TEXT: REP. SMITH JAN. 20 STATEMENT ON CHINA RIGHTS ABUSES
(Rep. Smith raps China, calls for tough U.S. response)Washington -- The United States has to get tough with Beijing over its human rights abuses, says U.S. Congressman Christopher Smith.
In a prepared statement before the House Committee on International Relations January 20, the New Jersey Republican lashed abuses of human rights by the Chinese government.
Smith, who chairs the House Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, called on the Clinton administration to show the Chinese government that human rights abuses will have a cost for that regime.
"If we can somehow make the Chinese government believe that we really do care as much about human rights as we care about trade," Smith said, "then and only then will they understand that our words have meaning."
"The Administration should decide right now," Smith urged, "what the absolute minimum standards are, and what it is prepared to do if Beijing does not meet these minimum standards."
Smith offered a list of possible U.S. responses to continued human rights abuses by the Beijing regime, including withdrawing Most Favored Nation status to China; withholding U.S. taxpayer subsidies through the U.S. Export-Import Bank and other institutions that facilitate trade between the two countries; and withholding technology transfers, military exchanges, or U.S. visas for officials in the most brutal Chinese government agencies.
Following is the text of Smith's statement, as prepared for delivery:
(begin text)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER SMITH (R-NJ)
CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
BEFORE THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEEHUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important hearing. I particularly want to welcome Assistant Secretary Harold Koh, who is making his first appearance before this Committee.
Secretary Koh, some of us believed the best possible response to Beijing's crackdown on dissent would have been to disinvite the Chinese government from last week's human rights dialogues. Nevertheless, once it was decided that the dialogues would go forward, I know you did your best to let the delegation from Beijing know how much the American people detest the PRC government's conduct. By all accounts, you spoke forcefully not only on the subject of the anti- democracy crackdown, but also on torture, religious persecution, forced abortion and sterilization, harvesting of the organs of executed prisoners, and the oppression of the people of occupied Tibet. I look forward to hearing where you believe we can go from here. Specifically, I would like to hear from Administration representatives exactly how and when the Administration will decide whether dialogue is working, and exactly what the Administration is prepared to do if it concludes that dialogue has failed.
In answering these questions, I hope you will take into account the testimony of the prisoners of conscience who testified at our hearing on January 8th -- all of whom called for the United States to become far more forceful in responding to human rights violations in China than we have been in recent years -- and of our witnesses on the second panel today. To quote Amnesty's prepared statement for today's hearing, the report card "offers a list of concrete benchmarks. Significantly, they are essentially all goals established by the President himself," at the time of his trip to Beijing. And yet, out of seven benchmarks, the Amnesty report card finds "no improvement" or "total failure" on all seven:
-- Release of Tiananmen Square prisoners and other prisoners of conscience: Total Failure. -- Review all "counter-revolutionary" prison terms: Total Failure. -- Allow Religious Freedom: "Continued strong repression." -- Prevent Coercive Family Planning and Harvesting of Organs: No Improvement. -- Fully Implement Pledges on Human Rights Treaties: in October Amnesty found "some improvement" because China had signed, but not ratified, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; but today, in light of the December crackdown, Amnesty testifies that "China appears to be treating its signing as little more than a fig leaf for further repression." -- Review the System of "Re-education through Labor": Total Failure. -- End Police and Prison Brutality: Total Failure.
But the Clinton Administration did not need Amnesty International to tell it that its policy of "constructive engagement" is bankrupt, both morally and practically. Some members of the Administration have known this for a long time. In the summer of 1994, a few months after President Clinton de-linked "Most Favored Nation" status from progress on human rights, there was a meeting in the White House to assess the effects of the Administration's new policy. According to the Washington Post, President Clinton announced,
"I hate our China policy! I wish I was running against our China policy. I mean we give them MFN and change our commercial policy and what has it changed?"
Well, here we are almost five years later, still asking what has changed - -- and the consistent answer, from Chinese prisoners of conscience as well as from other human fights advocates, seems to be that by reducing the economic and political pressure on Beijing, we made things worse.
And so I must ask again: What exactly are we prepared to do if the Chinese government does not stop torturing people? What are we prepared to do -- in three months or six months or a year, you decide -- if Beijing does not stop forcing women to have abortions when they desperately want their babies? If the regime will not dismantle the jail cells, complete with iron bars, in its "planned birth centers"? What benefits are we prepared to withhold until the government releases imprisoned Catholic bishops and Protestant ministers, until Tibetan Buddhist nuns are no longer raped in prison, until they stop executing Uighur Muslims for peaceful political and religious activities?
Please don't get me wrong: I believe dialogue can be an important part of a human fights strategy. But it cannot be the only part. Dialogue is more likely to produce results if the other side believes our words are a reliable guide to our future actions -- that if they continue to commit atrocity after atrocity, we will impose some penalty or at least withhold some benefit, beyond giving them lousy seats at next year's dialogue.
So the Administration should decide right now what the absolute minimum standards are, and what it is prepared to do if Beijing does not meet these minimum standards: if not withdrawing MFN, then perhaps withholding U.S. taxpayer subsidies (through Eximbank and other institutions), or technology transfers, or military exchanges, or U.S. visas for officials in the most brutal Chinese government agencies. Again, Secretary Koh, you decide, together with your colleagues in the Administration, but please decide soon, and announce your decision to Beijing, and then make sure the Administration sticks by its decision.
If we can somehow make the Chinese government believe that we really do care as much about human rights as we care about trade -- that we are prepared to do at least as much to stop torture as we will do to stop software piracy -- then and only then will they understand that our words have meaning.
(end text)
Return to The United States and China.Return to IIP Home Page.