[Senate Hearing 105-568]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-568
U.S. INTERESTS AT THE JUNE U.S.-CHINA SUMMIT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 14, 1998
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
__________________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-628 cc WASHINGTON : 1998
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
PAUL COVERDELL, Georgia PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
BILL FRIST, Tennessee PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
James W. Nance, Staff Director
Edwin K. Hall, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Jendrzejczyk, Mike, Washington Director, Human Rights Watch/Asia
Division....................................................... 33
Kagan, Robert, Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace............................................ 46
Kapp, Robert A., President, U.S.-China Business Council.......... 51
Roth, Stanley O., Assistant Secretary, East Asian and Pacific
Affairs, Department of State................................... 8
Waldron, Arthur, Ph.D., Lauder Professor of International
Relations, University of Pennsylvania; Director of Asian
Studies, American Enterprise Institute......................... 28
Appedix
Responses of Secretary Roth to Questions Asked by Chairman Helms. 67
Responses of Secretary Roth to Questions Asked by Senator Grams.. 68
Responses of Secretary Roth to Questions Asked by Senator
Ashcroft....................................................... 68
Responses of Secretary Roth to Questions Asked by Senator Thomas. 74
U.S. INTERESTS AT THE JUNE U.S.-CHINA SUMMIT
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jesse Helms
(chairman of the committee), presiding.
Present: Senators Helms, Thomas, Ashcroft, Feinstein,
Wellstone, and Feingold.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
We have another one of those difficult mornings. I would
say to our guests that every Senator belongs to at least two
major committees, and some of us belong to three. Often there
is a conflict.
Senator Biden is being delayed. He is in transit--Senator
Biden, who is the Ranking Member--will be here shortly.
I am going to inquire of the minority side if there is any
objection if we proceed. [No response.]
The Chairman. First off, over the past few days, repression
against democracy demonstrators by Indonesia's military has
mounted. All of you know that. A few days ago, the
administration, in my judgment, belatedly and indirectly
acknowledged the need for political reform in Indonesia.
Now, in light of the developments there, including the
reports in various media, including the New York Times this
morning, that the administration is sending a top-level
military delegation to Jakarta to urge restraint upon
Indonesia's armed forces, I have invited Assistant Secretary
Roth to tell the committee about the military delegation and
its mission, and to elaborate on the very brief statement
issued by the State Department a few days ago, stating that all
parties in Indonesia recognize the need for political reform.
Mr. Roth, I appreciate the circumstances you are in, and I
appreciate your being here this morning. To get you cranked up,
I am going to ask you a question. Is the U.S. making political
reform--specifically a transition toward democratic--the top
priority in its Indonesia policy? I bounce that ball to you,
and you take it from there.
Mr. Roth. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
begin with a double apology, first, on behalf of Secretary
Albright, the fact that she was not able to come today due to
her overloaded schedule with travel, and she very, very much
appreciates the graciousness of you personally and your staff
in accommodating her.
The Chairman. I am going to ask you to pull the microphone
a little closer to you so that the folks in the back can hear
you.
Mr. Roth. The Secretary is personally appreciative of the
fact that you were willing to allow me to come up as a poor
substitute for her today, to deal with the China issue. So I
extend her regrets that she was unable to do it.
Second, because of the situation in Indonesia, as I
explained to you just before we started the hearing, which kept
us up most of the night, we were late in getting the testimony
up to you. We pride ourselves on getting you the testimony in
time. I want to give you an assurance we will try not to do
that again. But, again, we appreciate the indulgence of you and
your staff on this.
The Chairman. You certainly did the best you could. That I
understand and I appreciate.
Mr. Roth. Now, let me turn to your serious question about
Indonesia.
First, I should give you a piece of news: That the military
delegation is not going. The concept, first of all, was never a
delegation. The concept was to have CINCPAC Admiral Prueher,
who, as you know, travels almost constantly throughout the
region, make yet another trip to Indonesia, to talk to his
military counterparts, to continue to send a message of
restraint, and to up the ante and the urgency in light of the
terrible developments that took place this week.
We started talking about this trip before anybody had been
killed anywhere in Indonesia. As we were planning for it, the
situation obviously got worse.
This is not a new message. This is a message that I have
made publicly in Indonesia, in a press conference weeks ago,
again, before anybody was killed, urging restraint. We have
made it privately. We have made it publicly. We regret that it
has not been listened to. We will continue to urge this.
We thought that it was important to send this message
through every possible channel, civilian and military. That was
the reason why we had asked the CINC to go out there.
However, given the deterioration today and the situation in
Jakarta, including the fact that the road to the airport is
closed, there was a literal question of getting into the
country, and then the question of whom do you meet with when
you get there. So we have temporarily postponed this mission
until such time as he can carry it out. But the message of
restraint, you know, will go forward. I think that you asking
this question at the very beginning of a hearing that is
otherwise slated to be on China will certainly get the
attention of the Indonesian authorities. I think that is
positive.
Let me answer your next question. Which is, what is our
number one priority?
I think you will agree with me that my absolute, number one
priority, and what has to be the number one priority for the
U.S. Government, is the lives of our own citizens. We have
2,000 to 3,000 Americans in Jakarta, 11,000 to 12,000 Americans
in Indonesia--which, as you know, is a collection of more than
13,000 islands, slung across more than 3,000 miles. Given the
situation in Jakarta, which has become very dicey, with a lot
of rioting, a lot of looting and little order at this point, we
cannot guarantee the security of our American citizens, and
neither can the Indonesian authorities.
So, we are spending most of today working to make
arrangements to see what we can do to better protect our
citizens and, if necessary, get some out. I do not want to
overstate this. This is not a total evacuation. We are not
closing our embassy. This is not panic. But we all take very
seriously our obligations to protect American lives.
Going right behind that, of course, is the question of the
situation in Indonesia itself. There I think Secretary Albright
made a very direct statement. I was a little surprised by your
characterization of it as indirect. Secretary Albright released
a statement making four key points. First, she just
categorically deplored the violence, and attributed it to the
security forces. No beating around the bush; that is the
Secretary Albright you expect to get.
Second, she made the plea at a much higher level than me,
obviously, for restraint.
Third, she made a public statement, saying that there was a
need for political reform. We wanted to make it very clear that
this is not purely a technical/economic issue, in terms of
implementation of an IMF agreement; that events have progressed
so far that there has to be some political reform if there is
going to be a peaceful resolution to this crisis.
What the statement meant, when it said that all parties
have called for this, is the fact that in one way or another,
there has been a plethora of calls for political reform in a
way that did not exist had I been briefing you 10 days ago.
President Suharto, before he went to Africa, made a statement,
saying that he was prepared for political reform before 2003,
which was the end of his term. More importantly, yesterday he
made another statement, saying if people want reform now,
political reform now, he is prepared to let that happen.
But I am not saying that means he and you and I have the
same definition of political reform or that we are at the verge
of resolution. He has called for it. The Speaker of their
Parliament has called for reform. A key general has called for
political reform. Needless to say, many opposition figures have
called for political reform, as of course has the students. So,
you have a totally new environment in Indonesia compared to
only a few weeks ago, in terms of the public debate about
political reform.
So, we feel this is an Indonesian issue. It is Indonesians,
including the government, calling for it. They need to work
this out. It is not for us to give an American plan. But we
have made it absolutely unambiguous that we see the need for
political reform. We think the way to get this is through
something they have been talking about, but have not yet done
in Indonesia, which is through dialog between the government
and its citizens.
There are many different ways they could do this, ranging
from the informal meetings to the formal, like convening some
of their national organizations or assemblies. That is up to
them. We do not think there should be an American plan. But we
do think that the government has to be talking to its citizens,
not shooting students in the street. We have made that
absolutely clear.
So, we are looking for a process of political reform.
Obviously we would hope that political reform will lead to a
greater degree of democracy and pluralism.
The Chairman. I see the distinguished chairman of the
relevant subcommittee, Mr. Thomas, is here. I invite you to
make any comment and ask any questions you may have in mind,
sir.
Senator Thomas. All right, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
am pleased that you brought up the Indonesia thing. Obviously
that is the issue. But I do want to make a short statement,
please.
As we approach the second summit meeting between President
Clinton and Jiang Zemin, as chairman of the subcommittee, I am
encouraged at the present state of U.S.-China relations. From a
low point in 1994-1995, I think relations have strengthened in
the last 3 years. A number of promising developments have
occurred even in the last year.
For example, the Mainland's threats and the displays of
force with respect to Taiwan have receded, the transition of
Hong Kong to Chinese governance has come off better than even
the severest critics believed. China's violations of her
bilateral IPR agreements appear to have diminished. China has
selected an economist as their new Premier, and he has already
announced plans to shrink the bureaucracy, make market reforms
and dismantle the system of state-owned enterprises. We hope
that happens. During the recent financial crisis, the Chinese
have been helpful in stemming the growing panic in the market,
and that is good.
So, I feel that China is doing better. Keep in mind I am
speaking in a context, of course. China has still a long ways
to go in some of the areas, we believe.
While I applaud the release of selected prisoners of
conscience, we must remember they leave behind them thousands
of prisoners that need to be dealt with. We must remember that
the release of two or three, or even hundreds, of prisoners
does not change the underlying system which still exists.
We continue to be disturbed by reports about nuclear
proliferation in Pakistan, which becomes even more important
now. Tibet remains an object of repression. Of course religious
persecution from the government towards Buddhists, Catholics,
Muslims, and Protestants continues, and we think for no other
reason than religious beliefs.
But, on balance, I do believe that China is improving. Not
as fast or broad, of course, as we would like. That is always
the case. But there has been, I think, some evidence that the
idea of engagement has been helpful, rather than containing or
castigating or cutting off from the rest of the world.
So, I support the President's decision to go to this
summit. However, I just want to make a couple of caveats. It is
only 5 weeks away, and the administration has yet to make any
step toward consulting with Congress about the agenda, as far
as I know.
Last year, before Jiang Zemin's visit, the National
Security Council and the State Department came to the Hill on
several occasions, and we talked about our concerns. Where is
that effort this year?
A lack of consultation has left the Congress kind of
nervous. The situation is kind of like the President going to a
wedding. We know he is going to take a present, but he has
already wrapped it and we have no idea what is inside. So, I
think we ought to do something about that.
So, I strongly urge that the administration, if it wants to
sort of sooth the apprehension in the Congress and assist those
of us who believe in constructive engagement, we ought to have
a little more input into it, and not have an unwelcome surprise
package when the President goes there.
Secretary Roth, I am delighted to have you here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank you, Senator.
Now, Senator Wellstone, I have preempted the subject
temporarily, the subject matter for which this meeting was
called. I wonder if you would like to ask a question or if you
have a statement, or both.
Senator Wellstone. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just go with something that just kind of builds on
what I have heard. I should be brief.
First of all, I would thank you for the focus on Indonesia.
I have had a chance to speak twice from the Senate floor. The
first time I talked about the students that are serving 12-14
year sentences for the crime of just trying to speak out and
organize people. I worried, as President Suharto had left
Indonesia for the conference, he made it crystal clear that
heads could be cracked. Indeed, that is what has happened, and
six students have lost their lives.
I really do hope that--Secretary Roth, I appreciate the
statements that have been made, but I think that the words will
not be taken seriously unless they are backed by concrete
action. I think IMF support should be conditional upon respect
for human rights. I do not believe we should be a party to
providing the financial assistance to a country that
systematically rounds up people, tortures people and, in the
case of very courageous students, murders its citizens.
And so I want to be clear that I do not believe that our
Government has--I do not believe that we are--I think our words
are fine, but they are not matched by our actions. I think that
we should be crystal clear that there will not be, from our
point of view, the IMF support unless this government ends this
repression.
Now is the time for the U.S. Government to be on the side
of these students and to be on the side of these citizens in
Indonesia. I guess that is more of a statement. But that is my
very, very strong belief.
I guess we will have a chance to go into the debate about
China. Let me just simply say, following on the comments of my
colleague from Wyoming, that I appreciate the leadership of the
chair. We were serious about what we were doing here. We had a
resolution that had about 96 votes, I think, which said, Look,
at the very minimum, bring up human rights at the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. I am bitterly
disappointed that our Government did not do that.
Now, we were told that the Chinese were going to sign onto
this International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They
have not done it. They have yet to sign it.
We have had people like Wei Jingsheng and others tell us
that people in China, people have the courage to speak out, the
courage to stand alone and speak out. Look to that conference
in Geneva. Look to what we would do as to whether or not there
would be support for people who showed this courage. We were
silent.
And I believe our silence--I mean, I think the
administration completely turned its thumbs down on a
resolution passed with 96 votes--or was it more? Was it 96
votes?
The Chairman. Ninety-five votes.
Senator Wellstone. Ninety-five votes. I exaggerate by one.
So, I would just say that I think the record is weak. I
think our country ought to be doing much more. That is going to
be the subject of our hearing today. In particular, as long
as--let me make my final point, Mr. Chairman. You gave me this
opportunity. I hope you are not regretting it. There are 158--
according to Wang, there are 158 Chinese men and women that
remain in prison for their role in the Tiananmen Square
protest. As long as they remain in prison, I do not think the
President of the United States of America ought to be visiting
there. I do not believe he should go there.
I think, symbolically, that sends the wrong message. It is
a message of betrayal to those students and to other courageous
citizens in China. I do not believe he should go there.
And we can talk more about other issues, as well, but I
want to make that point.
The Chairman. Very well.
Before we begin, among the guests here this morning, there
is one delegation that is very important to me, from my home
State, the Chamber of Commerce of Asheville, North Carolina.
Now, if you do not know anything about Asheville, North
Carolina, you need to learn, and go see the beauty thereof and
the warm hospitality.
Now, I would say to everyone here and those watching on
television that the purpose of this hearing--we scheduled it to
enable this committee to consider important issues related to
the President's upcoming visit to China. I want to say to the
Senator from Minnesota that I appreciate the comments that he
has made.
I came to the Senate 26 years ago. Throughout that time I
have been working with Chinese young people in this country--
mainly students. I am sure other Senators have done as much,
and this same sort of thing. But I think we better be careful
where we put our priorities. Because I think the world is
looking at us.
And let me say at the outset that Secretary Albright was
willing to come here this morning, to include this meeting in
her incredibly busy schedule. But I am the one who told her
that she was overloading the circuit with her travels and self-
defeating physical condition. So, I suggested that she not
come, because she has been instantly available any time the
chairman of this committee has called upon her. I wish her
well. As I told her the other night, I think she ought to stay
home and rest a little bit before she hits the road again. So,
I gave her a rain check for a later date.
And with respect to the People's Republic of China--I call
it Communist China--the President's trip to China will be the
first by a U.S. President since the 1989 Tiananmen Square
massacre of democracy protestors. I will never forget that
young man standing in front of that tank. I feel fairly certain
that I speak for a lot of other Americans, too. That event was
a major event in the relations between the United States and
China.
And largely in response to the will of Congress, the Bush
administration imposed a number of sanctions. Then the present
administration arrived a few years later with fire-breathing
rhetoric about coddling dictators, and emphasizing its resolve
to use the administration's economic clout to pressure China to
improve its record of respect for personal and political
liberties.
Now, I think that what has happened, gentlemen and ladies,
is a matter of record. The administration has stepped back from
its promises to bring about improvements in China's human
rights record, settling instead for token releases of major
dissidents, often releasing them into exile into the United
States. Which would be bad enough, but the administration has
used these token actions by the Beijing Government to justify
serious concessions and concerns by the United States.
In fact, the President recently concluded a lengthy ritual
of multilateral diplomacy on human rights while at the very
same time he was secretly negotiating an end to U.S. efforts to
enact a resolution on China at the annual meeting of the U.N.
Human Rights Commission to which Senator Wellstone just
referred.
Worse still, weeks after signing on to a civilian nuclear
power agreement with China, and telling Congress that China was
no longer proliferating nuclear material to Iran, China was
discovered--what else--discovered preparing to sell Iran tons
and tons of a chemical used in making weapons-grade uranium.
Nevertheless, the President insisted that China's commitments
on proliferation were credible.
I do not believe that. I, frankly, disbelieve it. The New
York Times reports that the administration is allowing U.S.
companies to transfer satellite technology used in missile
guidance systems. The Washington Times has published a
memorandum, outlining an administration plan to offer China
access to missile technology if Beijing renews promises not to
export such material.
That will not wash, ladies and gentlemen--certainly not
with me.
Having given up so much, one might assume that there was
not much left to give up. You would be wrong in that
assumption. Because there is a lot remaining that we better be
careful about.
Let me try to be clear in my own judgment about what the
United States interest must be. Those interests do not include
going along to get along with China. U.S. interests are
democracy and freedom in China, and in Tibet and in Taiwan and
in Hong Kong. U.S. interests are synonymous, I think, with a
democratic China that keeps its promises on proliferation, and
on trade, and on human rights, and suffers the consequences
when it does not do that.
So, let me again--we are now where we would have begun
about 32 minutes ago if this meeting had not been overtaken by
other events. So, we welcome you, Mr. Roth, for your discussion
of U.S.-China relations and the summit agenda. You may proceed,
sir.
STATEMENT OF STANLEY O. ROTH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, EAST ASIAN
AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Roth. Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman. I will
certainly relay your kind words about the Secretary to her upon
my return.
The Chairman. Please do.
Mr. Roth. In my testimony, what I have tried to do is to
pick up where we left off. Meaning, since this is not the first
time that I have testified on China, I have tried not to waste
your time by going through the entire rationale of our
engagement policy. You have heard it before. I am very happy to
go through it again in response to questions if you want. But I
really try to pick up from where we left off, which was the
last summit. So, let me start from there.
In some sense, I might say that I think Senator Thomas
perhaps has encapsulated my testimony better than I did it in
my own statement, in talking about the dynamic of progress
versus the need for more progress. I think he really summarized
what it is we are trying to do, and I think how we think we are
going to get there. But let me proceed.
I believe we have made encouraging progress in many--not
all, but many--aspects of our relationship with China since the
summit meeting. Given the priority that you have attached, Mr.
Chairman, to a number of human rights issues, let me turn to
this set of issues first.
Progress on human rights has been a vital component of our
engagement with China. Just 6 months ago, members of this
committee, as well as the international community at large, had
grave concerns regarding the health and status of two of
China's most prominent political dissidents, Wei Jingsheng and
Wang Dan. Against the backdrop of intense dialog with the
United States and continued public U.S. criticism of China's
human rights record, the Chinese authorities have released both
Mr. Wei and Mr. Wang on medical parole, and have permitted some
other dissidents to depart China.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that it was one of the most
poignant meetings that I have ever had, when I met with Mr.
Wei's sister before his release, and she expressed her very
grave concerns that he might not survive if he did not get out.
So we, understandably, attached very high priority, on
humanitarian grounds, to getting him out. I believe you share
that priority.
None of us have tried to overstate the significance of his
release or the release of several other dissidents. Our belief
is we recognize progress when it occurs, and that we are very
glad that Mr. Wei is out, has gotten medical treatment, is
healthy, and is now functioning and expressing his views
freely; the same with Wang Dan, the same with some of the other
dissidents.
We are not saying this is enough. That is not our message
to you. It is not our message to China. But it is progress.
Similarly, China has signed the U.N. Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, and has pledged to sign the U.N.
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We hope that they will
do so before the summit.
President Jiang Zemin personally hosted a delegation of
U.S. religious leaders, which was an unusual step. The Chinese
Government has agreed to followup on this visit with further
dialog and exchanges. These exchanges can and do produce
results. Again, not at the pace you and I would like, but,
nevertheless, some results, we believe, are better than none.
We note, for example, the fact that Bishop Zeng Jingmu was
released from prison this week, even though we are still trying
to clarify the circumstances of whether he is under house
arrest or a free man at home. But at least this elderly,
distinguished bishop is not in jail. So, there is some
progress.
In the meantime, we have not hesitated to call it as we see
it. When we do not like what is going on, we say it. But the
steps the Chinese have taken within the space of just a few
months are nonetheless significant. We are going to continue to
push forward in our dialog, in the expectation of greater
progress on human rights issues in the future.
I think the same case can be made with respect to
nonproliferation. China has taken concrete steps toward
strengthening their export control regimes. In so doing, have
contributed to regional and global stability. The Chinese have
committed to phaseout nuclear cooperation with Iran, and to
refrain from assisting unsafeguarded nuclear facilities
anywhere. They have implemented strict nationwide nuclear
export controls. They have issued a State Council directive,
controlling the export of dual-use items with potential nuclear
use. They have joined the Zangger Nonproliferation Treaty
Exporters Committee. They have signed and ratified the Chemical
Weapons Convention. They have adopted chemical export controls.
These steps build upon the progress that this and previous
administrations have made in integrating China into
international control regimes.
Let me now turn to the economic sphere. China's emergence
on the world economic stage is of major significance to the
United States. As our widening trade deficit with the PRC
demonstrates, we have a major interest in working toward an
open Chinese economy that is integrated into a rules-based
trade regime. WTO accession, which we are working very hard on
in the run-up to the summit, is intended to do just that--
ensuring meaningful access for U.S. companies in the growing
China market.
But WTO accession is a complex and lengthy process. Chinese
accession can only come on a fully commercial basis. We believe
that the reforms and openings that China must undertake to gain
membership are fundamentally in China's interest, as well as in
our interest. We are thus committed to working with China to
advance this goal.
In this context, we are encouraged by one of the results
from Secretary Albright's recent trip to China, when she met
with Premier Zhu Rangii. He made it clear that China is
committed to working toward a WTO agreement. We seem to have
some momentum, that was established by Ambassador Barshefsky's
latest round of negotiations a few weeks back.
Let me also say, on the economic side, that we welcome the
responsible measures China has taken in the wake of the Asian
financial crisis, particularly its commitment not to devalue in
the face of regional depreciation.
We know, Mr. Chairman, how much importance you attach to
Hong Kong and its continued well-being. We of course share
that. One of the most important things China has done in order
to ensure Hong Kong's continued prosperity is not to devalue
its currency. I think that is a very favorable development for
Hong Kong and the entire region.
As I just mentioned with human rights and with
nonproliferation, this does not mean that everything is perfect
on the economic side. We still have a long road ahead in
addressing all of our bilateral economic concerns. The key, of
course, to dealing with the trade deficit is to get China to
take steps to address the growing imbalance. The key is
increasing U.S. exports to China.
We are encouraged by some steps, such as the $3 billion
Boeing sale that was signed at the last summit. We hope we will
make further progress on the commercial side in the months
ahead.
Let me turn, before I address the immediate issues you
raised in your most recent letter to the Secretary on China--
and I want to address each of those--but before I do, let me
offer a little broader framework for where I think we are
heading with China. That is the broadening and deepening
strategic dialog between the United States and the PRC. Over
the course of the past year, we have expanded the breadth and
scope of our strategic dialog with China.
Let me give you one example where I think this is paying
important results: North Korea. I am the head negotiator for
the United States team at the four-party talks in Geneva. I can
tell you it is truly remarkable to sit there and listen to the
Chinese negotiator read points that I could have written. He
has made points about how crucial it is, for example, for the
North to talk to the South, and that peace has to be made
between the parties on the Peninsula. It is not a question of
peace between the U.S. and North Korea nearly as much as it is
a question of peace between North Korea and South Korea.
That is a very welcome position, and a demonstration of
shared interests that would not have happened several years
ago. So, I use this as an example of how we are trying to find
areas where we can work and cooperate productively with China.
Again, none of this rationalizes bad behavior in other areas.
It does not excuse it, apologize for it or mean we accept it.
But what I am trying to do is suggest that we are seeking
aggressively to maximize the number of issues where we can work
together to promote American interests, even as we continue to
push on the problem areas.
And a lot of the negotiations now are turning into
nontraditional areas, the things that I guess you would call
postcold war issues--the so-called global issues. So we are
spending a lot of time, particularly since the last summit, in
working on some promising areas.
Energy and the environment, we need China to stop polluting
with the coal-powered energy plants that are contributing
enormously to global warming. We are working on the rule of
law, a program I hope you will endorse, to train lawyers, to
train judges, to try to see that they enforce laws which read
well but are useless of they are not enforced. But this is an
area where we think we can make considerable progress in
reforming their prison system, which I know has been a
longstanding personal concern of yours.
So, there is a whole host of issues--we call them the nine
baskets--that we are working on with China, to try to get some
accomplishments before the next visit.
Finally, let me now turn to the specific issues you raised
in your letter to Secretary Albright. First, on the
nonproliferation side. The Secretary does not want me to tell
you that everything is perfect. That is not our message. What
we are emphasizing is very significant progress and what might
work to get more progress. That is the message.
We are equally troubled, as are you, by troubling reports
that China--you know, there are suspicions that China has
violated its promise not to proliferate nuclear material, by
arranging to ship chemicals necessary for the conversion of
uranium to Iran. As you know, China is a major producer of
nuclear, chemical and missile-related equipment and technology.
Of course we must be vigilant in our monitoring to ensure
China's adherence to its commitments.
Although I am limited to what I can say on this in open
testimony, let me explain to you and the committee in broad
terms how the specific case that I believe you were referring
to was resolved. After receiving reports of the alleged
transaction, we immediately approached the authorities in
Beijing. The Chinese responded by conducting an investigation
into the allegations, after which they assured us that although
contacts have been made, no transfer of such chemicals had
taken place, nor would they be permitted to take place.
Should you wish to discuss this issue in greater detail,
Mr. Chairman, I would happy to arrange a time for you to do so
in closed session.
I would like to point out, however, that this case is
illustrative of how we think engagement with China enables us
to deal with new challenges, and to make progress to resolve
issues when problems comes up. We would have preferred if the
problem had not come up, but we certainly prefer resolving it
without a shipment of the materials to the reverse--the
materials going forward.
Let me now turn to Taiwan, another priority issue for you
and for us. Let me take this opportunity to categorically deny
that progress at the summit will be achieved at Taiwan's
expense. Despite widespread rumors to the contrary, there will
be no fourth ``communique'' regarding Taiwan arms sales. I say
that to you categorically.
The reason for this is quite simple, Mr. Chairman. Our
position regarding Taiwan is clear and unchanged. We remain
committed to our unofficial relationship with Taiwan, in
accordance with the three U.S.-PRC joint communiques, and the
Taiwan Relations Act, which of course is U.S. law. We continue
to support--indeed, to insist--on the peaceful resolution of
the Taiwan issue. Our efforts to improve relations with the PRC
are intended to strengthen peace and stability in East Asia
and, in that sense, will benefit the region as a whole,
including Taiwan.
Furthermore, I believe that the record shows that tensions
across the Taiwan Strait are lowest when U.S.-China relations
are strong. In that regard, we are encouraged by signs of a
renewed willingness on both sides of the Strait--meaning the
PRC and Taiwan--to resume their very important cross-Strait
dialog.
Last month, representatives from the two unofficial--PRC
and Taiwan--organizations in charge of this issue met for the
first time since 1995. They met in Beijing for 2 days of talks.
We welcome this new development, and firmly believe that
improvements in cross-Strait relations is in both parties' best
interests, as well as that of the entire region.
The third issue you raised in your letter, Mr. Chairman, is
Hong Kong. As the administration noted in its April 1 update of
the Hong Kong Policy Act report, many aspects of the transfer
of autonomy to the people of Hong Kong have gone well. Still,
while the overall transition from a colony to a special
autonomous region under Chinese sovereignty has been smooth, we
recognize, as you have in your letter, Mr. Chairman, that
serious issues of contention remain.
A new election law has been passed that will lead to a
legislature that is less representative than the 1995-1997
Legislative Council. Other colonial era laws have been adapted
to grant immunities to certain Chinese Government agencies.
We are troubled by these developments, and have not
hesitated to share our concerns with officials at the highest
levels in Hong Kong and in China. President Clinton himself
candidly conveyed to Tung Chee Hwa his disappointment with
changes in the election laws last year. Secretary Albright and
other senior U.S. officials have repeatedly advocated free,
fair and fully representative elections, as well as the
maintenance of Hong Kong's judicial and legal autonomy.
The last issue you raised in your letter, Mr. Chairman, is
the lack of tangible progress toward resolution of the Tibet
issue. Tibet continues to be a priority for Secretary Albright.
She discussed a number of Tibet-related issues in Beijing last
month, and pushed hard for the resumption of dialog with His
Holiness the Dalai Lama.
I think you know, Mr. Chairman, that there is enormous
difference between a talking point and a major effort to try to
resolve issues. I can assure you, having accompanied Secretary
Albright, that Tibet figured prominently in each of her
meetings, including with President Jiang Zemin. She further
indicated that President Clinton is going to raise the issue of
Tibet once again, just as he did with President Jiang Zemin
last year.
And of course we are pushing for the resumption of a dialog
between the Dalai Lama, or his representative, and the Chinese
authorities, as the best means of trying to make progress on
this issue.
The Chairman. I hope you will not consider me rude, for
lack of a better word, but tell me what goes on when you are,
quote, negotiating with China, Beijing, about Tibet. Give me a
sample of the dialog. What do you say to them? Do you say, We
hope you will stop? Or do you get stronger than that? What do
you say and what does Madam Secretary say?
She and I have discussed this thing 100 times, I suppose,
and it is getting worse and worse. If it keeps on, there will
be no people of Tibet left to worry about. I hope that is not
the resolution of the problem that the administration has in
mind. What do you say to them and what do they say to you in
response?
Mr. Roth. I will answer it in general terms now, but I
would be happy to be brief you completely, you know, in terms
of the confidentiality of diplomatic conversations, but let me
start generally and respond, and then I can----
The Chairman. Mr. Roth, that is not going to cut it.
Mr. Roth. Well, let me give you an answer. First of all, I
think the beginning of our position always is to make sure the
Chinese understand just how important this issue is to the
United States and to the Clinton administration. As you know,
when you meet with another country like China and you have 5 or
6 hours of meetings, there tend to be a lot of issues on the
agenda. So it is very important to differentiate with the other
officials, so that they know what your priority issues are.
And let me tell you categorically, unequivocally, they know
how important this issue is to President Clinton.
The Chairman. But they keep on killing the Tibetans,
though. They are slaughtering people over there. Standing by
and wringing our hands is not going to do it, Mr. Roth. I hope
you will not mind my candor about this thing.
Let me tell you something. I have known the Dalai Lama for
years and years and years. Probably you have, too. He, like the
majority of the Tibetan people, is one of the kindest, dearest
men that I have ever known. We do not agree on spiritual
matters and that sort of thing. But I took him to North
Carolina one time. You may know about this. I took him to a
university campus. I did not know how many people would show
up. But I thought the students there ought to be able to hear
this man and see him.
Well, you have heard of standing room only in auditoriums.
There was standing room only on the campus of that university.
I never saw that many people who drove 100 miles just to see
him.
So it does matter. It does matter to the people of North
Carolina, and I think to all of the American people, what
happens to, one, the Dalai Lama, and two, the Tibetan people.
That is the reason I was sort of bearing in on you, to say,
what kind of negotiating are we doing and what is the reaction
of the Chinese people with whom you are negotiating?
If you do not want to discuss it in public, I will arrange
for their to be an executive session so that you can discuss it
with those members of the committee who are interested in it.
Mr. Roth. I would welcome that.
The Chairman. All right. You may proceed.
Mr. Roth. I think I have said enough, as we can, on Tibet
in this session, but let me turn to an issue you did not raise.
The Chairman. I apologize, but this is just heavy on my
heart.
Mr. Roth. No apology necessary, Mr. Chairman. Let me say
that we completely share your concern. What I was trying to say
before is that this is not a boiler plate issue. This is not a
talking point issue. It is not as if we say, OK, we have raised
Tibet, now we can move on to something else. That the kind of
conversation we have is sufficiently long, detailed, serious,
high-level, going all the way up to the President of the United
States, that they know this is an area where we need to have
progress, and that they are not going to have the completely
normal relationship with the U.S. they want if there is not
progress.
The Chairman. Good.
Mr. Roth. President Clinton has said this personally to the
President of China, and I expect he will say again in the
upcoming visit. I would look forward to giving you a fuller
brief in executive session.
I wanted to address one more issue which, even though you
did not raise it in your letter, is of personal interest I know
to you and to me. That is the question of organ trafficking.
Rather than wait for you to ask a question, let me address it
in my testimony itself.
We have a shared personal interest on this issue. I have
stated in my recent correspondence with you, as well as in my
letter at the time of my confirmation hearing, that we are
working to try to get the Chinese Government to ensure, one,
that we believe that this is one of the most crucial human
rights issues that has to be pursued. It is not sufficient for
them simply to say it is not happening--which is what they say.
They tell us it is not a matter--it is against the law and it
is not a problem and we do not have to talk about it.
We do not accept that. Secretary Albright, on this most
recent trip, once again told them that that is not a
satisfactory answer. We are delighted that they tell us their
laws do not provide for this. But what are they doing to
implement the laws? What are the controls? What about this
court case in New York? What steps are they taking to make sure
the laws are enforced?
We do not, I am sorry to tell you today, have satisfactory
answers to these questions. I wish we did. It is not, I can
assure you, for lack of trying on our part. We will continue to
raise the same questions, and we will continue to try to get
the answers. We will continue to do it at a high level.
This is not one of the issues where I would say we have
made any progress yet with China since the summit, regrettably.
But this is an issue where I personally push and every senior
administration official does, as well. So we will keep trying.
That is the best I can tell you at this point.
In the meantime, I want to recall that I was pleased to
have an opportunity to meet with Harry Wu, as you had asked me
to, and as of course I was delighted to an American official,
to receive information he has on this subject. I made a
standing offer to him, which I reiterate today, that any time
he has new information he wants to bring to the U.S.
Government, just call. He will get an instant appointment. That
is a genuine offer, and I would be delighted--I admire the work
he has done. I believe that some of the progress that has been
made on the judicial side, our court cases, is because of his
activism. So this--you know, he is welcome in my office--is the
message I am trying to transmit.
I have exceeded my time, Mr. Chairman, so why don't I
conclude.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roth follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stanley O. Roth
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to give the members of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee an update on the state of US-
China relations. Secretary Albright has received your letter dated
April 27th in which you raise specific concerns about US-China policy.
The Secretary deeply regrets that she is unable to appear before you
herself today and hopes that she will have the opportunity to continue
her dialogue on US-China relations with this committee in the near
future. In the meantime, Secretary Albright has asked that I represent
her this morning to address your concerns and outline where we are in
our relationship with the PRC.
Mr. Chairman, since I last testified before this committee in
September of 1997, we have made encouraging progress in many aspects of
our relationship with China. From Jiang Zemin's state visit last
October through Secretary Albright's recent trip to Beijing, we have
worked hard with our Chinese counterparts to identify areas of common
interest and to achieve progress on issues of concern.
Given the priority that you have attached to a number of human
rights issues, Mr. Chairman, let me turn to this set of issues first.
Progress on human rights has been a vital component of our engagement
with China. Just six months ago members of this committee as well as
the international community at large had grave concerns regarding the
health and status of two of China's most prominent political
dissidents, Wei Jingsheng and Wang Dan. Against a backdrop of intensive
dialogue with the United States and continued, public U.S. criticism of
China's human rights record, the Chinese authorities have released both
Mr. Wei and Mr. Wang on medical parole and have permitted some other
dissidents to depart China. China has also signed the UN Covenant on
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and has pledged to sign the UN
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. President Jiang Zemin also
recently hosted a delegation of U.S. religious leaders, and the Chinese
government has agreed to follow up this visit with further dialogue and
exchanges. These exchanges can and do produce results, as the release
from prison just this week of Bishop Zeng Jingmu has demonstrated.
None of this is to suggest that human rights abuses in China are a
thing of the past. On the contrary, we have reported to Congress that
China continues to deny or curtail many fundamental freedoms. But the
steps the Chinese have taken within the space of just a few months are
nonetheless significant, and we will continue to push our human rights
dialogue forward in the expectation of greater progress on these issues
in the future.
As with our dialogue on human rights, we similarly pressed the
Chinese for progress on non-proliferation. They have responded by
taking concrete steps towards strengthening their export control
regimes, and in so doing have contributed to regional and global
stability. The Chinese have: committed to phase out nuclear cooperation
with Iran and to refrain from assisting unsafeguarded nuclear
facilities anywhere; implemented strict, nation-wide nuclear export
controls; issued a State Council directive controlling the export of
dual-use items with potential nuclear use; joined the Zangger NPT
exporters' committee; signed and ratified the chemical weapons
convention and adopted chemical export controls. These steps build upon
the progress that this and previous administrations have made in
integrating China into international control regimes and signify the
PRC's growing acceptance that the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction is not in its own interests.
China's emergence on the world economic stage is of major
significance to the United States, and as our widening trade deficit
with the PRC demonstrates, we have a significant interest in working
towards an open Chinese economy that is integrated into a rules-based
trade regime. WTO accession is intended to do just that, ensuring
meaningful access for U.S. companies in the growing China market. But
WTO accession for any applicant is a complex and lengthy process, and
Chinese accession can only come on a fully commercial basis. We believe
that the reforms and openings that China must undertake to gain
membership are fundamentally in China's interest as well as our own and
thus are committed to working with China to advance this common goal.
In this context, we are encouraged by recent indications from
Premier Zhu that China remains committed to working towards a WTO
agreement and by the momentum that appears to have been established in
USTR Barshefsky's latest round of negotiations in Beijing. We also
welcome the responsible measures China has taken in the wake of the
Asian financial crisis, particularly its commitment not to devalue in
the face of regional depreciations. In light of your strong feelings
regarding the future of Hong Kong, Mr. Chairman, it is worth noting
that Hong Kong was a primary beneficiary of this policy.
As in other areas, there is still a long road ahead in addressing
all of our bilateral economic concerns. While we are working with the
Chinese on the challenge of WTO accession, we are pressing them to take
steps to adders our growing trade deficit. The key is increasing U.S.
exports to China. We are encouraged by steps, such as the $3 billion
dollar Boeing contract signed at the October summit, and hope that we
will be able to make further progress in the months ahead.
Movement forward on the areas I just indicated--human rights, non
proliferation and economic cooperation--has been made within the
broader framework of a deepening strategic dialogue between the United
States and China. Over the course of the past year, we have expanded
the breadth and scope of our strategic dialogue with China, and Korea
policy is one area where this expanded dialogue has yielded results.
Peace on the Peninsula is as fundamental a strategic interest for China
as it is for the United States. The heightened risk of instability in
the North due to its prolonged food crisis, moreover, poses as much a
security threat to the PRC as it does to our own troops and allies, and
thus we share a common interest in working together to defuse tensions
and deter aggression.
Still, despite such common cause, many observers speculated that
historical ties to the North might prompt Beijing to play spoiler and
thus complicate our efforts to deal with the DPRK. Thanks to the
strategic dialogue we have been cultivating with the Chinese, however,
the PRC has defied such expectations and emerged as a partner in the
promotion of peace and stability on the Peninsula. China worked closely
with the United States to bring North Korea to the negotiating table
last fall and now sits with us at the four party talks in the common
pursuit of a permanent peace. China chaired the most recent North-South
negotiation, which we wholeheartedly support, and is pro actively
addressing the humanitarian crisis in North Korea through substantial,
ongoing food and fuel donations. These efforts have been complementary
to our own and have contributed to the security and stability of the
entire region.
Mr. Chairman, the above are not exhaustive examples of the fruits
of engagement but rather highlights of the progress we have made in
just the past eight months. We are moving forward with China in other
areas as well, on issues as diverse as rule of law, energy and the
environment, and law enforcement. I want to make clear that we are
neither satisfied with nor complacent about this progress; there are
issues on which we have admittedly made less headway as well as
significant areas of contention on each of the fronts in which I noted
progress.
On that note, Mr. Chairman, let me turn now to the specific
concerns you raised in your letter to Secretary Albright. First in
regards to suspicion that China violated its promise not to proliferate
nuclear material by arranging to ship chemicals necessary for the
conversion of uranium to Iran, let me assure you that we share your
concerns about such troubling reports. China is a major producer of
nuclear, chemical, and missile related equipment and technology and we
must be vigilant in our monitoring to ensure China's adherence to its
commitments.
Although I am limited as to what I can say on this in open
testimony, let me explain to the committee in broad terms how this case
was resolved. After receiving reports of the alleged transaction, we
immediately approached the authorities in Beijing. The Chinese
responded by conducting an investigation into the allegations, after
which they assured us that although contacts had been made, no transfer
of such chemicals had taken place or would be permitted to take place.
Should you wish to discuss this issue in greater detail, Mr. Chairman,
I would be happy to arrange a time to do so at your convenience in
closed session.
I would like to make the point, however, that this case is
illustrative of how engagement with China enables us to deal with new
challenges. Regular contacts and dialogue between the United States and
China provide a mechanism for dealing with problems as they arise.
As for your concerns regarding the Administration's attitude toward
Taiwan, let me take this opportunity to categorically deny that
progress at the summit will be achieved at Taiwan's expense. Despite
widespread rumors to the contrary, there will be no fourth
``communique'' regarding Taiwan arms sales. The reason for this is
quite simple, Mr. Chairman: our position regarding Taiwan is clear and
unchanged. We remain committed to our unofficial relationship with
Taiwan in accordance with the three U.S.-PRC joint communique's and the
Taiwan Relations Act, and continue to support the peaceful resolution
of the Taiwan issue. Our efforts to improve relations with the PRC are
intended to strengthen peace and stability in East Asia and in that
sense will benefit the region as a whole, including Taiwan.
Furthermore, the record shows that tensions across the Taiwan
Strait are lowest when US-China relations are strong. In that regard,
we are encouraged by signs of a renewed willingness on both sides of
the Strait to resume their dialogue. Last month representatives from
the PRC's ARATS and Taiwan's SEF, the two ``unofficial'' organizations
which carry out direct contacts between Beijing and Taipei, met in
Beijing for two days of talks, marking the first real step towards the
resumption of formal cross-Strait dialogue since Beijing suspended the
talks in June 1995. We welcome this new development and firmly believe
that improvement in cross-Strait relations is in both parties' best
interests as well as that of the entire region.
The third issue you raised in your letter, Mr. Chairman, is that of
the state of democratic freedoms in Hong Kong. As we noted in our April
1, 1998 update of the Hong Kong Policy Act report, many aspects of the
transfer of autonomy to the people of Hong Kong have gone well.
Still, while the overall transition from a colony under the British
crown to a special autonomous region under Chinese sovereignty has been
smooth, we recognize as you have in your letter, Mr. Chairman, that
serious areas of contention remain. A new election law has been passed
that will lead to a legislature that is less representative than the
1995-97 Legislative Council, and other colonial era laws have been
adapted to grant immunities to certain Chinese government agencies.
We are troubled by these developments and have not hesitated to
share our concerns with officials at the highest levels in Hong Kong.
President Clinton himself candidly conveyed to Tung Chee Hwa his
disappointment with changes in the election laws late last year, and
Secretary Albright and other senior U.S. officials have repeatedly
advocated free, fair, and fully representative elections as well as the
maintenance of Hong Kong's judicial and legal autonomy.
The last issue raised in your letter, Mr. Chairman, is the lack of
tangible progress towards resolution of the Tibet issue. Tibet
continues to be a priority for Secretary Albright. She discussed a
number of Tibet-related issues in Beijing last month and pushed hard
for the resumption of dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. It is
worth noting that the Dalai Lama himself has publicly stated support
for U.S. engagement with China, expressing his firm belief that such
engagement keeps the pressure on while keeping channels of
communication open.
We share your concerns about the degradation of Tibet's unique
cultural, linguistic and religious heritage and will continue to press
the PRC for progress on the ground. Secretary Albright made it very
clear during her recent trip to Beijing that President Clinton intends
to discuss Tibet during his upcoming visit.
As a final note, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address the problem of
organ trafficking. We have shared a personal dialogue on this issue
before, and as I stated in recent correspondence with you on this
issue, we are working to ensure that the Chinese government understands
in no uncertain terms that the allegations of organ trafficking are a
key human rights issue for us. At the same time, we are continuing to
press authorities in Beijing in an effort to ensure compliance with
their own regulations. These regulations, as you know, require prior
consent for the use of an executed prisoner's organs and prohibit the
sale of organs for profit. We will continue to push for greater
transparency in these areas and for improvements in China's legal
system that would better safeguard individual rights and due process.
Per your request, Mr. Chairman, I met with Harry Wu to discuss this
issue, at which time I made a standing offer to meet with him again at
any time. In the meantime, should any additional information regarding
organ trafficking come to your attention, Mr. Chairman, I hope that you
will share it with me so that I may continue to pursue this matter.
As the Secretary indicated in her remarks in Beijing, and as I have
tried to give the members of this committee a sense of in my testimony,
engagement with China is producing results. Our broad goal has been to
work toward the emergence of a China that is stable and non-aggressive;
that tolerates differing views and adheres to international rules of
conduct; and that cooperates with us to build a secure regional and
international order. We have made significant, if uneven, progress with
the Chinese on all of these fronts, and in so doing have contributed to
an ongoing process of change within China. Our candid dialogue on every
aspect of the relationship will continue as we prepare for the June
summit in Beijing, and I expect that we will continue to make progress,
however modest, on various fronts. More importantly, we will continue
to engage the Chinese long after the summit, expanding areas of
cooperation, dealing forthrightly with our differences, and advancing
American interests and values.
The Chairman. All right. I am going to forego questions at
this time. We have been joined by the distinguished Senator
from California, who has not had a chance to say one word. We
are glad to have any comment that you have. I appreciate your
coming. You have at him.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. I do not have any major comments to make at this
time.
I think, however, that the President's visit to China in
June really will signal a new era in terms of the policy of
engagement with China, and will, I believe, put some ``there''
there. I happen to believe it is the right thing to do at this
time. I am also heartened that in May there will be some direct
communication links so that our leaders can talk to one
another.
I believe very strongly that there is an opportunity coming
in the next few months for some major breakthroughs with China.
I am not sure that anyone should hold the President's visit
necessarily as a determinant of this, but that the new
leadership is now firmly in place in China, that the United
States has the opportunity, really for the first time, to
define this strategic partnership and to begin to impress on
the Chinese, in a coordinated, unified and major way, some of
our major concerns with the development of the rule of law; the
treatment of minorities; the Tibetan issues, which are profound
and festering and need direct attention; as well as some of the
other areas of concern, involving nuclear nonproliferation, and
particularly now with the Indian situation and the potential
Pakistani situation.
I hope to ask, when I have an opportunity, some questions,
Mr. Chairman, and I do not know if this is that time.
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. It is.
Let me begin with a direct question of you, Mr. Roth.
Again, welcome, and it is good to see you again. I wanted to
ask a question. China is a party to the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, and stated on May 11, 1996, that it
will not provide assistance to unsafeguarded nuclear
facilities. Also, at the October 1997 U.S.-China summit, China
pledged that it would phaseout its nuclear energy cooperation
with Iran.
What I would like to know is has China stopped its nuclear
energy cooperation with Iran and its assistance to
unsafeguarded nuclear facilities in Pakistan? We know that
China has provided help to Pakistan. I think the record is
clear. But has that ceased? And is China ceasing its nuclear
energy cooperation with Iran?
I think these are very important things. Because it is so
difficult the way the ministries function sometime outside of
the scope of political control, have they set up a regime of
export controls to protect against illegal exports by rogue
ministries or companies, as they promised in the October
summit?
Mr. Roth. I believe in my statement, before you arrived, I
indicated a number of specific steps which China has taken to
indicate that it is fulfilling its commitment. At the same
time, I indicated that there are questions about
implementation, particularly about implementation not
necessarily with the approval of the government, that, you
know, we have to followup on as a key issue. I gave a specific
example within the limits of what I could say in open session
about a recent case in which we received reports of an activity
that would not have been consistent. We brought this to the
attention of Chinese authorities, and the shipment did not
happen.
Obviously, in a classified version, we can give you real
details on this. But the general point is yes, we believe, on
the nuclear side, they have lived up to their commitments.
Senator Feinstein. Because I think of the strategic
partnership effort that you are engaging upon in the engagement
effort, I think this is the most fundamental. I mean, this is
where we have to have very clear cooperation, and particularly
with the situation on the Subcontinent at the present time.
Some good news this month is that the first resumptions of
the across-the-Strait discussion between Taiwan and China was
to take place in April, in Beijing. Do you have any reports
from that meeting? Can you enlighten us if any progress was
made, or even with what was discussed?
Mr. Roth. Yes. I mean, obviously this is a very high
priority for us, because we see cross-Strait dialog as the most
promising means of trying to reduce tensions across the Strait.
Our understanding is that this meeting was primarily about
process rather than substance; that the purpose is to try to
get back to where they had been in 1995, which was on the verge
of a high-level political meeting, the so-called Wang-Ku talks,
to really address some of the substantive issues.
So, my understanding, based on what we have heard from the
parties, is that this was more of an organizational session
than a substantive session. The important thing is that it
appears increasingly likely, when you talk to the parties, both
sides suggest that they will have a meeting before the end of
the year and get this dialog back on track, to start addressing
the substantive issues.
Senator Feinstein. I think, indeed, that is very good news.
I think there has been a kind of rumor going around that last
year was Hong Kong, this year is Taiwan, next year is Tibet. I
mean, I wish I could really add policy to that rumor, other
than to express the hope that indeed it is true. It certainly
seems that at least the discussions will begin. I know some of
the parties on the Taiwan side will be coming to this country
shortly. We will have an opportunity, hopefully, to discuss
this with them, as well.
What is your assessment of the upcoming elections of the
LegCo in Hong Kong? I just came from a meeting with
representatives from the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong
Kong. They indicated to me that they felt that the transition
had gone, as they put it--and this is a quote--in a seamless
way. They did have some concerns on the development of the rule
of law. We discussed the elections that are upcoming.
What is your assessment of these elections which are going
to be held next week?
Mr. Roth. I think I met with the same delegation. The point
that I made to them was obviously there is a considerable
amount of good news, in terms of what took place in Hong Kong.
For one thing, we have seen virtually no Chinese military
presence, which had been a major concern, if you go back to
less than 1 year ago. The troops have not left the barracks.
At the same time, there is absolutely no doubt that when it
comes to the electoral process, I would say that is the issue
where things have gone the least well. President Clinton
himself has expressed disappoint to Tung Chee Hwa, when he came
to the United States, about the arrangements, because we
believe a system was adopted which is going to make this less
representative than it had been previously.
The real issue is the future; where do we go from here? As
you know, there is a process set out in the Basic Law that
makes it possible to establish what we would call full
democracy within 10 years. But when you talk to the Hong Kong
people, you are finding that many of the Hong Kong people
themselves are talking about expediting this process, not to
have it take 10 years. I think that is going to be the focus of
the activities way beyond this specific election.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. The Senator from
Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft.
Senator Ashcroft. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing on the June summit between the United
States and China. I will submit for the record a complete text,
but I want to move through some of the statement that I would
like to make.
We have of course the upcoming summit with China, which
would be the second in less than a year. I am a little
disappointed that this administration's greater time commitment
to U.S.-China relations has not been matched by what I consider
to be more effective and prudent policy. The administration's
China policy has too often been one of appeasement. From
weapons proliferation to trade agreements to human rights,
China has made and broken commitments while this administration
has looked the other way.
Nuclear detonations in India are deeply troubling, but the
laxity of this administration's efforts to stop Chinese
proliferation activity throughout South Asia over the last 6
years contributed to the level of regional insecurity.
For example, during last October's summit between President
Clinton and President Jiang, the administration rewarded the
Chinese for almost 20 years of broken nonproliferation pledges
with implementation of the long dormant U.S.-China Nuclear
Cooperation Agreement. This Agreement will allow the United
States to send its best nuclear reactor technology to Communist
China, the country which the Central Intelligence Agency has
identified as, and I quote, the most significant supplier of
weapons of mass destruction-related goods and technology to
foreign countries.
I suppose it could be portrayed as a triumph, when the
latest potential Chinese transfer to Iran's nuclear weapons
program was detected and stopped. But I wonder if that is
really a triumph, when the commitment of the Chinese appears to
be that if you catch us with our hand in the cookie jar, we
will drop the cookie. What about the items that we do not
detect? Is the commitment only to discontinue deliveries when
the United States develops information about them?
As a condition of implementing the Nuclear Cooperation
Agreement, the President certified to Congress on January 12,
1998, that China had made clear and unequivocal commitments not
to proliferate nuclear technology. Then, 2 months later, the
Washington Post reported China was caught trying to ship to
Iran hundreds of tons of anhydrous hydrogen fluoride to use to
enrich uranium to weapons-grade. The material reportedly was
destined for the Isfahan Nuclear Research Center, one Iran's
principal sites to manufacture an explosive core for an atomic
device.
The administration reportedly discovered this effort by
China even before the President certified China's
nonproliferation commitments to Congress. That is troubling.
How did the administration respond to this latest example
of China's total disregard for honoring its nonproliferation
commitments? Outrage? Suspension of the Nuclear Cooperation
Agreement? Not hardly.
The administration spun this troubling story into a
diplomatic triumph, arguing that U.S. protests against the
nuclear transfer to Iran were responded to more quickly by the
Chinese, who made new pledges not to engage in such behavior in
the future.
Nuclear technology is not the only area troubling to me.
According to the New York Times, the President allowed
satellite technology to be sent to China which benefited
China's intercontinental ballistic missile program--missiles
with nuclear warheads pointed at the United States, according
to recent revelations.
Further, according to the reports in the Washington Times,
the administration is trying to lure China into the Missile
Technology Control Regime with promises of greater space
cooperation with the United States, cooperation that would
enhance their access to U.S. missile technology. The
administration is offering to help arm China in exchange for
Chinese entrance into a missile nonproliferation framework that
China has violated repeatedly in the past, and is probably
violating right now.
The picture is no better in our trade relations with the
Chinese. The administration has administered U.S.-China trade
relations with what appears to be a disregard for U.S. law and
a dismal record of broken trade commitments by the Chinese
Government. Ever since the United States and China normalized
relations in 1979, the two countries have had a bilateral trade
agreement, which is the foundation for China's MFN status.
Just 3 months ago, the President had to decide whether
China's concessions in trade and services were satisfactory.
The President said yes, even though the administration released
a report on China, stating that its trade regime is, political;
severely restricted; prohibitive; unpredictable; preferential;
de facto; unpublished. It is vague according to the quotes from
the report, inaccessible, inconsistent, non-comprehensive--and
the list goes on.
Furthermore, when China was facing Congress' near
withdrawal of MFN status and President Bush's threat of
sanctions over its trade practices in 1991, China had to make
specific, measurable trade commitments to the United States to
preserve MFN and to obtain U.S. support for China's accession
to the World Trade Organization. China has failed to honor
these commitments by the December 31, 1997 deadline, which
passed at the end of last year. Yet the administration is
moving forward in negotiation for China's WTO accession.
So we had conditioned our help on an agreement between the
Congress and the President of the United States, that China was
going to be involved in certain kinds of activities. The
President has ignored China's lack of compliance. The
administration's consistent appeasement of China's predatory
trade and investment practices has resulted in a 1997 trade
deficit of $49.7 billion, an imbalance more than 2.5 times
larger than the U.S. trade deficit with the entire European
continent.
I see that the chairman is signalling that I should submit
the rest of my statement for the record, and I will be happy to
do so.
I am concerned that U.S. policy toward China is not being
formulated to advance U.S. interests effectively. It seems to
me that there is a suggestion that the way we show concern
about an issue is that we make sure we talk about it a long
time when we show up for bilateral conferences. I think it is
important that U.S. interests not just be bullet points on a
meeting agenda. Defending U.S. interests has got to be the
driving force of our policy and conduct.
We have to understand that China will draw lessons from our
policy and conduct, and I fear that Beijing is sensing they
will not be held accountable for behavior contrary to American
interests to the values of a free society.
[The prepared statement of Senator Ashcroft follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator John Ashcroft
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing on the
June summit between the United States and China. The upcoming summit
with China will be the second in less than a year. Unfortunately, this
Administration's greater time commitment to U.S.-China relations has
not been matched with a more prudent and effective China policy.
This Administration's China policy can best be described as
appeasement at every turn. From weapons proliferation to trade
agreements to human rights, China has made and broken commitments while
this Administration has looked the other way or worse.
Nuclear detonations in India are deeply troubling, but the laxity
of this Administration's efforts to stop Chinese proliferation activity
throughout South Asia over the last six years contributed to the level
of regional insecurity.
U.S. National Security Interests
For example, during last October's summit between President Clinton
and President Jiang, the Administration rewarded the Chinese for almost
20 years of broken nonproliferation pledges with implementation of the
long-dormant U.S.-China nuclear cooperation agreement. This agreement
will allow the United States to send its best nuclear reactor
technology to Communist China--the country which the Central
Intelligence Agency identified as the ``most significant supplier of
weapons of mass destruction-related goods and technology to foreign
countries.''
As a condition of implementing the nuclear cooperation agreement,
the President certified to Congress on January 12, 1998 that China had
made ``clear and unequivocal'' commitments to not proliferate nuclear
technology. Only two months later, on March 13, 1998, The Washington
Post reported that China was caught trying to ship Iran hundreds of
tons of anhydrous hydrogen fluoride, a material used in enriching
uranium to weapons grade. This material reportedly was destined for the
Isfahan Nuclear Research Center, one of Iran's principal sites to
manufacture the explosive core of an atomic device. The Administration
reportedly discovered this effort by China even before the President
certified China's nonproliferation commitments to Congress.
How did the Administration respond to this latest example of
China's total disregard for honoring its nonproliferation commitments?
Outrage? Suspension of the nuclear cooperation agreement? Not hardly.
The Administration spun this troubling story into a diplomatic triumph,
arguing that U.S. protests against the nuclear transfer to Iran were
responded to more quickly by the Chinese, who made new pledges not to
engage in such behavior in the future.
Nuclear technology is not the only area of troubling U.S.
assistance to China. According to reports in The New York Times, the
President allowed satellite technology to be sent to China which
benefited China's intercontinental ballistic missile program missiles
with nuclear warheads pointed at the United States.
Furthermore, according to reports in The Washington Times, the
Administration is trying to lure China into the Missile Technology
Control Regime with promises of greater space cooperation with the
United States--cooperation that will enhance China's access to U.S.
missile technology. The Administration is offering to help arm China in
exchange for Chinese entrance into a missile nonproliferation framework
that China has violated repeatedly in the past and probably is
violating now.
U.S. Trade Interests
The picture is no better in our trade relations with the Chinese.
This Administration has administered U.S.-China trade relations with
what appears to be a disregard for U.S. law and a 4ismissal of the
broken trade commitments by the Chinese government.
Ever since the United States and China normalized relations in
1979, the two countries have had a bilateral trade agreement that is
the foundation for China's MFN status. Just three months ago, the
President had to decide whether China's concessions in trade and
services were satisfactory. The President said ``yes'' even though the
Administration released a report on China stating that its trade regime
is: ``political,'' ``severely restricted,'' ``prohibitive,''
``unpredictable,'' ``preferential,'' ``de facto,'' ``unpublished,''
``vague,'' ``inaccessible,'' ``inconsistent,'' ``noncompetitive,'' and
the list goes on.
Furthermore, when China was facing Congress' near withdrawal of MFN
status and President Bush's threat of sanctions over its trade
practices in 1991, China had to make specific, measurable trade
commitments to the United States to preserve MFN and obtain U.S.
support for China's accession to the WTO. China has failed to honor
these commitments by the December 31, 1997 deadline, yet the
Administration is moving forward in negotiations for China's WTO
accession.
The Administration's consistent appeasement of China's predatory
trade and investment practices has resulted in a 1997 trade deficit of
$49.7 billion an imbalance more than 2.5 times larger than the U.S.
trade deficit with the entire European Continent, and accounting for
one-fourth of the U.S. trade deficit with the entire world.
U.S. Interests in Civil Liberty
Finally, China's human rights practices violate China's own
constitution and the 14 international covenants on civil liberties
China has signed. Beijing is engaged in a massive and systematic
campaign to repress religious and political dissent. Imprisonment,
forced abortion, torture, and summary execution are some of the
atrocities listed in the State Department's latest report on China's
human rights practices.
In spite of such behavior, the Administration declined even to
introduce a resolution at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights
condemning China's violations of civil liberty. Rather than confront
China's oppression, the Administration reportedly is shifting its focus
to encourage China to sign more international covenants on human
rights. Paper covenants on human rights have not stopped the Chinese
bayonet so far, and I submit they never will until there is genuine
political change in China. Why is this Administration pushing China to
sign more covenants to protect the human rights that the Chinese
government has shown no intention of honoring?
The June Summit
Mr. Chairman, it is time for the Senate of the United States to
take a stand on U.S.-China relations. The Senate must raise awareness
of the obstacles to a strong U.S.-China relationship, and I intend to
introduce a resolution on June 4--the anniversary of the Tiananmen
Square massacre--outlining the real issues that need to be discussed at
the June summit between President Clinton and President Jiang.
A positive relationship between our two countries is in the
interest of the United States and China, but this Administration is
laying the groundwork for serious problems with China in the future. A
strong diplomatic relationship is based on mutual respect and trust.
Rather than address Chinese behavior which undermines that trust, this
Administration is covering up the landmines of U.S.-China relations
that are bound to explode in the future. Helping China arm its defense
establishment, overlooking China's broken trade and nonproliferation
commitments, and turning a deaf ear to China's oppressed are not
elements of a thoughtful and courageous China policy.
The President will be going to China next month, and his first stop
will be at Tiananmen Square, the site of so much bloodshed just nine
years ago. Paying homage to the students who died at Tiananmen Square
should be the first thing the President does at the June summit. It
should not be the last, though. National security, trade, and broader
human rights issues should be addressed frankly and forthrightly
throughout the summit.
Summits are about statesmanship, not salesmanship. Engaging in
another photo-op summit with Beijing without addressing the fundamental
deficiencies in U.S.-China relations is a disservice to the American
people and a threat to a stable U.S.-China relationship in the future.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
We have another panel, and I am interested in hearing from
them, as well.
We have one final gentleman who has not been heard from
this morning.
Senator Feingold, we welcome you and we would be glad to
hear from you.
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask
unanimous consent that my statement be included in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Feingold follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Russ Feingold
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today on this
timely subject. I am pleased we have the opportunity to explore what
U.S. interests are at the upcoming U.S.-China summit which will take
place when President Clinton travels to China late next month. I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss this agenda so far in advance of
the actual visit, with the hope that the strong views of the members of
this Committee might be taken into consideration as final decisions are
made about the agenda.
As this hearing makes clear, there are myriad subjects at issue
with respect to the relationship between the United States and China,
and I am constantly struck by the challenges that China presents us.
China has what I cannot help but call a ``kaleidoscope'' of problems:
flagrant abuse of human rights, a brutal occupation of Tibet, the
curtailment of civil liberties in Hong Kong, slave labor, nuclear
proliferation, unfair trade practices, rampant copyright piracy--the
list goes on and on. Looking at any one of these issues, I am hard
pressed to find evidence--even after years of so-called constructive
engagement--China has made any meaningful progress on any of these
fronts.
The up-coming summit in Beijing is yet another in a long line of
constructive engagement steps that the Administration has taken, steps
which I have generally opposed because I do not see that progress has
been achieved. This includes the October 1997 state visit of Chinese
President Jiang Zemin and the failure of the United States to sponsor a
resolution condemning human rights abuses in China and Tibet at the
most recent meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
This latter decision by the Administration was made despite the
overwhelming support in the Senate of a resolution, which I was proud
to co-sponsor, that urged the United States to ``introduce and make all
efforts necessary to pass a resolution'' at the Commission on Human
Rights.
As we all know, for the past few years, China's leaders have
aggressively lobbied against such efforts earlier and more actively
than the countries that support a resolution. In 1997, they threatened
Denmark, which had made a difficult decision to sponsor such a
resolution. This year, Chinese officials played a diplomatic game with
various European governments, and succeeded in getting European Union
foreign ministers to drop any EU co-sponsorship of a resolution.
The complete failure of the United States and the EU to push for a
resolution at the Commission was, in my mind, gravely unfortunate. The
multilateral nature of the Commission makes it an appropriate forum to
debate and discuss the human rights situation in China. By adopting
international human rights treaties, China has made commitments to
international human rights law, and one of the basic purposes of the
Commission is specifically to evaluate China's performance with respect
to those commitments. The Commission's review has lead to proven,
concrete progress on human rights elsewhere, and the expectation has
been that such scrutiny would lead to concrete progress in human rights
in China.
Despite China's announcement last year that it would sign the
United Nation's Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and a
few other token steps, I see no evidence of real human rights
improvement on the ground in China. The fact that human rights
conditions in China are growing worse, not better, indicates that human
rights continues to demand top priority.
Nearly four years after the President's decision to de-link most-
favored-nation status from human rights--a decision I have always said
was a mistake--we can not forget that the human rights situation in
China and Tibet remains abysmal. Hundreds, if not thousands of
individuals are detained or imprisoned for their political and
religious beliefs. The press is subject to tight restrictions. And
monks in Tibet are harassed for showing reverence to the Dalai Lama,
who coincidentally happens to be in my home state of Wisconsin this
week.
In a well-quoted sentence, the most recent State Department human
rights report notes that ``the Government of China continued to commit
widespread and well-documented human rights abuses, in violation of
internationally accepted norms, including extra judicial killings, the
use of torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced abortion and
sterilization, the sale of organs from executed prisoners, and tight
control over the exercise of the rights of freedom of speech, press and
religions.''
In this light, I think the President's proposed trip to Beijing,
which will take place barely a few weeks after the ninth anniversary of
the June 4 crack down in Tiananmen Square, continues to send the wrong
signal--not only to China's leaders, but also to those members of
society in China and Tibet who have worked so tirelessly to achieve the
basic freedoms. that we, as Americans, take for granted.
On top of this, in a move that almost adds insult to injury, the
President has agreed to stage his arrival ceremony in Tiananmen Square,
the site of the bloody events of June 1989.
Mr. Chairman, if the President feels he must go to Beijing, if he
feels he must go there in June, and if he feels he must visit the site
of that horrible 1989 crack down, then I hope he takes the opportunity
to send a clear unequivocal message about the importance of human
rights, of rule of law and of democratic governance.
If he does not do that, he will disappoint this Committee and he
will disappoint the American people.
Senator Feingold. Secretary Roth, thank you very much. I am
sorry I missed your presentation. But I am obviously aware of a
number of the issues that you have been discussing. I guess
what I would like to do is start off by talking a little bit
about specifically the President's upcoming visit. Apparently a
conscious decision was made to move up the trip to an earlier
time, to June, at least in part because of actions by China.
What kind of gains were you expecting to see in human
rights prior to that trip, and then afterwards, after the trip,
what can we expect to see?
Mr. Roth. This is not completely science. A lot depends on
what China does. So I cannot give you an absolutely precise
answer. However, I think you have seen some of the evidence of
what we expect by what has already happened. We see that Wang
Dan is out of jail. We see that a prominent, elderly bishop has
been released. We see that China has committed to signing the
U.N. Political Covenant, which we expect to take place either
before the summit or shortly thereafter. We expect the
ratification of the Covenant that was signed last year on the
economic side of the house.
We have seen President Jiang receive a religious delegation
from the United States, of three very prominent individuals,
and hope that is going to be a venue for achieving more
progress on the very important issue of religious freedom. This
delegation went to Tibet, insisted on getting into a hospital,
insisted on meeting with some of the political prisoners, as
opposed to common criminals. So we are seeing a process by
which we are getting some specific results and setting the
stage for some future results.
Senator Feingold. What, for example, would the United
States do if China actually did not sign the U.N. Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, as it has promised?
Mr. Roth. Frankly, we have not addressed that because we
fully expect them to.
Senator Feingold. OK, then we will wait and see the outcome
of that.
And I now want to turn to press reports that the President
has agreed to attend a welcoming ceremony in Tiananmen Square,
which I believe Senator Wellstone referred to. Which of course
was the site of this horrible and bloody crackdown in 1989. Can
you confirm that that will happen?
Mr. Roth. Well, it is the White House that confirms his
literal schedule. Let me say that for state visits, which this
is, the normal Chinese practice--which I do not think has ever
been deviated from--is that the initial welcoming ceremony
takes place in their capital of Tiananmen. It is not, in other
words, a discretionary act. But the White House has not
finalized the daily itinerary yet.
Senator Feingold. I think that is an unfortunate decision
on the part of the administration. Given that, do you think it
might be a good idea for the President to also visit with the
family members of at least one of the victims of the Tiananmen
Square massacre?
Mr. Roth. I think the President will obviously be looking
for an opportunity to express our position on human rights the
way he did during the last visit. Whether it will take that
form or another activity remains to be seen. But I think there
will be absolutely no doubt of the President's commitment on
the human rights issue while he is there in China.
Senator Feingold. Well, I would urge that as one possible
approach. I think the symbolism would be important. There needs
to be something to balance this unfortunate decision to have
this ceremony in Tiananmen Square.
Mr. Roth. I will take that back with me.
Senator Feingold. I also want to echo what Senator
Wellstone said about how disappointed we were about the United
States not doing what it could do with regard to passing a
resolution at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
Can you share the administration's calculation and its
decisionmaking to not sponsor such a resolution?
Mr. Roth. Surely. This is obviously a very difficult
judgment call, and not one which we undertook lightly. I think
the starting point for us is that the real purpose of this
exercise is not to pass a resolution but to try to get concrete
progress on human rights. We have many venues for expressing
our concerns about the overall human rights situation, not the
least of which is our annual human rights report. But the real
purpose, we thought, of the exercise in Geneva is, can we get
tangible progress that would make it unnecessary for, this
year, to go ahead on the resolution?
And we felt that, in the context of the dissident releases,
particularly Wang Dan, plus the commitment to sign the Covenant
on Political Rights, which is extremely significant because
some of the steps China will have to take once that is ratified
and comes into effect, that that was tangible progress of the
type we were looking for. Consequently, we made that decision.
Senator Feingold. I can understand the desire for tangible
progress. But I am wondering what this does to the Geneva
process itself. What does it mean when we do not use a very
appropriate forum with regard to China, and then we may want to
take actions with regard to Nigeria, Sudan, Algeria? What does
it mean when we do not use a forum that is explicitly created
for purposes of pursuing issues of human rights?
Mr. Roth. I do not expect you will agree with this, Senator
Feingold, but I think it actually enhances Geneva when you use
the Geneva process to get tangible results on human rights.
That converts it from a paper exercise, a debate of words--
which they are very good at, at U.N. organizations--to actually
accomplishing something on the ground. So, for me, that adds
more emphasis to it, and it gives us greater ability to come
back on other issues.
Senator Feingold. So you are arguing that it was, in
effect, a deterrent that led to some of the progress, the
threat of that possibility; is that what you are suggesting?
Mr. Roth. I do not know if I would say ``deterrent,'' but
it was an implement that we could use to get progress. I am
happy that Wang Dan is out, and I am happy that they are going
to sign the Covenant. I am not satisfied that that is enough. I
do not think that lets them off the hook on human rights
progress forever. But I think, in terms of one resolution's
worth of results, that is a very significant package.
Senator Feingold. Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but if I
could just make one other comment.
The Chairman. I understand. But we have a second panel, and
I want them to be heard and I want their views to be made a
matter of the printed record, as well.
Mr. Roth, you earned your pay, but just as sort of a little
help for me, at the behest of China, as I understand it--and
most people do--the President is limiting his trip to China, to
China and Hong Kong of course. No Korea, no Taiwan, no nothing.
I just wonder what kind of signal you think that sends to our
close friends and allies in Japan and Korea and all the rest of
them? I did not know that they were in the business of serving
as the travel agent for the President in Beijing. I hope that
registers with you.
Mr. Roth. It certainly registered, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Do you have a comment?
Mr. Roth. Yes. This is an issue which we have obviously
taken up directly with some of the allies you referenced in the
region. For example, Secretary Albright discussed it directly
with Prime Minister Hashimoto, who said he completely
understood and concurred.
But let me point out that I think the administration's
priorities have been very clear. The President's first trip to
Asia in 1993 was to two of our crucial allies: Japan and Korea.
He went back, in 1996, and strengthened our security
relationship with Japan. We have made it very clear where we
stand.
The Chairman. But they did not dictate to him that he could
not go to China.
Mr. Roth. The Chinese did not dictate. This was a choice we
made. We had an option.
The Chairman. Well, I will not debate you on it, but a
number of people have noticed that.
Mr. Roth. I will take back your point.
The Chairman. And thank you for your courtesy in coming
here this morning. Give the Secretary my regards. Tell her to
get some sleep.
Mr. Roth. I will do that.
Senator Wellstone. Mr. Chairman, can I ask unanimous
consent to have my complete statement included in the record?
The Chairman. Certainly.
Senator Wellstone. And could I ask unanimous consent to
have a letter that I sent to the President about Indonesia,
suggesting that IMF support be conditional on respect for human
rights in Indonesia be included in the record?
The Chairman. It will be included, by unanimous consent,
which is granted of course.
Senator Wellstone. I thank the chair.
The Chairman. We will cover all such requests of Senators.
Thank you very much.
Now, we will welcome panel number two.
Senator Feingold. Mr. Chairman, if I could just make one
comment for the record.
The Chairman. Certainly.
Senator Feingold. Mr. Chairman, I just want to acknowledge
that the Dalai Lama is in Wisconsin this week. He addressed our
State Legislature. I just want to note in the record that the
people of our State appear extremely concerned about the
situation in Tibet. I would just like our interest in Wisconsin
in the human rights situation in Tibet noted for the record, as
well.
The Chairman. I thank you for the comment. The same sort of
reaction occurred in North Carolina.
All right, gentlemen and lady, if you will take a seat.
The second panel consists of Mr. Robert Kagan, Senior
Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in
Washington; Dr. Arthur Waldron, who is the Professor of
International Relations, the Joseph H. Lauder Professor at the
University of Pennsylvania; and Mr. Mike Jendrzejczyk--is that
close?
Mr. Jendrzejczyk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, yes.
The Chairman. OK. That is not a household word in North
Carolina.
And Mr. Robert A. Kapp, President of the U.S.-China
Business Council, in Washington, D.C.
And, gentlemen, since we have run so long this morning, let
me say I do appreciate you coming. All of us do. If you will
confine yourself to 5 minutes, as best you can, with the
understanding that everything you have in writing will be
printed, and we are going to distribute copies of this hearing.
Dr. Waldron, why don't we begin with you.
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR WALDRON, PH.D., LAUDER PROFESSOR OF
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; DIRECTOR
OF ASIAN STUDIES, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
Dr. Waldron. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The first point I would like to make is that the situation
in Indonesia has a significance which is not limited to
Indonesia alone. It should serve to remind us that
authoritarianism, coupled with rapid economic growth, is not
enough for a country in today's world. My concern with the
administration policy is that I do not think that they are
realistic about the possibilities of political change in China.
Now, the way that Secretary Roth and others describe it,
you would think that China was moving steadily toward
democratization. But I would just note that among the people
who are invisible on the Chinese scene is the former Prime
Minister, Zhao Ziyang, who was a democratizer. Hu Yaobang,
another former Prime Minister, who was a democratizer, now
dead, is too controversial to be even mentioned in the People's
Daily. The head of Jiang Zemin's think tank is a brilliant
young political scientist, identified with ``new
authoritarianism.''
In other words, my sense of what is going to happen in
China is not that they are going to move seamlessly toward
opening, which is what I think they should do, but rather they
see that the dynamic of change which has been unleashed by very
real economic change is now threatening their political
position. Therefore, they are hoping to be able to hold on to
their power by dint of selective repression, economic growth
and foreign support.
So, rather than foreseeing a China which unfolds sm oothly
into an ever-more attractive and ever-more democratic state
with which we can have constructive relations, I think we have
to understand that there may very well be serious bumps in the
road ahead. I do not think that the present leadership--which
although very capable, does not contain any political as
opposed to economic reformers--I do not think they are going to
do what has to be done as far as opening to society goes.
Certainly they are not going to do it soon enough to be able to
forestall problems.
So, therefore, I would expect that in the near to medium
run, China is going to become rather more tense, maybe more
disorderly. There will be unrest: There was a riot in Sichuan
the other day in which a number of merchants were apparently
killed by the police. This sort of thing is going to become
more common.
And that being the case, I think we in the United States
have to understand that engagement, while desirable and
worthwhile, is at best half a policy. We have to prepare for
the worst even while we hope for the best. That means hedging
rather than endlessly raising. One of the administration's
mistakes is to go along when they ought to be hedging.
Along with the policy of engagement, we need to have a very
hard line of clear understanding of the need for democratic
change. We also have to have deterrence of Chinese military
adventures and the sorts of provocative measures which they
sometimes take, to try to distract attention from the
conditions at home.
Now, the problem is that rather than seeing the deterrence
and engagement are two hands of the same person, or they are
two aspects of the same policy, there is a tendency to trade
one off against the other. If you are deterring, you cannot be
engaging, and vice versa. I think nowhere is this clearer than
in connection with our policy with respect to Taiwan. There is
a regular dynamic in which an improvement of relations with
China is accompanied by some kind of a gift. We sign chits on
Taiwan's future.
This is not only a morally abhorrent policy, but it is not
in our interest. I think that in the seventies, when we made
our initial decisions to break with Taiwan, there was a tacit
understanding in some policy circles--an expectation--that this
really marked the end of the line for Taiwan; that Taiwan was
going to disappear, it would cease to be a problem. This was a
gross underestimation of the people of Taiwan. It also
underestimated what the U.S. Congress would do.
However, some people still live in the seventies. We, in
our dealings with the cross-Strait situation, tie our own hands
by a whole series of restrictions that we have. I have a
student who is an Army colonel, a career China specialist.
Because of our restrictions, in 25 years, he has never been
able to go to Taiwan. Our people should be playing with the
full deck. They should have all the cards.
The last thing I would like to say is that a classic and
besetting error of American Asian policy is to put China at the
center, to think that somehow if we can get China right, then
everything else is going to fall into place. But history
shows--and I would refer to the history of the 1920's and the
1930's, which eventuated in the catastrophe of the Second World
War in Asia--that we have to deal most closely with the states
which are our long-term allies and friends and the ones that
share our system.
It is a jigsaw puzzle in other words, in which you put all
the other pieces into place, and only then put China in. If you
get the other pieces right, then China will fit in. If you
start with China and you concentrate too much on China, then
you are never going to solve it.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Waldron follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arthur Waldron
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:
A ``strong, stable, secure and open China'': that is the repeatedly
expressed goal of the administration's tactic of ``engagement'' with
Beijing. I have no wish this morning to challenge that goal, which
seems to me eminently reasonable. Rather, I will raise questions about
how realistic it is, at least in the short term, and about the tactics
used to reach it.
First, as to realism. Change in the economic and social realms in
China since the death of Mao Zedong in 1976 has been real and extremely
impressive. It might therefore seem reasonable to suggest that these
changes will transform seamlessly into political change as well:
indeed, the need for the United States to foster such steady and
gradual change would appear to be the premise of the ``engagement''
policy. It may work: One can hope that change in China will follow the
examples of Taiwan and Russia and the Philippines, among others, where
the transition from dictatorship to democracy has been surprisingly
smooth and not those of Romania or Indonesia, or China itself in 1989.
But we cannot count on such a smooth transition. Although economic
and social change in China has been so rapid and so extensive that the
country now finds itself at the point where some sort of government
opening to the people is inescapable, the signs from Beijing are that
no such opening is being prepared. Rather, the regime looks set to
attempt to ride out the storm, hoping a combination of selective
domestic repression, continuing economic growth, and foreign support,
will provide it with a legitimacy and stability that it has not secured
from its own people.
However China is no longer a land of impoverished subsistence
farmers ruled by an all powerful ``Chairman'' in Beijing, and therefore
we may doubt whether such an approach will work. It is a land today of
entrepreneurs, of mobile labor, of vast investment, of markets of every
sort, of high culture and of education in short, of every sort of
ferment. Plans for economic change, moreover, envision major remodeling
including putting millions of people out of work. Such measures demand
governmental legitimacy. The society that China has become today can no
longer be ruled autocratically. Its people must be involved in making
the laws and legitimating authority. That means the sort of
liberalization we have seen elsewhere in Asia and in the former Soviet
bloc. To stand against this tide in China is to risk chaos and
catastrophe.
Like the desire for prosperity, the desire for freedom and personal
autonomy originates in China itself. They are not alien concepts,
applied by arrogant and insensitive foreigners. Constitutional
government has been a dream of Chinese people since the early years of
this century. Many people supported the Communists in 1949 because they
expected Mao and his followers to create such a regime. Although they
were bitterly disappointed, such desire for political freedom continues
to find a place in China and in the Chinese communist party. Today,
however, political reformers are absent from the highest reaches of
Party leadership and discussion of serious political reform is
forbidden in the official media. Liberalizers of the past are still
non-persons. Thus, Zhao Ziyang, prime minister until 1989, remains
incommunicado, under house arrest. The name of Hu Yaobang, late prime
minister and also a political reformer, is too sensitive to be
published in the official People's Daily. There is much talk about the
bold economic reforms Prime Minister Zhu Rongji is supposed to under
take; silence about the equally pressing need for bold political
reforms.
These are not the omens of imminent and decisive political reform.
My prognosis, therefore, is that the current Chinese administration is
not going to move quickly enough to make the political changes that its
already very successful economic reforms require and that the result
will be an increasingly tense and disorderly situation inside China. A
beleaguered Chinese government will almost certainly use force against
its own people--several protesting shopkeepers were shot dead in
Chengdu just a few days ago--and may well try to distract the
population with nationalism and imaginary external threats.
So while the goal of a ``strong, stable, secure and open China'' is
desirable, it is unlikely to be achieved soon, or by gradual steps.
Major bumps can be expected in the road ahead as China changes regimes.
Therefore even as we seek to foster such change through engagement, we
must hedge against risks.
Foreign policy often mirrors domestic policy, and a China that is
repressive at home is likely to be provocative and bullying abroad. We
have seen plenty of examples of such behavior recently. Probes and
intimidation in pursuit of dubious territorial claims continue, as the
Japanese, the Indonesians, the Filipinos, the Vietnamese, the
Taiwanese, the Indians, and others will testify. Chinese can be
enormously courteous, but they are also masters of conflict: the
protracted game, the zero sum ``ni Si wo huo'' [ ``you die I live'']
struggle, the arts of isolating and intimidating adversaries, disarming
and confusing opposition, and then quietly bludgeoning whoever
remainsthese are unattractive but well developed parts of the Chinese
cultural inventory. Current Chinese military preparations, moreover,
seem designed to be used in connection with such tactics. Any sound US
policy must deal with these serious challenges, by steady and
unflinching deterrence.
Indeed ``deterrence''--broadly speaking, the willingness to counter
Chinese threats, support allies, and brave Beijing's displeasure (which
is often expressed with the extravagant rhetoric of ``calculated over
reaction)''--is the second component (engagement being the first) of a
successful China policy. It is the one that is largely missing from the
current Clinton administration approach.
The reason for this absence is worth noting, for it gets at what is
fundamentally wrong with the administration's strategy. Engagement and
deterrence go together: one will not succeed without the other; they
are mutually supporting. But that is not how the administration seems
to understand it. They see the two as inimical: one either has a
``friendly'' relationship with China or a ``hostile'' one. Engagement
is the route to the first, deterrence, to their way of thinking, leads
to the second. Therefore deterrence is traded off in pursuit of
engagement.
Nowhere is this pattern clearer than in our dealings with Taiwan.
To be fair, the United States has shown itself on balance to be a very
good friend to Taiwan: through unofficial contacts, military sales, and
the carrier deployment in 1996, we have underlined our commitment to
this brave and democratic society. However, when China confronts us,
some in government still show a lamentable tendency to sign chits on
Taiwan's future as a way of appeasing Beijing today. This practice has
already gone too far, and should be stopped. I hope very much that
President Clinton will stonewall any such Chinese demands in
preparation for his trip: for example, he must refuse to incorporate
the so called ``three noes'' into any official U.S. statement. [These
are ``no support for one China one Taiwan,'' ``no support for Taiwan's
entry into the UN'', and ``no support for Taiwan's independence.'']
Looking to the future, it is important that we be as realistic
about Taiwan as about China. Our current Taiwan policy of no official
recognition or contact works against our national interests. Given that
the Taiwan strait is an area of potential conflict on a level with
Cyprus or Korea or the Middle East, it is important for us to have
maximum contact with all players, in order to have maximum leverage. I
have a student, an army Colonel and a career China specialist--a key
player, in other words, in our Asia policy who, because of US
government restrictions, has never been able to visit Taiwan. This
amounts to tying our own hands. When I look forward, I ask how we are
going to be able to secure our interests in the Straits area if our top
officials cannot meet top officials from Taiwan. Arafat, after all, has
come to the White House, not to mention Jiang Zemin, China's unelected
president. No genuine dialogue or negotiation can take place at second
hand yet we have, of our own accord, discarded, in the Taiwan
relationship, all the standard tools of diplomacy.
Why? The answer is simple. In the 1970s, when we broke relations
with Taiwan, we thought we were in fact ending Taiwan's existence as an
independent player. The idea was, as Richard Holbrooke has put it in a
different context, ``a decent interval followed by anschluss.'' The
arrangements proposed by the Carter administration for Taiwan make
sense as a transitional structure, but not as a permanent status.
Contrary to expectations, however Taiwan did not disappear: that is
owed first of all to the people of Taiwan, whom we underestimated, and
second, to the many Americans who created the legislative instrument of
the Taiwan Relations Act.
Unfortunately some in government are still living in the 1970s when
it comes to Taiwan. But objectively we must recognize that in our
eagerness to please China trading off deterrence for engagement we (and
Beijing) have painted ourselves into a corner with our joint policy of
debasing words and twisting diplomatic usages in an attempt to deny
reality. Despite the urgings of those who want more chits signed who
want, for example, official US opposition to Taiwan in the UN and
international organizations, or want a freeze in arms sales, or want
pressure on democratic Taipei to settle with autocratic Beijing it is
clear that today we must, just for starters, drop the brush and stop
painting. The corner is already too small. Then we and Beijing can
consider more realistic and constructive approaches.
Important as Taiwan is, however, too much focus on it can lead us
to overlook the larger regional and international context of our China
policy. This brings me to my final and perhaps most important point. I
fear that by making China the centerpiece of its Asian policy, instead
of working with regional powers that share our values to create a
multilateral security structure, the Clinton administration may be
unwittingly recreating the sort of situation in Asia that has
repeatedly led to trouble in Asia earlier in this century. For example,
many scholars believe that an American overestimation of China and
underestimation of Japan in the 1920s and 1930s contributed to the
breakdown of Asian security that brought on World War II. We must not
repeat those errors now that the Cold War no longer gives structure to
our Asian policy.
The lesson of history is that American interests in Asia will best
be served by working with states that share our economic and political
values: Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the ASEAN states, India, Russia. We hope
that China will become such a state in the future, but that result is
not a certainty. Rather, as we have seen, China's future today is a
question mark
In the 1970s our current China policy took its initial shape from
the demands of the Cold War. It was ``strategic'': driven by the need
in both Washington and Beijing for an ally against the Soviet threat.
That threat has now disappeared, so it makes no sense to talk, as the
Administration does, of a ``strategic partnership'' with China. The
sorts of massive strategic issues that dominated the Cold War world no
longer exist globally. Their place has been taken by what I call
``governance'' issues, and on these China lags far behind the rest of
the world. During the Cold War shared strategic interests overshadowed
these problems but today we can no longer avoid facing them. A
liberalizing China will strengthen peace, but a China whose government
attempts to sustain an outmoded dictatorship will be volatile
domestically, and possibly dangerous in a world of democracies.
So until China matches her economic progress with political
liberalization and a peaceful foreign policy, America's Asian policy
should avoid staking too much on Beijing. Some in Washington seem to
think that if only we can get China policy right, then the rest of Asia
will somehow fall into place. The truth is the opposite: Asian policy
is like a jigsaw puzzle with China the last piece to be fit in. Things
will go well with China only if we place our primary emphasis on our
traditional friends and states that share our values and economic
system. If China reforms and makes herself stable that will be a great
gain for all concerned. But we cannot cause that to happen and if we
count on it and things go wrong, then problems in China may lead, as
they did earlier in this century, to crisis in the region.
Our goal therefore must be to forge an Asian security order robust
enough not to be shattered by tremors originating in China. What sort
of policy will meet this requirement. First, it must be one understood
and supported by the American people. The thirty year tradition of
secrecy in China policy, of Congress and the White House at
loggerheads, of executive actions in the teeth of public opinion--all
of that must come to an end. The administration must be candid with the
American people and the world about every aspect of the policy, from
the good things, such as releases of prisoners and mutually
advantageous trade, to the problems such as espionage, military
development, repression, and so forth.
Second, the policy must begin with our allies and friends, and not
with Beijing. Our policy today is reactive: it makes no sense on its
own (why derecognize Taiwan?) but is intelligible if you look at the
Chinese demands that have given it shape. We must adopt a positive
policy, developed through extensive preliminary consultation with other
interested states. Symbolic actions are important here. Taiwan, after
all, took the brave action of releasing political prisoners and
allowing the exiles to return at a time when it had almost zero
international status. Korea and the Philippines have shown the path to
Asian democracy. China, which is far stronger, has shied away from any
similar action. Yet which state receives the most symbolic attention
and deference from the United States? Not the democratizers. In an Asia
where ``face'' is so important, these things matter.
Finally, as for power relationships, the crucial ones are Japan-US
and Japan-Korea. If these are firm, I am confident that Asia will be
relatively peaceful. If; on the other hand, we do what Adminstrations
have repeatedly done in the past: if we treat China as a sort of
campaign stop, or wave her into the community of nations without
checking her domestic credentials if we go long at the moment when we
should be hedging or shorting if we turn a blind eye to security
challenges and neglect our established friends with whom we share
values in pursuit of new but highly problematical relationshi--then
Asia's future, and with it our own, will be very much in question
The Chairman. Mr. Jendrzejczyk.
STATEMENT OF MIKE JENDRZEJCZYK, WASHINGTON DIRECTOR, HUMAN
RIGHTS WATCH/ASIA DIVISION
Mr. Jendrzejczyk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Will you pronounce your name for me?
Mr. Jendrzejczyk. It is Mike Jendrzejczyk. It is spelled
correctly here, by the way. Thank you.
The Chairman. Very well. There are a limited number of your
family in North Carolina.
Mr. Jendrzejczyk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
invitation to testify this morning.
When President Clinton visits China and steps into
Tiananmen Square, he will, as you know, be the first Chief
Executive to do so since 1989. I want to emphasize, I am not
opposed to high-level engagement. I am certainly not opposed to
dialog and discussion. I think this can be quite useful. But
this is not an ordinary visit. This is a very special visit,
one that is especially meaningful, and a very powerful symbol
for the new, emerging Chinese leadership.
We believe the administration should have laid out specific
human rights preconditions before setting the date of the
visit. Instead, the administration formally agreed to the
summit, and now is scrambling to send one delegation to Beijing
after another to try to get something in return.
Not only has the administration thus far failed to secure
meaningful human rights improvements in advance of the summit,
it also seems to be preparing to lift some of the few remaining
postTiananmen sanctions imposed by the Bush administration,
with strong support from the Congress.
And we believe that under the current human rights
conditions in China and Tibet, the administration should not
try to restore either OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation, loans and insurance, or TDA, Trade Development
Administration programs, both of which were suspended in 1989.
We would also oppose any easing of existing restrictions on
arms transfers to China, including the sales of dual-use
technology.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that the cornerstone of the
Clinton administration policy for the last year and a half--and
Mr. Roth just repeated it a little while ago--trading away
criticism of China in the U.N. Human Rights Commission in
exchange for promises to sign human rights treaties and to
release a few well-known dissidents into exile was a poor
bargain. It certainly has not affected the fundamental human
rights situation within China.
We know the administration hopes, out of this Presidential
visit, to resume the formal dialog on human rights that was
suspended by China in 1994, after Mr. Shattuck met with Wei
Jingsheng, then in Beijing. We followed that dialog, when it
began under the Bush administration, with Mr. Richard Schifter,
then in the State Department. We followed that dialog as it
continued under Mr. Shattuck. Frankly, it was virtually
meaningless, and almost totally useless. I think it is a
mistake for the administration to expect that a dialog under
the current situation will lead to anything more significant
than it had in the past.
We also very much share the concern articulated by Mr.
Feingold, that the pomp and ceremony of the President being
welcomed in Tiananmen Square will send a message to the Chinese
and the American people that will far overshadow anything
useful the President might say about human rights or the rule
of law when he addresses university audiences. We think the
White House should resist pressure from the Chinese to insist
that he begin his visit in Tiananmen Square.
We also very much endorse Senator Feingold's suggestion
that if the President is going to visit Tiananmen Square, he
should find time to visit at least one family member of the
victims--of the 89 massacre. These people continue to suffer,
in many cases, discrimination and persecution.
One man we hope the President will in fact mention is Mr.
Li Hai. He is now serving a 9-year prison sentence for
collecting information on the victims of the 1989 massacre. In
fact, the list of the 150 Beijing citizens still detained since
1989 attached to my testimony is largely based on his
information. We think surely the President should insist on the
unconditional release of all of these people.
We also hope the President will secure from China's leaders
a pledge to remove by a certain date all the names on an
official blacklist that was secretly published in 1994, that
now contains more than 50 Chinese citizens who cannot go back
to their own country, in violation of international law. This
includes distinguished individuals like Dr. Fang Lizhi, the
astrophysicist, now in Arizona; Han Dongfang, an activist and
labor leader, who is not stranded in Hong Kong, stateless
because his passport has been confiscated; as well as Liu
Binyan, a prominent Chinese journalist studying in Princeton.
All of these people cannot go back to their country.
This would be a significant gesture if these people could
go back and begin to organize and carry on their lives,
including their pro-democracy activities, peacefully back in
their home country.
Mr. Chairman, I have attached to my testimony a number of
other recommendations for the President's visit. Again, these
are steps that we believe the President should insist upon in
exchange for his being the first President to go to China since
1989. These are significant steps.
For example, releasing not a handful of prisoners, but
large numbers of prisoners. China, for example, has abolished
in its criminal code all of the offenses of
``counterrevolution,'' in March 1997. It replaced these, I
should add, with new provisions of, ``endangering state
security.'' But, nevertheless, there are more than 2,000
acknowledged convicted counter-revolutionaries. All of those
sentences should be reviewed. They should abolish reeducation
through labor. Some 200,000 Chinese citizens are now in
reeducation through labor camps, an arbitrary form of
punishment handed out by the police, with no judicial review.
Certainly they should take meaningful steps to improve the
human rights situation in Tibet and to ease religious
persecution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jendrzejczyk follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mike Jendrzejczyk
When President Clinton steps into Tiananmen Square, he will be the
first U.S. head of state to visit China since the 1989 crack down on
the pro-democracy movement. His visit will provide a huge propaganda
boost to the new post-Deng leadership team of Jiang Zemin, Zhu Rongji
and Li Peng, the last step in China's ten-year climb back from pariah
status. More importantly, perhaps, with this visit both governments are
signaling their determination not to allow human rights violations to
interfere with closer political and economic relations.
We are not opposed to high-level engagement, discussion or dialogue
with China, indeed, we believe such exchanges are necessary and useful.
But presidential summits are not ordinary visits, and the
Administration has thus far failed to effectively use the enormous
leverage this summit provides to press for significant--not merely
token or cosmetic--human rights improvements. We believe the White
House should have laid out specific human rights preconditions before
setting the date for the President's visit. Instead, the Administration
formally agreed to the summit and now is scrambling to send one
delegation after another to Beijing to try to get something in return.
Not only has the Administration failed thus far to secure
meaningful improvements, but it appears to be intent on compounding
that failure by moving to lift the sanctions that remain in place from
1989. We certainly understand that a combination of carrots and sticks
can sometimes be useful in international diplomacy. But under the
current human rights conditions in China, we would strongly oppose any
move by the Administration to restore the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation (OPIC) or Trade Development Administration (TDA) programs
suspended in 1989. In addition, we would remind the Administration of
the worker rights requirements for OPIC. We would also oppose any
easing of existing restrictions on arms transfers to China including
sales of dual use technology, such as Sikorsky helicopters.
Since the May 1994 decision to delink MFN from human rights, the
Administration has yet to develop an effective bilateral or
multilateral strategy for promoting meaningful improvements of human
rights in China and Tibet. The cornerstone of its policy over the last
year and a half--trading away criticism in the United Nations Human
Rights Commission and going forward with summits in exchange for
Chinese government promises to sign human rights treaties and releases
of well-known dissidents--was a poor bargain. It did produce the
release into exile of Wei Jingsheng and Wang Dan and the release,
probably under heavy surveillance, of a Catholic bishop, but the
overall pattern of human rights violations remains fundamentally
unchanged.
The State Department hopes that one outcome of the President's
visit will be a formal resumption of the ``dialogue'' on human rights
that Beijing suspended in 1994 following Assistant Secretary John
Shattuck's meeting in Beijing with Wei Jingsheng. That ``dialogue'' was
more of a monologue, with the U.S. requesting information on prisoners
that China never produced in full. The idea of what constitutes a
``dialogue'' may well have changed, but judging from the meager results
of different human rights ``dialogues'' now underway between China and
the European Union (EU), Japan, Australia, Canada and other
governments, we are extremely skeptical that the process by itself will
lead to concrete changes. Pressure is also needed.
The limited steps taken by Beijing in recent years have come about
largely because of pressure, including the prospect of a resolution on
China at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva and
the earlier debate over annual MFN renewal. Among these limited steps
have been the release of prominent dissidents, visits by United Nations
working groups and rapporteurs--including the UN Special Rapporteur on
Religious Intolerance, who visited China and Tibet in 1994 and last
year's trip by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention--talks with
the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and Beijing's
promises to sign and ratify the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
I would add that until Beijing both signs and ratifies these two
important treaties--welcome steps if they happen--they have no binding
force. On October 26, 1997, just prior to the Clinton/Jiang summit in
Washington, China signed the ICESCR but to date has not ratified it. It
has yet to sign the ICCPR. In private discussions with European
diplomats and others, Chinese authorities have indicated they intend to
attach reservations taking exception to particular provisions in both
treaties. These include article 19 of the ICCPR on the right of freedom
of expression; article 8 of the ICESCR on the right to form trade
unions; and article 1 in both treaties on the right of freedom of self-
determination. It is precisely these rights that are now directly under
assault in China.
We are concerned that without the threat of action at the UN Human
Rights Commission and without the leverage that a presidential summit
could have provided, Beijing will have little incentive to follow
through on its promises or to undertake more significant, far-reaching
reforms.
The pomp and ceremony connected with the President's trip to China
will likely obscure the extent of ongoing abuses. The symbolism of
President Clinton's official arrival ceremony taking place in Tiananmen
Square will send a message to the Chinese people and to the American
people that will override anything the President might say about human
rights and the rule of law when he gives speeches to a university
audience in Beijing or Nanjing. The White House should have resisted
pressure from Chinese officials to start his visit in the Square.
If the leverage provided by the impending summit has been partly
wasted, it has not been totally lost, and the President can still make
important human rights points during his visit to Beijing. Especially
if the President does indeed begin his official visit in Tiananmen
Square, he should find time to visit with the family members of one of
the victims of the 1989 massacre. Many of them are still suffering from
political harassment, discrimination or persecution. One man named Li
Hai is serving a nine-year sentence for the ``crime'' of collecting
information on the victims of the 1989 crack down. The list of more
than 150 Beijing citizens who are still detained since 1989--which Li
Hai helped to compile--is attached to my testimony.
The President should also secure from China's leaders during his
visit a pledge to remove by a certain dates the names on an official
re-entry blacklist. The list contains the names of more than fifty
Chinese citizens now living in the U.S. who cannot return to China.
(See names attached, from a document issued secretly by the Ministry of
Public Security in May 1994. We expect that other names have been added
since then). They have all been subject to government decrees banning
them from returning to their own country due to their pro-democracy
activities in China or while living abroad. Almost fifty percent of
those listed were placed on ``most wanted'' notices after June 4, 1989;
none of them is known to have committed any act which could be
construed as criminal under international law. While of course we
welcomed the release of Wei Jingsheng or Wang Dan, sending them into
exile is hardly a sign of any greater tolerance for political dissent.
By contrast, allowing pro-democracy activists, journalists or labor
organizers to return to China unconditionally would be a significant
gesture by the Chinese authorities.
Other steps the Administration should urge China to take in the
context of the President's visit:
releasing unconditionally large numbers of imprisoned
political, religious and labor activists and Tibetans;
revising China's draconian security laws, including the
provisions on ``endangering state security'' added to the
criminal code in March 1997 (see ``State Security in China's
New Criminal Code,'' published by Human Rights Watch and Human
Rights in China, April 1997);
reviewing the sentences of more than 2,000 convicted so-
called ``counterrevolutionaries'' with a view towards releasing
those convicted solely for exercising their internationally
recognized rights of free speech and association, especially
since the crime of ``counterrevolution'' has itself been
abolished;
abolishing ``reeducation through labor,'' a form of
arbitrary administrative punishment involving up to three
years' detention without judicial review widely used in China;
protecting freedom of association of workers;
easing religious repression by abolishing the registration
process in its current form and implementing the 1994
recommendations of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Religious
Intolerance;
allowing regular access to Tibet and Xinjiang by independent
human rights monitors.
Overview: Human rights conditions in China
There has been no substantial improvement in China's human rights
record in the past year. Isolated prisoner releases, such as the
release of Wang Dan last month and Wei Jingsheng in November 1997, have
little impact on the overall state of repression in China. In the six
months since Wei's release, others have been detained and arrested. The
overall pattern of the government's treatment of political dissidents
has not changed.
Just last week, Xu Wenli, a Democracy Wall activist who spent
twelve years in prison, was apparently picked up the police and has
disappeared. The police have kept him under surveillance since his
release on parole in 1993. He tried to form a human rights organization
and even applied for official approval, but the authorities responded
by increasing the surveillance. On April 3, he was detained and held
for twenty-four hours; his house was searched and his computer and fax
machine were confiscated. The authorities urged him to leave the
country, but he refused. On May 4, police stopped his car on the way to
the airport as he was taking his wife to a flight to the U.S., on the
grounds that he was not wearing a seat belt, and he was not allowed to
see her off. Then, on May 9, 1998 he was reported to have boarded a
train in Beijing for Wuhan but never arrived. In response to appeals
from his family over the last few days, the police have insisted that
they know nothing about his current whereabouts. He surfaced yesterday,
according to press reports this morning, after being held by police for
three days to prevent him from visiting other pro-democracy activists.
A few other recent examples:
Yang Qinheng, a dissident in Shanghai, was sentenced in
March 1998 to three years of ``education through labor'' after
being arrested for reading an open letter on Radio Free Asia on
January 27, 1998 calling for the right to unionize. He also
said, in the broadcast, that the government's anti-unemployment
efforts were threatening to social stability.
Shen Liangqing, a former prosecutor from Anhui province, was
sentenced to two years of ``reeducation through labor'' on
April 4, 1998. He was arrested on February 25, in the run up to
the annual meeting of the National People's Congress, after he
sent letters to the government criticizing the selection of
former premier Li Peng as the new chairman of the NPC. He also
had contacts with outside human rights organizations and
Western journalists.
On January 16, 1998, Li Qingxi, an unemployed former health
worker at a clinic attached to the Datong Coal Mining
Administration in Shaaxi province, was arrested for putting up
notices calling on worker to form their own independent trade
unions. He was released on February 24, but put under a form of
house arrest for one year, serving a ``reeducation through
labor'' sentence.
On April 5, 1998, Li Baiguang, a law professor on the
southern island of Hainan, was reportedly detained by police
for trying to start a ``salon'' with students to discuss
political reforms. The university faculty fear he has been
arrested.
The wife of imprisoned labor activist, Liu Nianchun, serving
a sentence of three years in a ``reeducation through labor
camp,'' applied for a permit to protest his imprisonment on May
1998, during Secretary Albright's visit. Liu signed a petition
in 1995 calling for workers to be allowed to form free trade
unions. Chu Hailan, his wife, was followed by plainclothes
police and the protest was not allowed.
Are these signs of greater ``tolerance'' towards dissent, as the
State Department claimed in its most recent annual country report on
human rights?
On the issue of access to prisoners by international humanitarian
organizations, there has been no breakthrough. Following a series of
meetings between the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
and Chinese authorities, Christian Brumme, regional deputy head of the
ICRC, said in February 1998 that he did not expect the Chinese
government to agree to the openness required by the ICRC; their non-
negotiable requirements include access to all detainees of a similar
category, access to all places of detention, completely confidential
visits with detainees and so on. Justice Minister Xiao Yang (now head
of the supreme court) said last year, after a set of talks, that the
ICRC's conditions were too rigorous to be acceptable.
Last month, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention delivered
its report to the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, describing
its visit to China in October 1997 in some detail and making
recommendations. Although we believe the Group failed to adequately
address some key issues, such as the lack of independence of the
Chinese judicial system, it did make some useful findings. For example,
it cited the failure of the Chinese Criminal Law to clearly and
precisely define offenses ``endangering state security,'' which can be
used to imprison political and religious dissidents as was the case
with the ``counterrvolutionary'' offenses they replaced. The Working
Group was told that as of December 1997, there were 230,000 persons
being held in reeducation through labor centers throughout China, both
ordinary prisoners and political and religious dissidents. According to
Chinese government statistics, this is an increase of more than 50
percent over the number of detainees in labor camps just four years
earlier (in mid-1993, there were less than 150,000 inmates.) Conditions
in the labor camps are often harsh. These administrative punishments
clearly violate numerous provisions of international law.
The report of the Working Group does not mention a peaceful protest
that took place in Drapehi Prison in Lhasa, Tibet that occurred in the
presence of the delegation. A prisoner openly declared his support for
the Dalai Lama in a protest planned by several inmates. They were
reported to have been intensively interrogated later, severely beaten,
and put into solitary confinement after the U.N. delegation left the
premises. Yet the delegation received assurances from Chinese
authorities that no prisoners would be harmed.
Greater cooperation by China with the U.N.'s human rights
mechanisms and perhaps, over time, to greater transparency in China's
legal and detention system is clearly desirable, but nothing in the
Administration's human rights policy offers China any incentive to make
progress in that regard.
There has been some incremental progress in the area of legal
reforms. For example, the implementing regulations issued in December
1997 for amendments to Criminal Procedure Law adopted in 1996 allow
defendants access to lawyers while they are still in police custody
(though meetings with attorneys can be monitored), but there is still a
long way to go. There is often a wide gap between laws and amendments
on the books and their actual implementation and enforcement. As the
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights points out in its new study,
``Lawyers in China: Obstacles to Independence and the Defense of
Rights'' (March 1998), ``There are a number of structural and
institutional impediments to the development of a strong legal system
and an independent and authoritative court system in particular.''
Among them, according to the Committee, are lack of transparency, poor
quality legislation, lack of clear jurisdictional authority for making
and interpreting the law, the influence of the Chinese Communist Party
and local governments on judicial appointments, and corruption.
Worker Rights
As I noted earlier, we would oppose the lifting of remaining
Tiananmen sanctions, such as controls on military transfers or starting
up an OPIC program in China; the latter should be ruled out, in any
case, by the pervasive violations of worker rights in China. OPIC
assistance, under the U.S. Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can only be
given to countries that are taking steps to adopt and implement
internationally recognized worker rights, including the right of
association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, and that
prohibit forced labor. As the State Department points out in the 1997
country reports, ``Independent trade unions are illegal (in China)...
Credible reports indicate that the Government has attempted to stamp
out illegal union activity.''
During the past year, there have been a series of major protests by
workers and other disaffected urban residents in various Chinese
cities, mainly sparked by the layoffs at state-owned enterprises. An
estimated 25 percent of the urban industrial labor force (about 30
million people) were actually or effectively unemployed. The most
serious large scale worker protest erupted early in 1997 in several
cities in Sichuan, and other protests also took place in Nanchong in
March. In July, in Mianyang, Sichuan, more than 4,000 workers
demonstrated outside the city government office demanding jobs. When
officials refused to meet with them, the protests became more heated,
and the People's Armed Police broke up the gathering. Several dozen
demonstrators were injured and there were a number of arrests. In
another incident, in May, when laid off workers from the Zhongyuan
Oilfield in Henan province organized an unofficial union and sent
delegates to Beijing to plead their case, the delegates disappeared and
were feared to be arrested. There has been no further word on their
fate.
At a Labor Day event earlier this month, a member of the Politburo
Standing Committee, Wei Jianxing, warned that increasing labor unrest
is likely; Beijing had announced that 3.5 million workers will lose
their jobs this year. ``Whether we can solve the problem of the
livelihood and job placement for the unemployed affects not only the
success of the reform of the state-run enterprises,'' he said, ``but
social stability and the viability of the socialist regime.'' On the
one hand, the authorities are trying to create jobs--the city of
Beijing has ordered the firing of 120,000 migrant workers to open up
jobs for unemployed Beijing citizens--and to quell unrest by paying
overdue wages to disgruntled workers, but also by urging security
officials to maintain social stability by preventing any overt
challenges to the government's rule.
Religious Freedom
We are deeply concerned about official controls over religious
belief and practice in China and Tibet. The Chinese government has been
conducting an intensive campaign to convince foreign governments that
there are no meaningful constraints on religious practice, despite
evidence of continuing persecution. Last October, the Information
Office of the State Council published a ``White Paper on Freedom of
Religious Belief in China,'' asserting that the right to freedom of
religion is respected and protected.
Earlier this year, a senior delegation of Chinese religious
officials visited the U.S., and in February, three prominent U.S.
clerics went to China and Tibet to open an unprecedented dialogue with
Chinese officials on religious freedom. The delegation's visit was
negotiated during the summit meeting between President Clinton and
President Jiang last October. We believe the delegation deserves credit
for its principled approach. In its report, it criticized the Chinese
government's requirement that all religious sites register with the
official Religious Affairs Bureau, and strongly condemned the use of
administrative punishments imposed on some religious believers. But the
delegation failed to produce any breakthrough, and made the mistake of
taking a showcase tour of a prison in Lhasa, Tibet. This provided the
authorities with a major propaganda coup. The head of the prison told
Archbishop Theodore McCarrick that well-documented reports of torture
and ill-treatment of imprisoned monks and nuns were just ``stories.''
The group was shown a prison factory in which ``scores of inmates were
weaving blankets, with some humming popular songs,'' according to
Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency.
For the past few years, we have documented the Chinese government's
increasing control over religious organizations, which has paralleled
an increasing interest in religion by Chinese citizens. (For details,
see the Human Rights Watch reports ``China: State Control of Religion''
issued in October 1997, and an update published in March 1998). The
government singles out Christianity and Islam as two avenues for
subversion by ``hostile foreign forces,'' and views religion as ``a
critical element of the nationalist movements in Tibet and Xinjiang.''
It is also concerned about the growth of religious activity
exacerbating social instability at a time when the government's
economic reforms are creating greater dislocation.
I would like to briefly refer to two recent examples of
restrictions on religious freedom: two Roman Catholic bishops, Duan
Yiming and Xu Zhixuan, were invited by the Pope to attend a synod of
Asian bishops at the Vatican that concludes today. There were refused
permission to leave China because the Vatican does not have diplomatic
ties with Beijing; in addition, Bishop Duan accepted the Vatican's
invitation without first consulting with the Chinese government's
Religious Affairs Bureau.
Members of this Committee may have read recent news stories about
the release of Bishop Zeng Jingmu, a 78-year old Catholic cleric, who
was freed earlier this month, six months before the expiration of his
three year sentence to reeducation through labor. His release was
confirmed by the U.S. embassy in Beijing, and according to the
Washington Post (May 10, 1998) was ``seen as another gesture to
President Clinton to improve the atmosphere between China and the U.S.
before Clinton's visit....'' His case was apparently at the top of a
list of about 30 clerics and lay believers handed over to authorities
in Beijing by the U.S. religious delegation in February. As noted
above, there are now unconfirmed reports that he has been placed under
heavy surveillance.
Tibet
Finally, I would like to comment briefly on the human rights
conditions in Tibet, which remain grim. We were encouraged by reports
that the Administration intends to use the President's visit to press
for an overall improvement in the situation in Tibet. We hope the
Administration will, for example, urge the Chinese government to allow
access by credible, independent human rights or humanitarian
organizations to the nine-year-old boy recognized by the Dalai Lama in
1995 as the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama. Gendun Choekyi Nyima's
whereabouts are currently unknown and there is conflicting information
about his current living conditions. Last September, an official of the
Tibet Communist Party said that he goes to school and is ``perfectly
free.'' Other accounts indicate that he is held under some form of
house arrest in Beijing, or is living in his native village in Tibet.
The U.S. religious delegation that visited Tibet requested access to
him, but it was denied.
Secondly, the U.S. should urge that all monks and nuns expelled
from their monasteries and nunneries be immediately reinstated, and
that the government's current reeducation campaign be ended. Buddhist
monks and nuns are expelled for failing to denounce the Dalai Lama;
during 1996-97, the campaign affected 35,000 monks and nuns in 700
different sites. As many as 2,800 may have been expelled. They are
forbidden to enter any monastery or nunnery or to go to Lhasa.
Thirdly, the Administration should urge the immediate,
unconditional release of all Tibetan prisoners held solely for the
peaceful expression of their beliefs and opinions. There are at least
650 Tibetan political and religious prisoners, and the actual number
may be over 1,200. Getting unhindered, regular access to Tibet by the
U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture would also be another useful and
constructive step the White House should encourage in the runup to the
President's visit.
______
Beijing Citizens Still in Prison in Connection With 1989 Tiananmen
Square Crackdown
Beijing No. 2 Prison
Name, Age - Sentence, Charge (see key below for charge name)
Cao Yingyuan, 40 - 10 years, #6
Chang Jingqiang - 25, Life, #4, 5
Chang Yongjie, 31 - Susp. death #4, 6, 9 Chen Dongxiang, 57 - 14 years
#3
Chen Qiulong, 38 - 13 years, #3
Chen Yanbin, 23 - 15 years, #7
Guan Jian, 46 - 20 years, #3
Han Gang, 27 - 12 years, #6
Hu Zhongxi - 10 years, #2
Jiang Yaqun, 54 - Susp. death #4, 4A Li Yujun, 29 - Life #4
Li Zhixin, 37 - Life #4, 4A
Lu Jinsheng, 30 - 15 years, #4A
Miao Deshun - Susp. death #1
Shen Licheng, 43 - 13 years, #3
Shi Xuezhi, 53 - 16 years, #4A
Song Kai, 40 - Life #5
Sun Chuanheng, 22 - Life #4
Sun Hong, 22 - Susp. death #4A
Tan Diaoqiang, 42 - 15 years, #3
Tang Yong, 23 - 10 years, #6
Wang, 42 - 15 years, #3
Wang Baoyu - Susp. death
Wang Dongfeng, 40 - 10 years, #4A, 6 Wang Jiaxiang, 76 - Life #4
Wu Chunqi, 42 - Life #4, 4A
Zhang Baosheng, 22 - 13 years, #5, 6 Zhang Peiwen, 55 - 10 years,
Zhao Suoran, 30 - Life #4
Zhu Gengsheng, 31 - Susp. death #4, 4A, 6
Beijing No. 2 Prison, No. 9 Team
Name, Age, Occupation - Sentence, Charge (see key below for charge
name)
Bal Fengying, 34, worker - 15 years, #9 Chai Jun, 26 - 14 years, #4a
Chen Yang, 27, worker - 15 years, #9, #10 Deng Wanyu, 34 - 15 years, #4
Dong Shengkun, 37, cadre in Beijing No. 2 Print Works - Susp. death, #4
Du Jianwen, 28, worker - 17 years, #9, #10
Duan Zhijun, 43, worker - 11 years, #4 Feng Lisheng, 33 - Life, #11
Gao Hongwei, 28 - Life, #4
Gao Liang, 27, worker - Life, #4
Gao Zhenhe, 23 - 20 years, #9, #10
Gong Chuanchang, 25 - 15 years, #9
Guo Zhenbo, 30, worker - 13 years, #9, #10 Hao Fuchun, 61 - 15 years,
#9
Hua Siyu, 27, cadre - 13 years, #9, #10 Huang Xuekun, 28 - 12 years,
#9, #10 Huo Liansheng, 29 - 12 years, #11
Jia Majie, 27, cadre - 13 years, #4
Jiang Sheng, 31, worker - 15 years, #9, #5 Li Changzhan, 34, worker -
13 years, #4
Li Fuquan, 35 - 15 years, #4
Li Hongqi, 31, worker - 20 years, #11, #9, #10 Li Tao, 26, worker - 11
years, #9, #10
Li Zengliang, 27 - 13 years, #10
Lian Zhenguo, 30 - 13 years, #9
Liang Yingchun, 38, worker - 12 years, #4 Liang Yunqing, 27, worker -
14 years, #9, #10 Liang
Zhaohui, 26, worker - 13 years, #4
Liang Zhenyun, 32, auto-mechanic - 12 years, #11 Liang Zhixiang, 25,
worker - 10.5 years, #4
Liu Changqing, 34 - 15 years, #4
Liu Chunlong, 26 - 12 years, #4
Liu Huaidong, 31, cadre - 13 years, #10
Liu Jianwen, 29, worker - 20 years, #11, #10 Liu Kunlun, 43, cadre - 13
years, #4
Liu Quan, 44 - 15 years, #4, #13
Liu Xu, 28, worker - 15 years, #4
Liu Zhenting, 36, worker in Beijing No. 2 auto plant - 17 years, #4, #9
Lu Xiaojun, 36, worker - 13 years, #9, #10
Ma Guochun, 35 - 11 years, #9, #10
Ma Lianxi, 44 - 15 years, #11
Ma Shimin, 26 - 11 years, #4
Meng Fanjun, 29, worker - 13 years, #11 Mi Yuping, 39, worker - 13
years, #4 Niu Shuliang, 26, worker - 12 years, #4
Nin Zhanping, 43, worker - 12 years, #4, #12 Peng Xingguo, 41 - 15
years, #4
Qiao Hongqi, 38, worker - 12 years, #11 Shan Hui, 28, worker - 14
years, #9
Shi Xuezhi, 58 - Life, #4
Song Shihui, 24, worker - 11 years, #9, #10 Su Gang, 28, teacher - 15
years, #4
Sun Chuanheng, 28 - Life, reduced to 20 years, #2 Sun Hong, 27, worker
- Susp. death, #4
Sun Yancai, 32 - Life, #9
Sun Yanru, 27 - 13 years, #9
Sun Zhengang, 33, worker - 14 years, #4 Wang Jian, 30, worker - 13
years, #9 Wang Lianhui, 31 - Life, #9
Wang Lianxi, 43, worker - Life, #4
Wang Xian, 30, worker - Life, #4
Wang Yonglu, 30, worker - 11 years, #11 Wang Yueming, 32 - 13 years, #4
Wang Chunmo, 34 - 11 years, #9
Wang Dongming, 37, worker - 13 years, #4 Wu Ruijiang, 28, cadre - 13
years, #9, #10
Xi Haoliang, 27, worker - Susp. death, #4, #5
Xu Ning, 26, worker - 12 years (reduced by 2 years), #4 Yan Jianxin,
30, worker - 11 years, #9, #10
Yang Guanghui, 25 - 12 years, #4
Yang Jianhua, 38, worker - 14 years, #9, #12 Yang Pu, 34 - Susp. death,
#4
Yang Yupu, 33 - 15 years, #4
Yu Wen, 29, worker - 12 years, #10
Zhang Baojun, 27 - 13 years, #4, #9
Zhang Baoku, 29, worker - 12 years, #4 Zhang Baoqun, 32 - Life, #4
Zhang Fukun, 39 - Life, #4
Zhang Guodong, 27 - Life, #4
Zhang Kun, 28, worker - 11 years, #4 Zhang Maosheng, 30 - Susp. death,
#4
Zhang Qijie, 32, worker - Susp. death, #9, #10, concealing a weapon
Zhang Qun, 27, worker - Life, #4
Zhang Shengbo, 28, cadre - 14 years, #9 Zhang Yansheng, 30 - Life, #9
Zhao Qing, 28, worker - 18 years, #4, #9 Zhao Yushuo, 37 - 14 years, #9
Zheng Yansheng, 45, worker - 11 years, #4 Zhu Wenyi, 37, worker - Susp.
death, #4
Qinghe Farm, No.3 Branch
Name, Age - Sentence, Charge (see key below for charge name)
Chen Baohua, 19 - 10 years, #10
Dong Jianjun, 20 - 9 years, #10
Feng Xuyin, 25 - 9 years, #11
Huo Yanfeng, 16 - 10 years, #4A
Li Lijing, 20 - 10 years, #11
Li Ruijun, 27 - 9 years, #11
Li Shengli, 21 - 9 years, #10
Li Yanming, 28 - 9 years, #11
Liang Aizhong, 26 - 10 years, #10
Liu Dongquan, 24 - 10 years, #4A
Liu Tianli, 21 - 10 years, #10
Lu Jingshan, 20 - 10 years, #4A, 10
MengFanmin, 19- loyears,#11
Qin Zhiyu, 18 - 10 years, #4A
Rong Yongnan, 36 - 10 years, #11
Tian Degang, 30 - 10 years, #10
Wan Baolin, 33 - 10 years, #11, 10
Wang Xianhui, 26 - 9 years, #11
Wei Guoqing, 25 - 10 years, #11
Xiao Fuge, 21 - 9 years, #10
Zhang Zhenxi, 20 - 10 years, #10
Qinghe Farm, No. 8 Branch
Name - Sentence
Deng Yuanping - 9 years
Ding Ke - 9 years
Dong Shuangsuo - 10 years
Shi Guohui - 10 years
Wu Yuping - 9 years
Zhang Cailin - 10 years
Zhang Chuanyou - 10 years
Zhao Yongjiang - 9.5 years
Qinghe Farm, No. 6 Branch
Name - Sentence
Chen Wei - 10 years
Cheng Hongli - 10 years*
Cheng Honglin - 10 years*
Deng Shusen - 10 years*
Li Donghui - 10 years
Li Jimin - 9 years
Zhang Fusheng - 9 years*
Zhang Liwei - 9 years
Zhao Jianxin - 10 years*
Zhao Jun - 10 years
Key
Counterrevolutionary charges:
#1 - Defecting to the enemy and turning traitor
#2 - Participating in armed mass rebellion
#3 - Espionage
#4 - Counterrevolutionary sabotage
#4A - Counterrevolutionary arson
#5 - Counterrevolutionary injury
#6 - Counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement
#7 - Organizing a counterrevolutionary group
#8 - Conspiring to subvert the government
Common criminal charges
#9 - Robbery
#10 - Hooliganism
#11 - Stealing or seizing gun or ammunition
#12 - Disturbing social order
#13 - Disrupting traffic
Notes:
(1) Some of the ages of prisoners in Qinghe Farm No. 3 Branch are
age at date of arrest.
(2) Sentences marked with an asterisk* could have been subject to
reduction or supplementation.
(3) ``Susp. death'' means a death sentence with a two-year
reprieve. This means that if the prisoner has behaved well during the
two-year period, the sentence is normally commuted to life.
List of Forty-Nine Overseas Members of Reactionary Organizations Currently Subject to Major Control \1\
List A: ``Category 1 Persons''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel
Date of Document Expiry Whether on Wanted Date of Border
No. Name Sex Birth Type and Date List Control, Doc. No. and
No Period of Validity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Yan Jiaqi M xxx xxx xxx MPS Wanted Notice No On 8/20/91, Ministry
(89) 060 of Public Security
issued secret
telegram placing
subject on list of
those to be denied
re-entry to China;
MP Telegram No. (91)
1041, unlimited
duration.
2 Chen Yizi M xxx xxx xxx do do
3 WanRunnan M xxx xxx xxx do do
4 Su Xiaokang M xxx No [blank] do do
document
5 Wu'erkaixi M xxx do do MPS Wanted Notice do
No. (89) 058
6 Chai Ling F xxx do do do do
7 Liang Qingtun M xxx do do do do
8 Feng Congde M xxx do do do do
9 Wang Chaohua F xxx do do do do
10 Zhang Zhiqing M xxx do do do do
11 Zhang Boli M xxx do do do do
12 Li Lu M xxx do do do do
13 Yue Wu M xxx do do MPS Wanted Notice do
No. (89) 069
14 Zhang Gang M xxx xxx xxx MPS Wanted Notice do
No. (89) 077
15 Yuan Zhiming M xxx No [blank] MPS Wanted Notice do
document No. (89) 0?0
16 Wang Runsheng M xxx do do do do
17 Chen Xuanliang M xxx do do do do
18 Zheng Yi M xxx do do MPS Wanted Notice do
No. (89) 100
19 Lu Jinghua F xxx xxx xxx MPS Wanted Notice On June14, 1989, MPS
No. (89) 078 placed subject on
list of those to be
denied re-entry to
China, Border
Control Notice No.
(1993) 621, re-entry
ban valid until June
14, 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This document was issued confidentially by the Ministry of Public Security to all border control units in
China in May 1994. The appearance of the letters ``xxx'' in the table indicate that the relevant details have
been deleted from the original document in this translation in order to safeguard the privacy of those
concerned.
List B: ``Category 2 Persons''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel
Date of Document Expiry Whether on Wanted Date of Border
No. Name Sex Birth Type and Date List Control, Doc. No. &
No Period of Validity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Wang Bingzhang M xxx No [blank] [blank] On August 20, 1991,
document MPS issued secret
telegram placing
subject on list of
those to be denied
re-entry to China;
MPS Telegram No.
(91) 1041, unlimited
duration.
2 Hu Ping M xxx [blank] xxx do do
3 Xu Bangtai M xxx xxx xxx do do
4 Han Lianchao M xxx xxx xxx do do
5 Cao Changqing M xxx xxx xxx do do
6 Liu Yongchuan M xxx xxx xxx do do
7 Liu Binyan M xxx xxx xxx do do
8 Han Dongfang M xxx xxx xxx Wanted Notice No. On July 19, 1993, MPS
(89) 058 placed subject on
list of those to be
denied re-entry to
China; PRC Border
Control Notice No.
(1993) 778
9 Xiong Yan M xxx No [blank] MPS Wanted Notice do
document No. (89) 058
10 Zhao Pinlu M xxx do do MPS Wanted Notice do
No. (89) 078
11 Cheng Kai M xxx do do [blank] On August 21, 1993,
MPS placed subject
on list of those to
be denied re-entry
to China; PRC Border
Control Notice No.
(1993) 842, re-entry
ban valid until
August 21, 1998 [?I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List C: ``Category 3 Persons''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel
Date of Document Expiry Whether on Wanted Date of Border
No. Name Sex Birth Type and Date List Control, Doc. No. &
No Period of Validity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Fang Lizhi M xxx xxx xxx MPS Wnted Notice No. On August 20, 1991,
(89) 054 MPS issued secret
telegram placing
subject No. (89) on
list of those to be
054 denied re-entry
to China; MPS
Telegram No. (91)
1041, unlimited
duration
2 Li Shuxian F xxx No [blank] do do
document
3 Yu Dahai M xxx do do [blank] do
4 Wu Fan M xxx do do do do
5 Ni Yuxian M xxx do do do do
6 Yao Yueqian M xxx xxx xxx do On September 2, 1993,
MPS placed subject
on list of those to
be denied re-entry
to China; PRC Border
Control Notice No.
(1993) 926, re-entry
ban valid until
December 31, 1998
7 Tang Guangzhong M xxx xxx xxx On October 11,1993, do
MPS placed subject
on list of those to
be denied re-entry
to China; PRC
Border Control
Notice No.
(1993)1038, re-
entry ban valid
until December 31,
1998
8 Guo Luoji M xxx xxx xxx do On August 13, 1993,
MPS placed subject
on list of those to
be denied re-entry
to China; PRC Border
Control Notice No.
(1993) 879, re-entry
ban valid until
December31, 1998
9 Wu Hongda M xxx xxx xxx do On October 19, 1991,
MPS placed subject
on list of those to
be denied re-entry
to China; PRC Border
Control Notice No.
(1991) 373, re-entry
ban valid until
December 31, 1996
10 Shen Tong M xxx xxx do On November 12, do
1992, MPS placed
subject on list of
those to be denied
re-entry to China;
PRC Border Control
Notice No.
(1992)1202, re-
entry ban valid
until November 2,
1995
11 Wang Ruowang M xxx xxx xxx do On March 8, 1993, MPS
placed subject on
list of those to be
denied re-entry to
China; PRC Border
Control Notice No.
(1993) 246, re-entry
ban valid until
September 6, 1998
12 FengSuying F xxx xxx xxx do do
13 Liu Qing M xxx xxx xxx do On JuIy 19, 1993, MPS
placed subject on
list of those to be
denied re-entry to
China; PRC Border
Control Notice No.
(1993) 778, re-entry
ban valid until July
19, 1998
14 Xue Wei M xxx xxx xxx do On April 13, 1993,MPS
placed subject on
list of those to be
denied re-entry to
China; PRC Border
Control Notice No.
(1993) 571[?], re-
entry ban valid
until September 23,
1998
15 Chen Jun M xxx xxx xxx do On September 2, 1993,
MPS placed subject
on list of those to
be denied re-entry
to China; PRC Border
Control Notice No.
(1993) 826, re-entry
ban valid until
December 31, 1998
16 Yang Jianli M xxx [blank] [blank] do Currently not subject
to control
17 ZhuJiaming M xxx do do do do
18 Xu Jiatun M xxx do do do do
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman. Excellent. Thank you. Mr. Kagan.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT KAGAN, SENIOR ASSOCIATE CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT
FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Mr. Kagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In his testimony, Stan Roth passed up the opportunity to
describe the theory of engagement that underlies the entire
administration's policy. I would just like to, extremely
briefly, look at what that theory is and ask whether it is in
fact turning out the way the administration thinks it ought to.
What is the theory of engagement? It is that we should be
trying to integrate China into the international system through
a combination of inducements and incentives that will lead them
gradually, in their own interest, to accept international
norms, to become a responsible player in the international
community, both in terms of its domestic policy behavior and in
terms of its foreign behavior. At the heart of that theory is
that inducements are the way to get China to make the necessary
changes of its behavior.
Now, I think that there is real reason to doubt whether
this theory is appropriate if you think about what China wants
in the world, what the Chinese leadership wants. When I say
this, it is not just my opinion. I want to quote just very
briefly from two leading Sinologists, who, by the way, happen
to share the administration's general approach, but who write
very frankly about what it is that China wants.
I am quoting Kenneth Lieberthal, a distinguished professor
at the University of Michigan. ``China wants the world to
accept its Chinese characteristics as part of the price of
having the country join international councils. Though a new
player, China wants to be a rule-setter and not just a rule-
accepter.''
Now, let me quote from David Shambaugh, another
distinguished Sinologist at George Washington University.
Shambaugh argues that because of its domestic politics, China
cannot and will not reciprocate the Western policy of
engagement, because on the one hand the regime views it as a
policy of subversion, and on the other the cost of adapting to
international rules and norms are too high. According to
Shambaugh, China is a dissatisfied and non-status quo power,
which seeks to change the existing international order and
norms of interstate relations.
Now, moving from the question of theory to the question of
practice, the question we have to ask ourselves today is, who
is shaping whom in this relationship? Are we in fact shaping
Chinese behavior or are they in fact shaping our behavior, and
succeeding in changing international norms that we have
established over 50 years of hard work by successive
administrations?
I think if you look across the board, across the nine
baskets of issues that this administration likes to talk about,
you can see that it is China that is increasingly setting the
rules and we who are increasingly bending in order to
accommodate Chinese desires to make these kinds of changes.
I will not go in any detail through these issues. We have
heard already about how we are the ones making exceptions for
China on nonproliferation activities. We are the ones who are
trying to--the administration has, through various means, been
trying to put pressure on Taiwan to accommodate itself to
Chinese desires. We are sharing technology with China against
our own national security interests. We are in fact now
abandoning an international human rights strategy because that
strategy annoys the Chinese Government.
And I think it is almost time to ask whether the U.S.
policy of engagement has become a policy aimed at protecting
China from the consequences of its own behavior. If you look at
the administration's actions over the 6 months, in every single
case that you can think of, where the Chinese have misbehaved,
whether it is on human rights or nonproliferation, it is the
administration that has come to the defense of the Chinese
Government and sought to move this relationship forward despite
those transgressions.
I think it is worth asking, is this what engagement was
supposed to mean, whether one agrees with the engagement
strategy or not?
I will just make two other quick comments. One is that I
believe it was Senator Thomas who asked that there be no
surprises leading up to this summit. Well, it seems to me this
administration's strategy has all been about surprises. If it
were not for the hard work of Bill Gertz at the Washington
Times, we would not know that the administration had planned to
go even further in the direction of missile cooperation and
space cooperation with the Chinese Government. The fact that
the memo was leaked and Bill Gertz was able to write about it
has effectively killed that plan.
But the administration strategy is to be as quiet about
what it wants to do as possible, and then spring these
surprises on the Congress. I trust that the Congress will try
to keep a close watch on what the administration wants to do,
and try to get the administration to say what its plans are and
what its strategies are for this summit.
And, finally, I would only like to echo those who have said
that it is a tragedy that the President is going to visit
Tiananmen Square. The Chinese Government is very eager to sweep
away the memories of what happened in 1989, and would very much
like the rest of the world to collude with it in sweeping away
those memories. I am afraid that no matter what President
Clinton say when he arrives in China, the fact of his being in
Tiananmen Square will aid the Chinese Government in its efforts
to wash over the past and forget about all those who died under
tanks in Tiananmen Square.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kagan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Kagan \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Robert Kagan is Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been a long-running debate in this country over the best
strategy for managing China's inevitable emergence as global power in
the years to come. Some have argued that the only way to steer China
toward responsible and peaceful membership in the international system
is by containing the Chinese government's increasingly aggressive
regional and global ambitions while at the same time applying
consistent pressure for sweeping internal political reform. According
to this view, which I share, only a democratic China can truly become
integrated into an international system of rules and norms of behavior
that have been shaped, after all, by the United States and its
democratic allies. And only a China which knows that it cannot achieve
its goals through intimidation and conquest, through the buildup of its
conventional and strategic nuclear forces, and through the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and advanced missile
technology, can ever be considered a reliable ``partner'' of the United
States.
The Theory of ``Engagement''
The Clinton administration, of course, has taken a quite different
view. The administration has argued that the best policy toward China
is one of ``engagement.'' The logic of engagement is that China has a
clear set of primary interests--in expanding its economic growth, in
preserving an open door to international trade and investment, in
maintaining tranquillity at home and peace abroad. These interests, in
turn, impose certain requirements on Chinese domestic and foreign
policies. To compete effectively in the world's economy requires that
China's leaders learn to behave according to internationally
established norms and rules, both in external and internal matters.
They must sign and abide by international agreements; they must become
responsible members of the international community; and, if China's
economic prosperity is to continue, they must gradually loosen the
controls on free expression and political organization in their
country.
Since any other course is contrary to China's interests, as defined
by proponents of the engagement theory, Chinese leaders can ultimately
be counted on to do the right thing. Obstreperous international
behavior or violent repression at home would only lead to China's
isolation, straining vital trade ties with the rest of the world,
retarding economic growth, and producing a hostile encirclement of
China by fearful but well-armed states. According to the engagement
theory, China's leaders cannot possibly want to pursue a course so
damaging to their interests.
The implications for U.S. policy are clear: With all the forces of
global economic integration leading the Chinese naturally toward the
very goals we seek for them, goals which, happily, are compatible with
our own interests, the task for the United States is merely to help
educate the Chinese to understand their interests better, to show them
the fruits that await if they will only do what is right, and otherwise
to make as little trouble for them as possible. The ``engagement''
strategy assumes that China can be guided peacefully toward playing a
full and responsible role in the existing international order; that
Chinese leaders desire to be part of that order or at least can be
persuaded to see their interest in becoming part of it; that China's
ambitions at home and abroad need not be incompatible with the broad
interests of the United States; and that, therefore, the best way to
guide China toward peaceful integration in the international order is
through patience, forbearance, and active efforts at accommodation and
cooperation, not through pressure and confrontation.
Is ``Engagement'' Working?
The administration has been pursuing ``engagement'' for four years
now, and in recent months it has accelerated efforts to provide the
Chinese government with ever more incentives to good behavior. It seems
reasonable to ask at this point, especially with the Beijing summit
approaching, whether ``engagement'' is working as its advocates
predicted, whether all the American incentives and inducements really
have shaped Chinese behavior in a more promising direction, and
whether, in fact, China can be expected soon to begin conforming its
foreign and domestic behavior to international norms? To put it
bluntly, have the administration's optimistic assumptions about China's
current course reflected anything more than wishful thinking?
There has, in fact, always been reason to question those
assumptions. Even Sinologists devoted to the policy of ``engagement''
have never concealed the fact that China has little interest in playing
by the rules of the international game. According to Kenneth
Lieberthal, a fervent advocate of ``engagement,'' China has never been
willing to enter the international system without first changing it.
``China wants the world to accept its `Chinese characteristics' as part
of the price of having the country join international councils. Though
a new player, China wants to be a rule setter and not just a rule
acceptor.'' Thomas J. Christensen, who spent several months
interviewing Chinese military and civilian government analysts and then
published his findings in Foreign Affairs, has written that Chinese
strategic thinkers tend to ``view international organizations and their
universal norms as fronts for other powers.'' They participate in
international conferences on economic, environmental, non-
proliferation, and regional security issues in order ``to avoid losing
face and influence,'' but they have no intention of letting the
decisions of the organizations constrain their behavior on matters of
importance. According to Christensen, they consider ``complaints about
China's violations of international norms'' to be part of ``an
integrated Western strategy, led by Washington, to prevent China from
becoming a great power.''
David Shambaugh, head of the Sigur Center for Asian Studies at
George Washington University, and a supporter of the administration's
approach to China, has made the point even more eloquently. ``Because
of its domestic politics,'' Shambaugh has pointed out, ``China cannot
and will not reciprocate the Western policy of `engagement' because, on
the one hand, the regime views it as a policy of subversion and, on the
other, the costs of adapting to international rules and norms are too
high.'' According to Shambaugh, the decisive fact is that China is a
``dissatisfied and nonstatus quo power which seeks to change the
existing international order and norms of inter-state relations.'' It
does not want to be ``integrated'' into the U.S.-dominated
international order; it does not want to accommodate itself to what the
West considers international ``norms'' Rather, it wants to change the
world to suit its own special needs as a powerful dictatorship on the
rise.
Critics of ``engagement'' with China have long been concerned that
the net effect of this strategy would not to force China to conform to
international norms but, on contrary, and as these prominent
Sinologists suggest, to force the United States and the international
community to conform to their rules and norms to meet China's desires
and interests.
Who is Shaping Whom?
Mr. Chairman, I believe that is the process we have been witnessing
over the past few years, and especially over the past six months.
Today, Congress needs to pose a question to the administration. If it
is true, as Lieberthal argues, that China ``wants to be a rule setter
and not just a rule accepter,'' has the Clinton administration begun to
acquiesce to this demand?
On some issues, for instance, on the subject of trade, the Clinton
administration has so far been reluctant to let the Chinese rewrite the
international rules of the game. At the very least the Clinton
administration fears the angry reaction in Congress that such an
accommodation might spark. The result, however, is that China is
nowhere near meeting the requirements of entry into the World Trade
Organization, even though the administration had once hoped to bring
China in this year.
But in other areas, the administration's resolve has weakened.
Confronted by the prospect of having nothing substantial to show for
last year's summit, for instance, the administration rushed into
accepting Chinese assurances on nuclear non-proliferation so that the
President could certify the Chinese as eligible to buy American nuclear
power plants. A more prudent approach would have put the Chinese on
probation for to see whether they would actually abide by those
pledges, since their record of compliance in the past has been
miserable. But apparently the administration believed that
``engagement'' required taking Chinese assurances at face value.
The administration's stated determination to hold the Chinese
government to some reasonable standards of international and domestic
behavior has weakened further in the months since the summit. In the
last six months, the Clinton administration has been working hard to
accommodate the Chinese on a host of issues. In March the
administration announced it would no longer support a human rights
resolution at Geneva, even though last year U.S. officials had promised
to work harder to get one passed. In January, the Clinton
administration dispatched a group including former Secretary of Defense
William Perry to warn democratic Taiwan against any move toward
independence. The administration has been silent about the quashing of
democracy in Hong Kong, even though democratic rights are steadily
being stripped away by the Chinese authorities there
Then there are matters that even more directly affect the vital
security interests of the United States and its allies. Since the
beginning of the year, the administration has been systematically
compromising America's long-term national security interests in order
to get short-term trade deals for favored business executives, who also
happen to be top Democratic party donors. In fact, nowhere has the
administration been more lax in enforcing the international rules of
the game than on two important national security issues: China's
assistance to nuclear weapons and missile projects in Iran and
Pakistan; and the efforts by some American corporations to provide
China's own intercontinental ballistic missile program with American
know-how and sensitive technology.
Some may recall that the ``centerpiece'' of last year's Clinton-
Jiang summit was an agreement to allow American companies to start
building nuclear reactors in China, in return for which China was
supposed to cease its nuclear cooperation with Iran and Pakistan. The
administration also trumpeted another, related deal at the summit: The
Chinese government allegedly promised Madeleine Albright that they
would stop providing cruise missiles to Iran, since such missiles
directly threaten American naval forces in the Persian Gulf.
But the Chinese appear to have reneged on their promises almost
immediately after the summit. Clinton officials now acknowledge,
privately, that there was no deal on cruise missiles. The Chinese,
apparently, still have every intention of continuing to supply Iran
with help in developing medium- and short-range missiles.
As for Chinese assurances against further nuclear cooperation with
Iran, these turned out to be hollow. Earlier this year President
Clinton certified to Congress that China ``is not assisting and will
not assist any nonnuclear-weapon state, either directly or indirectly,
in acquiring nuclear explosive devices or the material and components
for such devices.'' But at about the time the President was making this
certification, U.S. intelligence eavesdropped on Chinese and Iranian
officials who were secretly putting the finishing touches on a sale of
hundreds of tons of chemicals that would be used by Iran to enrich
uranium for use in nuclear warheads.
The Clinton administration did not, however, withdraw the
certification and put the nuclear cooperation agreement with China on
hold. Instead, Clinton officials quietly let the Chinese government
know they had been caught preparing to make the sale; the Chinese
canceled the sale (or so they said); and then the administration set
about trying to cover up China's violation of its pledges here at home.
President Clinton publicly praised the Chinese government after this
incident: ``The Chinese followed through on [the deal] and kept their
agreement to the letter,'' the President said. ``I am well pleased,
actually, with the way that issue came out.''
In April, the New York Times' Jeff Gerth revealed a troubling story
about the transfer of sensitive missile guidance technology to China by
two American corporations. According to Gerth, two American aerospace
companies, Hughes Electronics and Loral Space and Communications, were
suspected of having given ``the Chinese crucial assistance in improving
the guidance systems'' of their Long March intercontinental ballistic
missiles in 1996. More specifically, it was the kind of technology that
could help the Chinese deploy multiple warheads on their missiles,
something they have so far been unable to do. In May 1997, the Times
revealed, the Pentagon produced a classified report concluding that
scientists from the two firms had ``turned over expertise that
significantly improved China's nuclear missiles.'' As a result, the
Pentagon report stated, ``United States national security has been
harmed.'' The problem was considered so serious that the Justice
Department began a criminal investigation and impaneled a grand jury.
Despite these reports and inquiries, in February President Clinton
granted Loral a waiver to provide the Chinese with the same kind of
missile guidance information which the company was under investigation
for illegally providing two years ago. Clinton overruled the Justice
Department, which argued that the decision would undercut the ongoing
criminal case, and the Pentagon, which had argued on national security
grounds against the sale.
Apparently, the administration intends at the upcoming summit to
make it even easier for the Chinese to obtain sensitive technology from
American companies. In exchange for yet another round of Chinese
promises to stop doing what they said they had already stopped doing,
the administration would invite China into the international Missile
Technology Control Regime. According to a secret memo uncovered by the
Washington Times' Bill Gertz, the administration expects that entry
into the MTCR would give China ``substantial protection from future
U.S. missile sanctions and would expedite somewhat the consideration of
MTCR-controlled U.S. exports to China.''
Who is shaping whom? Are we reshaping China's behavior, or is the
Chinese government reshaping ours? Unfortunately, a clear pattern seems
to be emerging in the administration's policy toward China. As China
remains intransigent, on issues of human rights and political reform,
on its belligerence toward democratic Taiwan, on its military buildup
and weapons modernization, and on its sales of weapons, technology, and
technical know-how to. Iran, Pakistan and others, the administration
has been moving determinedly to shield China from criticism both
internationally and domestically. Instead of tough negotiating, instead
of standing firm on these vital issues, the administration has looked
to give China more and more inducements to better behavior. And it has
tried to cover over or find excuses for China's misbehavior.
Is this what ``engagement'' was supposed to means? It would seem to
be an appropriate question for Congress to ask the President before he
leaves for Beijing next month. One thing is certain: The Chinese
government has held firm in pursuit of its goals. And there should be
no doubt what those goals are. To quote Shambaugh again, ``Above all,
China seeks to disperse global power and particularly to weaken the
preponderant power of the United States in world affairs.... China's
primary foreign policy goal today is to weaken American influence
relatively and absolutely.'' The Clinton administration's strategy of
engagement once purported to try to deal with this problem. Now it
increasingly appears that the administration is interested in cementing
U.S.-Chinese relations at any cost--even at the price of U.S. security.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Kapp.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. KAPP, PRESIDENT, U.S.-CHINA BUSINESS
COUNCIL
Mr. Kapp. Thank you, Senator, for letting me come by. I had
intended to be super brief and, as the conversation has gone
on, I have become a little less brief, but I will stay within
my alloted time.
My testimony says something that some will find
discomfiting. That is that while it is 10 years since
Tiananmen, it is also 10 years since an American President last
visited China. I think that we need now to ask ourselves to
look at China and to form our understanding of China by asking
where China was, where it has come over the last 10 years,and
where it now is, not only in terms of Tiananmen alone.
This of course is not the way many people would view the
last 10 years of Chinese history, but as I suggest in my
written remarks, we cannot look at American history since 1963
as the history of the United States solely since the
assassination of President Kennedy either.
The Clinton trip to China actually, in that sense, offers
us an opportunity--without even for a minute forgetting or
shoving under the rug the tragedy of Tiananmen and the
lingering tragedies that stem from it--to ask ourselves where
the United States and China can go and how China has come since
the year of the last Presidential visit, without focusing on a
single tragic event.
My comments now will unfortunately not include the raising
of straw men, the placing of alleged words in others' mouths,
the vague use of terms like ``some people,'' the raising of
rhetorical questions, or even any particular praise or blame
for the administration--our Council is a nonpartisan
organization, and that is not my purpose. I have been troubled
by these tendencies on much of the inflamed commentary
regarding U.S.-China relations that is currently circulating. I
want instead to comment on a couple of things that are found in
the material I have presented as testimony and in the written
documents appended to my testimony.
I think we have to grapple with a difficult realty. That is
that we want China, as a government and as a society, to
conduct its affairs in greater conformity to global norms, and
in fact norms of which the United States has often been a
creator. We want China to act better. But we also have a
tremendous national interest in the existence of a national
government in China that governs effectively. That is, for
Americans in the policy sector and perhaps for some Americans
in legislation, a difficulty.
Many of the problems that we have with China result from
the fact that Chinese political institutions are in such flux,
and the profundity of change and uncertainty in the development
of Chinese political institutions--long before 1949, but even
now--is so great that the government in Beijing simply does not
have the power to control the actions--even internationally
significant actions--of Chinese citizens or Chinese economic
units.
So, we have a problem. I believe that there is a very
strong national interest for the United States in developing
the maximum possible degree of effective cooperation with the
Chinese Government to enable the Chinese Government to govern
more effectively in areas that in fact are of profound concern
to the United States. The classic case is ``rule of law;''
there are others--energy and environment for example, and other
issues that Stan Roth called the ``baskets'' in his discussion
of the earlier Clinton-Jiang meeting.
The central point is this: It is OK to wishful think about
the deconstruction of the Chinese central government or the
elimination of an iniquitous regime, but we also have to
remember that this is a pretty small world, and that the
existence of a Chinese central government that can really
govern the country is also of profound importance to the United
States. U.S. policy should address the most effective ways of
engaging with a Chinese national regime whose ability to govern
is itself important to U.S. interests.
The only other point I would raise before I close is the
question of perfect satisfaction. I went to a media conference
last week on how the media were going to handle the trip. I
must say, I think for many of us it was quite dispiriting. I
mean, the notion was--from members of the media themselves--
that throughout the President's visit to China there will be a
constant focus on aspects of the President's personal life or
on U.S. domestic issues. In the process, if this happens, the
opportunity for this visit to really help reintroduce the
reality of China to the American people will be just swept
away.
In my testimony, I have chosen to be a little bit more
optimistic. It seems to me that the great value of this trip--
the first value of this trip--could be to begin the process of
reacquainting the American people with the complexity and the
variety and the enormity of today's China. Today's China has in
it features and dimensions that all of us are repelled by. It
also has dimensions and features that are extraordinarily
impressive and worthy, I think, of most Americans' appreciation
and understanding, you might even say praise; that certainly
includes China's achievements in raising living standards and
so forth.
So, my hope is that the President's trip, will serve a
constructive role, in a sense reintroducing the variety and the
complexity of the People's Republic of China to the American
people as a whole. It is the American people, ultimately, who
will determine the ways in which our Government manages its
differences and its common interests with China.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kapp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert A. Kapp
Mr. Chairman, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
I very much appreciate your invitation to offer my views to you
today, as the Committee considers the implications of the President's
upcoming visit to China.
As I have testified before this Committee earlier in this Congress,
I will not introduce myself at length on this occasion. I have been
president of the US-China Business Council since 1994. The Council is
the principal organization of American companies engaged in trade and
investment with the People's Republic of China. Founded in 1973, we
will celebrate the Council's twenty-fifth anniversary in just a few
weeks. Among the nearly three hundred companies and firms that comprise
our membership, many have been working with China for ten, fifteen, or
even twenty-odd years. We hope that the perspectives developed out of
this extensive experience can contribute to the development of
effective US policies toward China and to the continued improvement of
relations between the two nations.
In support of my testimony today, I have appended a few short
items.
Mr. Chairman, the visit of President Clinton to China next month
will mark the first voyage on American president to China since the
beginning of 1989.
1989-the year conjures a single image when we think about China.
But 1989 was also the last occasion for a presidential visit to
China - the first overseas visit by a newly-chosen American president,
if I remember correctly.
As we look ahead to President Clinton's visit, it is fair to look
at the years since 1989 as the years ``since Tiananmen.''
But that is not enough, any more than the 18 years of American
experience since 1969 are solely the years ``since Kent State,'' or the
35 years since 1963 are solely the years ``since the assassination of
President Kennedy.''
We should also seek perspective on the period ``since the last U.S.
presidential visit to China.''
This visit should indeed cause us to pause for reflection on where
both China and the United States have been, where we are today, and
where we might go in the future.
As we stop to reflect, we will notice with a start of surprise that
time is passing. In little more than a year, we will f'md that more
time has passed since Tiananmen than elapsed between the normalization
of US-China diplomatic relations in 1979 and the Tiananmen tragedy.
Unavoidably, drama becomes history. The world turns. The world of 1989
has changed unalterably. The Cold War is over. The once-feared Asian
economic growth engines have sputtered. The United States and China,
each in its way, have moved on.
What should we--and our president--consider as we approach
Clinton's visit to China?
I. Baseline Observations
A. The immense, uneven and often untidy process of China's quest
for post-Mao modernity is the dominant feature of the Chinese landscape
over the past two decades.
Initiated by the battered survivors of the chaos and violence of
the Mao era and the ``Cultural Revolution,'' the broad reform program
established in 1979, with its twin goals of introducing the market
economy and integrating China with the wider world, has plowed ahead,
erratically but irrevocably.
Agricultural communes are gone. In most areas of the economy, the
market forces of supply and demand drive prices and production
decisions. Competition has exploded throughout the Chinese economy,
especially in the vast sectors where the government no longer
dominates. Once an insignificant player in world trade, China is now a
global trading power. Basic material needs are satisfied. Government
rationing of food grain and cloth, for example, has ended. A massive
consumer market has burst forth.
China's politics have abandoned Maoist ``mass campaigns'' and
regime-engineered ``class struggle'' that burned themselves into
American perceptions of the PRC, in favor of non-violent but non-
democratic leadership change and technocratic administration. A recent
Hong Kong report, citing a classified Communist Party document,
revealed that more than seventy percent of officials at or above the
rank of vice minister in the Chinese administration immediately
preceding the new Zhu Rongji administration had spent at least six
months in the United States.
Central planning and the trappings of the Soviet-derived economic
model have given way, albeit unevenly and in the face of powerful
resistance, to a mixed economy which defies labelling but which has
clearly abandoned Marxist-Leninist economic orthodoxy. Chinese citizens
whose schooling, employment, and residence were once assigned by the
government now make their own choices, in a labor market that would
have been absolute heresy two decades ago. The non-state sector of the
industrial economy is the growth center of the entire economy.
The still incomplete edifices of a legal system--and of a legal
profession--have emerged from the ashes of the Cultural Revolution.
Long-dominant institutions and ideological shibboleths have crumbled.
Living standards have risen beyond the imaginations of most 1970s
observers. Deng Xiaoping's pledge to double and then redouble China's
GNP by the year 2000 was realized five years early.
Global influences--economic, cultural, intellectual--continue to
enter China through every channel, including the internet, whose
unlimited breadth sometimes causes concern not only to Chinese leaders
but to American parents and legislators.
Raggedly, the concept of private property has re-emerged; one of
the pressing modern Chinese needs is the establishment in law and
practice of effective definitions of property ownership. What is clear
is that the rigidities of pre-reform state ownership have broken down.
The Zhu Rongji government has just decided to cut the umbilical
cord of government-subsidized housing for urban dwellers, creating in
its place private ownership of dwellings and the possibility of an
immense new housing market.
I found it interesting to note that Century 21 Real Estate has
recently announced establishment of operations in Shanghai.
In short, casual suggestions that China today is unchanged from the
China of a decade or two ago--the kind of suggestions conveyed by such
journalistic catch phrases as ``Aging Maoists,'' are inaccurate and
misleading. No serious observer who has visited China since the last
presidential visit in 1989, or since the late 1970s, as I have, could
agree with the Member of Congress who solemnly informed me two years
ago, ``Nothing has changed in China in 25 years.''
B. Growth and reform have generated new dilemmas in China.
The PRC today faces massive challenges, many of them stemming from
the successes of nearly twenty years of post-Mao reform.
A book recently published in Beijing, The Critical Moment: 27
Problems Urgently Demanding Resolution in Today's China, offers a frank
look at these challenges.
With apologies for my inadequate translation skills, I have
appended my own rendering of the chapter summaries from this
fascinating book--whose very publication, I might add, would have been
inconceivable in China a decade ago.
Year after year of 10 percent growth has produced prosperity for
some, and unprecedented opportunity for many. But there has been a
heavy price: environmental degradation on a monumental scale,
widespread official corruption both petty and grand, ominously
increasing disparities of wealth and income growth between more- and
less favored regions of the country, a dearth of broadly-accepted
public values among citizens no longer susceptible to heavy. doses of
official ideology, visible and growing unemployment in spite of rapid
economic growth, prospects of further economic dislocation as the
regime now turns to the core tasks of dismantling the inherited Maoist-
Stalinist economic edifice.
C. China is still, as it was a hundred years ago, in profound flux.
Institutions rise and fall; jurisdictions are defined and
redefined; policies change as conflicting views at the highest levels
of government and Party play out behind closed doors. (And remember;
when those views clashed in public, in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the
result was too often massive social violence and loss of life.) Power
ebbs and flows between the national government, which seeks to weld
together a modern nationwide economic structure, and the
``localities''--provinces, counties, cities, towns--which often prefer
to maximize their local interests without too much concern for national
priorities.
The presumption that China's institutions are locked tight, set in
concrete, is sadly mistaken, and an inadequate assumption on which to
build U.S. policy.
America's challenge--whether in in business or government--is to
work effectively with the constant flux and shifting that characterizes
day-to-day life and policy in China. Nothing could be more futile than
focusing our national policies or our business strategies on an
imagined China that has ceased to be--or never was--the ``real thing.''
Some Chinese traits and conditions, however, run very, very deep. Among
them:
Population pressure. Members of the Committee will know already
that China has more than 20 percent of the world's population, but only
7 percent of the world's arable land. That land is under ever-
increasing pressure, as the government releases controls over private
economic choice and farmland is converted to non-agricultural use.
Most estimates suggest that, even without the economic dislocation
and unemployment now burgeoning as the national government attempts to
dump the core institutions of the Maoist-Stalinist economic system,
fifteen to twenty million people newly enter the work force each year.
It was Mao Zedong, in his almost mystical zeal, who excoriated and
ruined those serious economists who warned in the 1950s of the dangers
of unlimited population growth. Today, his successors grapple daily
with the realities of overpopulation, insufficient employment
opportunity, torrents of migration from countryside to city, and
potential social discontent among the rootless and the unemployed.
Bureaucracy. The Chinese Communists did not invent Chinese
bureaucracy in 1949. By the third century BC, the emperor was
experimenting with interchangeable administrative officers recruited by
a merit-based examination. By the 7th century AD the bureaucratic
system took its modern form, lasting with few changes into the early
20th century. What not only Western business people but ardent
reformers inside China see as the sloth, corruption and irrationality
of much Chinese bureaucratic process has deep, deep roots, and has
proven almost impossible to eliminate. An historic attempt at
bureaucratic reduction, involving the termination of four million
officials in the central government alone, has just gotten underway
with the establishment of Premier Zhu Rongji's administration last
month.
Government management of morality. The Communists didn't invent
this either; from the time of the birth of Christ in our calendar,
Chinese rulers, no matter how they attained power (usually through
violent upheaval), ruled through the mechanism of an officially
promulgated moral orthodoxy. For two thousand years, this was
Imperially sponsored Confucian philosophy, embodied in the classical
literature whose masters became the emperor's administrative
bureaucrats. After 1949, the government-sponsored morality became
``Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought,'' with all the repressive
implications that conveys.
Today, the excesses of ideological indoctrination have receded, but
the rulers of China still take it as a given that the state propagates
popular values--and defines the line between acceptable and
unacceptable social values and heterodoxy. This is not to the taste of
most Americans, but it is a fact.
Fierce debates still occur from time to time, though fortunately
without the violence of earlier decades, over the content and the
boundaries of state-approved ideology.
The celebration in Beijing this month of the twentieth anniversary
of the publication of an article entitled ``Practice is the Sole
Criterion of Truth''--a topic not calculated to rouse passions inside
the Beltway or out in the American heartland--hints at this reality;
the original article was a coded attack on the blind ideological
fundamentalism of the Maoist era and a clarion call (in Chinese
context) for the regime to permit ``The Liberalization of Thought.''
The debate over regime definitions of Right and Wrong for popular
consumption is an old one in China, and it persists today.
Uneven economic development. China has always been big, and has
nearly always been ruled from a single imperial center point. But, like
other very large countries, it has always contained areas of wealth and
of poverty, and in those disparities lurk the possibilities of social
tension.
Since the Western advance toward China in the 18th century and
China's maritime engagement with the world, coastal China has known the
most rapid economic growth. This has been particularly true since the
``Opening to the Outside World'' after 1978, as massive amounts of
foreign investment have poured into the more developed coastal areas
enjoying the greatest economic advantages. Indeed, an unanticipated
byproduct of China's impressive economic improvement since the late
'70s has been the re-emergence of grave inequalities of growth rates
and the leaving of some poor and remote areas in the deep shadows of
national economic development.
* * * * * * *
Mr. Chairman, thus far in my remarks, I have tried to point out a
few of the basic features of the China that the United States faces at
the end of the twentieth century. I have emphasized size, the power of
the bureaucratic-imperial legacy, the tradition of state sponsorship of
moral values, the unending challenge of enormous population and limited
resources, the worrisome unevenness of economic development between
advantaged coastal areas and disadvantaged interior regions, the
constancy of flux and change in policies and administrative structures,
and the powerful pull of China's inherited traditions.
As we look back on twenty years of contact with China, we in the
business community know that the route to effective and profitable
relations with China leads deep into Chinese society itself. It is
impossible to succeed with China, we have learned through experience,
without continually learning how to make our way. It avails us naught
to try to do business with China from our armchairs in Washington or
Dallas or New York or Omaha It is fruitless to pack up our sample cases
and head for China to ``tell them what they need to know.'' As an
earlier generation of American entrepreneurs, both commercial and
spiritual, discovered in 19th century China, no amount of selling our
wares will succeed if we cannot, as it were, ``speak their language.''
* * * * * * *
From all of this, what can and should the United States hope for
from the visit of President Clinton next month?
First of all, we should hope that the visit will produce something
more than sound bites for the American people. The President of the
United States represents the entire nation on state visits abroad, and
his visit to China should help all Americans to get at least a bit
better acquainted with a vast and ancient nation that marches to music
other than our own. No one picture--whether of Tianamnen, of the placid
fishermen of Guilin, of the Shanghai stock exchange or of an adorable
young baby--can alone convey to Americans the complexity and the
variety of the Chinese experience. We have lived with sound bites for
too long. With the conscientious efforts of the media, the Clinton trip
might be able to expand America's sense of China from a crimped menu of
black versus white images and 7-second bites into a more serious and
complex understanding. That would be the best possible service to US
policy making.
Second of all, we should welcome the furtherance of low-key
building-block cooperative efforts between the two nations. Presidents
Clinton and Jiang made a start in this direction with their October
1997 statement pledging bilateral working cooperation on a wide range
of issues of shared concern to the two countries. Modest but serious
programs of concrete cooperation--in law, in energy and environment,
and in a variety of other fields--are a key to stable and beneficial
US-China relations.
Third, we should hope for substantial progress on the major
remaining unrealized issue relating to China's role in the world
economy, namely, China's accession to the World Trade Organization on
legitimate terms. Like every nation confronting the mixture of benefits
and obligations arising from participation in multilateral
institutions, China has its share of ``openers'' eager to seize the
opportunities offered by greater global participation and of
``closers'' fearful of the loss of sovereignty or the potential damage
to domestic economic interests caused by the opening of markets to
foreign participation. Accession to the WTO, moreover, will require of
China a degree of economic and social reorganization far greater than
anything that the US has ever faced in preparing to join global
institutions. Ultimately, therefore, China's leaders will have to face
very tough economic and political decisions. I am encouraged, however,
by the intensity of current US-China contacts over WTO, hope, with most
Americans active in business with China, that the summit will be able
to mark definitive progress on major aspects of a final WTO
understanding.
Fourth, we should hope for progress on the many non-economic issues
that this Committee so frequently discusses. I am not a specialist in
most of these areas, and will not write at length on them.
I would hope, however, that members of this Committee might
consider the main point contained in the article, ``Once in a While,
Less Is More,'' which I have appended to this testimony.
There are times when the way to resolve bilateral disagreements
with China is not through high-visibility confrontation, or even
through high-drama negotiation. US-China relations are not wrestling
matches. Hammer locks don't apply. The climactic ``pin,'' with the
loser unable to move while the referee counts him ``out'' and the
audience cheers, is not the stuff of successful US-China engagement and
realization of US interests. We err if we assume that in every case,
the more strident one side becomes the more pliant the other side will
be--in either direction.
I am hopeful, therefore, that in addition to reaching publicly
acclaimed bilateral understanding on some issues, such as the WTO, the
Clinton trip to China will further advance a process that is already
underway; the ``reciprocal unilateral'' removal of irritants and causes
of US-China friction. Whether before, during, or after the upcoming
Presidential mission to China, I believe that the continuing re-
normalization of US-China relations can and should result in additional
unilateral gestures of consideration for each side's sensitive
concerns.
* * * * * * *
Will the June visit of President Clinton to China be a ``success?''
It depends on who is setting the targets.
It is logically impossible for any Summit, or for any actions by
either government, to provide absolute satisfaction to all those in one
country who are disgusted with the other side's behavior. If we define
the upcoming Summit's success in terms of such perfect satisfaction--
whether in trade, human rights, regional security affairs, or any other
field--then the Summit will be found wanting.
But if we see this summit as a step--symbolic, certainly, but also
substantive--in the direction of fuller US-China communication,
cooperation, and mutual consideration, I believe that there is a
reasonable chance for ``success.'' The process of re-establishing a
civil US-China relationship has been underway since 1996. The
reciprocal visits of Presidents Jiang and Clinton are an important
element in that vital process.
* * * * * * *
Mr. Chairman, the economic and commercial relationship between the
United States and China is now immense. China is this nation's fourth-
ranked trade partner. Exports to China account, by any reasonable
standard, for several hundred thousand American jobs. Imports from
China account for more jobs in transportation, services, and sales. US
investment in China far exceeds twenty billion dollars. In the global
economy, China has come to play a significant and mature role; its
maintenance of currency stability in the face of the Asian economic
crisis has been widely applauded worldwide, and by US policy makers.
Stable and growing economic and commercial relations have been the
bedrock of US-China relations, even in periods of political tension,
since the 1970s.
The American business community is the first to recognize that
making progress--whether commercial or diplomatic--with China is hard
work for America and for China as well. We acknowledge a myriad
problems in China, both commercial and noncommercial.
We believe, however, that the American response to those problems
should be typically American--energetic practical. We know from
experience that even when we are told ``Meiyou banfa,'' ( ``No Way!'')
there usually is a banfa--a way--to resolve difficulties or prevent
unnecessary stalemates. For these reasons, we wish President Clinton
well on his mission, and we look forward to continuing to play our
constructive role in the building of a reliable 21st century
relationship between the United States and China.
Thank you.
APPENDED DOCUMENTS
THE U.S.-CHINA BUSINESS COUNCIL
Letter from the President
Robert A. Kapp
reprinted from the January-February 1998 China Business Review
Once in a While, Less is More
In case you haven't noticed, we are in a moment of calm on the US-
China front. How long it will last is uncertain. Unless somebody does
something sufficiently imaginative to break out of the annual Most
Favored Nation-Driven cycle of recrimination, we'll soon see fire-works
again, perhaps even before the winter of 1998 is over. While things are
quiet, let's contemplate the year past and the way ahead.
1997 Highlights
After months of bitter debate laced with very domestic politics,
the US House of Representatives sustained normal US tariffs (MFN rates)
on Chinese goods by a decisive margin. An attempt to scuttle MFN in the
Senate was quickly defeated. Late in the year, the House passed in a
few days a raft of China-focused bills. Prospects of enactment into law
in 1998 are at best cloudy.
Hong Kong reverted to Chinese sovereignty with essentially none of
the dire eventualities that had sparked a year-long feeding frenzy in
the American media and unending discussion in the US political realm.
Since the handover, many Americans and others worldwide have remained
vigilant, but Hong Kong has dropped almost completely from public view
in the United States.
The state visit of PRC President Jiang Zemin produced a number of
commitments to improved bilateral cooperation, and a remarkable public
event: the two presidents' sober public exploration of deeply divergent
perspectives on human rights. Despite heavy US media concentration on
points of US friction, the two leaders revealed an increasingly mature
and manageable relationship between proud but very different societies.
Bureaucratic engagement between the two governments began to expand
in ways that will assist the continuing normalization of US-China
cooperation. Already, cabinet- and subeabinet-level engagements are
increasing.
Following the conclusion of the state visit, Wei Jing-sheng,
regarded by many as China's most prominent prisoner of conscience, was
released from penal custody and came to the United States for medical
care. Wei's release had been heavily emphasized by leading US human
rights organizations and critics of US-China rapprochement; some had
urged that the state visit not proceed unless Wei was freed.
Shortly after the summit, during the Vancouver Asia Pacific
Economic cooperation forum meetings, china presented US negotiators
with a new proposal on World Trade Organization (WTO) accession.
American officials have called it a serious step forward.
China moved ahead on key questions of political leadership, and
reforms in the crucial area of State-owned enterprise restructuring
have already begun to lurch forward at the grass-roots level.
The year end evidence thus suggests that the PRC and US
administrations have taken a publicly observable stake in the benefits
of civil and respectful engagement, in spite of voices in each nation
demanding that the other country be treated as an implacable strategic
adversary'.
Signs of ``Reciprocal Unilateralism''
After years of megaphone diplomacy, 1997 may be remembered as the
year in which a more productive pattern of engagement began to emerge.
Call it ``reciprocal unilateralism,'' as distinct from ``formal
bilateralism.''
Under reciprocal unilateralism, the two sides maintain a very
direct, thorough, continuous, and businesslike policy dialogue,
generally away from the headlines and the ``bully pulpit,'' so that
each side has a solid understanding of the others priorities and most
sensitive concerns.
When the ongoing, formal bilateral dialogue produces formally
negotiated agreements whose public affirmation is acceptable to both
sides, the two governments announce and ink their achievements
together.
Significantly for the long-term standing of bilateral differences,
however, each side also takes unilateral steps to address the other's
urgent concerns. Moreover, without detailed elaboration, each side
responds to positive gestures with something positive of its own.
These reciprocal unilateral moves take place with no formal
agreements, no joint statements, and no explicit acknowledgement of
linkages. As they accumulate, however, the end results are a
progressive removal of irritants and improvement of the operating
system of US-China relations overall.
In terms of process. this may not be to the taste of all Americans.
Some would prefer bankable proof that their own efforts have caused
China to modify its policies or practices. In extreme cases, the value
seems to lie more in the public credit to be earned than in the
concrete results to be achieved. Advocates of a bright-spotlight
strategy of public exposure and high-profile demands are probably right
in maintaining that pressure is an intrinsic element in the US-China
relationship. But yearning for that comforting assurance that one's own
actions directly caused a desired change for the better in China is
almost always an exercise in futility.
For achieving real results, the reciprocal unilateral style may
turn out to be unexpectedly productive. The evidence of the past year
suggests that a decision to maintain a real working relationship at the
leadership level, after many years of deep doubt, has now been
established in both countries. This relationship can allow each side to
address the concerns and needs of the other without requiring in every
case the official agreements and explicit linkages that formal
bilateralism entails. Such a possibility does not mean the end of all
differences of position between the United States and China. Like
official bilateral commitments, reciprocal unilateral moves can entail
domestic political risks.
Reciprocal unilateralism assumes three things. First, it assumes
maintenance of very strong, laborious but effective communication
between the two administrations. This in turn demands a willingness to
commit precious time and attention to a dialogue that will tax the
resources of both sides.
Second, reciprocal unilateralism demands consistent adherence to
stable and durable priorities. If the two sides cannot dependably
convey their priorities to each other, no amount of agile maneuvering
will suffice to sustain political confidence in the possibility of
shared progress, and bitterness over ``moving the goal posts'' will
wear away at bilateral relations.
Third, reciprocal unilateralism both requires and contributes to a
sense of positive purpose and forward movement even in the face of
inevitable storms and controversies. Reciprocal unilateralism must
bring results in sensitive areas one step at a time, but it is the
cumulative pattern that counts. If momentary crises perpetually
threaten to derail the process, real progress will not be sustainable.
Forces within each society might prefer derailment. Nevertheless, to
continue the analogy, while a string of burning tank cars on a rail
siding in a populated area might be a great marketing opportunity for
gas-mask manufacturers, it doesn't do much for the local citizenry.
The Way Forward
The way forward ideally will see substantial formal bilateral
progress in 1998, particularly in the context of President CIinton's
visit to China. That visit will, we hope, take place earlier rather
than later in 1998.
At the core of the formal bilateral agenda in 1998 should be the
PRC's WTO accession and its companion, elimination of the wasteful
annual US renewal of China's normal tariff status. Though we've said
this before, recent signs of progress have once again suggested that a
genuinely acceptable agreement between the United States and China,
prerequisite to broader WTO agreement on China's accession, may finally
be edging within the two leaders' grasp. The two sides now know each
other's positions well, and the two nations' leaders have apparently
blessed further progress in this key area. Expeditious conclusion of
the nearly endless WTO haggle, on economically legitimate terms, is far
and away the biggest concern of US business at the formal bilateral
level.
The way forward should also see the further development of longterm
bilateral cooperation in such areas as the extension of international
legal procedural norms, under conditions in which neither side is the
demander and neither is the target.
The way forward should see additional reciprocal unilateralist
steps in areas of great sensitivity. This is as significant as required
progress in formal bilateral settings. Already, the two sides have
begun to show that they can make these gestures. There is no need to
elaborate the issues here or to propose a specific tit-for-tat formula.
The gathering record should speak for itself.
Finally, the way forward must be just that--a path to progress.
Standing still is equivalent, bicycle-style, to falling over. If the
two sides have decided to invest in the rebuilding of a crucial global
relationship, it will not do to lose concentration, or to stow the
follow-up plans in the back of the drawer.
In the US-China arena. 1997 ended more positively than it began.
Look for more drums and cymbals in 1998, but hopefully for further
nuanced progress on the reciprocal unilateral front--and ideally for
resolution at last on WTO as well.
______
THE U.S.-CHINA BUSINESS COUNCIL
Letter from the President
Robert A. Kapp
reprinted from the January-February 1998 China Business Review
The Meaning of the 1997 MFN Victory
The June 24 decision by the US House of Representatives to maintain
normal trade relations between the United States and China by refusing
to abolish Most Favored Nation (MFN) tariffs on Chinese imports,
although the eighth consecutive case of MFN preservation, must not be
regarded as ``business as usual.'' It was the result of a remarkable
amount of very hard work, not only by the community of American
international businesses and key national organizations like the US-
China Business Council, but also by a new and impressive array of
smaller businesses and non-business organizations that expressed for
the first time the full breadth of US national support for a decent and
civil relationship with China.
The extent and the ferocity of this spring's assault on MFN, and on
normal US-China relations, deepened the discussion of US-China
relations throughout American society. No one can say that the
opponents of MFN and those dedicated to downgrading US-China relations
did not have their chance to speak this year. They threw everything
they had into their attack, including massive media efforts, virulently
inflammatory language, shaky numbers, misleading statements, and plenty
of bitter assaults on the integrity of MFN's supporters.
At first, Congress reeled backward under this onslaught from a
well-organized, media-savy campaign that seemed to be as heavily
dedicated to scoring domestic political points as to changing US China
policy.
In the dark days of February and March, when the full fury of the
anti-MFN storm began to burst forth, many in the business community,
too, were shocked by the intensity and animosity of the attack. The
persistent, unelaborated allegations of PRC involvement in US campaign
finance irregularities fueled an underlying flame that illuminated the
political dangers fading elected officials dedicated to the
preservation of normal US-China relations.
The blunt political insistence on defining MFN as a moral-religious
issue seemed for a time likely to turn MFN into a visceral, media-
magical drama of Foreign Treachery and Domestic Villainy. As the spring
progressed, the intricate complexities of American domestic politics
produced an ominous rumble of shifting positions among some prominent
figures. For a time, it seemed that, in the House at least, MFN was
headed for defeat.
Then, something remarkable happened.
From the countryside, from small towns and cities across the
country came a growing chorus of alarm that killing MFN would be not
only economically disastrous, but morally counterproductive. Members of
Congress began to hear, from members of the religious comnunity who
actually work with the Chinese in the PRC, a gentle but urgent message
of concern over the damage that a comprehensive degradation of US-China
relations would wreak on their work and the welfare of their friends
within China. Coalitions supportive of stronger US-China relations,
especially economic and commercial ties, made their views known in many
states--precisely as members of Congress had implored MFN's supporters
to do. The views of constituenents--including those in small companies
who lack the resources to ``work the issues'' in the nation's capital
month after month--were expressed in home town weekend meetings with
members of Congress. local newspapers, and community gatherings. These
voices seemed to break through the high-pitched hum of the Washington,
DC policy apparatus.
Powerful and respected figures from the Chinese dissident community
in the United States came forward, in congressional hearings and
through published statements, to point out that killing economic ties
between the United States and China was exactly the opposite of what
was needed if hopes of further political opening in China were to be
realized.
And once again, with particular courage in the face of the anti-MFN
side, the committed and steadfast congressional supporters of MFN,
including their talented and untiring staffers, worked diligently to
spread the message of responsible policy making among their colleagues.
The White House and key Administration figures also turned their
attention to the future of US-China relations, and argued ringingly for
the maintenance of normal trade ties as the keystone of a much larger
and more complex relationship.
The business community, long the workhorse of the battle to
maintain stable US-China economic relations, came together as never
before. Blasted by its opponents as political and moral renegades, the
business community found itself this year sharing the burden with a
broad coalition of concerned Americans who, in their own words, made
the case for MFN on humanitarian and ethical grounds. The business
communities comments in Congress. press conferences, letters, and news
articles, refuted the outrageous contention that killing MFN was the
only legitimate course for people of ethical and religious conviction.
My own testimony in the House of Representatives this June attempted to
bring together in a single brief document the core moral issues and the
eloquent voices of Americans and Chinese outside of business, who
provided the dearest justification of continued MFN in the terms that
many in Congress chose to emphasize this year.
The Search for the Perfect Message
In the end, MFN's opponents were left to claim that, even though
MFN's future was never really in doubt because both the US Senate and
the President were certain to ensure its continuation, House defeat of
MIN was needed to ``send a message.'' But what the message was, and to
whom it ought to be sent, was something the anti-MFN legions could
never quite clarify: A message to Hong Kong perhaps? A message to
others in one's own political party? Maybe a message from Congress to
the White House about control of trade policy? A message to President
Clinton, as more than one anti-MFN member of Congress put it? A message
to China, as several columnists dubbed it? A message to US consumers? A
message to China's leaders?
On June 24, the House of Representatives faced up to the reality
that, after eight years of wrenching annual debate the ``message'' is
still impossible to pinpoint. As one impatient congressman made clear,
sending a message is no substitute for a substantive and credible
policy.
Amazingly, in the final days before the House vote, the national
media seemed to turn their attention to other matters. Hong Kong as an
MFN issue had fizzled weeks before; the imminence of the Hong Kong
handover galvanized media attention and MFN faded into the shadows. By
the time of the critical House vote, the whole subject had virtually
disappeared from the American press.
So the 1997 MFN battle is over; normal trade is preserved for one
more year. Once again, members of Congress in both parties, including
some of the most strenuous critics of China, have seen that the annual
struggle over tariffs on Chinese imports is of little use in handling
the complexities of US-China relations.
The rest of 1997 will be busy: Hong Kong will put in place new
governing structures and officials in line with its new status as a
Special Administrative Region of the PRC. PRC President Jiang Zemin
will visit President Clinton this fall: and bilateral negotiations on
China's accession to the World Trade Organization will continue. The
need for effective US-China dialogue on many issues is increasing, not
diminishing. Opportunities for further progress, interrupted since late
1996, are at hand this autumn. This summer may see additional China-
focused proposals in Congress that require careful examination even if
they are not specifically tied to continued MFN status for China. But
we should take satisfaction in the outcome of this year's struggle.
which represents a recovery from adversity and a significant broadening
of the social and intellectual foundations for US commitment to stable
and enduring commercial and economic ties with China.
______
THE TALK OF THE HOUR IN CHINA: INTRODUCTIONS TO SAMPLE CHAPTERS FROM
THE CRITICAL MOMENT: 27 PROBLEMS THAT DESPERATELY NEED TO BE SOLVED IN
TODAY'S CHINA (Published April 1997 in Beijing by a group of young
researchers and social scientists under the sponsorship of a prominent
scholar-adviser to President Jiang Zemin.)
(Informally translated by Bob Kapp, September 10, 1997)
The Question of our Farmers. From beginning to end, the question of
the peasantry is the foremost question of China's revolution and its
economic development. How are we going to rekindle the tremendous
energy and enthusiasm that the farmers displayed in the early 1980s?
How are we to renew and stimulate the immense potential stored up over
the centuries in the hearts of our farmers, in order to build once
again a new Chinese Enlightenment in the 21st century?
In today's agriculture we find traditional peasants laboriously
tilling the land of their ancestors. But some of our farmers are really
modern businessmen, wearing western clothes and leather shoes and
carrying bulging briefcases.
We have long talked a big game about the central importance of
agriculture. How much longer are we going to go on with this
``Agriculture By Slogan''?
The Grain Problem.
China's Third-Generation leadership stresses, ``Grain Production
Affects Everything.''
Worldwide, 800 million people go hungry every day; 500 million
children have not enough to eat; their mental and physical development
is impaired; 40,000 people die of hunger every day.
The ominous words of/Lester/Brown about ``A Starving World'' are
like a boulder pitched into the water; one stone makes a thousand
waves, giving a chilling new significance to all the talk about the
``China Threat.''
The crisis of the huge fluctuations in China's grain production are
rooted in the long years of policy emphasis on heavy industry at
agriculture's expense and soaking agriculture /i.e., from 1950s through
late 1970s/. Will China's grain situation in the next five years again
show such critical fluctuations? What should we do about it?
The Population Problem
China has been carrying out a population planning campaign for 20
years. More than 300 million additional births have been avoided. Even
so, our population will rise to 1.3 billion by the end of the century.
In 2020 it will be 1.4 billion, and by 2050 it will rise to about 1.6
billion. Only then will we reach the point of zero population growth.
We can rail about people's lack of vision, but actually their
outlook is rooted in practicality. Changing their outlook--this is the
most effective form of criticism and a way of bringing about some
changes for the better in the unfair distribution of mental resources.
This relates directly to the willingness of families to invest in the
intellectual development of their children.
Furthermore: how are we going to navigate the challenges of a
transition to a more rapidly aging population?
The Problem of the State-Owned Enterprises
Our state-owned enterprises are the least efficient. Any delay
today in the continued reform of these enterprises will critically
impair our social and economic development in the future.
The outflow of assets from state-owned enterprises is now a serious
problem. The ``legal'' loss of such assets is even more serious than
the illicit losses. Some have estimated that losses of assets from the
state-owned enterprises /i.e., into non-state hands, through whatever
means/ now total RMB 500 billion /approx. US $60 billion. Some say the
leakage is running RMB 100 billion each year. Who can say for sure?
Are state-owned enterprises a good thing or a bad one? Can China's
state owned enterprises exist independent of government? Should state-
owned enterprises simply withdraw from economic fields in which there
is competition, or shouldn't they? Should the pursuit of profits be the
only aim of state-owned firms? What will become of our state-owned
enterprises in 15 years?
The Problem of the Market Economy.
The Cold War between East and West in this century was rooted in
different assessments of the market economic system; from that emerged
a conflict of ideologies and of systems.
Rigorously speaking, the beliefs we have embraced since the
beginning of Reform in the late 1970s has been an ``Operations
Philosophy.'' This condition lasted until after Deng Xiaoping made his
famous Trip to the South in 1992 /in which Deng called for the renewal
of rapid economic liberalization after a post-Tiananmen period of
economic and ideological retrenchment/.
The conditions of China's early reform period were not the result
of a deep-going economic crisis, but rather the result of social
pressure. What kind of system and what kind of future do we face, now
that our economic life is switching from one track to another? What
will we gain from this transition? What will we lose?
We have already travelled down the easy path. The next steps of our
reform are going to encounter much more difficult challenges. Starting
from where we are today, China's socialist market economy could face
three very different futures.
The Question of our International Strategy
Will the 21st century see the funeral of the socialist world? Will
it be ``The American Century?''
China's international strategy in the 21st century absolutely will
not rely on a narrow nationalism or on constantly saying ``No!'' to
cooperation with others. We have no need to become the second ``Mr.
NO!''
We should in a dignified way ``Invite the U.S. to descend from its
gilded throne of global hegemony.''
A policy of strength is a historical given. China's military
standard should at least approximate that of France. China should
seriously, but discriminatingly and in appropriate ways participate in
UN peace-keeping activities.
The Problem of Crime
The crime rate in the mid-'90s was eight times the crime rate of
the early '80s. We are now going through the fifth national crime
``High Tide'' since 1949
The characteristics of this crime wave are as follows; the scale of
crimes is growing and the harm inflicted is increasing; crimes are
becoming more structurally diverse; the ratio of people violating the
law is increasing; rural crime has reached alarming proportions; the
effects of official and public-employee crime are pernicious; organized
crime grows day by day. Any kind of crime known abroad is also found in
China, such as secret manufacture and sale of weapons and ammunition,
computer crime, counterfeiting of money and credit cards, and so on.
China's investment in public safety represents 1 percent of total
national investment. In developed countries it stands at 3 to 5
percent, and in developing countries public-safety investment averages
9 percent. Budgets are starved for funds; sometimes, for lack of money
our law enforcement people fail to do their duty...Those who do police
work face extremes of hardship.
The Problem of Education
China's education develop could burst ahead in one of three
directions.
Some areas have experimented with the bases for financial self-
sufficiency in education, and may very carefully unhook themselves from
public funding.
Higher-level schools should gradually establish a system of
budgeting for the costs of human resource development, carry out cost-
benefit analyses in training programs, and reverse the system of
``schools managing the community,'' so that ``the community manages the
schools.''
China's education needs to overcome its present over-standardized,
slanted and narrowly ``closed'' condition, establishing instead an
outlook that respects and dignifies each individual, develops each
person's natural, and cultivates in each student a sense of self-
development and responsibility.
The Problem of the Moral Quandary
The power of China's tradition of ethically based culture is so
great that for two thousand years society in the main did not rely on
physical force, or on religion, or even on law for its enormous
stability and unity. ``Governing the empire by the influence of
virtue'' was China's unique cultural tradition.
The destruction of the realm of ideals has led to two different
disorientations. One was the lack of psychological preparedness for the
enormous burdens accompanying modernization, which pitches some people
into the deepest sense of hopelessness and crisis of belief On the
other hand, some people have fallen into a life of giddy infatuation
with the other countries' ways of life, leaving them walking zombies
and spiritually dead.
Modern Chinese live in a time of historic transition from old moral
values to new ones. They fall into unavoidable moral travail. Moral
values lose their educating power, and people's values descend into
confusion. All kinds of immorality float to the surface. The system of
social morality weakens and loses its controlling influence. The core
of ethical and moral education changes its appearance....
The Problem of the Wandering Population
Seeking a higher future income is the primary reason for the tide
of human labor; there's no doubt that income differentials among
regions--and even among nearby towns--has provided the impetus for the
increasing movement of labor among regions and within individual
regions of the country.
In reforming the present system of household registration, the
government's interest would lie in alleviating the crisis of rural
unemployment, and raising both the productivity and the income of
laborers. This will promote a new burst of rural economic expansion.
But the price is measured in higher urban unemployment, in the
additional inconveniences that affect the quality of urban life, and
especially in a rising sense of psychological uneasiness in the cities.
The government definitely can use any number of policy measures to
cope with these massive population movements, making it more costly for
people to migrate. But this is not nearly enough to stanch the flow of
internal migrants, and the scope of this internal migration can only
continue to grow.
The Problem of Culture Conflict
Intellectuals' sense of self-worth has already plummeted to the
lowest point in a hundred years or more. Their image has lost its
luster. Their prestige has lost its majesty. The market economy has
unleashed the ``God of the Crowds,'' and opened the door to a
``carnival era.''
Educated people versed in the humanistic learning of arts and
letters cannot leap onto the battlefield of the market economy. They
hover fatalistically beyond the boundaries of the flourishing market
economy.
In an age of heroes, the brave protests of intellectuals against
the tide of worldliness and secularism may not be well received by the
general public. Now, as socialist civilization enters a new stage, the
task of today's intellectuals will be, through their strenuous efforts,
to reaffirm their own values.
The Problem of Public Finance
Reform commonly causes financial pressures. How to deal with these
financial pressures has an enormous impact on the governance of the
nation
Competition among profit-seeking firms is a little like a crowd
getting into a fight in a porcelain shop and throwing cups and plates;
some people, in grabbing more plates to throw, wind up destroying the
pottery that could have been shared with many other families.
The ever-increasing dispersion of government powers among China's
many local regions has become a major obstacle to the further deepening
of China's reform programs. It is the direct cause for the present
shortage of central government financial resources It turns local
governments into the central government's negotiating adversaries as
the central government tries to advance the reform process. This
intensifying amassing of powers at the local level contributes to the
overheating of the economy, and actually creates conditions of economic
separatism within our nation.
In the field of economics, constitutional reform first requires
financial reform, and financial reform leading to constitutionalism
first begins with reforms in the taxation system
The Problem of Sustainable Development
China's modernization has been truly agonizing and full of
difficulty. Each time China threads its way through a narrow pass,
another forbidding obstacle looms ahead. Now, in the arduous and
difficulty-laden period of our arrival in the world economy, we see
ahead of us a ``Green Wall.''
At a time when we are feeling the effects of new modern material
culture, and of the modern ethical culture as well, a great many people
are alarmed by what they see in the future: a world of constant alarms
over crises in production. If present rates of pollution resulting from
industrial production, and of the waste of resources, continue, we will
not survive.
History leaves to us and our descendants a narrow avenue of escape.
The time remaining for us to improve our performance is very short. The
fundamental conditions are by now inauspicious; this is our last
opportunity for development.
The Chairman. Gentlemen, that was four excellent
testimonies here. I truly want--and I am going to ask unanimous
consent, and I believe it will be approved--that this be
printed. I would like for you to agree with me to do one thing.
That is to adjust your text to cover over any haste that you
may have in trying to you know. Because what we want to do with
this--and I have done this on a number of occasions--not
recently--but we have this printed and we distribute it among
the opinion-makers, the editors of magazines and so forth. So,
you have not misspent your time, I hope, coming here this
morning. You certainly have been beneficial to us. I thank you
very much.
And with that, if there be no further business--and there
better not be--to come before the committee, we stand in
recess.
Thank you so much.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing was adjourned,
subject to the call of the Chair.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC 20520,
July 15, 1998.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Following the May 14, 1998 hearing at which Assistant Secretary
Stanley Roth testified, additional questions were submitted for the
record. Please find enclosed the responses to those questions.
If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate
to contact us.
Sincerely,
Barbara Larkin,
Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs.
Enclosure: As stated.
Responses of Secretary Roth to Questions Asked by Chairman Helms
Tibet
Question. Mr. Roth, last October, Secretary Albright took the
unprecedented step of appointing a senior official on Tibet. Greg
Craig's mandate on Tibet is to ``promote substantive dialogue between
the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Dalai Lama or
his representatives,'' ``vigorously promote the U.S. policy of seeking
to protect the unique religious, cultural and linguistic heritage of
Tibet, and pressing for improved human rights,'' and ``coordinate U.S.
government activities and programs regarding Tibet.'' These are the
Secretary's own words.
Mr. Roth, what progress has the U.S. made in advancing dialogue
between the Dalai Lama and the government of China, protecting Tibet's
religious, cultural and linguistic heritage?
Answer. The Administration continues to be deeply concerned about
the circumstances in Tibet, particularly reports of human rights abuses
and limits on religious freedom. Steps also should be taken to ensure
the preservation of Tibet's unique language, culture and heritage. We
believe the best way forward on these issues would be the start of a
meaningful dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama
or his representatives. We are hopeful for progress, but there is still
a long way to go.
Consistent with the Dalai Lama's support for the Administration's
strategy of engaging China, we have repeatedly and vigorously urged the
Chinese government to start a dialogue with the Dalai Lama. We have
used every opportunity to address this matter with the Chinese
including Secretary Albright's recent meetings with President Jiang
Zemin and other Chinese officials during her visit to China. The summit
in Beijing later this month will provide a forum for the President to
discuss Tibet directly with senior Chinese officials.
Question. What priority is the Administration giving Tibet in U.S.-
China relations, specifically during the upcoming Summit?
Answer. We use every opportunity in our engagement with China to
press Beijing to engage in dialogue with the Dalai Lama. We have
underlined to PRC officials our concern for the preservation of Tibet's
unique cultural, linguistic, and religious heritage, and our desire to
see greater respect for the human rights of ethnic Tibetans. Tibet will
be a high priority agenda item for the upcoming summit, as will other
issues of religious freedom and human rights.
Taiwan Policy
Question. Are you prepared to say that U.S. policy on Taiwan is not
now being altered, and will not be altered during, or as a result of,
the Summit?
Answer. U.S. unofficial relations with the people on Taiwan, as
defined by the Taiwan Relations Act, are not being altered, and will
not be altered during, or as a result of, the upcoming Summit.
Question. At what point will Taiwan be entitled to the same respect
the U.S. accords China in terms of high level visits by Administration
officials, and the ability of the elected Taiwanese president to visit
the U.S.?
Answer. Our relations with the people on Taiwan are unofficial, as
defined by the Taiwan Relations Act. We treat Taiwan and its people
with due respect, consistent with the unofficiality of our relations.
When it serves our national objectives, we do support visits to Taiwan
of USG officials, up to and including Cabinet rank, from economic and
technical agencies. Requests for visits by Taiwan's senior leaders to
the U.S. are reviewed on a case-by-case basis; we expect such visits to
be personal, private, and rare.
Responses of Secretary Roth to Questions Asked by Senator Grams
Question. What is the status of the US-China bilateral shipping
agreement? US carriers still face restrictions in China while China has
improved its access in the US. Are the inequities being addressed?
Answer. The United States signed the current maritime agreement
with China in 1988. Since then, it has been extended several times and
expires on June 15, 1998.
Under the terms of this agreement, maritime authorities from both
countries have held frequent meetings, most recently in December 1997
and in March 1998. At each step of the process, we have been in close
consultation with U.S. industry representatives We are working with the
Chinese to secure authorization for services that U.S. shipping lines
want to start or change. We have made clear to the Chinese that a new
shipping agreement must let U.S. companies perform the full range of
normal business activities without prior government authorization, just
as Chinese shipping companies operate in the United States.
Responses of Secretary Roth to Questions Asked by Senator Ashcroft
Question. In implementing the nuclear cooperation agreement with
China, President Clinton certified to Congress that ``the People's
Republic of China has provided clear and unequivocal assurances to the
United States that it is not assisting and will not assist any non-
nuclear weapon state, either directly or indirectly, in acquiring
nuclear explosive devices or the material and components for such
devices.''
President Clinton made this certification on January 12, 1998. Did
the President know, at this time, of China's efforts to send Iran
hundreds of tons of anhydrous hydrogen fluoride, a material used to
enrich uranium to weapons grade?
Answer. The press reports of a potential transfer of anhydrous
hydrogen flouride (AHF) from China to Iran were allegedly based on
intelligence leaks and it would not be appropriate to address
intelligence-related issues in an unclassified response. In general,
however, we have been monitoring very carefully China's adherence to
its nonproliferation commitments and assurances, including its
assurance that it is not going to engage in any new nuclear cooperation
with Iran.
We do anticipate that uncertainties will arise from time to time
about specific transactions that might raise questions about China's
nuclear nonproliferation assurances, and if we encounter such
uncertainties, we will not hesitate to raise them with Chinese
authorities. But the test of China's commitments is not whether a
Chinese citizen or entity contemplates a questionable transaction or
consciously or unconsciously attempts to evade export controls. The
issue is whether China is attentive to possible violations and whether
it takes prompt, corrective steps to prevent or stop any activities
that are inconsistent with its commitments. One aspect of this is
whether China is responsive to our approaches. Based on all of the
information available to us, China appears to be acting consistently
with its May 1996 commitment not to assist unsafeguarded nuclear
facilities and its October 1997 agreement to phase out nuclear
cooperation with Iran.
Question. ``The Washington Post'' reported on March 13, 1998 that
the Administration found out about the transfer of anhydrous hydrogen
fluoride to Iran just weeks after the October 1997 summit. Did the
President make the January 12, 1998 certification on U.S.-China nuclear
cooperation with knowledge of Chinese efforts to ship the nuclear
material to Iran?
Answer. As noted above, it is not possible to deal directly in an
unclassified question and answer with matters alleged to be based on
intelligence leaks. We do raise questions with other governments about
potential transactions that appear to be inconsistent with their
nonproliferation commitments or which might constitute a violation of
their own export control laws. Sometimes such approaches lead to the
termination of a potentially troubling transaction, one which may have
been pursued without the knowledge of the proper authorities. In other
cases the proposed transaction may turn out to be both authorized and
legitimate. In yet other cases, it may turn out that no inappropriate
transaction was actually going to take place. At no time between the
October 1997 Summit and the submission of the President's certification
on January 12, 1998 did we conclude that China was violating its
nuclear nonproliferation commitments.
Question. Is the President's certification still valid? Is China
transferring nuclear technology in any way to the nuclear weapons
program of any country? Are you certain that China is not aiding the
nuclear weapons programs of Pakistan and Iran?
Answer. The President's certification is still valid. As noted
above, based on all of the information available to us, China appears
to be acting consistently with its May 1996 commitment not to assist
unsafeguarded nuclear facilities and its October 1997 agreement to
phase out nuclear cooperation with Iran, i.e., China is not to our
knowledge transferring nuclear technology to the nuclear weapons
program of any country.
Question. In a recent White House meeting discussing legislation
which would require the President to make various certifications to
Congress, President Clinton stated that such legislation places
``enormous pressure on whoever is in the executive branch to fudge an
evaluation of the facts of what is going on'' (quoted in the New York
Times, April 28, 1998).
Do you find troubling the President's comments that facts have to
be ``fudged''?
Answer. The Administration has always reported and evaluated facts
as accurately as possible. The comments attributed to the President
should not be misinterpreted.
Question. Have the facts of China's proliferation activity ever
been ``fudged'' to avoid imposing U.S. sanctions contained in the Arms
Export Control Act and other relevant legislation on Chinese
proliferation of missile, nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons
material?
Answer. Absolutely not.
Question. Is China currently engaged in any weapons proliferation
activity that violates U.S. law?
Answer. Nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction is one of
the highest priorities in our relations with China. We have made
significant strides in the nuclear area, but we continue to have
concerns in nonnuclear nonproliferation areas.
The U.S. has in the past imposed sanctions on Chinese entities in
accordance with U.S. law. For example, we imposed sanctions in 1991 and
1993 on Chinese entities for missile-related transfers to Pakistan and
recently for assistance to Iran's chemical weapons program. We will
continue to impose applicable sanctions ii and when facts warrant and
sufficient standards of evidence are met.
Question. The June 1997 CIA report on the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction identifies China as the ``most significant supplier
of weapons of mass destruction-related goods and technology to foreign
countries.''
If this statement is true, in what proliferation activity is China
engaged that would violate applicable U.S. nonproliferation statutes?
Answer. Nonproliferation has been one of the highest priorities of
the Administration's engagement with China. We have made significant
progress with China in the nuclear nonproliferation area, but we
continue to have concerns about activities of Chinese entities in the
missile and chemical fields.
The U.S. has in the past imposed sanctions on Chinese entities in
accordance with U.S. law. For example, we imposed sanctions in 1991 and
1993 on Chinese entities for missile-related transfers to Pakistan and
last year for assistance to Iran's chemical weapons program.
We will continue to impose applicable sanctions if and when facts
warrant and sufficient standards of evidence are met.
Question. Is China still the world's worst proliferator of weapons
of mass destruction technology?
Answer. As noted above, we have made significant progress in the
nuclear area. We are continuing to pursue progress in nonnuclear
nonproliferation areas including the strengthening of export controls
on missiles-related items, dual-use chemicals, and chemical production
equipment.
Question. To your knowledge, are there any countries that are worse
proliferators of weapons of mass destruction technology?
Answer. Nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a high
priority issue in our bilateral relations with many countries.
Proliferation concerns are not restricted to one or two countries. For
example, we have imposed sanctions on entities in other countries
including North Korea, India, Pakistan, Germany, and Italy.
Question. With regard to the Loral-Hughes transfer of satellite
technology to China in 1996, The Washington Times reports that a
Defense Department memo on the transfer states that ``United States
national security has been harmed.''
A. What sensitive information did Loral potentially transfer to the
Chinese in 1996?
B. In your own review of the 1996 case of Loral transferring
sensitive technology to China, do you concur with the Pentagon's
statement that the ``United States national security has been harmed.''
C. Has U.S.-China space cooperation improved China's
intercontinental ballistic missile capability?
D. Does China have nuclear missiles pointed at the United States?
Answer:
A. The determination of what information Loral may have passed to
the Chinese as part of the investigation into the February 1996 launch
failure of a Long March rocket is currently under investigation by the
Department of Justice. I have not seen the Defense Department report
referred to in The Washington Times because of a request from the
Department of Justice that it not be released out of concern that its
release would jeopardize the ongoing investigation.
B. I have not reviewed the 1996 case personally. Within the State
Department, the review was undertaken by regulatory experts in the
Office of Defense Trade Controls in the Bureau of Political Military
Affairs. The bureau referred the case to the Department of Justice and
the U.S. Customs Service.
C. Our policy of allowing U.S.-made commercial satellites to be
launched on Chinese launch vehicles was established under President
Reagan. Since that time there has never been any consideration of
providing China with technology to improve its intercontinental
ballistic missile capability.
The U.S. has a very strict policy, embodied in a bilateral
technology safeguards agreement between the U.S. and China, which is
designed to prevent the transfer of sensitive missile technology to
China. U.S. companies involved in Chinese launches of U.S. satellites
are specifically precluded from assisting China in any way on the
design, development, operation, maintenance, modification, or repair of
launch vehicles.
When we obtain information that indicates that such technology may
have been transferred in violation of those safeguards we take these
cases very seriously and investigate them thoroughly.
D. We know that China has for some time had missiles in its arsenal
which are capable of hitting cities in the United States. Additional
information can be provided to the Committee in closed session.
Question. Representative Dana Rohrabacher, chairman of the House
Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, stated in floor remarks on April
30, 1998 that the Administration has ``been doing everything they can
to quash the [Justice Department] investigation'' of the Loral-Hughes
case. Do you support a Justice Department investigation? How have you
helped or assisted the Justice Department?
Answer. The State Department fully supports the Justice Department
investigation. We have fully cooperated with Justice's investigation
and have been responsive to Justice's requests for documents. We will
continue to assist Justice on this case.
Question. According to The New York Times, Justice Department
officials feared that the waiver approved by President Clinton on
February 18, 1998 for a Loral satellite launch in China would undermine
an ongoing investigation of a similar launch in 1996.
A. Why did President Clinton approve the waiver if there was the
risk of undermining an important investigation into possible
proliferation activity by a U.S. company?
B. Did the fact that Bernard Schwartz--the CEO of Loral--was the
largest individual contributor to the Democratic Party have any
influence on the Administration's decision to issue the waiver in
February for the satellite launch?
C. Were Mr. Schwartz's political contributions mentioned in
discussions within the Executive Branch regarding the February 1998
waiver for the satellite launch?
Answer. A. As reflected in the Presidential decision memorandum
provided by the NSC to the Committee, the President was aware of the
ongoing investigation of Loral for possible export control violations
when he signed the waiver in February 1998. The Justice Department's
views were weighed carefully in that decision along with other factors
which supported a waiver.
The State Department has a long standing policy of not barring
applicants that are under investigation from receiving export licenses
in the absence of an indictment. If the investigation in this case
leads to an indictment before the satellite is exported, the license
can be revoked and other penalties imposed.
B. To the best of my knowledge, neither the fact nor the amount of
campaign contributions by Mr. Schwartz or any other individual had any
bearing whatsoever on the decisionto issue the February 1998 waiver or
any other Tiananmen sanction waiver.
C. To the best of my knowledge, the fact of Mr. Schwartz's campaign
contributions was never mentioned in any State Department or
interagency discussions about this waiver.
Question. Reports indicate that the President will begin his visit
to China with an appearance at Tiananmen Square.
If the President is going to Tiananmen Square in June, why not
visit the site on June 4, the anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre?
Answer. The United States and Chinese governments have stated that
the visit will occur during the last week of June and perhaps the first
week of July. During warm weather months, it is Chinese practice to
hold arrival ceremonies in front of the Great Hall of the People
adjacent to Tiananmen Square. The arrival ceremonies for other heads of
government who have visited China since 1989, including Major, Yeltsin,
Hashimoto, and Chirac, have been held there.
The President's strong views about what happened in Tiananmen in
1989 are well-known and a matter of public record. He has made clear in
the past and will continue to make clear our view that the break-up of
the demonstrations, and the consequent killing of many innocent
civilians, was tragic and a great mistake by the Chinese leaders.
Question. What will the President say in Tiananmen Square? Will he
honor the students that were killed there in 1989?
Answer. Ceremonies for foreign dignitaries at Tiananmen Square do
not traditionally include remarks by visiting leaders. Human rights is
at the top of the President's summit agenda. The President raised our
human rights concerns with President Jiang both in public and in
private during the October 1997 summit, and plans to do the same at the
upcoming Beijing summit.
Question. The Chinese government has been engaged in a systematic
and massive campaign to repress religious minorities, and has
implemented a general repression of political dissent in China.
Therefore, why did the Administration not introduce and support a
resolution to condemn China's human rights atrocities at this year's
meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights?
Answer. The decision not to go forward with a resolution at the UN
Human Rights Commission this year was based on positive steps China has
taken in the area of human rights in recent months and the anticipation
of additional ones. The decision does not mean that China's human
rights record is satisfactory. It is not. We will continue to press
China--publicly and privately, as appropriate--on human rights issues
of concern to us. Human rights issues will be very much on the
President's agenda at the Beijing summit.
Question. Was there a deal struck with the Chinese government that
the United States would not introduce a resolution in exchange for the
release of a select few political prisoners?
Answer. We made this decision because of the positive steps which
the Chinese had taken and the expectation of further progress toward
improving human rights in the future. I would note that the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which China has
announced it will sign, includes a review of China's human rights
practices.
Question. The 1996 State Department Report on Human Rights
practices stated that ``No dissidents were known to be active at year's
end'' in China. In this country of over 1 billion people, would you say
that is still an accurate assessment of the level of political dissent
in China?
Answer. No. I do not believe that is an accurate assessment of the
current situation. The Department's 1997 China human rights report
noted, for example, that a number of dissidents, academics, and former
officials issued public statements, letters or petitions challenging
the Government's policies or advocating political reform. Generally
speaking, the Government's response to dissent over the past year has
been somewhat more tolerant than in recent years.
Question. The Administration identifies China's trade regime as
restrictive and prohibitive. I would like to consider for a moment the
potential for U.S. businesses if China's market was- indeed open. In
1997, the Chinese market demanded much more than the U.S. has actually
been able to get past Chinese barriers. In 1997, the U.S. had only 5%
of China's $18 billion industrial chemical market; 3% of its $12
billion pharmaceutical market; 3% of its $8 billion poultry market; and
less than 1% of its grains market.
What is the Administration doing about this disparity?
Answer. The primary goal of our trade policy with China is to
pursue market opening initiatives on a broad scale for U.S. goods,
services and agricultural products using the WTO accession process and
bilateral agreements. We must see greater balance in our trade
relationship, particularly in those sectors where U.S. companies are
most competitive. The ongoing WTO negotiations provide the mechanism to
address, in a systematic way, the broad range of market access barriers
that limit U.S. exporters' access to China's market. Bilaterally, there
has been continued progress in reducing illicit IPR production in China
and we are beginning to see the legitimate licensing of film and music
production in China. Our textile agreement provides market access for
the first time for U.S. textiles and apparel exports.
Question. In the 1992 Market Access Agreement, China already made
commitments to eliminate& the barriers to these sectors by December 31,
1997. Why do we need further negotiations on these sectors when China
has already made the commitments to provide market access but has
failed to honor those commitments?
Answer. The Administration is committed to ensure that all
agreements are effectively implemented. China's commitments are
continually monitored, including those contained in the 1992 market
access MOU. China has taken some significant steps in implementing the
1992 Market Access Agreement. Its trade regime is now more transparent,
it has lowered tariffs on many products and eliminated well over a
thousand non-tariff barriers. While China has removed a substantial
number of these barriers, we are concerned with other, less transparent
barriers. China's implementation of sanitary and phyto-sanitary
restrictions, as required by the 1992 Agreement, also remains
incomplete, though China has relaxed restrictions covering imports of
U.S. apples, cherries, grapes, cattle, swine, and bovine embryos.
Question. Will the Administration ensure that all of China's 1992
Market Access commitments are fulfilled before it supports WTO
accession?
Answer. The Administration is committed to ensure that all
agreements are effectively implemented China's commitments are
continually monitored, including those contained in the 1992 market
access MOU. China has taken some significant steps in implementing the
1992 Market Access Agreement. At the same time, the WTO negotiations
provide the mechanism to address, in a systematic way, the broad range
of market access barriers that unfairly limit U.S. exporters' access to
China's market. Some of these barriers were not covered by the 1992
Agreement, and others, such as tariffs, can be further reduced.
Question. China agreed in the 1992 U.S.-China Market Access
Memorandum of Understanding that it would adopt a scientific basis for
its sanitary and phytosanitary inspection requirements on key
agricultural commodities. In exchange of China's fulfillment of this
commitment, the United States agreed to staunchly support China's
accession to the WTO.
The Agreement was to be implemented by the end of 1997. Is the
Administration pursuing WTO negotiations on these issues?
Answer. The Administration is using every available means to ensure
that China's sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures for all
products, not just those listed in the 1992 MOU, are based on sound
science. On the multilateral side in China's WTO accession
negotiations, the United States has emphasized that China must comply
with all aspects of the SPS Agreement upon accession. We have
specifically requested that China describe how it intends to implement
the SPS Agreement. Once China accedes, it will be subject to WTO
dispute settlement should WTO members believe that China's SPS measures
violate the SPS Agreement.
Question. Will the Administration be able to ensure that the 1992
commitments of the Chinese are fulfilled before it supports WTO
accession?
Answer. On the bilateral side, we are continuing to work to ensure
that China implements the 1992 MOU. China has made some progress on
improving the implementation of SPS measures so that it now permits
imports of U.S. live cattle and swine, bovine embryos, cherries and
delicious variety apples from Washington, apples from Oregon and Idaho,
and grapes from California. We are continuing to work on resolving SPS
issues related to citrus, wheat from the Pacific Northwest, and
tobacco. U.S. negotiators and agricultural experts have intensified
their efforts over past few months so that we can reach agreement on
appropriate protocols and work plans for these products and exports can
commence soon.
Question. China made two commitments in the 1992 U.S.-China Market
Access Memorandum of Understanding that are important to the U.S.
automobile industry. First, China made the assertion that it does not
have or will not have any import substitution policies in place.
Second, it stated that it does not or will not make quantitative
restrictions on automotive joint ventures' access to parts or kits.
Specifically, the Agreement stated:
The Chinese government also agrees that the operation of
current and future U.S. joint ventures in China in the
production of motor vehicles and parts will not be affected by
quantitative restrictions on parts or kits to be used by the
joint ventures. Furthermore, such joint ventures will be
permitted to import parts and kits to expand production,
including expansion into new product lines.
In exchange for China's compliance with all of these commitments,
the United States stated that it would support China's WTO accession.
In the USTR annual report, the Administration reported that it is
negotiating with China on these policies.
Question. Are these negotiations under the purview of the 1992
Agreement, or is the Administration going forward with WTO negotiations
even though the Chinese failed to honor their commitments?
Answer. While it's not appropriate for us to comment on the
language in the USTR annual report, the Administration is committed to
ensure that all agreements are effectively implemented. China's
commitments are continually monitored, including those contained in the
1992 market access MOU. China has taken some significant steps in
implementing the 1992 Market Access Agreement. Its trade regime is now
more transparent, it has lowered tariffs on many products and
eliminated well over a thousand non-tariff barriers. While China has
removed a substantial number of these barriers, we are concerned with
other, less transparent barriers.
Question. Will the Administration be able to ensure that the 1992
commitments of the Chinese are fulfilled before it supports WTO
accession?
Answer. China has taken some significant steps in implementing the
1992 Market Access Agreement and we are continuing to press China for
full implementation of its commitments under this agreement. The WTO
negotiations provide the mechanism to address, in a systematic way, the
broad range of market access barriers that unfairly limit U.S.
exporters' access to China's market. Some of these barriers were not
covered by the 1992 Agreement, and others, such as tariffs, can be
further reduced.
Question. Pervasive piracy in China continues to undermine severely
the ability of U.S. software companies to do business in that important
market. We will not be able to get a handle on this problem until the
Chinese government gets its own house in order and ensures that it is
internally using only legal software.
Will the President address this problem during his trip to China by
asking the Chinese to issue a ``Red Head Decree'' (equivalent to a U.S.
Executive Order) mandating the use of legal software in government
entities at the central, provincial, and local levels?
Answer. We understand that final decisions have not yet been made
on what topics the President will raise during his trip to China. We
believe that issuance of a directive of the type you describe would be
a useful step. We don't plan to stop with that step. Follow-up will be
required to determine if ministries are actually enforcing the order
and that will require additional cooperation from China.
Question. Is it the Administration's position that this is of
critical importance to the future of the software industry in China? I
support this and the issuance of a comparable executive order in the
United States.
Answer. No additional comment.
Question. The U.S. software industry is having trouble bringing
actions against companies in China that make unauthorized copies of
U.S. products for internal use. In fact, the U.S. software industry has
stated that this practice of pirating for internal use accounts for
over half of the nearly $1 billion in losses faced by U.S. software
companies every year in China.
What steps is the Administration taking to promote the rule of law
in China generally?
Answer. In the joint statement issued at the October, 1997 summit,
the U.S. and China agreed that promoting cooperation in the field of
law serves the interests and needs of both countries and agreed to
undertake cooperative activities in a number of areas. These activities
will be focused on improving legal institutions in China, including in
the area of commercial law. The Administration has been working hard
with the Chinese to work out details of these activities. More
generally, the Administration's efforts in connection with China's
accession to the WTO will promote changes that will contribute to
increasing the rule of law through requiring enhanced transparency, the
obligation to notify and explain decisions, subjecting all
administrative decisions on trade-related issues to judicial review,
and application of the WTO's dispute settlement procedures to China's
laws and regulations. Our bilateral agreements with China also
contribute to and promote the concept of rule of law. The
Administration expects China to implement its agreements fully and
works to ensure that China respects its bilateral obligations.
Question. Also, what steps are being taken to develop an
enforcement system allowing U.S. software and other companies to
enforce their rights?
Answer. Based on our bilateral IPR Agreements, China has taken
strong measures against production of pirated CD-ROMs, VCDs and other
optical media. Chinese authorities developed andused a reward system to
obtain information on illegal production facilities in China. In 1997,
China revised its Criminal Code to make IPR infringement a separate
offense punishable by prison terms and fines. The government has also
instituted a system under which IPR owners can bring criminal actions
as well as civil actions against alleged infringers. Finally, we have
requested that Chinese authorities issue high level guidance to
ministries to reinforce the need to ensure that the government uses
legitimate software in an authorized manner, i.e., stop end-piracy in
government ministries. We are also urging the government to ensure that
adequate resources are made available for the purchase of enough
legitimate software to address the needs for that product.
U.S. government experts and negotiators meet with their
counterparts on a regular basis to raise these and other IPR protection
and enforcement issues. We will continue these efforts in China, as we
do in other countries with IPR problems, until we reach a satisfactory
solution.
Responses of Secretary Roth to Questions Asked by Senator Thomas
Arms Sales to Taiwan
Question. The Taiwan Relations Act was enacted to assist in
safeguarding peace, security and stability in the West Pacific region.
Will the United States continue to sell arms to Taiwan in accordance
with the Taiwan Relations Act?
Answer. Yes, the Clinton Administration remains firmly committed to
fulfilling the security provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act and to
making such defensive arms available to Taiwan as are necessary to
carry out those provisions.
Question. The PRC has not given up the use of force to solve the
cross-Strait issue. How would the U.S. government react if the PRC test
fired missiles again in the Taiwan Strait?
Answer. In accordance with the TRA, we would consider any effort to
determine Taiwan's future by other than peaceful means a ``threat to
the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern
to the United States.'' As required by the Taiwan Relations Act, if we
were to perceive a threat to the security or the social or economic
system of the people on Taiwan and any danger to the interests of the
United States arising therefrom, we would consult with the Congress on
an appropriate response.
Question. The PRC views U.S. arms sales to Taiwan as part of global
arms proliferation. The PRC seeks linkage of the two issues in order to
stop U.S. arms sales to Taiwan Has the Administration ever considered
halting arms sales to Taiwan, or putting a moratorium on major arms
sales to Taiwan? What is your interpretation of arms sales to Taiwan?
Answer. The Administration remains committed to making such sales
of defensive arms to Taiwan as are necessary to fulfill the terms of
the Taiwan Relations Act. Such arms sales are consistent with the 1982
U.S.-PRC Joint Communique. This policy is firm and will not change. In
our view, U.S. arms transfers maintain Taiwan's capability to defend
itself, thereby contributing to regional security and stability and
creating an atmosphere conducive to the peaceful resolution of
differences between Taiwan and thePRC.
Question. At the time of the China-Taiwan cross-Strait tensions in
1996, the U.S. and Taiwan militaries had an insufficient knowledge of
each other's military leaders and operation procedures. While we are
heading for closer relations with the People's Liberation Army, are you
willing to support efforts to upgrade U.S.-Taiwan military-to-military
relations?
Answer. Under the auspices of the American Institute in Taiwan, we
maintain regular contacts with the Taiwan military. We have worked to
ensure that this relationship is effective in enabling the U.S. and
Taiwan to be well informed on relevant issues. At the same time, we
believe our efforts to increase openness and transparency in the
People's Liberation Army have contributed to stability in the region,
which has benefited the U.S., Taiwan, and others.
Question. There have been news articles saying that the U.S. might
be consulting the PRC regarding our arms sales to Taiwan. I have to
remind you of our ``Six Assurances'' to Taiwan in 1982 that one of our
assurances is not to hold prior consultations with the PRC on future
arms sales to Taiwan. Also, please tell me if President Clinton plans
to discuss with the PRC regarding arms sales to Taiwan in the coming
summit?
Answer. We do not hold prior consultations with the PRC on arms
sales to Taiwan. In bilateral meetings, PRC officials frequently raise
their concerns about U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, and we respond when
they do so, explaining consistent U.S. policy on this matter.
Question. There is an annual basket in our arms sales to Taiwan. It
seems like the U.S. is currently increasing training programs for
Taiwan's military personnel. I would support increasing the training
but expect that it would not decrease our military hardware sales to
Taiwan. Does the Administration intend to reduce arms sales to Taiwan
by increasing training programs for Taiwan?
Answer. The Administration remains committed to making such sales
of defensive arms to Taiwan as are necessary to fulfill the terms of
the Taiwan Relations Act. Such arms sales are consistent with the 1982
U.S.-PRC Joint Communique. This policy is firm and will not change.
Training programs supplement and do not substitute for sales of
defensive arms. These training programs are intended to enable the
Taiwan military to make effective use of the defensive arms we have
provided.
The Taiwan Relations Act
Question. Do you also understand the importance of the Taiwan
Relations Act as a foundation of our relationship with thePRC as well
as with Taiwan?
Answer. We understand the importance of the Taiwan Relations Act as
a foundation for our unofficial relationship with the people on Taiwan,
and, by extension, its relevance for our relationship with the PRC.
What do you think the U.S.'s interests and obligations are with
respect to Taiwan? Do you understand that the Taiwan Relations Act, as
the law of the land, takes legal precedence over the three U.S.-PRC
joint Communiques, which are merely statements of policy?
Answer. We scrupulously follow the provisions of the Taiwan
Relations Act (TRA) as the legal basis of our relations with the people
on Taiwan. The U.S.'s interests and obligations are clearly stated in
the TRA, for example in the declarations of policy listed in Section 2.
These include ``to promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial,
cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States
and the people on Taiwan, as well as the people on the China mainland--
,'' as well as ``to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive
character.'' We have worked hard--and, we believe, successfully since
1979 to achieve a strong and robust unofficial relationship with
Taiwan.
We do understand that our three communiques with the People's
Republic of China are statements of policy. These policy statements are
of great importance in our relationship with the PRC and are consistent
with the Taiwan Relations Act. The TRA, as law, clearly takes
precedence over the communiques.
U.S. Policies Toward Taiwan
Question. Taiwan has concluded negotiations with the U.S. regarding
its accession to the WTO. Does the United States' policy view Taiwan's
application as entirely separate from the PRC's application? Will the
United States immediately help Taiwan gain accession? Would Taiwan be
admitted to WTO earlier than the PRC, provided that Taiwan concludes
all its bilateral negotiations with concerned parties regarding its
accession?
Answer. Once Taiwan completes its bilateral negotiations with
concerned WTO trading partners, a relatively complicated multilateral
process under the auspices of the WTO's Taiwan Working Party still
remains to be completed. Once the Working Party issues its report and a
protocol for Taiwan's WTO accession, the accession package would be
ready for reviewby the WTO's general membership.
U.S. policy is that each application for accession to the WTO must
be judged separately on its commercial merits. The Working Party
process requires consensus among the Working Party members, and
Taiwan's formal accession requires support from two-thirds of the WTO
general membership. We cannot predict when these processes will be
completed. At present, we remain actively engaged in the multilateral
process required to forge consensus on.
Question. After the U.S. government's 1994 Taiwan policy review,
has the U.S. government done anything in helping Taiwan become members
of international organizations? How will the United States government
continue to keep its promise of helping Taiwan join international
organizations?
Answer. As a result of the 1994 Taiwan Policy Review, recognizing
Taiwan's growing economic importance and its increasingly pivotal role
in a number of issues affecting the international community, the
Administration announced that we would support Taiwan's participation
in appropriate international organizations where statehood was not a
requirement for membership and where Taiwan had contributions to make.
At the time, Taiwan was already a member of both the Asian Development
Bank and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum.
In the past several years, we have been addressing Taiwan's
accession to the World Trade Organization. In February, AIT and TECRO
signed a bilateral market access agreement, an important step which
moves Taiwan closer to WTO membership. The complex negotiations on this
agreement extended over seven years and required seventeen rounds to
complete; we believe the result is a strong agreement that benefits our
manufacturing, agricultural, and service sectors as well as the
consumers on Taiwan. We remain actively engaged in the multilateral
process required to forge consensus on Taiwan's WTO accession.
We have also supported Taiwan's membership in the ``Global
Governmental Forum'' on Semiconductors and in specialized agencies such
as the International Grains Council, and its observer status in other
groups such as the International Convention for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT); these are appropriate international fora which
do not require statehood for participation. We also support the
participation of Taiwan NGO's in international meetings related to
initiatives on Global Climate Change (the Conference of Parties for
which was held most recently in Kyoto) and to CITES (the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species).
Consistent with our ``one China'' policy, we do not support
Taiwan's efforts to become a member of organizations in which
membership is limited to states, including the UN. We do support
opportunities for Taiwan's voice to be heard in organizations where its
membership is not possible.
For example, during the World Health Assembly in Geneva last year,
we made clear our view that the people of Taiwan have an important
contribution to make to the work of the WHO and opportunities should be
found for them to do so. We would welcome any arrangements that were
acceptable to the members for Taiwan participation in the WHO and other
international organizations.
Question. Every member of the APEC is treated as an ``economy''. It
is unjustifiable that, because of PRC's objections, President Lee Teng-
hui of Taiwan has not been able to attend the APEC Economic Leaders
Meeting like other heads of state of its member economies. What is U.S.
policy toward Taiwan's top official attending the annual APEC Economic
Leaders Meeting? How could you justify our discriminating President
Lee's presence in the meeting?
Answer. APEC is a grouping of economies. When we hosted the APEC
Leaders' Meeting, we believed it appropriate that Taiwan should be
represented by the head of its preeminent economic agency. Each host
economy makes its own decision on whom to invite to the Leaders'
Meetings.
Six Assurances
Question. Are you aware of the ``Six Assurances?''
Answer. In his testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee
on August 18, 1982, then-Assistant Secretary John Holdridge, when
discussing the meaning of the August 17, 1982 U.S.-PRC Joint Communique
for our unofficial relations with Taiwan, explained principles that
have been described as the six assurances. I am certainly aware of Mr.
Holdridge's statement and the principles he described.
Question. Do you intend to abide by the ``Six Assurances?''
Answer. I would like to reaffirm this Administration's commitment
to the principles articulated by then-Assistant Secretary Holdridge in
his 1982 testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Question. Which has the force of law? The Taiwan Relations Act or
the August 17, 1982 Joint Communique?
Answer. The Taiwan Relations Act is a law and the August 17, 1982
U.S.-PRC Joint Communique, like the other two communiques between the
U.S. and the PRC, is a statement of policy.
One China Policy
Question. Has the United States changed its position on the ``One
China'' policy?
Answer. No. The United States has not changed its position on the
``one China'' policy which has been followed by six successive
Administrations. In our communiques with the PRC, we recognized its
government as ``the sole legal Government of China'' and ``acknowledged
the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of
China.'' The U.S. has consistently held that resolution of issues
between Taiwan and the PRC is to be worked out by the Chinese people on
both sides of the Taiwan Strait themselves. Our abiding interest is
that any resolution be reached peacefully.
Question. The PRC apparently insists that one China means the PRC.
It considers Taiwan to be a part of its territory. The PRC even calls
Taiwan a ``renegade province.'' Is such a claim consistent with the
U.S. position? How is the U.S. government responding to such and
similar statements by thePRC?
Answer. When the issue of Taiwan is raised, the United States
responds by reiterating its well-known and consistent position on the
``one China'' policy. In our communiques with the PRC, we recognized
its government as ``the sole legal Government of China'' and
``acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and
Taiwan is part of China.'' The U.S. has consistently held that
resolution of issues between Taiwan and the PRC is to be worked out by
the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait themselves; our
abiding interest is that any resolution be reached peacefully.
Question. The creative idea of using words like ``the U.S.
acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait
maintain there is but one China...'' in the three Communiques is aimed
at not having the U.S. ``recognize'' one China policy directly. It
seems to me that the U.S. has drifted away from the three Communiques
in this regard that has maintained stability across the Taiwan Strait
in the past decades. Would you tell me what our position is on ``one
China'' policy in the three Communiques, and if we have changed our
policy?
Answer. The United States has not changed its position on the ``one
China'' policy as expressed in the three U.S.-PRC joint communiques. In
the 1978 communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations with
the PRC, the United States ``recognized the Government of the People's
Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China'' and
``acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and
Taiwan is part of China.'' The U.S. has consistently held that
resolution of issues between Taiwan and the PRC is to be worked out by
the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait themselves. Our
abiding interest is that any resolution be reached peacefully.
Parallel Engagement--U.S. Relations with the PRC and Taiwan
Question. While the U.S. is engaged in improving its relations with
the PRC, the U.S. should also upgrade its level of dialogue with
Taiwan. This would avoid the impression that the U.S. is improving its
relations with the PRC at Taiwan's expense. Have you taken any concrete
action to upgrade our level of dialogue with Taiwan since you became
Assistant Secretary of State?
Answer. We do not believe that ``upgrading'' our relations with
Taiwan is necessary. Our unofficial relations with the people on Taiwan
today are more robust and stronger than ever. Furthermore, the recent
improvement in our relations with the PRC has not been to Taiwan's
disadvantage. Quite the contrary, cross-Strait relations have improved
since President Jiang's U.S. visit. We believe, in addition, that it is
inappropriate, given the unofficial nature of our ties with Taiwan and
our diplomatic recognition of the PRC, to describe our relationship as
one of ``parallel engagement.''
Since 1979 we have broadened and deepened our ties as Taiwan has
evolved both economically and politically. In recognition of these
changes and with a view to better advancing our national interests this
Administration four years ago conducted an extensive interagency review
of the way we manage our Taiwan policy, the first such review since
1979. Developments over the ensuing years in themselves have validated
the decisions resulting from that review, and our unofficial relations
have continued to expand and improve.
Today, our dialogue with the Taiwan authorities, through the
American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and the Taipei Economic and Cultural
Representative Office (TECRO) and directly when appropriate, is regular
and extensive in both Taipei and Washington, D.C.
Since the 1994 Policy Review, then Secretary of Transportation Pena
in 1994 and then-Small Business Administrator Phil Lader in 1996 were
able to visit Taipei to attend meetings of the U.S.-Taiwan Business
Council; demonstrating the importance of our economic relationship, we
also had Cabinet-level attendance when this group met in the U.S. in
1995 and 1997.
A significant number of U.S. officials of various ranks in economic
and technical fields regularly travel to Taiwan each year and an
impressive number of figures from Taiwan come to the U.S. and are able
to meet their U.S. counterparts here in Washington, D.C. This month,
Taiwan's Minister of Finance, its Government Information Office
Director-General, and the Chairman of its Straits Exchange Foundation
have all visited Washington.
Reflecting the tremendous growth of U.S.-Taiwan economic ties, our
1994 Taiwan Policy Review also paved the way for closer interactions
when we agreed to hold both Trade and Investment Framework Agreement
(TIFA) talks and Subcabinet Level Economic Dialogue (SLED) meetings
with Taiwan. Under AIT auspices, USTR has led the TIFA talks and then-
Under Secretary and now Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers has
been the lead for the SLED process. We look forward to holding both
TIFA and SLED sessions later this summer.
Question. Will there be any US-PRC joint document regardingTaiwan,
as a result of President Clinton's visit to Beijing?If yes, will the
joint statement/joint news statement/or anyother document weaken the
U.S. commitments towards Taiwan?
Answer. We do not anticipate any joint document regarding Taiwan as
a result of President Clinton's visit to Beijing.
1994 Taiwan Policy Review
Question. Is it possible to arrange for more high ranking officials
to visit Taiwan? Is it possible to include visits by senior officials
to Taiwan as part of the overall annual action plan towards Taiwan?
Answer. Since the 1994 Taiwan Policy Review, then-Secretary of
Transportation Pena in 1994 and then-Small Business Administrator Phil
Lader in 1996--both Cabinet-level officials--have visited Taipei to
attend meetings of the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council; we also had
Cabinet-level attendance when this group met in the U.S. in 1995 and
1997.
A significant number of U.S. officials of various ranks in economic
and technical fields regularly travel to Taiwan each year, and an
impressive number of Taiwan visitors at all levels come to the U.S. and
are able to meet their U.S. counterparts here in Washington, D.C. This
month, Taiwan's Minister of Finance, its Government Information Office
Director-General, and the Chairman of its Straits Exchange Foundation
have all visited Washington. We look forward later this summer to our
Subcabinet-Level Economic Dialogue which is led by Deputy Treasury
Secretary Summers under ALT auspices.
Question. When U.S. cabinet members visit the Asian Pacific region
during APEC meetings, is it possible for them to visit Taiwan too? Will
the State Department support such an idea?
Answer. Other than their own crowded schedules, there is no reason
U.S. Cabinet Officials heading economic and technical Departments could
not stop in Taiwan during visits to the region, if there is a
substantive objective for such a visit.
Question. After the U.S. government's Taiwan policy review, has the
U.S. government done anything to help Taiwan to gain membership in
international organizations? How will the United States government
continue to keep its promise of helping Taiwan join international
organizations?
Answer. As a result of the 1994 Taiwan Policy Review, recognizing
Taiwan's growing economic importance and its increasingly pivotal role
in a number of issues affecting the international community, the
Administration announced that we would support Taiwan's participation
in appropriate international organizations where statehood was not a
requirement for membership and where Taiwan had contributions to make.
At the time, Taiwan was already a member of both the Asian Development
Bank and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum.
In the past several years, we have been addressing Taiwan's
accession to the World Trade Organization. In February, ALT and TECRO
signed a bilateral market access agreement, an important step which
moves Taiwan closer to WTO membership. The complex negotiations on this
agreement extended over seven years and required seventeen rounds to
complete; we believe the result is a strong agreement that benefits our
manufacturing, agricultural, and service sectors as well as the
consumers on Taiwan. We remain actively engaged in the multilateral
process required to forge consensus on Taiwan's WTO accession.
We have also supported Taiwan's membership in the ``Global
Governmental Forum'' on Semiconductors and in specialized agencies such
as the International Grains Council, and its observer status in other
groups such as the International Convention for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT); these are appropriate international fora which
do not require statehood for participation. We also support the
participation of Taiwan NGQ's in international meetings related to
initiatives on Global Climate Change (the Conference of Parties for
which was held most recently in Kyoto) and to CITES (the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species).
Consistent with our ``one China'' policy, we do not support
Taiwan's efforts to become a member of organizations in which
membership is limited to states, including the UN. We do support
opportunities for Taiwan's voice to be heard in organizations where its
membership is not possible.
For example, during the World Health Assembly in Geneva last year,
we made clear our view that the people of Taiwan have an important
contribution to make to the work of the WHO and opportunities should be
found for them to do so. We would welcome any arrangements that were
acceptable to the members for Taiwan participation in the WHO and other
international organizations.
Question. Whenever and wherever we did anything which might be
viewed as advantageous to Taiwan, the PRC will always give us a hard
time. In terms of a long term U.S. policy toward the two sides of the
Taiwan Straits, what, in your view, is a balanced and sustainable
policy toward these two parties which may minimize U.S. trouble in that
area?
Answer. We maintain unofficial relations with the people on Taiwan
as legally defined by the Taiwan Relations Act and in accordance with
our 1994 Taiwan Policy Review. We believe that our unofficial relations
with Taiwan are also consistent with our three joint communique's with
the PRC. Thus we believe that our current policy is balanced and
sustainable and that we are managing each relationship in the manner
most beneficial to our national interests.