************************************************************** IFCSS Headquarters News Release No. 5115 March 01,1994 ************************************************************** Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars (IFCSS) 733 15th Street, N.W., Suite 440, Washington, D.C.20005 Tel. (202)347-0017 Fax: (202)347-0018 Email: ifcss@wam.umd.edu Trade Subcommittee Hearing on MFN (III) On February 24, 1994 the House Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Trade held a hearing on MFN for China. Following are excerpts from testimony given by Winston Lord, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs; Professor Fang Lizhi; and Mike Jendrzejcyk, Washington Director of Asia Watch. Excerpt of Testimony by Winston Lord Our policy toward China does indeed merit close and careful review because the bilateral relationship is of growing importance for America's interests in Asia and around the world. Neither Congress, nor the Administration, nor the American people can afford to lose sight of these factors. China plays an influential role in the region, particularly on sensitive issues like North Korea and Indochina. It holds a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. It is one of the largest and fastest-growing economies in the world, with major potential for U.S. exports and jobs. A military power, China possesses nuclear weapons and exports nuclear and missile technology. And its actions on the environment, narcotics trafficking, refugees and population have global consequences. It is therefore in the U.S. interest to promote China's opening up to the outside world in economic, political, strategic and humanitarian dimensions... On human rights, I will tell you frankly that Chinese actions thus far have been limited and less than our hopes and needs. But we have an obligation to acknowledge progress made as well as distance to go. The steps China has taken recently are not inconsequential. We neither exaggerate nor denigrate what has occurred... The situation in the five other human rights area listed in the Executive Order--where we look for "overall, significant progress"--is more problematic. The Administration has not yet come to any judgement regarding the degree of progress thus far achieved. Nor will it make that judgement for about another three months. We want to look at the whole picture as we consider the decision to be made prior to June 3 concerning renewal of China's MFN status. This includes areas of slippage. The Chinese know that they cannot take significant steps backward in some areas without jeopardizing our overall assessment of progress. The U.S. national interest requires a relationship with a friendly and open China that is strong, stable and prosperous. The Chinese understand that the Administration does not wish to revoke MFN and indeed prefers to build a healthier, more positive relationship. On the other hand, we frankly are not certain that the Chinese take seriously the requirement for more significant progress on human rights before June... there are still some indications that the Chinese somehow may believe that the Administration will be satisfied with cosmetic improvements and, in eagerness to extend MFN, will find a way to paper over problems. Mr. Chairman, I am authorized today to state emphatically once again the official position of the Administration: more progress on human rights is needed for the President to extend MFN. The President will keep faith with his convictions and his compact with Congress. Secretary Christopher will make sure in his forthcoming talks in Beijing that there can be no misperceptions, no illusions, and no wishful thinking on the part of his interlocutors. I recognize that there are differences of view in this country, in the Congress, and in this Committee, on how the Administration should balance the pursuit of our human rights objectives with other vital concerns. But I can say with confidence that we all agree progress on human rights in China serves our long-term interests and should be vigorously pursued. We agree that our economic interests and the interests of a favorable business environment are served by steady and clear progress on human rights in China. And we share the view that it would be far more desirable to extend MFN than to revoke it. This will only be possible, however, if we all send an unambiguous message that further progress on human rights is required. ...Let us hope we can work together to raise Sino-American relations to a new plane. If the Chinese respond to our positive approach, we will promote the interests not only of two great nations but also of global prosperity and peace. ***End of Lord's Testimony*** ======================================================= Excerpt of Testimony by Professor Fang Lizhi First let me say that I support the President's policy and the votes taken by this Congress that trade and human rights toward China should be linked. While China is not the only country with a record of human rights abuses, it is a massive and unrepentant offender. I believe the nature of a country's human rights practices is an appropriate factor to consider when determining the degree to which your country extends certain trade privileges. MFN has been an effective tool in keeping the pressure on the Chinese government to save the victims of human rights violations. Some politicians argue that Chinese authorities will not bend to pressure from outside. I say this is not true. I would not be sitting here before you today without pressure from the U.S. government... The pressure has also worked in getting the Chinese authorities to engage in a dialogue on human rights. The demands for such a dialogue from the West in exchange for economic opportunities and benefits for China has been the only reason the Chinese government has retreated from their previous position that human rights is an internal affair in China. China has a long history of disregard for human rights of citizens but it was only after the Tiananmen Square massacre that this abysmal record received worldwide attention. Why was this? Because sophisticated telecommunications brought China's internal situation into the living rooms of people throughout the world. No longer can the Chinese government keep the world at bay. In fact, some of their own policies encourage an open door policy. This openness is important for China's worst periods of lawlessness and disregard for the rights of its citizens when China pursued an isolationist policy. However, the principle of human rights has been distorted as economic interests and the lure of the China market override other considerations. Recently, we often hear that economic development will automatically lead to a democratic society. In China, the release of market forces has indeed led to economic growth in the past 12 years. We should, of course, welcome this growth. But some people have gone further and said that China now needs only economic development as more economic growth will lead inevitably to a more democratic society and the problem of human rights abuses will be solved. The communist authorities clearly like this theory, because they can use it to cover up their record of human rights violations. It would be wonderful if democracy and human rights did indeed grow automatically out of economic development, but history gives us, unfortunately, no such guarantees. In the history of both China and the rest of the world, it is easy to find counterexamples to the theory of the automatic generation of democracy. ...However, as China continues to open its doors wider to foreign investment, the Communist government continues to imprison citizens for their political and religious beliefs. In fact, economic growth has not in the slightest moved Deng Xiaoping and his associates to alter their autocratic rule. There have been no substantive changes in Chinese political life since the protests in 1989. Thus, the argument that a more open economy will lead to political liberalization has not been borne out. In fact, I would argue that economic progress is not a substitute for progress towards democracy. ... I ask that you remain firm in your resolve that human rights is an important and integral part of the U.S.-China relationship. ======================================================= Excerpt from Testimony of Mike Jendrzejcyk The Chinese government seems convinced that President Clinton will ultimately settle for human rights concessions in exchange for MFN this June. Thus far, Beijing has offered mostly token gestures, guessing correctly that the Administration would bend over backwards to give them credit... Over the past year, there have been no substantial improvements in China's human rights performance. In fact, as we have documented in a new 664-page report published earlier this week, "Detained in China and Tibet", political repression in China is increasing, not decreasing. In this report, the most comprehensive account of arbitrary detention ever published, we describe in detail the cases of over 1,000 people detained for the peaceful expression of their political and religious beliefs. Without a doubt, 1993 was the worst year for political arrests and trials in China since mid-1990 and the aftermath of the 1989 massacre. Asia Watch has compiled information on almost 250 such cases in 1993, including 32 dissident trials resulting in average sentences of four years' imprisonment, and some 216 new arrests... Contrast with this record, 37 persons were confirmed or reported to have been released from prison between January 1993 and January 1994. China has been practicing a kind of "hostage politik" whereby political prisoners are used as bargaining chips to be released at key moments for maximum political impact. This policy allows Western governments to use these releases as signs of improvement, ignoring tens of thousands of prisoners who have not benefited from international attention. MFN is a blunt tool, but as of yet no one has come up with a viable alternative for effectively pressing the Chinese government to improve its human rights records. To turn a blind eye on human rights abuses in the hope that economic reform will eventually lead to political reform, is to ignore the fate of tens of thousands of men and women who need help now. Moreover, there is no guarantee that economic reform will automatically lead to political change. As we have noted in our new report, areas where foreign investment and economic reform are most advanced, such as Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Guangdong, enjoy no greater respect for civil and political rights than other parts of the country. We are prepared to look at alternatives to MFN, but only alternatives that will continue to get people out of prison and ensure the implementation of human rights safeguards. To de-link MFN and human rights before that alternative is found is to throw away the most powerful lever we now have for change. By telling China now that they may be able to receive MFN for free this year (the Jackson-Vanik requirements of the 1974 Trade Act notwithstanding), the U.S. forfeits leverage it should continue to use to press for greater respect for basic, internationally recognized human rights--especially as the post-Deng transition unfolds... U.S. business can also do more. Whether or not legislation is enacted outlining operating "principles" or a code of conduct for U.S. businesses in China, as was proposed in 1992, there are practical steps corporations can take to encourage respect for human rights. More is required, however, than companies simply opening up operations and hoping, by their mere presence, they will bring about change. We are trying to work with some companies doing business there, providing information and recommendations. ********************************************************************* * IFCSS Headquarters Office * *-------------------------------------------------------------------* * President: Lin Changsheng Vice President: Shi Heping * * Exec. Director: Liu Xiaozhu Chief of Staff: Huang Songyun * *-------------------------------------------------------------------* * PBS-L is IFCSS's news distribution list for individuals. To sign * * on or off from IFCSS E-mail mailing list, please send email to : * * listserv@ifcss.org * * leave the subject line open and put in the mail body: * * (For signing on) sub PBS-L last_name first_name * * (For signing off) unsub PBS-L last_name first_name * * * * For IFCSS Service Program: ftp: ifcss.org:/services * * * * For more information about IFCSS, write to ifcss-info@ifcss.org * *********************************************************************