KOH: "CANDID," "FRANK" U.S.-CHINA HUMAN RIGHTS TALKS END
(Some progress; another round of talks set for 1999)Washington -- Two days of intensive discussions on human rights issues between U.S. and Chinese officials ended with small signs of progress and agreement to continue the dialogue in Beijing some time in the last half of this year, according to Harold Koh, the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.
At a press briefing January 13, Koh said that the U.S. side "forcefully raised our concerns about the current human rights situation in China, including the recent disturbing and counterproductive arrests, trials, and sentencing of democracy activists for the peaceful expression of their political beliefs."
The January 11-12 talks were the first since January 1995, when the Chinese government terminated what had been four years of dialogue, Koh noted. The talks, however, were revived upon agreement between President Bill Clinton and Chinese President Jiang Zemin at their summit last June.
According to Koh, the U.S. placed its specific concerns in the context of China's decision last October to sign the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. "We urged the earliest ratification of that instrument, and urged China to apply consistently and universally to all Chinese citizens the fundamental principles embodies in international human rights instruments," Koh said.
Specifically, the U.S. side focused on the treatment of prisoners, prison labor issues, policies for prisoner release, and possible legal reforms that "might promote large-scale improvements in human rights," Koh said. The U.S. delegation also expressed its concern about the repressive conditions in Tibet, he said.
Koh reported that the Chinese side did not argue, as they have in the past, that human rights is strictly an "internal affair." In addition, their assertions that "Asian values" are distinctly different from that of the West were much less vigorous, Koh said. "In fact, they spoke about the universality of human rights," he said.
This time, he noted, "we agreed upon a number of basic principles and then proceeded to discuss areas of difference."
The Chinese delegation, he added, expressed its concerns about what they perceive as poor prison conditions in the United States, the unequal racial composition of the U.S. prison population, and the U.S. use of the death penalty.
"We repeatedly pressed for the principle of mutual transparency in exposing our human rights practices to one another," Koh said.
To further that transparency, the United States extended and the Chinese delegation accepted an invitation to visit the Justice Department to discuss human rights protection with officials in the Civil Rights Division and the Bureau of Prisons and to attend a criminal trial held in the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. The Chinese side also agreed to travel to Cumberland, Maryland on January 13 to spend the day visiting a federal prison.
"Human rights are integral to the bilateral relationship," Koh emphasized. "It affects the entire atmosphere of the bilateral relationship."
Following is the State Department text of Koh's remarks:
(begin text)
STATEMENT BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY HAROLD HONGJU KOH,
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
on the US-China Human Rights Dialogue
January 13, 1999Good morning. I have been asked to review our official dialogue on human rights with China. This was the first human rights dialogue between our two countries since January 1995. Official bilateral human rights talks between our two countries took place every year from 1991 until the Chinese government terminated that dialogue four years ago. At the end of the June Summit, Presidents Clinton and Jiang agreed to revive those talks, concluding that "candid dialogue is an important element for resolving differences."
In that spirit, in over ten hours of direct discussion, we discussed a broad range of human rights issues. We forcefully raised our concerns about the current human rights situation in China, including the recent disturbing and counterproductive arrests, trials, and sentencing of democracy activists for the peaceful expression of their political beliefs. We had a significant and substantial discussion of the recent arrest, imprisonment and sentencing of democratic activists Xu Wenli, Qin Yongmin, Wang Youcai, and several others.
I told the Chinese delegation in direct and unambiguous terms that we regard this recent crackdown as steps in the wrong direction. We stated our firm conviction that China must take decisive steps to reverse this crackdown and improve the human rights situation in China. As Secretary Albright noted last night in her remarks at the Chinese Embassy, Americans do not regard organized and peaceful political expression as a crime or a threat. Rather, it is a right that is universally recognized, protected by international covenants, and fundamental to the freedom and dignity of every human being.
Throughout the two days, we placed our specific concerns in the context of China's decision last October to sign the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. To quote the Secretary, we urged China "not only to embrace in word, but also to observe in deed" the ICCPR, which China has promised to ratify. We urged the earliest possible ratification of that instrument, and urged China to apply consistently and universally to all Chinese citizens the fundamental principles embodied in international human rights instruments. We told them that even before China ratifies the Covenant, the international community will be looking for it to act in accordance with the fundamental spirit and principles embodied in that treaty. We also told them that complying with the spirit of that treaty was in their self-interest, because no nation can become a fully respected member of the international political and economic community without displaying genuine respect for international standards and human rights norms.
With respect to particular issues, we focused on the treatment of prisoners, prison labor issues, policies for prisoner release, and possible legal reforms that might promote large-scale improvements in human rights. We agreed on the importance of projects to obtain accurate information about the situation of prisoners, such as that of American businessman John Kamm, which have sought clarification from the Chinese government of the status of prisoners. In that spirit, we also encouraged the creation of an official human rights channel between our two governments to regularly exchange information on prisoner names, conditions, and health, to follow up on past concerns. In our discussions of medical parole, we emphasized the right of those released to choose whether to remain in China, and raised the cases of prisoners reported to be in poor health.
Our talks also focused on international and domestic investigations into China's Laogai conditions, prison-labor produced goods, and credible reports of the sale of human organs taken from executed prisoners. We raised specific and credible questions from Members of Congress and the Department of Justice that have not been answered to date. We expressed deep concern about violations of human rights resulting from the coercive implementation of China's family planning policies. We called on China to release not just individual prisoners, but also entire categories of prisoners -- including those detained under now repealed criminal laws on counterrevolutionary crimes, those detained for the peaceful exercise of their religious and political beliefs, and those detained after the crackdown on demonstrations in Tiananmen Square in 1989. We pressed them to reform their laws on criminal procedure, criminal law, and administrative law to meet international due process standards, and urged them to modify their laws on state subversion and reeducation through labor, which we believe have led to the unlawful detention of many individuals.
My colleague Robert Seiple, the Secretary's Special Representative on International Religious Freedom, participated in the dialogue after having returning Sunday night from Beijing. Mr. Seiple and I noted that current Chinese practices violate both international law and Chinese domestic law protecting the right to freedom of religion and the right to manifest one's beliefs. We focused on China's requirement that all religious faiths and places of worship be registered with the government, restrictions on religious expression, and the detention of individuals for the peaceful expression of their religious beliefs. We raised concerns about Bishop Su Zhimin, Father Li Qinghua, and Pastor Xu Yongze, among others.
Yesterday morning, we turned to Tibet. We expressed strong dissatisfaction about the little progress that has been made since last June, when President Jiang told President Clinton in Beijing that the door to dialogue and negotiation between China and the Dalai Lama remained open. We protested restrictions on religious freedom, mistreatment of Tibetan prisoners, the implementation of a reeducation campaign aimed at Tibetan monks and nuns, and other policies that threaten the preservation of Tibet's unique language and culture. We encouraged them to provide access to Tibet for journalists and human rights groups to ensure accurate information and we urged the release of a number of individuals, including Jigme Sangpo and Chandrel Rinpoche. We also inquired about the condition of the boy who has been designated by the Dalai Lama as the Panchen Lama, and asked that China allow an outside observer, such as myself, to visit him.
In sum, our exchange was full and frank, addressing candidly our disagreements on human rights while highlighting steps we could take to narrow such differences. For example, there was general agreement that more could be done by our two countries to work cooperatively to advance women's rights against violence and discrimination. We discussed how our governments could better cooperate with UN human rights mechanisms, including the Office of High Commissioner on Human Rights Mary Robinson. We repeatedly pressed for the principle of mutual transparency in exposing our human rights practices to one another. In that spirit, we invited the Chinese delegation to visit the Justice Department to discuss human rights protection with officials in the Civil Rights Division and the Bureau of Prisons, to attend a criminal trial being held in Federal District Court here in Washington, and to visit a federal prison in Cumberland, Maryland. These visits not only encourage a policy of opening our governmental institutions to one another, but also demonstrate that societal stability and vigorous law enforcement and penal policies can be maintained alongside vigorous protection of the basic human rights of defendants and inmates. At the end of the dialogue the United States side made a number of proposals for both official and nonofficial exchanges to deepen the human rights channel, which the Chinese side said it would consider. Both sides agreed to hold the next official human rights dialogue in China in the second half of the year.
As a newcomer to the government, I appreciate that words like "dialogue" are often read as diplomatic code for "joint speechmaking." I will say that what transpired these last two days was dialogue as normal people understand it: intense discussions in which the participants speak bluntly, tell one another things they do not want to hear, and advise them on how they could and should do things differently. The atmosphere was frank and the comments candid. The success of our dialogue will be measured by China's actions, not just its words, and we will be watching those actions closely in the weeks ahead.
At this point, I would be glad to take a few of your questions.
(end text)
Return to The United States and China.
Return to USIA International Home Page.