure, Israel fought, but ultimately cancelled the contract.
Do we have the same political will when it comes to one of our own? Regarding Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google, as I said, I consider the Global Online Freedom Act to be a tragedy. We did not have to reach this point. Back in the winter of 2000, Microsoft fought the Chinese state and won. The issue was Chinese Government access to foreign source codes and control of foreign encryption. Microsoft built a coalition of the American Chamber of Commerce, the U.S.-China Business Council, the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and European entities. The United States and Japanese Embassies tacitly approved but avoided direct participation.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Most critically, Microsoft let it be known that if the Chinese Government did not back down it would pull out of China forever. Faced with this resolve, the Chinese Government quickly chose to reinterpret their laws, i.e., they surrendered. Now Microsoft doesn't brag about all this for obvious reasons. But I still carry that document of surrender, because it shows that business has power.
I will close by speaking about an implausible scenario. American Internet companies could form a new industry coalition, collectively ready to walk away. The Chinese authorities could agree at a minimum that words that are straight out of the Chinese constitution will never be censored by American companies.
And if the Chinese police want confidential customer information from an American company, they must provide compelling evidence that the individual in question is a child pornographer.
This is implausible, particularly from the American side but far more plausible if the only other option is the Online Freedom Act, routers based outside of China, regular audits, litigation in China and at home. So companies are currently asking, what is the probability of the Online Freedom Act becoming law and how can we stop it?
Yet the question that Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! should be focusing on is this, will the Chinese Communist Party still be in power 10 years from now? How about 20 years? And who is my primary customer base? The Chinese Communist Party or the Chinese people? Ultimately, it is in American company's self interest to do the implausible, to form a coalition, to use their latent power to avoid further tragedy. And I want to thank the Committee for helping to bring them closer to that decision. Thank you.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gutmann follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. ETHAN GUTMANN, AUTHOR, ''LOSING THE NEW CHINA: A STORY OF AMERICAN COMMERCE, DESIRE AND BETRAYAL''
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to make a contribution to the Committee's profoundly important work.
Approximately two months ago, your Committee heard representatives of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Cisco Systems defend their companies' role in constructing China's Internet. Simultaneously the Committee floated an extremely important draft—the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006—which appeared to place this committee and the aforementioned companies on a collision course. Some commentators, particularly those searching for a middle way, characterized the Online Freedom Act as an ''overreaction.'' I don't agree. I believe that it is better characterized as a tragedy.
I would guess that few people in this room actually desire intrusive government intervention and oversight of U.S. companies. I certainly don't. I'm a former consultant to American corporations operating in China and a former vice-chair of the Government Relations Committee for the American Chamber of Commerce Beijing. I'm also a former believer in the concept that we would change China, not that China would change us.
But I now believe that the Internet Freedom Act may not be comprehensive enough, particularly in explicitly sanctioning Internet surveillance technologies. And I believe that the tragedy did not start with this committee but in the very early stages of American involvement in the Chinese Internet. It's the history of a collision course, not so much between Washington and American Internet companies, but between American corporate decisions and American values. We can study that history for insights into the current dilemma and potential solutions.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Two months ago, company representatives told the history of the stunning expansion of the Chinese Internet using impressive statistics—110 million users, over 13 million bloggers—and I don't dispute them. But lost in all these figures is the simple point that Chinese Internet freedom has actually been contracting since 1998, when I arrived in China.
Censorship was already present on the Chinese web, but dissident e-mails—spam or samizdat, depending on your perspective—flashed continuously on Chinese users' screens. Censorship didn't matter if you used proxy servers—that is, linking up to another computer that would act as an intermediary, hiding the Web footprints, evading the filters, and circumventing the government controls. The most common Chinese search words were not ''Britney'' and ''hooters,'' but ''free'' and ''proxy.'' About 40% of Chinese users employed proxies. A week after arriving, so did I.
A year later, working in my Beijing office, I received an e-mail from a US friend with the words ''China,'' ''unrest,'' ''labor,'' and ''Xinjiang'' in strange half-tone brackets, as if the words had been picked out by a filter. I'd never really seen anything like it. What I didn't realize at the time is that the capability to search inside my Hotmail, primitive by the current standards, came from an American company operating in China.
During construction of the first Chinese public access web in '96, Chinese authorities suddenly became interested in blocking forbidden websites and in keyword searching—''looking into the packets.''
Why? Because they are Marxists. And as my former colleague Peter Lovelock explained, that means that you must above all embrace the means of communication. Then, control it. Fill it with Chinese voices. Block the outside. And block relationships between Chinese forces.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Blocking the outside was relatively easy. Three companies were competing for the Chinanet contracts in 1997: Bay Networks, Sun Microsystems, and Cisco Systems. Cisco prevailed by selling the authorities a ''firewall box'' at a significant discount, which would allow the Chinese authorities to block the forbidden web.
Cisco's General Counsel denies selling any special configuration. Chinese engineers who actually worked on the firewall project are equally adamant that it was custom-made. Either way, as early as 1998, any industry-wide restraints on the transfer of censorship technologies were already being weighed against Cisco's capture of 80% of the China router market, an unprecedented success story. Yet Cisco's success may be more closely linked to a Cisco manager's statement that ''We have the capability to look deeply into the packets.'' And I'll return to that point.
By 2000, Yahoo began censoring its search engine and patrolling chatrooms to preserve its position as the top portal in China. According to Yahoo's former China manager: ''It was a precautionary measure. The State Information Bureau was in charge of watching and making sure that we complied. The game is to make sure that they don't complain.''
Let's apply that statement to more recent events. When Microsoft began suppressing words such as ''democracy'' and ''human rights'' in Chinese blogger headings, and when Google rolled out a castrated Chinese version of its search engine, company representatives made the argument that they were merely respecting local laws. Yet the laws are vague and contradictory at best; for example, the words ''democracy'' and ''human rights'' are enshrined in the Chinese constitution.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Yahoo's manager put it right the first time: ''make sure that they don't complain.'' These were preemptive, self-censoring policies when Yahoo first employed them. They still are today. Thus any assertion that Chinese censorship is purely a government-to-government issue is premature until these companies dare to—explicitly and systematically—test the limits of Chinese laws. And until they perform that test, they should not be viewed as simply following Chinese law, but as working for Chinese Communist Party objectives.
Chinese Internet history can be divided into two periods: ''before the crackdown,'' and ''after the crackdown.'' From October 2000 until May 2001, the Chinese authorities unveiled new laws:
Installation of internal monitoring software in cybercafés and across the web.
Internet Service Providers ordered to hold all Chinese user data for 60 days.
Proxy servers hunted and blocked.
Construction of a national police digital network—the ''Gold Shield.''
The crackdown period signaled that censorship objectives were actually secondary to surveillance. Yet blocking relationships among Chinese forces—and monitoring alternate sources of political power—was far more technically demanding. For Western Internet companies the crackdown should have signaled an end to cyber-utopian illusions. Instead it signaled a new boom market for companies such as Nortel, Cisco and Sun Microsystems.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By 2003, Cisco's ''Policenet'' was deployed as the Internet backbone of the Chinese State Security system. Two months ago, Harry Wu exhibited slides to this committee, Cisco brochures from the Shanghai ''Gold Shield'' trade show in December 2002, that demonstrate the depth of Cisco's involvement with Chinese State Security. These brochures are irrefutable evidence, so I will only add three points:
Zhou Li, a systems engineer from Cisco's Shanghai Branch, explained to me that the Cisco brochures did not give the full story. A policeman or PSB agent using Cisco equipment could now stop any citizen on the street and simply by scanning an ID card remotely access his danwei (work unit files): political behavior, family history, fingerprints, and other images. The agent could also access his surfing history for the last 60 days, and read his e-mail. All in real-time.
Newly translated documents explicitly show Cisco was training the Chinese police in surveillance techniques as early as 2001.
Detailed information on more than 96 percent of the Chinese population is now recorded on police databases, according to recent Chinese state media.
There was justifiable outrage when journalist Shi Tao received a ten-year sentence, after Yahoo surrendered his private email to Chinese security. But we really don't know how many Falun Gong practitioners, Christians, and small-time labor activists—the humdrum arrests that don't get publicized—can be attributed to Cisco's Policenet. An integrated system doesn't appear in the court records. And if recent reports are given credence, a hospital basement near Shenyang was being filled with thousands of Falun Gong practitioners for organ harvesting while Cisco was training the Chinese police.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is my view that the situation with Cisco has already attained IBM-Holocaust status, and it will only get worse. Whether carried out by enhancements to the Online Freedom Act, or by the Commerce Department simply enforcing existing laws forbidding the sale of ''crime control or detection instruments'' to the Chinese police, Cisco should leave China.
I have no illusions that they will leave without a fight. By Cisco's own admission, it has contracts with Chinese State Security, at a minimum, to service equipment. Perhaps these contracts include training or upgrades as well. Yet the Israeli defense industry had an existing contract with the PLA to perform major upgrades to the Harpy Assault Drone. Under U.S. pressure, Israel fought, but ultimately cancelled the contract. Do we have the same political will when it comes to one of our own?
Regarding Yahoo, Microsoft and Google, as I said, I consider the Online Freedom Act to be a tragedy. We did not have to reach this point.
Back in the winter of 2000, Microsoft fought the Chinese state and won. The issue was Chinese government access to foreign source codes and control of foreign encryption. Microsoft built a coalition of the American Chamber of Commerce, the US-China Business Council, the Japanese Chamber, and European entities. The US and Japanese embassies tacitly approved but avoided direct participation.
Most critically, Microsoft let it be known that if the Chinese government did not back down it would pull out of China—forever. Faced with this resolve, the Chinese government quickly chose to reinterpret their laws, i.e., they surrendered. Microsoft doesn't brag about it for obvious reasons, but I still carry that document of surrender because it shows that business has power.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I will close by speaking about an implausible scenario: American Internet companies could form a new industry coalition, collectively ready to walk away. The Chinese authorities could agree, at a minimum, that words straight out of the Chinese constitution will never be censored by American companies. And if the Chinese police want confidential customer information from an American company, they must provide compelling evidence that the individual in question is a child pornographer.
Implausible, particularly from the American side, but far more plausible if the only other option is the Online Freedom Act: routers based outside of China, regular audits, litigation in China and at home. So companies are currently asking: what is the probability of the Online Freedom Act becoming law?
Yet the question that Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo should be focusing on is this: Will the Chinese Communist Party still be in power ten years from now? How about twenty years? And who is my primary customer base, the Chinese Communist Party or the Chinese people? Ultimately it is in American companies' self-interest to do the implausible, to form a coalition, to use their latent power, to avoid further tragedy. And I want to thank the Committee for helping to bring them closer to that point of decision.
Thank you.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Gutmann, for your very incisive commentary.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. Kadeer.
STATEMENT OF MS. REBIYA KADEER, HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATE, FORMER POLITICAL PRISONER
Ms. KADEER [through an interpreter]. My name is Rebiya Kadeer, and I represent the group of people that has been suppressed by Communist China.
First of all, I would like to express my profound appreciation for this opportunity to share the daily grievances of my people with your excellency and the Members of the Congress.
In the interests of time, I am going to ask my interpreter to read the statement that I prepared and I would like this to be part of the record, if possible. Thank you.
Honorable Christopher Smith, ladies and gentlemen, I have testified and delivered statements to various congressional bodies in the 13 months since my release from 6 years in Chinese prison and I am truly moved by the American Government's continuing concerns for the suffering of the Uighur people.
I am a Uighur woman from Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region, which we call east Turkistan. I became a direct victim of political and economic persecution by the Chinese Government. I spent 6 years of my life in Chinese prison being subject to cruel punishment, tortures, starvation and physical and mental humiliation. While going through hardship during the 6 years I spent in prison, I witnessed the tragic fate of thousands of political prisoners, including Uighur women similar to my condition or even worse.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I saw many people, including woman dying in front of my eyes in the neighboring South because of beatings and starvation. I was in agony, not because of what I was going through, but because of my inability to help, or even to cry, for those innocent people dying around me.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am now able to speak and let the voice of my people be heard in front of the U.S. Congress. This has been made possible because of the efforts of the U.S. Government and various human rights organizations.
It is a great opportunity for me and the 15 million Uighur people. However there are still many people who are going through conditions similar to, or even worse, than one that I went through during my prison life. Those innocent people are still suffering in Chinese prisons, are patiently waiting to be rescued and for their voices to be heard in the world.
As someone who grew up and lived under Chinese rule, the fact that I can still sit here and tell American leaders what is happening to my people is a cause of deep amazement to me.
All the people of east Turkistan want to gain their liberty and to live like a people of other free nations.
They want to be the members of the democratic world. But these aspirations are being ruthlessly suppressed by the Chinese Government. And this condition is worsening.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So to fulfill their hopes, the Uighur people need the help of free and democratic nations lead by the United States.
If I may, I would like to briefly describe my own family situation before I speak about the overall human rights situation in east Turkistan.
My family continues to be harassed by the Chinese police, and, in particular, my son.
I believe the Chinese authorities are punishing me by punishing him, trying to stop me from participating in activities such as this hearing here today. Most worryingly, they have advised my son to get a lawyer.
This means the Chinese authorities are going to formally charge my son with a crime, probably based on false allegations of financial irregularities surrounding my business. This is extremely bad news because Chinese courts have conviction rates over 99 percent. The less than 1 percent chance that his case will be dismissed is not helped by the fact that I, Rebiya Kadeer, am his mother.
These are the tactics used by the Chinese Government. I have long, long lists of examples of my son, friends, and other members of my family being harassed by the Chinese authorities in the months since my release—punished them for what I say here in America.
The tactics I use are to make most of living in a free democracy, coming here to speak to you today, and simply telling the truth about what is happening to my family and my people.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Honorable Members, all of my previous statements and testimonies outlining the Chinese Government's efforts to undermine and denigrate the Uighur ancient culture; marginalize to Uighurs in their homeland; and brutally suppress all forms of opposition protest are available on the record. And so rather than repeat what I have said or was stated before, if I may today, I would like to take this opportunity to present updated information—supporting previous statements on the state of Uighurs' human rights.
Much of this information was presented yesterday at the briefing sponsored by human rights caucuses, and so my apologies to anyone who was attending yesterday's hearing. I am sorry to say, and I am sure that—I am sure you will be sorry to hear that human rights situation that Uighurs are facing has not improved since my last statements were made.
In many respects, the situation continues to deteriorate.
The first issue I wish to bring to your attention is the Chinese Government's family planning policies.
In mid February, this year, a senior official, the Mayor of Urumchi—the capital of east Turkistan—declared that east Turkistan rural areas would be the focus of future family planning work. Generally speaking, east Turkistan rural population is almost exclusively Uighur, while the urban population is predominant Chinese. This tightening of the family planning regulations will, therefore, fall overwhelmingly on the Uighur people.
The official justification for this is reducing the number of birth in rural area by whatever means will reduce poverty and will also reduce the need for more resources to be spent on education, health and the like.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I testified at length to the Congressional Executive Commission on China on the topic of family planning regulations in my country. And as my statement remains on the record, I will spare you from hearing the horrific accounts of forced late term abortions, forced sterilizations, and the extreme physical psychological traumas inflicted on women resulting from these procedures.
Early last week, the Chinese Government announced that east Turkistan's population had exceeded 20 million people, having grown 9 percent over the 5 years, which is one of the highest rates in the whole of the People's Republic of China. However, this rapid growth in population is not because of the high number of birth, but because of the high number of ethnic Chinese encouraged to move to east Turkistan from China.
So the Uighurs are to be the focus of tightened family planning policies; but at the same time, the overall population is quickly rising because of the Government-sponsored migration policies.
If you are Uighur, you see your unborn children being killed so the government can shake up poverty and then impoverished Chinese migrants are encouraged to move to your home to make a better life for themselves. If you are Uighur and you hear that east Turkistan population is rising, you know that is more marginalization for the Uighurs, that is less social and economic opportunity for the Uighurs.
Don't forget that we cannot protest against this kind of injustice. If Uighurs protested against Chinese Government policies, especially one as sensitive as family planning regulations, they will be inviting serious trouble. I want to make it clear that Uighurs have nothing against the Chinese settlers personally. They are only trying to make a living. And they are often happy to leave difficult lives behind in their home regions to try to make a new life for themselves in east Turkistan. They are not told of the effects on the Uighurs by their moving to east Turkistan. And few Uighurs would dare to explain and so they cannot be blamed for Uighurs' problems.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A growing concern related to the number of people moving into east Turkistan, but not an obvious human rights concern, is whether the environment will be able to sustain these growing numbers of people. Water is becoming increasingly scarce and rapid desertification is resulting from Chinese industrial agricultural and urbanization, which exhausts the land and water—making east Turkistan uninhabitable.
Another serious issue, which has become prominent since I last testified in December, is that Uighurs are being sent back to China from neighboring countries—even people who have been granted refugee status by UNHCR—only to then be tortured and even execution.
In one case, we have learned that a man named Ismail Semed who was sent back to China from Pakistan in 2003, was sentenced to death in October of last year.
He was in Pakistan having fled east Turkistan and was deported to face accusations of planning terrorists attacks against Chinese targets there.
The only evidence against him is the testimony of other Uighurs, who were probably tortured into giving those testimonies. Two of those people whose testimony were used to sentence Mr. Semed to death were themselves executed in 1999. Ismail Semed may have already been executed, if his appeal has been heard. We don't know of this for certain, but we will certainly pass on further information when we know it.
Another case is of Mr. Huseyin Celil, a Uighur who has been held incommunicado in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, since March 2006 and who is facing deportation to China. Mr. Celil will almost certainly be executed if he is sent back to China, having been sentenced to death in absentia on charges relating to establishing a Uighur political party in east Turkistan.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Celil is now a Canadian citizen and we understand that the Canadian Government is working hard to secure his release in Tashkent and safe return to Canada.
Both of those cases, Mr. Semed and Mr. Celil, illustrate the enormous power China has over neighboring countries in the region. Despite having inadequate evidence against these men, and many others in the past, neighboring states hand these men over to the Chinese Government knowing that they are likely to be tortured and even executed.
Other countries known to have sent Uighur refugees back to Chinese authorities where they face torture and execution include Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Kazakhstan and Kyrgystan.
Since 9/11, the Chinese Government has framed all the Uighur opposition to the Chinese policies and practice as terrorist threats; that is, the Chinese Government has taken the United States-led war on terrorism to further its national and political agendas.
Honorable Members, I believe that China's undue influence over its neighbors is ensuring the extradition of political opponents in an area where the United States could do a great deal to help. I believe that if the United States Congress could pass the Uighur Policy Act, or something which would allow for an appointment of a special coordinator for Uighur issues, there could be a significant improvement in the human rights situation faced by the Uighur people.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I wish to conclude by saying once again, thank you for this important opportunity to place these concerns and suggestions before the Government of the United States of America.
It is for me a great opportunity, especially on the day before the Chinese President arrives to Washington, DC. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kadeer follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. REBIYA KADEER, HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATE, FORMER POLITICAL PRISONER
Honorable Chairmen HENRY J. HYDE and Christopher H. Smith, ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to express my deepest gratitude for this opportunity to testify here today. I have testified and delivered statements to various Congressional bodies in the 13 months since my release from 6 years in a Chinese prison, and I am truly moved by the American government's continuing concern for the suffering of the Uyghur people.
As someone who grew up and lived under Chinese rule, the fact I can sit here today and tell America's leaders what is happening to my people, is the cause of deep amazement for me. And be assured also, it is the cause of deep pride for anyone—anywhere in the world—who loves democracy and human rights.
And needless to say—I'm sure you saw the reports the day after I last spoke here—the Chinese government hates me coming here!
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If I may, I would like to briefly describe my own family's situation in East Turkistan before moving on to give an outline of the overall human rights situation there.
As most of you may be aware, my family continues to be harassed by the Chinese police—in particular my son. I am convinced that the Chinese authorities are punishing me by punishing him, trying to stop me from participating in activities such as this hearing here today.
Most worryingly of all, they have advised him to get a lawyer. This means, the Chinese authorities are going to formally charge my son with a crime—probably based on false allegations of financial irregularities surrounding my businesses in East Turkistan.
This is extremely bad news: Chinese courts have a conviction rate of over 99%! The less-than-1% chance his case will be dismissed is not helped the fact that I, Rebiya Kadeer, am his mother.
These are the tactics used by the Chinese government. I have a long, long list of examples of my son, my friends and other members of my family being harassed by the Chinese authorities in the short 13 months since my release, punishing them for what I say here in America.
The tactics I use, are to make the most of living in a free democracy—coming here to speak to you today, for example—and simply telling the truth about what is happening to my family and my people. And I have faith in the power of democracy and truth.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And so on to the general human rights situation in East Turkistan.
I do not want to take up your valuable time, honorable members, by repeating testimony and statements that I and others have already given to you and to other Congressional bodies on the human rights situation in East Turkistan. You have all proven that you have a mastery of the human rights situation in all of the PRC, as well as in East Turkistan.
All of my previous statements and testimonies outlining the Chinese government's efforts to first undermine and denigrate the Uyghur's ancient culture, to marginalize the Uyghurs in the own land, and to brutally suppress all forms of opposition or protest, are all available on the record.
I am sorry to say—and I'm sure you will be sorry to hear—that the human rights situation facing Uyghurs has not improved in any way since those statements were made, and in many respects, the situation continues to deteriorate.
And so rather than repeat what has been stated before, if I may, today I would like to take this opportunity to present updated information, supporting previous statements on the state of Uyghurs' human rights.
However, much of this information was presented in similar form yesterday to the Caucus, and so inevitably, there is going to be some repetition after all—my apologies to anyone who attended the hearing yesterday.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The first issue I wish to bring to your attention is the Chinese government's family planning policies. A senior official—the Mayor of Urumchi—declared in mid-February this year that East Turkistan's rural areas would be the ''focus'' of future ''family planning work''.
Generally speaking, East Turkistan's rural population is almost exclusively Uyghur, while the urban population is predominantly Chinese. This tightening of the family planning regulations will therefore fall overwhelmingly on the Uyghur people.
The official justification for this is that reducing the number of births in rural areas—by whatever means—will reduce poverty, and will also reduce the need for more resources to be spent on education, health and the like.
I testified to the Congressional-Executive Commission on China solely on the topic of family planning regulations in East Turkistan, and my statement remains on the record so thankfully, I can today spare you from hearing the horrific accounts of forced, late-term abortions; of forced sterilizations; and the extreme physical and psychological traumas inflicted on women as a result of these procedures.
The sheer injustice of making Uyghurs the ''focus'' of family planning work in East Turkistan is highlighted by the next concern I want to bring to your attention.
And that is, the rapid growth in East Turkistan's population, which is not, I hasten to add, because of the high number of births, but because of the high number of people encouraged to move to East Turkistan from China.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Early last week, the Chinese government announced that East Turkistan's population had exceeded 20 million people, having grown 9% over the past five years—which is one of the highest rates in the whole of the PRC.
I'll quickly return to my first point: the Uyghurs are to be the ''focus'' of tightening family planning policies; but at the same time, the overall population is rising fast because the government is encouraging so many Chinese migrants to settle in East Turkistan.
Some people might say that this is an over-simplification. But if you are a Uyghur, this is very simple. Uyghurs see their unborn children being butchered so they can ''shake off poverty'', and then watch as impoverished Chinese migrants are encouraged to move to East Turkistan to make better lives for themselves.
Don't forget either, we cannot protest against this kind of injustice. If Uyghurs protest against Chinese government policies, especially ones as sensitive as family planning regulations, they would be in serious trouble, as I'm sure you can imagine.
And the question of ever-greater numbers of people moving to East Turkistan is a crucial one for the Uyghur people. When a Uyghur hears that East Turkistan's population is rising, they know: ''that's more marginalization for the Uyghurs; that's less opportunity—social and economic—for the Uyghurs; that's less time for the Uyghur people to survive in East Turkistan.''
I should say at this point, Uyghurs have nothing against the Chinese settlers personally: they are only trying to make a living, and they're often happy to leave difficult lives behind in China and try to make a new life for themselves in East Turkistan.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
They are not told of the effects on Uyghurs of their moving to East Turkistan—and few Uyghurs would dare to explain—and so they cannot be—and are not—blamed for Uyghurs' problems.
A growing concern related to the number of people moving into East Turkistan—but not necessarily an obvious human rights concern—is whether the environment will be able to sustain these growing numbers of people. Water is becoming increasingly scarce, and rapid desertification—a result of Chinese industry, agriculture and urbanization exhausting the land and water—is making parts of East Turkistan uninhabitable.
And then finally, another serious issue, which has again become prominent since I last testified before you in December, is the question of Uyghurs being sent back to the PRC from second countries—even people who have been granted refugee status by UNHCR—where they then face torture and even execution.
Two ongoing cases have thrown this problem into sharp focus.
In one case, we heard that a man, Ismail Semed, who was sent back to the PRC from Pakistan in 2003, was sentenced to death in October last year.
He was in Pakistan having fled East Turkistan, and was deported to face accusations of planning terrorist attacks against Chinese targets in East Turkistan.
The only evidence against him is the testimony of other people, Uyghurs, who in all probability were tortured into giving those testimonies—two of the people whose testimonies were used to sentence Mr Semed to death, were themselves executed in 1999.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ismail Semed may already have been executed, if has appeal has been heard. We don't know for certain yet, but we will certainly pass on further information when it becomes available.
The other case is that of Huseyin Celil, a Uyghur who has been held in incommunicado detention in Tashkent, Uzbekistan since March 26, and who could be sent back to the PRC at any moment. Mr Celil will almost certainly be executed if he is sent back, having been sentenced to death in absentia on charges relating to establishing a Uyghur political party in East Turkistan.
Mr Celil is now a Canadian citizen, and we understand that the Canadian government is working hard to secure his release in Tashkent, and his return to Canada.
Both of these cases—Mr Semed and Mr Celil—illustrate the enormous power China has over neighboring countries in the region. Despite having obviously inadequate evidence against these men—and many others in the past—these neighboring states hand these men over to the Chinese government, apparently unconcerned that they are likely to be tortured and even executed.
Even being a naturalized Canadian citizen in the case of Mr Celil is no guarantee of protection from the Uzbeki authorities when the Chinese government attempts to interfere.
Other countries known to have sent Uyghur refugees back to the Chinese authorities where they face torture and even execution, including Uzbekistan and Pakistan, are Nepal, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And it is not just neighboring countries who are intimidated into following Beijing's wishes to the letter with regard to Uyghurs: I myself was recently refused a visa to attend the World Movement for Democracy in Istanbul, Turkey, organized by the National Endowment for Democracy.
There was a clear message from the Turkish government that they feared if they issued me with a visa, there would be some form of retaliation from the Chinese government.
I hope the irony is not lost: I was refused a visa, to a democratic country, to attend a conference about democracy, on the basis of arbitrary threats by China.
Honorable members of the Caucus, if I may be so bold, I sincerely believe that the question of China's undue influence over its neighbors in ensuring the extradition of political opponents, is an area where the United States of America could do a great deal to help—a great deal to persuade China's neighbors to offer better protection to Uyghur refugees within their borders.
Since 9/11, the Chinese government has cynically manipulated any Uyghur opposition to Chinese policies and practice, to present it as a ''terrorist threat''; that is, the Chinese government is taking the US-led ''war on terror'' to further its own national and political agendas.
I and the Uyghur people all over the world are convinced that if the US Congress could pass a Uyghur Policy Act—or some such—which would allow for the appointment of a Special Coordinator for Uyghur Issues, there would be an immediate and significant improvement in the human rights situation faced by the Uyghur people.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have already taken up a great deal of your valuable time, so let me conclude by saying once again thank you for this important opportunity to place these concerns and suggestions before the government of the United States of America—a great opportunity indeed on the day before the Chinese President arrives in Washington, DC.
Thank you so much.
Mr. SMITH. Ms. Kadeer, thank you so very much for your bravery, and we wanted you here precisely because of the visit with President Hu so that you could bear witness to the truth that you and your associate have spoken so eloquently.
Mr. Kung.
STATEMENT OF MR. JOSEPH KUNG, DIRECTOR, CARDINAL KUNG FOUNDATION
Mr. KUNG. Honorable Mr. Congressman and distinguished Congresslady. The Chinese Government has repeatedly declared to the world that there is religious freedom in China. They also declared that this freedom is guaranteed by its constitution. However, all of the approximately 45 underground bishops in China are either arrested and now in jail, or under house arrest, or under strict surveillance, or in hiding, or on the run, or simply have disappeared.
One Bishop, Bishop Gao Kexiam, Bishop of Yantai in Shandong, was arrested in October 1999. We did not know where he was until he died in jail in January 2005. His cause of death was unknown and is still unknown.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We know for sure that eight bishops are now in jail. They are all in their 70s and 80s. Three of them have disappeared. They are Bishop Su Zhimin of Baoding, Bishop An Shuxin also of Baoding, and Bishop Han Dingxiang of Yong Nian, all from Hebei. Out of these three bishops, Bishop An and Bishop Su have disappeared for more than 8 years. Bishop Han has just disappeared several months ago after being detained approximately 5 years. We do not know whether they are dead or alive. One of these eight bishops, Bishop Jia, who takes care of more than 100 handicap orphans, most of them are girls, has been arrested at least eight times since January 2004. The last time he was arrested was November 8, 2005.
Among all the bishops arrested, the most important and most famous bishop is Bishop Su Zhimin. He was arrested and jailed on October 8, 1997. On or around November 15, 2003, Bishop Su was taken to a hospital in Baoding, Hebei for an eye operation and for heart disease. He was heavily guarded by approximately 20 Government security personnel. Bishop Su was immediately moved to another secret location when the authority realized that Bishop Su had been seen.
Bishop Su has spent approximately 30 years in prison, thus far. He was once beaten so savagely in prison that he suffered extensive hearing loss.
Priests, seminarians, nuns, and lay persons face similar harassment. We know for sure that there are approximately 25 of them in jail or in labor camps. This list is by no means complete, because of the difficulties in obtaining details. Many cases are simply not reported here. My educated guess is that there must be hundreds in jail.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Details of the above arrests and many more are described in my prepared statements, which are available on the table.
The Chinese Government has been trying to force the underground faithful to join and register with the Official Patriotic Church since 1957 without much success. Now they are doing it with a new vigor. Those who refuse to join and register with the official Patriotic Church are now liable to be put in labor camp for 3 years. So, it is now also a crime punishable by 3 years in labor camp when a person is ordained as an underground Roman Catholic priest and conducts evangelization without permission from the Chinese Government.
The persecution of Roman Catholics in China is obviously not ancient history. The persecution continues and gets worse and bolder at a time when China is making significant economic progress, when China has joined the World Trade Organization, and when China will host the Olympic games in 2008.
In view of the above, on September 1st, 2005, I wrote a letter to President Hu Jintao of People's Republic of China. I appealed to President Hu, ''to bring modern China into an era of true religious freedom.'' I reasoned with him that ''a country without religious freedom is never peaceful and never constructive.'' And I challenged him to realize ''the importance of changing the world's perception of China's human rights policy for the better.''
I also not only appealed to President Hu that ''all these [religious] prisoners, both living and dead, be officially and posthumously exonerated of so-called crimes, some as long as 5 decades ago,'' but also appealed to him ''to release all current religious prisoners from prison and labor camp. . . .'' I concluded that ''to do so will be a powerful testimony to the Chinese Government's respect for and adherence to human rights and liberty. To do so, will also prove that China is honoring the spirit of the Olympic Games that [she] will have the honor of hosting in 2008.''
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Unfortunately, President Hu has never replied to our appeals and instead, the arrests of religious believers continue. I respectfully request that, hopefully through the influence of this hearing, President Hu's attention be directed to our appeals and that he give an order to his government to rectify the situation. He has the power and authority to do so. Otherwise, it is my hope that the Olympic Committee would take note of these arrests and decide whether or not China's continuous persecutions of innocent religious believers is in conformity with the spirit of the Olympic Games. We also hope that the Olympic Committee would use its influences to convince China to change its human rights for the better.
Should we support a country by purchasing its goods and services when such a country has no regard for the human rights principles held so dear to our Founding Fathers and held so dear to us? Should we support a country that is increasing its military budget with very suspicious motives? Very often, the low price tag associated with ''made in China'' was achieved on the blood and the backs of many religious prisoners in the labor camps. We need to examine carefully the labels when we make a purchase. The small savings you received from buying something made in China actually indirectly strengthen a government that persecutes its own citizens.
This is my summary of views. Because of time constrain, I cannot say everything here. I have another document for my prepared statements that I request to be included in the hearing record in its entirety.
Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. In fact, all of your prepared statements and any documents or other information you want to include will be made a part of the record.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KUNG. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kung follows:]
[Note: Image(s) not available in this format. See PDF version of this file.]
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Kung. Let me begin, Mr. Kung, with you on that last point, and I have questions for our other distinguished witnesses. Your mention of the Olympic games reminds me of the fact that to the Chinese Government the Olympics isn't just a sporting event, it is a political event. I remember when they were seeking to obtain the Olympics in the mid 1990s, they let Way Jing Shan out of prison in order to try to curry favor with the Olympic Committee and with critics of its human rights policy. And I met with Way in China at the time, had dinner with him. He was subsequently rearrested just a few weeks later. And the Olympics did not go their way, so that was another proximate cause for the rearrest.
But it seems to me that the Olympic Committee and the World Committee has missed an opportunity to send another message to China in holding the Olympics there. We know for a fact that in the past when a venue for games like this, whether it be the Asian games, or even the Beijing women's conferences in the auspices of the U.N., there are crackdowns, dissidents are visited. They are told not to speak up. Some are arrested. So there are people who suffer turmoil simply because the games are coming to that venue in Beijing.
And I actually felt a real disappointment when I heard that the great film maker, Steven Spielberg, announced that he is going to be part of the ceremonies for the 2008 Olympics. And it immediately flashed in my mind that, you know, these Olympic games are to the Chinese dictatorship what the 1936 Olympic games were to the Nazis, a chance to put a face on tyranny, to somehow gloss over ongoing systematic abuse of human rights.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I, for one, was disappointed that he would lend his name and his extraordinary talents to that effort. But having said that, I think your point is very well taken, there is this opportunity to reraise that issue about the release of prisoners. It would be unconscionable to act as if everything is just fine, to go to those games without extreme pressure to release the prisoners who are suffering, who will have no access to watch the games, that is for sure, and probably will see their torture and their pain and agony increased. While those who are still on the outside, you know, they will be, they will be visited, like I said. So I think your point was very well taken there.
I would like to ask you, if I could in March 2005, the Chinese Government introduced further regulations to consolidate controls on religious belief and expression throughout the country.
Has religious persecution, in fact, worsened even since then, since these new regulations went into effect?
Mr. KUNG. You are talking about this law which is a new legislation, sir, instituted in March 2005. As far as I can see, it didn't improve the religious controls over all kind of different religious believer. If any, they actually restrict more and punish more to the religious believer since the application of this March legislation. So there is no improvement at all.
Mr. SMITH. You mentioned the 45 underground bishops who were arrested, not known what their whereabouts are, what their status is, but they are missing, certainly. What has been the U.S. Department of State's response been to clergymen, including Catholic clergymen, priests, bishops, pastors, others? Has our Government been sufficiently engaged to press for their release?
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KUNG. Whose response?
Mr. SMITH. The U.S. Government's pressure on——
Mr. KUNG. Every time I have the opportunity to testify and every time I have the opportunity to correspond with the State Department, I always mentioned this particular point, not only 45 bishops that are either in prison or in house arrest or in surveillance or on the run and so forth, but also there are many, many priests and the faithful that are in jail. We only report a few of them, but there must be about hundreds of them in jail.
The persecution continues and it is getting bolder as I said. And there is no improvement at all. What we received at the Cardinal Kung Foundation, what we have press released to all over the world, it is only a drop in the bucket about the arrests. And I have to emphasize that. There are many, many things which we don't know of. And I have received telephone calls almost daily from China that somebody was arrested, somebody was harassed, but I just don't have enough evidence in order to write a press release, but there are so many arrests that could be written up. It is awful, horrible.
Mr. SMITH. My hope is that, because even the State Department report and the religious freedom report, a separate but reinforcing report, makes very clear is that the repression continues unabated, and, in fact, has worsened in many areas. But I guess the heart of my question is, are we responding in a way that the Chinese get it, that they realize, that we need a—CPC carries with it an excess of 12 different actions that the United States Government can take vis-a-vis Beijing to try to press its point. We are doing that with Vietnam right now. There are a number of what we call deliverables we have laid on the table in a document that has been signed by the Vietnamese Government and the United States Government.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So it would seem to me perhaps you might want to get back to us with some further thoughts on that. But there is more that we could be doing. We are chronicling the abuse, but are we responding to those abuses in a way that is meaningful.
Mr. KUNG. I do hope in the meeting tomorrow between President Bush and President Hu, this very important subject of human rights will be discussed, not just barely, but in depth.
And I do hope also that through the influence of this hearing, that the letter which I wrote to President Hu will be mentioned. And I think that is a very important letter, because he is a person who does have the authority and the power to do so. If he does that, it would be proof for his sincerity and seriousness about the human rights.
Mr. SMITH. As you know, I mentioned in my opening statement, having met with Bishop Su it was moving beyond words. I have met many political prisoners and religious prisoners, but what struck me most about that visit was his lack of any kind of animosity or sense of wanting retaliation against the government. He prays for the government.
And yet they still—as you said, 30 years; I thought it was in excess of 27—mistreat him. So thank you for raising those issues.
Let me ask Ms. Kadeer, if I could.
You mentioned in your testimony, with great emphasis, the use of the Chinese family planning program as a tool of repression of keeping the numbers down of Uighurs, through forced abortion, coerced sterilization, while simultaneously inviting a migration into your area.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That is absolutely reminiscent of what has happened and continues to happen in Tibet, where the Dalai Lama has written extensively about the dual policy of killing indigenous Tibetans though forced abortion and other ways, and using family planning in a way that it was never intended to be used. That is, as a way of keeping the numbers down, while doing this forced migration in many cases of Han Chinese.
Could you just elaborate a little bit further on that, and how long that has been going on? Did it just start? And, you know—if you could, thank you.
Ms. KADEER. The forced family planning policy that the Chinese Government has forced upon the Uighurs started in 1987. From a cultural, ethnic and religious point of view, the forced abortion, the course of abortion is unacceptable and beyond reason.
The current sitting chairman or the governor of Xinjiang, the Communist region, Mr. Ismail Tilwaldi, declared to the world that because of the harsh policy, because of the ongoing family planning policy in the 95th national planning period, the Chinese Government prevented 3 million Uighur children to be born.
Because of the reasons stated, mostly religious and ethnic, it is very hard for a Uighur woman to accept that forced family planning policy, and they continue to become pregnant. As a result, they end up going through numbers of abortion procedures affecting their health situation.
Because this population, specifically those women, getting pregnant and being subject to three, four times of abortion, forced abortion, is rather uneducated, they belong to the population of rural areas, there is basically no health care system that prevents or helps with a mother's recovery from all of these forced medical procedures. Various female diseases related to the female organs are very common around the women aged 35 to 50 as a result of poor medical attention prior or after the forced abortion. It is causing various and rare diseases.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Uighur people, as I have stated earlier on many occasions, have contributed to world civilizations greatly in the past centuries. As a result of this ongoing persecution, from the Uighur perspective, a gradual ethnic provincial cleansing, if you will, is going to result in the Uighurs to be wiped out from the face of the earth if this continues in the next 20 years.
Ironic as it sounds, on one hand the Chinese say, we need to prevent—we need to enforce family planning, we have a population problem; and being known the fact that the region itself is known to be short—has a resources problem. On one hand they are saying, we have to control the population, on the other they are encouraging, by various incentives to bring the Chinese migrants to our homeland to create, (A) social tension, (B) economic problems, and (C) environmental disaster. This is statistics; it is not my word.
In 1955, the Chinese population only made about 20 percent, which is about half of the population today; and our population dropped from 40 percent to somewhere around 30. The autonomy laws that were never used were implemented, clearly indicating that the minority population or the Uighur population should not be dropped; or the other way around, the Chinese population should not exceed the indigenous population in the area. The Chinese Government obviously violates its own laws on a regular basis.
I have two strong messages that I would like to let the Chinese leaders, specifically President Hu, to hear: A, the forced abortion must be stopped; two, the death penalty that has been met upon the political, or prisoners who are held for political charges, must be ceased now.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And East Turkestan, my homeland, remains to be the only province in China where the political prisoners are still facing the death penalty. And I demand the Chinese Government to stop restricting Uighurs' cultural rights. As you may know, the Uighur language has been banned in high school and university level.
Mr. SMITH. Ms. Kadeer, let me ask one additional question.
As you probably know, in January 2006, the U.N. Population Fund approved $27 million in new funding for China for their family planning or population control program. And many of us have argued passionately that this assistance puts the U.N.'s seal of approval on a very coercive population control program which when used against the Tibetans and the Uighurs, constitutes genocide.
The Genocide Convention couldn't be more clear that when people are targeted in whole or in part because of their ethnicity for destruction, that that is what constitutes the crime of genocide. And it seems to me that when there is a systematic effort to displace the Uighurs by using migration policies, coupled with depopulating family planning policies that include forced abortion, it would seem to rise clearly to that level.
Let me also add that in Nuremberg, forced abortion was construed to be a crime against humanity when practiced against Polish women by the Nazis. It is no less a crime against humanity today when practiced by the Chinese against a vast array of women in China, including the Uighurs.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So it is an area that we need to pursue much more vigorously than we have, because that stamp of approval that again has been placed upon this program by the UNFPA is unconscionable, in my view.
So I thank you for your statement. And I would like to ask Mr. Gutmann a couple of questions.
I took the time last night to read your book, and found it—and I would recommend it to anyone who really wants to get some very crucial insights, Losing the New China: a Story of American Commerce, Desire and Betrayal, by Ethan Gutmann.
But you made several points in this book that I find very disturbing, not just from the police side, which you speak to, but also the military side. In Chapter 7, ''Roaring Across the Horizon,'' you lay out a very disturbing time scenario that speaks to the issue of how the Chinese military development has grown so effectively, in part a response to Desert Storm.
In part, as I think you put it, the pivot, was when the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was bombed. For the hard-liners, that was a turning point for them, and all with an eye towards, when do they move on Taiwan? How do they take out the AWACs? How do they blind our satellites? You lay out a very disturbing scenario.
But at the core of it, and it was one of our former Presidents, Eisenhower, who talked about the military industrial complex, and it seems especially perverse, I would think, when United States corporations become part of the Chinese military industrial complex, in aiding and abetting what is still a dictatorship, developing a blue-water Navy with ICBMs, as you point out, with MERV capability. A very disturning sign you paint there.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You might want to elaborate on that a little bit, because I think that is another side of this that we need to bring forward.
Mr. GUTMANN. I think it is interesting that we are in Washington today; of course, there is an awareness of China's rise and there is an awareness of the China threat to some extent. But we do not have the kind of broad-based strategic attention that you had, for example, during the Cold War, obviously nothing like it.
Yet some of those questions are coming up are brought up by the force posture itself that China is building. How do you maintain an escalation dominance with armed forces that are basically geared—they are asymmetric. They are geared to our weaknesses; they are not geared to match us system by system, the way the Soviet Union was. Even asking is considered so Cold War that it shouldn't be asked. It is as if you are creating, by asking the question, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So I do not think the problem just goes to business there. But I think that it is part of this whole area of the China exception.
But I would also say that business has become a huge part of that problem. One of the feelings that American businessmen had when the riots appeared in Beijing was, you know, how do we calm these people down? We are kind of in the middle here; we are not the government. And we—as businessmen, we went out and we made efforts to mollify the Chinese leadership.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, what that meant was, they sort of said, well, look what we really need here is, we want you to help us get on a par with America. And that is why you have seen this amazing amount of research and development moving over to China. And it is not just because engineers are cheaper. It really comes down to more, this has become the new form of bribery. This is how you stay in business in China, you do something to make China stronger.
And so for Motorola, for example, it is something like 5,000 researchers now. Some of them are CCP, some of them are PLA. They are working for China's 863 project.
This technology is going straight out to the PLA, you know; and unlike bribes where there is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I do not think this is really truly being monitored very carefully.
The fact is, China could close up shop today, could end its trade today and they would be okay in this area. They would have fourth generation communications for the first time that I think can rival America's.
Mr. SMITH. What message would you send to Bill Gates and to the others right now with regards to President Hu?
Mr. GUTMANN. I don't know what to—you know, I am not quite sure. Bill Gates has blown hot and cold on China many times. It is almost as if Microsoft feels it is its own country. I would actually encourage that. I wish they would behave more like they were their own country, and they could take or leave China.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That is what I saw originally in Microsoft in my experience as a consultant. Originally, when Microsoft came to China, the kind of corporate responsibility programs they were doing were about labor. They were about unemployed people in Hebei. I used to look through the mug shots of these people, just page after page, thousands of people, who were down on their luck; and Microsoft told them, yeah, sure, Microsoft Windows, they were hired so they can get better jobs.
Well, I think that is good corporate responsibility. I think that is terrific. I think it is completely different from, for example, having a research and development center with the PSB in Shanghai. That is what I would encourage Microsoft—I would say, get out of that business and, you know, if you can, form this new coalition.
And I would encourage one more thing. You know, Microsoft and a lot of other companies give contributions to Republicans and they give contributions to Democrats. Sometimes they do it even in the same race. I do not see why these companies very quietly cannot go out and start finding some of these places like Dynaweb—small companies, they are out there—to break through the Chinese Internet, you fund them through foundation cutouts, keep the evidence, do not say a word about it, because when the CCP falls, you have a piece of paper showing you did something on the other side.
This is an essential insurance policy for these companies. I understand we will not hear about it if they do it, but I encourage them to do it.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you. You know, we just got news that a third Yahoo! cyber-dissident, according to Reporters Without Borders—who testified at our hearing on February 15th—Jiang Lijun, was sentenced to 4 years. Just another indication—that is just another one we know about, because there are just probably many, many more that have been sent to the laogai. But I would just make that point. That was just on the wire.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me just ask, if I could, Ms. Kadeer, about your family back in your homeland. We had written a letter—I say ''we,'' I was joined by several Members of Congress, including ranking Democrat Tom Lantos, last May 20th, asking the Premier—we expressed our grave concern, that of the U.S. Congress, concerning the arbitrary arrest on May 11th of business associates and your son.
What is the status of your family? I mean, you are so brave to be speaking out. And you know that they have retaliatory powers, and they have not been shy about using them. It seems to me that President Hu—as well, your appeal to him was made earlier to stop forced abortion and other atrocities.
I would hope that you would also make an appeal on behalf of your family, because I think it is unconscionable that they so mistreat the families of brave people like yourself.
Ms. KADEER. On May 11th, reportedly over 300 Chinese security police, came into my office at Urumqi and confiscated all of the business records. And my direct assistant and my secretary were taken away by the police. They put my family and my son on the watch list. They put surveillance on my business, including family members, to make it impossible for them to go on with their regular human lives.
I was worried back then that it is likely that three of my children will be put in jail. Because of Your Excellency and other Members of Congress' direct involvement, my children's arrest and some other hardships have been prevented. As a result, my business associate has been recently released; so has my son.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Despite how hard the Chinese Government tries to silence me, I live in a free world, and I have a mandate from my people, and I have a moral obligation to speak up and let my people's voices to be heard in the Free World, to the people who care about them and the future of my country.
After my assistant was released from prison, they made her call me and try to persuade me to stop criticizing the Chinese Government; stop making public statements; stop disclosing all of the atrocities or facts that I know about Chinese policies. They are trying very hard to put various types of restrictions on my family, specifically my sons' business and regular life. But I haven't heard anything about my business assistant, who has a few small children.
They are doing anything that is possible within their capacity to cause my business to collapse. I forgot about the business aspect of my life a long time ago. So I care less about what money means to my family, such as in the past. But my biggest concern is the safety of my remaining family members back home, specifically my sons.
After trying all types of efforts, harassment—even harassment here in the United States—they could not stop me. And now they are about to charge. I heard that they are going to charge my youngest son.
I am a mother, and like any other mother, I love my sons. My sons have been encouragin