TEXT: SHATTUCK 6/16 TESTIMONY ON CHINESE ORGAN HARVESTING
(U.S. urges China to enforce organ transplant laws)

Washington -- "The problem of organ harvesting is squarely on our human rights agenda with China," John Shattuck, assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, said at a joint hearing of the House International Relations Committee and the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee June 16.

Shattuck spoke of China's Provisional Regulations on the Use of Executed Prisoners' Corpses or Organs (1984), which allow for the medical use of a corpse if it falls into one of three categories: one, if "nobody claims the body or the family refuses to bury it"; two, if the prisoner voluntarily donates the body for use by medical facilities; or three, if the inmate's family consents to its use after death.

"The first category opens the door to abuse because families are often not notified of impending executions or are too far away or unable financially to make the trip to claim a relative's body," he said.

The Chinese have provided information on their official policy governing organ donation, Shattuck said. "However, the Chinese have not responded to our inquiries about the extent and scope of the illegal practices of harvesting and trafficking in human organs."

Shattuck recounted the extensive efforts of the Clinton Administration to address the issue of organ harvesting. "We will continue to voice our strong opposition to the repugnant practices of coercive organ harvesting and to press the Chinese to enforce all laws governing organ transplants," he said.

Following is the official text of Shattuck's remarks, as prepared for delivery:

(begin text)

Statement of The Honorable John Shattuck
Assistant Secretary of State
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

"Sale of Body Parts in China"

Before the House International Relations Committee and
House Government Reform and Oversight Committee

June 16, 1998

Chairman Burton, Chairman Gilman, and members of the committees, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to address the issue of trafficking in human organs in C~hina. I welcome the opportunity to appear at this important hearing to discuss the efforts the Clinton Administration has undertaken thus far to address this very serious issue. We also look forward to working with all of you as we continue our efforts.

The removal of organs from executed prisoners and the trafficking in these organs is a serious, disturbing sub~ject that raises a number of profoundly important human rights issues.

As you know, reports of this practice in China are not new. The Hong Kong and London press carried reports as early as the 1980s. Nor is the concern of the United States ~Government. We have been raising this issue with high-level Chinese officials since 1994, pressing for changes about Chinese policy, and pressing for changes in China's legal system to better guard individual rights and due process. We have also regularly spotlighted the issue of organ harvesting in our annual human rights report on China. The ~~problem of organ harvesting is squarely on our human rights agenda with China.

Starting in 1994, I am the first Assistant Secretary of State to have raised the issue repeatedly and at high levels in the Chinese Ministry of Justice and Ministry of He~alth. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific, Stanley Roth, and his predecessor Winston Lord, both have actively pursued this issue with the Chinese, as has our Embassy in Beijing. Secretary Albright discussed organ harvesting with her counterpart during President Jiang's October, 1997, state visit to Washington and during her May, 1998, trip to China. The issue will be raised in the context of our human rights discussions during the upcoming summit in Beijing.

Despite these efforts, as well as those of human rights activists like Harry Wu, human rights organizations, and concerned medical professionals, there is much that we do not know and cannot judge conclusively because of the lack of transparency in the Chinese criminal justice system and the secrecy that surrounds prison executions and the removal of organs. Nonetheless, the Department of State finds credible much of the substantial anecdotal and circumstantial evidence that organs are removed from executed prisoners and sold to foreigners and wealthy Chinese. Credible sources include public statements by patients who have had transplants in China and testimony by doctors and former Chinese officials who claim to have witnessed or taken part in such practices or to have seen ~~~incriminating evidence. The most recent 1997 Country Report on Human Rights p~ractices in China stated, "credible reports have alleged that organs from some executed prisoners were removed, sold and transplanted." Allegations include claims that organs of executed prisoners are used without their consent. China's stated policy is that human organs may not be sold and are transplanted with the consent of donors or their families.

The credibility of reports on trafficking in organs, and U~S actions to address them, were dramatically illustrated on February 23, 1998, when the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced the arrest and indictment of two Chinese nationals, including a former Chinese official in Hainan Province, who had participated in the execution of Chinese prisoners, on charges of conspiring to sell organs, including the kidneys, corneas, livers, skin, pancreases, and lungs for transplant.

There are also reports, which the Department of State cannot independently confirm, of other, even more egre~gious practices, such as removing organs from still-living prisoners and scheduling executions to accommodate the need for particular organs. In addition, allegations have been made that doctors, in violation of medical ethics cod~es, have performed medical procedures to prepare condemned prisoners for execution and organ removal.

Our concern about the abhorrent practice of removing organs from executed prisoners without consent is magnified by our concerns about the lack of due process in Chinese death penalty cases and the inconsistent and arbitrary application of the death penalty. A 1995 law raised the number of capital offenses from 26 to 65, and included financial crimes. In May, 1996, the Chinese Supreme People's Court ruled that crimes resulting in death should be punished by death regardless of extenuating circumstances. According to a 1997 Amnesty International report, China sentenced more than 6,100 convicts to death and carried out 4,367~ executions. A high court nominally reviews all death sentences, but the time between arrest and execution is often days, and reviews have consistently resulted in confirmation of sentence.

The issue of what constitutes meaningful consent also raises serious concerns. According to Article 3 of China's Provisional Regulations on the Use of Executed Prison~ers' Corpses or Organs (1984), a corpse may be used for medical purposes if it falls into one of three categories: nobody claims the body or the family refuses to bury it; the prisoner voluntarily donates the body for use by medical facilities; or the inmate's family consents to its use after death. The first category opens the door to abuse because families are often not notified of impending executions or are too far away or unable financially to make the trip to claim a relative's body. Also, bodies are routinely cremated immediately after a sentence is carried out, making it impossible for families, who are able to claim a family member's remains, to determine whether or not the body has been used for medical purposes. Many have expressed the view that condemned prisoners and their families cannot make free and fully-voluntary decisions on organ donation because of the very nature of incarceration. In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons does not allow posthumous organ donation by condemned federal prisoners. Prisoners may make living donations, but only if the recipient is a family member. Other countries have ~~similarly strict laws regarding organ donations by prisoners.

Clearly, these issues and the credible reports about this practice raise serious human rights concerns. We, like Congress, are committed to obtaining the information that would confirm or refute reports that organ harvesting is practiced in China and to press the Chinese authorities to take strong action to address this human rights abuse wherever it occurs.

I would like to use my remaining time to detail for you the steps that we have taken in recent years to try to determine exactly what the facts are, what Chinese policy is, how effectively Chinese authorities have implemented existing regulations governing the practice; to press the Chinese authorities to end all such human rights abuses; and to investigate and prosecute to the fullest extent of our own law any criminal acts over which the United States has jurisdiction.

-- In October, 1994, I raised the issue of reports of organ harvesting from executed prisoners with my counterpart in the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs during a round of the U.S.-China human rights dialogue in Washington, and made clear that such practices would constitute grave human rights abuses.

-- In January, 1995, during the last round of the human rights dialogue in Beijing, I had extensive discussions with Ministry of Health officials. I inquired into the existence of any safeguards in China that would prevent the removal of organs without the donor's or the donor's family's consent as well as prevent prison managers and other non-family members from benefiting from the sale of organs. Chinese officials responded that organs for transplants are not "a commodity to be traded" in China. The Chinese acknowledged that no law governed organ donation, but maintained that "in accordance with Chinese tradition and ethics, no organ can be used without the individual's or family's consent."

-- In February, 199~5, Secretary of State Christopher, in support of our diplomatic efforts on the organ harvesting issue, stated that the removal of organs from executed prisoners without consent would ~be, if true, "one of the grossest of human rights violations."

-- In June, 1995, the director general of the Chinese Ministry of Health, in response to questions raised in January, publicly asserted that there were "stringent standards" for organ transplants. Also, in response to U.S. Embassy inquiries, the Ministry of Health dismissed allegations made in a BBC documentary. Nevertheless, they acknowledged that it was impossible to rule out the occurrence of abuses in light of China's size.

October,1997

-- The Administration again requested clarification in Washington and Beijing of Chinese policy on organ transplants. The Chinese unequivocally denied allegations of organ harvesting and called a "Primetime Live" broadcast a "fabrication." Officials did, however, admit to having heard reports of "unregulated occurrences" in which alleged brokers in Hong Kong had offered to arrange transplants in China, but stressed that they had no independent confirmation of such reports.

-- Secretary Aibright raised the question of the allegations with then Foreign Minister Qian Qichen.

-- The Department of Justice referred allegation raised in the "Primetime Live" broadcast to the FBI Health Care Fraud Unit for investigation.

November 1997

-- Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbott and Assistant Secretary Roth raised the allegations with Vice Foreign Minister Liu Huaqiu. The Chinese government provided copies of two 1996 regulations prohibiting the sale and export of human organs and tissues.

January 1998

-- Embassy Beijing requested information from the Chinese government about whether any investigations have been conducted regarding allegations of organ harvesting in China.

February 1998

-- The Chinese government informed Embassy Beijing that there have been no investigations and/or arrests for illegal trafficking in human organs by the People's Liberation Army or anyone else in China.

The US Attorney in New York arrested two Ch~inese nationals, Wang Chengyong and Fu Xingqi, for conspiracy to sell human organs. Wang claimed that he had, in his former role as prosecutor in Hainan Province of China, participated in the execution of Chinese prisoners.

-- Assistant Secretary Roth met with Harry Wu to discuss allegations about organ harvesting.

March 1998

-- The Chinese government contacted Embassy Beijing and confirmed a Xinhua press report that stated that Wang Chengyong formerly worked at the Office of the Hainan Procuratorate. Authorities said that Wang had resigned and maintained that the Hainan Procuratorate was not involved in the activities of which Wang stands accused.

-- Deputy Assistant Secretary Susan Shirk raised the issue in Beijing, requesting information relating to the arrest of the former Hainan prosecutor in New York and the implementation of Chinese regulat~ions.

April 1998

-- The Embassy conveyed a copy of Senator Jesse Helms' March 26 letter to the Chinese Government and requested a response to the questions enumerated in the letter.

-- Secretary Albright and Deputy Assistant Secretary Shirk raised allegations with the Chinese government and pressed for information on implementation of Chinese regulations.

June 1998

-- The Department of State forwarded a formal request for China's legal cooperation in the case of the US v. Wang Chengyong et al.

-- Embassy Beijing again requested information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on implementation of Chinese regulations on organ transplants.

-- Embassy Beijing followed up with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the request for answers to Chairman Helms' letter.

As this chronology indicates, we have actively pursued this issue over an extended period of time. The Chinese have responded by providing information on their official policy, including two internal documents on regulations promulgated on April 6, 1996, governing organ donation. The new regulations provide that "the buying or selling of human tissues and organs is not allowed. The donation or exchange of human tissue and organs with organizations or individuals outside national borders is not allowed." However, the Chinese have not responded to our inquiries about the extent and scope of the illegal practice of harvesting and trafficking in human organs and about Chinese authorities' efforts to implement their own regulations.

As Assistant Secretary Roth has said on several occasions, we consider this a very serious issue, and we do not consider the matter closed~. We will continue to pursue answers to all unresolved questions, including those we submitted to the Chinese on behalf of Senator Helms. We will continue to voice our strong opposition to the ~~repugnant practice of coercive organ harvesting and to press the Chinese to enforce all laws governing organ transplants, to prosecu~te those who violate these laws, and to change laws and regulations that do not provide adequate safeguards of basic human rights~. We will investigate and prosecute all violators over whom the United States has jurisdiction to the fullest extent of the law. We also will continue to press for and encourage continued reform of China's legal system. In the end, such reforms, and our own intensive engagement with China on human rights issues, hold the greatest promise for ensuring and protecting the individual rights and due process of all Chinese citizens.

Thank you.

(end text)

Return to The United States and China.

Return to USIA International Home Page.