Hearing of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission - the Status of Human Rights in China: the United Nation's Universal Periodic Review

Hearing of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, Subject: The Status of Human Rights in China: The United Nation's Universal Periodic Review

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

REP. MCGOVERN: Good morning, everybody. I'm Congressman Jim McGovern and I want to thank my colleague and fellow co-chair, Congressman Frank Wolf, and the staff of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission for bringing together today's incredible panel of experts to talk about the current status of human rights in China. I regret that I also need to be at a Budget Committee hearing dealing with the worsening state of the American economy so I'm going to have to leave here a little bit early but my hope is that my co-chair and others will be here before I leave.

So I want to take a couple of minutes to make a brief statement and pose a couple of questions in advance of the panelists' presentations. The last in-depth look at China's human rights record by the Human Rights Commission happened during the period leading up -- leading up to and during the summer Olympics. A great deal has happened inside China since then and I wish it were good news. Unfortunately, with very a few exceptions, it is not.

Last summer, in the period leading up to the Olympics, the Chinese government severely tightened restrictions on human rights defenders, disrupted and cracked down on activities by civil society, created new obstacles in the ability to carry out protest or to file complaints by ordinary Chinese citizens, and increased the security controls on key regions of minorities, in particular, exercising extreme control over Tibetans and Uyghurs. During the Olympics, I was especially engaged on the status of leading human rights defender Hu Jia and his wife, Zeng Jinyan, and their infant daughter.

In August 2007, Hu was one of the 42 Chinese intellectuals and activists who co-signed an open letter calling for greater attention to human rights in China. In September, 2007, Hu and lawyer Teng Biao published another open letter, quote, "The Real China and the Olympics" it was entitled, assessing specific human rights concerns inside China within the context of the Beijing Games and China's promises to the international community and to the Chinese people.

On December 27, 2007, Hu was detained prior to being formally arrested on January 30th, 2008. He was sentenced on April 3rd, 2008, to three and a half years in prison after being found guilty of, quote, "inciting subversion of state power," end quote. His wife, Zeng Jinyan, was under constant surveillance at her Beijing house at the start of the Olympic Games, but she had remained in touch with other Chinese activists and some reporters.

On the second day of the games, she and her infant daughter disappeared. No more communication. No word of their whereabouts. I immediately called the U.S. Embassy in Beijing asking that they enquire about her whereabouts and well- being, which I'm happy to report that they did. But the Chinese authorities did not respond to U.S. Ambassador Randt's enquiries any more than they responded to mine.

A few days later at his daily press conference, the U.S. Embassy spokesperson raised Zeng's disappearance along with several other cases, noting that the Chinese authorities had not been forthcoming with any information. Soon afterwards, we were informed that she and her daughter had been held throughout the Olympics at a hotel in Dalian in Liaoning Province to prevent her from having any contact with or speaking to journalists in China covering the games.

It is my understanding that Hu Jia has since been moved to a prison closer to Beijing so that Zeng may visit him more often and monitor his health. I want to thank Ambassador Randt and the staff of our embassy in Beijing for being so responsive to our calls during that period and I hope our panelists can shed some light on the current status of Hu Jia and his family.

More recently, on December 10th, on the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, over 300 Chinese intellectuals and human rights defenders released a statement calling for more political reform and democracy in China. The group called their statement "Charter 08," a reference to "Charter 77," a document issued by Czech political dissidents during the Cold War.

The Chinese government responded to the document, which has now been signed by thousands of people through the Internet, by detaining and harassing the key authors, including Liu Jia Xiaobo. Congressman Frank Wolf and I immediately sent a letter to the Chinese authorities in support of Liu and of the "Charter 08" members. I would appreciate our panelists describing the importance of the "Charter 08" document with respect to China's human rights situation and what suggestions you might have about how the U.S. and the international community might monitor or respond to the proposed rights and reforms.

Again, I very much regret that I'm not going to be able to stay for the entire hearing but I want you to know that not only members of this commission but I think all members of the United States Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, are very concerned about the deteriorating human rights situation in China. And I think this new administration that has now been sworn into office, President Obama and Senator Clinton, I think have a particular interest in the human rights situation in China.

This issue is not going away. We will be doing extensive hearings on the deteriorating human rights situation. We are going to raise this issue time and time and time again and we want to make that clear at the outset of this hearing. I'm pleased to welcome one of our co-chairs, Congresswoman Donna Edwards from Maryland, and I would yield to her to make any opening statements she'd like.

REP. DONNA EDWARDS (D-MD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a formal opening statement. I will say I'm pleased to be able to join you today and to learn more of the -- what the chairman has described as the deteriorating condition of human rights in China. I am especially interested in labor rights and the condition of women throughout China.

I've been deeply concerned about the high rate of suicide among women in China, forced labor conditions, and the inability to organize in factories where a lot of U.S. products are made.

And so I will be interested to hear from our witnesses today and I feel, as Mr. McGovern does, that we have an administration in place today in which we can expect, I think, an increased concern about human rights in China as well as around the world and I look forward to your testimony. Thank you.

REP. MCGOVERN: Thank you very much. I'd like to yield to our other co-chair, Congressman Ellison.

REP. ELLISON: Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank everyone for coming. I'd like to also reiterate my commitment and to the work of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission -- that work will focus on human rights generally and globally but today we're here to talk about human rights in China, which I think is a critical issue facing our world today. I think it's important for the world to know that as we have an increasingly interconnected world economy that we have to have an interconnection of human rights and respect for universal human rights in our world today.

And so I think it's important for us in the United States to understand that all relationships have to be rooted in respect for human rights. That includes economic and political relationships, cultural relationships. And so today I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today who can talk to us about religious freedom or the absence thereof or -- and political freedom and workers' rights and other critical issues. And I do thank you and for the work that you've done and I look forward to hearing what you have to share with us today. Thank you.

REP. MCGOVERN: I thank you very much. And before I introduce the witnesses let me also announce that the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission has formally become a commission. It used to be a caucus. It is now a commission that has been mandated by the United States Congress at the request of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The speaker's vision is that human rights should be -- should take a higher priority in the Congress -- that human rights should be discussed when we talk about economic and military and foreign assistance and trade policy -- that human rights needs to be part of our discussion on all of our international policies and even on -- on our domestic policies -- that if the United States is going to stand for anything it needs to stand out loud and four square for human rights. So I say it -- I say that in advance so that people understand that -- that this issue is going to be more central in this Congress and I also say that because I admire all of the people who are here as panelists who have been working on human rights issues.

So I'd like to introduce the panel. First, Felice Gaer from the Jacob Blaustein Institute; Bhuchung Tsering from the International Campaign for Tibet; Rebiya Kadeer from the Uyghur American Association; T. Kumar from Amnesty International; Harry Wu from the Laogai Research Foundation; and Lucie Morillon with Reporters Without Borders. Did I pronounce that right? Thank you. And so at this point I'd like to yield the floor to Felice Gaer, and we're very happy to have you here and we appreciate all of your incredible work on behalf of human rights.

MS. GAER: Thank you very much, Congressman, and I'd like to return the compliment to you and all the members of the -- of the new commission. Is this on?

REP. MCGOVERN: You need to press that -- yeah, there you go.

MS. GAER: It's on.

REP. MCGOVERN: All right.

MS. GAER: And I particularly want to express appreciation for the -- for the support and affirmation you made of the intention to see that human rights issues are a part of all of the discussions on all of the foreign policy -- (off mike) -- being made. You know, it's ironic -- I'm Felice Gaer, I direct the Jacob Blaustein Institute (to advance the rights of the ?) American Jewish community -- it's ironic that today is January 27th. It's the International Holocaust Remembrance Day being celebrated as such commemorated -- (inaudible) -- at the United Nations.

This commission, named after Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor who's served in the Congress couldn't have this hearing (on a very ?) important day. The Holocaust, of course, was unique but its lessons are universal. The Universal Periodic Review process at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva is a new procedure that was created when the new Human Rights Council was created to replace the discredited Commission on Human Rights.

The process itself is an attempt to bring a consolidation of all U.N. human rights activity and to bring some coherence to the process -- (off mike) -- individual countries. It was modeled on a peer review process but many of us who have observed it think that it might better be described as peer review (minus ?). In Geneva, the process has been manipulated so by some governments that instead of calling UPR Universal Periodic Review it's often being called Universal Praising Review.

Praise has a role in advancing human rights but so does scrutiny, and that's what we hope this process will provide. Many of the interlocutors in the United Nations and the human rights movement felt that this Universal Periodic Review procedure by itself (would save ?) the entire effort to create a new Human Rights Council because in the course of four years it will review every single member state of the United Nations -- 48 states each year during each of the four years, including all the members of the Human Rights Council.

Now, having watched for years as governments fought to be member -- become members and get elected to the council in order to protect themselves, the idea that there is no protection from scrutiny is very important. This will be the first substantive review of China in the intergovernmental United Nations setting in years. It will be the first one in which questions and answers will be asked by governments.

There are expert bodies at the U.N. such as the Treaty Body. I have the honor -- (off mike) -- on the committee to end torture -- (off mike) -- expert and we had a review of China last November. But this will be the first time that China comes before an intergovernmental body where states will be asking the questions. They have three hours on February 9th beginning at 9:00 a.m. in which to carry out this review.

The United Nations has received a report from the government of China, has prepared two summaries of reports -- a summary of all of the work of all the U.N. special procedures, rapporteurs, treaty bodies, committees, and visitors, and a summary of materials submitted by 46 NGOs -- 46 non-governmental organizations -- who -- whose reports appear on the United Nations website and are available all over the world for people to consult -- (off mike). This is a huge development in the U.N. for this material to be available, for these reviews to have been undertaken, and for a summary of it to have been created.

We can argue, and I know some of the witnesses will, that these summaries which are limited by the page number like in our own courts don't cover all the issues and exclude certain -- (off mike) -- but the U.N. has seen nothing like this before prepared by these groups coming from the NGOs and being submitted as formal documents. This session is the fourth periodic review session that the U.N. has undertaken.

There were three last year and this is the fourth. This one will include a review of an extraordinary group of countries who are members of the Human Rights Council, including among them a few that are of particular interest to this commission and to the Congress. I mentioned in passing they will include a review of Russia. It will include a review of Cuba by the intergovernmental body. It'll include a review of Nigeria, Azerbaijan, and numerous other countries.

So China will not be alone but it's China we focus on today because of the range of issues that come up there and the unique opportunity it offers us. The United Nations process involves a procedure whereby the state itself speaks about a half an hour and then governments ask questions. Anywhere from 25 to 60 governments that asked questions in previous universal periodic review -- (off mike) -- taken place, 26 for Lichtenstein and 60 for Israel, and with the average being somewhere in between. China has played a very visible role in these reviews.

China has asked questions at virtually every one of the reviews.

It's asked questions that have been I would say limp with regard to countries from Asia and countries from Africa and the like. When it comes to countries like the Netherlands or countries like Finland or the Czech Republic, which is now the chair of the European Union, the questions have not been so limp. For example, they asked the Dutch to explain why it was that their use of the Internet has harmed freedom of expression as it -- in so many ways.

They've asked them to explain specifically how they have -- why they have facilitated pornography, terrorist activity, and incitement of racial and religious hatred by allowing freedom of expression on the Internet. We have a word for this in the -- in Yiddish called chutzpah, and I think, Mr. Chairman, you might agree with that. In the case of Finland, they ask the Finns what nongovernmental organizations (did not only to ?) participate in the writing of a critique of the government of Finland but more significantly are they involved in human rights policy -- are they involved in public affairs.

I think that these are the kinds of questions that are being asked of Western governments by China. A review of China in the universal periodic review can ask no less back of China, particularly in view of the crackdown and the problems that you described in your opening remarks -- (inaudible). Now, I mention this because China's role is not only one of participating and asking questions. I must say they have made very few recommendations. The process requires asking questions, making recommendations, and then the government has to either accept or refuse the recommendations.

So the government has to speak on each of the recommendations. If it refuses them it has to say why it refused, and that's a matter of -- of record. China has also been very active in trying to control what materials are presented to the member states, what non- governmental organizations present information and have it listed on websites, and also to speak with virtually every government that is on the council and that is likely to speak at the council.

I'd just try to encourage them to have discussions in private rather than in public (and not ?) to engage in a full and fair review. I think it's essential for the United States to participate and participate actively. The U.S. participated actively in the first two universal periodic reviews. It was instructed -- our personnel were instructed not to participate in the third one in November, and as I understand it there are no plans for the U.S. to ask questions at any of the periodic reviews in the upcoming session in February.

That has to change. The U.S. needs to speak out asking questions. What kinds of questions? Specific questions -- questions about cases, questions about core issues, questions about the very issues that you raised in your opening comments, questions about freedom of expression, religious freedom, and life. The U.S. also has to speak out by making specific recommendations. Those recommendations get recorded and included in a report, and again, as I said, the government has to accept or reject them.

The U.S. has a third role to play which is to encourage other states to ask questions and perhaps to coordinate topics that are asked and to reinforce major points in making those questions. I think it's important that the Congress speak to the State Department, which may not have made any decisions yet about how it's going -- (off mike) -- council. But this is a working group of the Human Rights Council -- a working group of the whole. A hundred and ninety-two states are committed to participating in -- (inaudible) -- about 60 ask questions.

The U.S. has a lead role to play -- (inaudible) -- constructive at the beginning of these processes. It has had a unique role in the U.N. on the issue of related questions about human rights in China and one would hope -- I would hope that it will continue. Thank you.

REP. MCGOVERN: Thank you very much, Ms. Gaer. I just want to also announce that two other commission members have arrived. Congressman Joe Pitts is here and we're happy to have him. He's been a champion for human rights on -- with regard to China for many, many years. And Congressman Jan Schakowsky is also here. I don't -- Mr. Pitts, you want to have an opening statement or --

REP. PITTS: No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank you for conducting this hearing on human rights in China and say that I'm very concerned about the trend, seemingly a worsening record, in China in light of recent statements as far as the Olympics and other (hopes ?). There continue to be severe -- severe repression and I want to thank the expert witnesses for coming and I look forward to hearing their testimony today.

REP. MCGOVERN: Thank you very much. Congresswoman Schakowsky?

REP. SCHAKOWSKY: No, only to say that I'm looking forward to a new era of American foreign policy where there's a roll-up-your- sleeves kind of attitude towards human rights around the world, starting with the president of the United States and including all of us in the Congress and who have worked on this in a bipartisan way. And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your leadership. I'm glad to see you in this role.

REP. MCGOVERN: Thank you, and I want to yield to my co-chair, Congressman Frank Wolf from Virginia, who has been the leader on issues of human rights in China and a real hero to all of us up here, and yield.

REP. WOLF: I thank you. (Off mike.)

REP. MCGOVERN: Thank you, and now I would like to ask Bhuchung Tsering from the International Campaign for Tibet to give his testimony. We're happy to have you here and we appreciate all of your work for human rights as well.

MR. TSERING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the situation in Tibet in the context of today's discussion on the U.N. Human Rights Council's views -- (inaudible) -- of China. I would first of all like to congratulate the commission on its formal establishment. We are particularly pleased that it's named after the late Tom Lantos, who played a pivotal role in promoting the cause of human rights throughout the world during his time in the Congress. It's a fitting tribute to his legacy.

In February, the United Nations Human Rights Council is going to (review ?) China's report on its human rights -- (inaudible). The International Campaign for Tibet is a member of the Tibetan UPR forum, a global coalition of NGOs acting as the Tibetan Consultation on the UPR which submitted a report titled, "The Human Rights Crisis in Tibet" to the U.N. Human Rights Council. I would like to submit the report here for inclusion in the human right -- in the commission's record.

Our report goes into details on China's failure to respect its nationally recognized human rights of the Tibetan people, the violation of which include the areas of arbitrary detention, disappearances, torture, administration of justice, religious freedom, right to -- (inaudible) -- post election -- (inaudible) -- et cetera. Since March 10th, 2008, over 135 demonstrations in more than 60 counties in the Tibetan areas have taken place, highlighting the lack of civil, political, economical, social, and cultural rights as a result of China's (misrule ?).

A U.N. special rapporteur -- (inaudible) -- has stated that Tibetans suffer -- (inaudible) -- of systematic and institutional discrimination in the fields of employment, health care, education, housing, and public representation. The U.N. special rapporteur on violence against women has stated that women in Tibet continue to undergo hardship and are also subjected to gender-specific crimes including reproductive rights violations such as forced sterilization, forced abortion -- (inaudible) -- birth control policies, and monitoring of menstrual cycle.

The U.N. special rapporteur on the right to education said she was dismayed at illiteracy rate in Tibet, which is 39.5 percent and asked the Ministry of Education of China whether one reason might be the fact that illiterate -- that literacy test was in Tibetan while Mandarin is used in political, economic, and social life. The Tibetans describe the current military crackdown and policies adopted by China towards Tibetans in Tibet as reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution.

An analysis of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China disclosed figures by China's -- (inaudible) -- that since March 10th over 4,400 Tibetans have been detained or allegedly surrendered in connection with the protest which began on March 10th, 2008. While China continues to deny the existence of quote, unquote, "political prisoners", Tibetans continue to be prosecuted under political terms for crimes such as splinterism which is a Chinese term for undermining the unity of the country and for expression of the Tibetan identity.

These are some of the examples of the human right violations in Tibet. The Chinese government contains in its UPR report that it protects and promotes the rights of ethnic minorities in which category it includes the Tibetan people. It further says that ethnic minorities benefit from special preferential policies of the political, economic, culture, and educational spheres.

In principle, Chinese rules do have (provisions limited ?) compared to those espoused by democratic government relating to human rights -- (inaudible) -- but the problem is the implementation of the -- even these limited provisions. The memorandum on general autonomy for the Tibetan people that in words of the Dalai Lama submitted to the Chinese government during the eight round of talks between the two sides held in November 2008 clearly puts forth the -- (inaudible) -- needs of the Tibetan people.

These include the following eleven areas: language, cultural, religion, education, environmental protection, utilization of natural resources, economic development and trade, public health, public security, regulation on population migration, cultural education, and religious exchanges with other countries. I ask that the text of the memorandum be included in the commission's records.

Since the commission has been set up specifically to work for that, and I quote, "the United States will continue to be recognized throughout the world as a leader in the defense of international recognized human rights (laws ?)", unquote, I believe it should not hesitate in promoting ideas would even require policy changes if it believes that this is where the solution is. I say this because we -- there are at least certain number of our recommendations which are either direct -- which will have either direct or indirect impact on how the United States should position itself regard to China's UPR review.

Overall, the United States needs to adopt, and I echo the chairman's sentiment, a holistic approach towards the Tibet issue. Attempts to improve the human rights situation needs to be incorporated with effort to resolve the -- (inaudible) -- broader political problems in Tibet. Accordingly, I urge the commission to consider the following recommendations that we would like to make.

The human rights violation in Tibet is symptomatic of a bigger political problem. Unless steps are taken to adequately address the fundamental issue -- (inaudible) -- release of -- (inaudible) -- political prisoners or implement of -- implementation of government projects in Tibet areas will not provide any lasting solution. The commission should ask the United States government to consistently and proactively work for supporting the Dalai Lama's (middle-way ?) approach to resolve the Tibetan problem.

Two, the commission should recommend that the administration appoint a congressionally mandated special coordinator for Tibetan issues at an appropriately high level with necessary resources to fulfill its task.

Three, the commission should ask the administration to have a coordinated approach on Tibet in moving all relevant departments, including Treasury, Labor, Commerce and State. The special coordinator for Tibetan issues at the Department of State should be fully relied upon and should be involved in any aspects of U.S.-China relations that could impact Tibet, including issues of economic consequences. The United States government should work multilaterally in developing a united Tibet policy, including at the U.N. and other regional and international fora.

Additionally, our report on China and the UPR makes the following recommendations to the government of the People's Republic of China:

One: adopt and implement laws and regulations for Tibetans that create conditions of general autonomy where Tibetans have the rights and means to participate in decision making on the future direction and development of Tibet.

Two: provide unimpeded access to Tibet for U.N. human rights experts, including the U.N. commissioner for human rights and other (international ?) observers to assess the human rights situation in Tibet.

Three: provide unrestricted foreign media access to all Tibetan areas.

Four: fully implement the many recommendations on Tibet as issued by the special procedures mandate holders and U.N. treaty (border ?).

Five: release immediately and unconditionally all those detained and imprisoned solely for engaging in peaceful protests and all other peaceful political activism.

Six: receive and allow access to Tibet for the special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and other invited special procedure mandate holders of the U.N. Human Rights Council, including the special rapporteur on summary or arbitrary execution.

Seven: end policies and practices targeted at Tibetan Buddhist institutions and which undermine the practice and preservation of Tibetan Buddhism, including state intervention in the identification and training of Tibetan reincarnate lamas and the use of -- (inaudible) -- education campaigns, which include (denunciations ?) of the dalai lama.

Eight: fully implement the recommendations of the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, including access for an independent body to visit -- (inaudible) -- the (11th Panchen ?) lama of Tibet.

Nine: Allow the functioning of independent civil society organizations in Tibetan areas and offer access and support to bilateral technical assistance providers and international NGO programs to further development of Tibetan (CSOs ?). Impose a moratorium on the resettlement of Tibetan nomads displaced by government development policies, pending an independent assessment of legal -- (inaudible) -- (such ?) policy. (In order to ?) -- (inaudible) -- resettlement, offer affected persons the opportunity to return or settle in an area nearby like the one from which they have been moved.

Eleven: Ratify immediately the international covenant on civil and political rights and ensure that its protections are extended for all Tibetans.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify before this commission.

REP. MCGOVERN: Thank you very much for your testimony. We really -- we appreciate very much you being here today.

I'd now like to ask Rebiya Kadeer from the Uighur American Association to provide her testimony.

Thank you very much for being here.

MR. : (Reading the statement for Ms. Kadeer.) Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it's my great honor to speak at the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission regarding the terrible situation of the Uighur people, and I will let you -- I'll let Mr. -- (name inaudible) -- my assistant, read my statement for you.

Thank you for the invitation and opportunity to speak here today. I'm especially pleased to speak in front of the commission which honors a great human rights leader who spoke out against injustice all over the world. Congressman Lantos gave a voice to the Uighurs and other oppressed peoples that we otherwise would not have had. And his spirit still lives on through the many facets of the human rights movement that he helped create and strengthen.

The spectacular opening ceremony of the August 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing took the breath away of audiences around the world. The ceremony was a display of prowess that saved (sic) the PRC had arrived on the world stage. For 16 days athletes competed in a spirit of unity, and the world media interest in China reached unprecedented levels. Then on August 24 the games ended and the world's attention moved elsewhere. The short attention span through the disaster for the Uighur people in East Turkistan, because of post-Olympic Games period, has seen a time of fierce repression and hardship for the Uighur people.

In this testimony, I'll focus on four areas that have worsened over the past year, although China's repression of Uighurs includes political, religious, economic, education, family planning, environment, et cetera.

The four areas that I'm going to talk about -- one is especially for the Uighurs and Tibetans, the judicial concerns, violations of religious rights, curbs on freedom of speech and the inflammatory rhetoric by Chinese officials. However, I would like to begin with the buildup to the post-Olympic crackdown, which was largely ignored by the outside world.

On August 14th in a speech, Wang Lequan, the Chinese Communist Party secretary of the region, stated that the Chinese government authorities faced a "life or death" struggle to quell Uighur unrest. According to the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy, by the end of August, Chinese government authorities were mobilizing some 200,000 public security officers and armed police in East Turkistan. What we have seen since August is a following through on Wang Lequan's call for a "life or death" struggle.

In its annual country reports on human rights abuses, the U.S. State Department has highlighted human rights abuses by the Chinese government authorities in East Turkistan, including the use of the legal system as a tool of repression against the Uighur people.

Uighurs in East Turkistan also face a wide spectrum of other human rights abuses, including arbitrary detention and execution -- we have seen that last year; and the forceful transfer of women to eastern China to work in factories as cheap or slave labor; the removal of Uighur language as a language of instruction at all levels of education throughout the region; severe employment, housing and health care discrimination; and the officially encouraged mass influx of Han Chinese migrants into East Turkistan.

On December 17th, just a month ago, Abdurahman Azat and Kurbanjan Hemit were sentenced by the Intermediate People's Court of Kashgar to death for alleged intentional homicide and illegally producing guns, ammunitions and explosives. Abdurahman Azat and Kurbanjan Hemit had been detained for allegedly carrying out the so-called August 4 attack in Kashgar, in which 16 armed police were killed. On January 4, 2009 China's Procuratorial Daily reports that nearly 1,300 people were arrested in East Turkistan on state security crimes in 2008 alone, marking a steep increase over previous years.

In China, state security crimes are punishable by death. Of the nearly 1,300 arrests made, 1,154 were formally charged and faced trials or administrative punishment. According to the People's Republic of China's national statistics bureau, only 742 people were arrested on state security crimes throughout the entire country in 2007, and 619 of these were indicted.

What is disturbing about these three events is astonishing lack of evidence accompanying the allegations, arrests and the death sentences. The case against Abdurahman Azat and Kurbanjan Hemit is particularly alarming as eyewitness evidence from tourist bystanders contradicts the official version of the events. We have no idea if the evidence was considered by China's judicial authorities, as the trial, if there ever was one, was carried out behind closed doors.

Repeated allegations of terror are an attempt by the Chinese government authorities to demonize the Uighur people. This demonization permitted security forces to make the unprecedented numbers of arrests of Uighurs in 2008. All of this judicial mistreatment takes place in East Turkistan with no acknowledgement of a need for transparency. All Uighurs are now treated by the Chinese authorities as suspects.

The PRC's post-Olympic crackdown in East Turkistan manifests itself beyond the case of individuals to society as a whole. Violations of religious rights have worsened since August Olympics. Students and government employees were not permitted to fast during the Ramadan last year or attend mosques in general. Restaurants were also forced to open during fasting hours. Women were prohibited from wearing scarves. And it was forbidden to play certain types of religious tapes.

The official websites of towns and counties throughout East Turkistan published such restrictions openly during the Ramadan period in 2008 at an unprecedented level of explicitness. Uighurs are now not permitted to undertake annual pilgrimage unless it is with an expensive official tour in which applicants are carefully vetted for their obedience to the law. Confiscations of passports to the point where very few Uighurs have passports ensures adherence to the official tourism policy and also restricts other types of international trips.

At a meeting held on November 17th in the city of Karamay, Communist Party Standing Committee Member Burhan Kahar, together with other local government officials, put forth specific arrangements for 22 minority cadres in Karamay to liaise with mosque and religious worshippers in the area in part to "cut off unstable factors" or "achieve the goal of unifying the masses of worshipers."

Uighurs have also experience further curbs on freedom of speech. Xinjiang University police arrested Miradil Yasin, age 20, and Mutellip Teyip, age 19, on December 20th in relation to the organization of a peaceful protest. The two university students were arrested in the regional capital of Urumchi for distributing leaflets on the Xinjiang University campus urging students to join in a peaceful demonstration. Both Miradil Yasin and Mutellip Teyip were transferred to the Urumchi Public Security Bureau after their arrests for further investigation and interrogation. So at the moment, we are not aware of their whereabouts.

More recently, provincial Party Secretary Wang Lequan told members of the People's Armed Police Forces on January 11 that the "three forces of terrorism, separatism and extremism" appeared to be preparing a series of attacks in the region, citing no evidence whatsoever. Deputy Party Secretary Nur Bakri was quoted in official Chinese media as telling 500 government delegates on January 7 to be on guard against the "three evil forces" and to be prepared for a long battle against these elements.

Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region Deputy Communist Party Secretary Nur Bakri also delivered a lengthy speech on September 10th, just two weeks after Olympics, accusing Western countries of instigating terrorism, separatism and extremism in East Turkistan. These remarks mitigate the growing social, economic and political challenges that exist in East Turkistan, and without any type of positive reforms, as well as a perceived lack of options, Chinese officials have resorted to force, intimidation and character assassination.

In conclusion, I would like to ask that an international independent body investigate the allegations of terror against Uighur people in general, especially in the cases of Abdurahman Azat and Kurbanjan Hemit, who are condemned to die soon. I also ask that the U.S. government to seek a halt to the ongoing Chinese government crackdown in East Turkistan and possibly consider establishing a consulate in Urumchi to monitor the deteriorating human rights situation in the region.

Lastly, I want to ask the People's Republic of China to halt the inflammatory rhetoric by Chinese officials, which is not conducive to the creation of long-term peace and stability. Uighurs had hoped that the Chinese government would honor its pre-Olympic promises for greater respect of human rights. Honoring this promise and not just hosting a spectacle for the world would have truly facilitated the Chinese government's entry into the international community as a responsible global leader. But unfortunately, that's not the case.

Thank you very much.

REP. BERMAN: The next witness in the order that you were --

MR. KUMAR: Thank you very much, Co-Chairs and members of the commission. Amnesty International is extremely pleased to be here to testify about two issues: one is the U.N.'s UPR review and about China's human rights situation. Before I go into my testimony, I would like to congratulate and thank U.S. Congress for creating this commission. It is the best thing that has happened so far in terms of human rights in monitoring human rights around the world. I also have written testimony and I would like that to be part of the --

REP. BERMAN: Sure, without objection.

MR. KUMAR: Thank you very much.

I would like to first give a brief outline of what's the human rights situation in China today.

China imprisons thousands of people -- I repeat, thousands of people -- without charge or trial under a political system called re- education through labor. Between 300,000 to 500,000 -- that means half a million people have been imprisoned without charge or trial by the local police officers. There is no judicial overview. This particular issue itself says how arrogant China is in terms of silencing their own people.

China executes almost 80 percent -- China executes more people than all the rest of the world combined. They also execute political prisoners. In the province of Xinjiang, Uighurs -- we have documented that Uighur political prisoners have been executed. That's disturbing, because to our knowledge, China is one of the few countries that execute political prisoners. China also abused, they think, minorities like Tibetans and Uighurs and others. Uighur persecution is endemic. And also women -- forced abortion and sterilization is taking place there. So the list goes on and on.

All these years, because of these abuses, human rights organizations, U.S. Congress and others took strong steps to counter that -- the recent was during the Olympics -- but nothing happened. Why? That's the question we all should ask. Even during the Olympics, everyone was involved, but China did not change.

So the challenge today is will the U.N.'s UPR review is going to make any difference is the question we should ask. The question -- one answer I have is that before Human Rights Council -- (inaudible) -- UPR is here, it was U.N. Human Rights Commission. China was extremely nervous during that time when U.S. sponsored resolution. Now U.S. is not even part of the U.N. Human Rights Council. I will address to that later.

So China was extremely nervous and they tried to trade in some releases and some improvements whenever there are commission -- when U.S. informs them that they are going to sponsor a resolution on China. One classic example is Rebiya Kadeer, who is sitting next to me. To my knowledge, State Department told me at that time one of the main reasons she was imprisoned was U.S. threatened that they are going to bring a resolution at the U.N. and they kind of trade off saying that don't bring the resolution, we'll release her. Whether that's true or not is a question, but the mere fact that they were nervous and they released her during the U.N. Human Rights Commission says volumes of one area where China can be put into pressure. That's why the UPR has come into play. U.S. is not there to sponsor a resolution, at least UPR review; they can be more active.

I'm really disappointed to know that this administration -- which we all have high hopes -- did not instruct their representatives in Geneva to take this as a priority to review China's human rights in this UPR process. It's only a week or two left. Let Secretary Clinton take it as a top priority and instruct. We hope you all will also exert pressure on her to take the right step.

Now coming to the Obama administration: It's great. He has made great improvements domestically. Domestically means closing down Guantanamo and stopping torture. We congratulate him, but we have so far not seen him taking any steps internationally. One is China. That is one issue that he can address right away. That is, his inaugural speech was censored in China. Part of his wording was censored by the Chinese authorities; especially when he mentioned communism and crackdown, they censored it. So he has a great opening to call upon Chinese and condemn this and set in line where he stands in terms of human rights internationally.

Usually it's the other way around -- U.S. presidents don't look inward, they always look outward, lecturing others and not doing here anything. President Bush was locking people in Guantanamo and doing all these things while lecturing other people. But President Obama has done the best thing of looking inward and has done the right thing. So it's time for him to look outward and his beginning can be with the Chinese to tell them how upset he was -- in public, not in private -- and to inform them that human rights will not be compromised for any other issue, mostly and importantly for trade, which we have seen over and over again when U.S. Congress and U.S. officials try to push forth human rights improvements. All these business lobbyists lined up here to scuttle them and stop us from doing.

One of the perfect examples is the Global Online Freedom Act. Yahoo gave specific information of Chinese journalists who were using that to inform outside world what was happening, and on the strength of Yahoo, people were imprisoned. So after the fact, Congressman Smith and others introduced GOFA, Global Online Freedom Act. It died during the last session. Why? Everyone is not comfortable saying publicly. I can say it publicly. It's U.S. corporations that killed it.

Now it's going to be introduced again. Let's fight hard and make sure that U.S. Congress stand up again to the U.S. corporations, at least in human rights issues. Unless President Obama also stands up -- he has put all the restriction for lobbyists -- let him also stand up to all the business corporations and other lobbyists and give a strong message to China that he will not sit idle when they either censor his speech or when he abuses and kill his own people.

Thank you very much for inviting me.

REP. FRANK WOLF (R-VA): Thank you very much.

I have to leave about 11:00 and I'm going to take this as an opportunity, since I didn't make an opening statement, and I -- what Kumar said is very, very important. And you got a panel here. Everyone should know -- I've been to Tibet. What they have done to the Tibetans is brutal. Brutal. Brutal. And whenever -- very few members go, but whenever they do, they generally go with the agreement of the Chinese government and nothing happens.

Rebiya Kadeer has two kids who are in prison. They've beaten her. And I see Harry Wu here who was in prison for 17 years. These are the experts. These are the Sakharovs, the Sharanskys, with regard to China.

The Bush administration did not do a very good job, and I have said publicly, as a Republican, that that is the case. And so what I would urge is that we put every pressure we can on the Obama administration to do better than the Bush administration. Paulson was very weak. There should be a meeting and I urge all of you to ask to meet with Geithner to say we do not want you to respond the same way that Paulson.

Secondly, and maybe this panel could put together a letter, we should ask the Obama administration to put an ambassador in who has the courage to stand with the dissidents. Current ambassador, Clark Randt -- and I don't know what the status was -- was literally almost always with the Chinese government, not with the dissidents.

During the days of Ronald Reagan, the ambassador stood with the dissidents in Poland and Czechoslovakia and Hungary; the last administration, they did not. So we need an ambassador and I think you all ought to come up with someone that you think would be a good ambassador, somebody that you would have confidence in and make sure -- and I hope -- and let me just say it for the record -- I hope that Clark Randt is not going to go out and work for a business that's doing business in China, because we don't need people in ambassador's jobs who are looking for later jobs.

Thirdly, we need a good assistant secretary. That spot stayed open for over a year -- over a year -- and I think we need an aggressive assistant secretary. Maybe as this panel could come together with them with some idea whereby -- where Secretary Clinton will put in somebody who is an advocate for the dissidents who will always speak out, who is not looking to know where they're going to go on their next job, but this is the number one job. Unless they -- I would urge that perhaps the panel can ask and I would urge all of you to meet with the secretary early. Personnel is policy. Personnel is policy. You put the right person in, they'll be aggressive and active.

So I want to thank the witnesses and I think it's great that this is the first hearing that we have had. These are the heroes with regard to this. We need an ambassador who will advocate for all of these cases.

And also, don't forget, the evangelical -- the Protestant church is going through a difficult time. The Catholic Church is going through a difficult time. There are Catholic bishops in jail. They're selling organs. They have organs. They're spying against the government. My computer was compromised.

The computer of a lot of other members here -- the computer of IR committee was compromised. They also compromised the computers of the White House in the Bush administration.

And so Secretary Rice didn't take these opportunities to vocally speak out -- hopefully this next secretary. Meet with the secretary. You all should meet with them. We should ask to meet with them. Have somebody who will be an advocate as the assistant secretary, somebody that you feel comfortable to go to -- and this committee can, and lastly, an ambassador in China who will advocate with regard to Tibet and not worry.

I can remember when Chris Smith and I were there in July, everyone that we were going to meet with was arrested and the bantering between the secretary and the foreign minister the next day was what venue are you going to go see -- what Olympic venue were you going to go see, when these people were arrested right under the nose of the secretary.

So we need a secretary that will stand up, a secretary of Treasury that will stand up, an assistant secretary that will be really an advocate who really believes, and lastly, an ambassador that you know, when there's a case, will go down to the foreign ministry and pound on the door and not worry about where he or she is going to work later on.

And with that, I'm going to go to my meeting and turn it back over. But I want to thank the panel.

Who's ever going to -- whoever fills in with Jim and me leaving and --

REP. : And now we're prepared to hear the testimony of Harry Wu. And thank you very much for being here today.

MR. WU: First of all, I'm very happy that Human Rights Caucus changed the name into Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. And Tom Lantos was a great man. We, as the Chinese dissidents, all the time remember this great man.

First of all, I want to respond to Congresswoman Donna Edwards talking about women's rights. I think you remember in 1995 Hillary Clinton was in Beijing and said women rights is a part of human rights. This was 14 years ago. Is there anything changed today?

Unfortunately, Chinese implement a policy so-called birth control, so-called control the population, in the last 30 years. Simply, we can summarize this policy. Every woman in China -- it doesn't matter what is their position, their income, whatever, if they want to give birth, they need a permit -- permit from the government; without a permit, illegal. When you've got a permit you can make a life and pregnant and give birth. That's it -- one child for one family. And you pregnant again -- illegal.

How to handle it? Forced abortion. Forced sterilization. That is basic policy. So that's why 2005 Chinese authorities say, well, we are very happy that we -- until today we have 1.3 billion population, so we reduced the number 300 million. Oh my gosh -- 300 million.

We say 10 percent of them, the boy was born, the girl was born and (eliminated ?) -- forced abortion. That means 30 million population.

That is a basic human right. Giving birth is a fundamental right. The Chinese -- every woman don't have it. You don't have a government permit, stop, no pregnancy. This is a human rights situation.

Unfortunately, this month a Chinese officer make an announcement. He said, well, we make an investigation from 2001 to 2006 and we find out 70.7 percent of women, they want to have a second child. They wish -- only wish. Okay, that's three years ago. This is not investigated by BBC or Voice of America, or whatever, outside the Chinese community. Seventy-point-seven percent women say I want a second child and no one have it. And the policy was still going on. You will pay the fine if you give a second child. Even they destroy your house. Even they arrest you, forced to abort or sterilized. How many women sterilized? How many abortions? We never know.

From the top -- from the central government and to the village, everywhere they have a so-called population control officer. They can arrange the police. They can arrange the transportation, arrange all the government agencies, come up to you and arrest you and force your abortion. Unfortunately the policy was still going on.

And very interesting -- Chinese government last December released a human rights report never talking about abortion, never talking about women rights, but China has 22 percent population of the world; that means millions, millions women.

The second policy in China: religions policy. I'm not going to say that religion is free or not, but I can remind you, the biggest religion in the world -- Roman Catholic -- is forbidden in China -- illegal. Okay? I don't if know the congressman or senator or the president is Roman Catholic or not, but anyway, the Roman Catholic is illegal inside China.

But the Chinese set up a kind of so-called -- (word inaudible) -- church. They're talking about religious freedom. Okay, they're training the young men and women to become priests, become a nun inside of a -- (word inaudible) -- church. Unfortunately, our two presidents -- President Clinton and President Bush -- participate the -- (word inaudible) -- church. But you have to know the priest and bishop; maybe sometimes they will nominate a catholic pope because they set up a catholic -- (word inaudible).

Before you say that -- in the (god ?) you have to say not in the party, love in to your country. The government who destroyed the church, well, today they spend a lot of money rebuild the church. But some people want to spend their money, have their own religions, family, church -- they were destroyed.

Number three: China is "oneism": one party, one leader, one- system country. "Oneism": that means talking about communism ideology. One party: that means Communist Party. Communist Party has 70 million members, control from everywhere -- from transportation to education to media to the government to the military. All of the leaders are member of the party, and Hu Jintao was the leader. When he was elected the people ask me -- say, what is your view? I say, I'm sorry, I have no view because he is not elected by me. Even he was not elected by the party member. He was nominated by Deng Xiaoping.

So this country is entirely controlled by one party, one leader. If I disagree with him, if I have some comments, if I criticize him -- what could happen to me? Well, simply, the Chinese will say go to the laogai. Probably some of them don't know the laogai, but today laogai is common word. It's in the dictionary -- in the Oxford Dictionary, in all these Italian, German, French dictionary. It means similar to a Soviet gulag. I was there 19 years just -- it's not 17 years. I was 19 years.

It is true, the recent 30 years the number of the laogai is smaller. But you know, as Honorable McGovern said, so many dissidents -- who are these people, what they did? Recently Chinese -- (name inaudible) -- was in the prison camp. It is very clear the case -- just because they have the idea, they have say something, that you have to go to the laogai and -- (inaudible).

Before 1994, Chinese prison camp they called this a laogai detachment. In 1994 the government make an announcement -- we stop using the laogai (term ?), because that will be good for us, good for Chinese government, good in international human rights environment because we don't want the people create a new idea like the Soviet have the gulag, Chinese the laogai.

But they said -- there's a but -- the function of the laogai -- laogai, it means reform and labor. Reform means all the prisoners, including the petty thief, including the murderer, they have to uphold communism. They have to have a so-called brainwashing, become a new socialist person later. And second point is forced labor.

So you see that all the Chinese prison camps have two different functions, okay. Even each prison camp has two different names. Chinese prison camps have an enterprise name as a brick factory, as a farm, as hand tools manufactory, as artificial manufactory, as a coal mine. I was working the coal mine for nine years. So all the workers actually is a prison -- is prisoners and they made a lot of products.

America thinks 1991 promotion and put some American enterprises in the court and (confiscate ?) many products, but in recently -- a couple of 10 years, almost they do nothing. The Chinese laogai products actually still working and exporting to the United States.

The last issue I want to briefly talk about is execution. Before 2007, China always holding the executions publicly because this is education for the dictatorship. They gather the people in the stadium and in the public area and announce the prisoner's sentence of death and shoot in front of the thousands and thousands of people. And particularly, these executions always happen before the vacation day because they want to keep the people happy on October 1st, a new year, in labor day -- always they did it. And this is good education to reduce the criminal rate.

But interestingly, after 2006 -- and today you never heard of any execution happen in China. They don't have it? Of course they have it. Even they'd never notice the family. They kill it, cremate it and notice the family come to gather urn of ashes. That's it. But there is a new, very interesting development. The last 30 years Chinese -- how to use the cadavers, whatever, using the prisoners' organs for transplant patients. This is only country today in the world, okay? In 2006 the number one country of the world for the organ transplants is America; America have more than 15,000 organ transplants. But none of the donors is related to the prisoners or really to execution, death row prisoners. China have 13,000 organ transplants, but Chinese government admitted 95 percent of the organs has come from executed prisoners.

Well, we make the interview; we talk to the doctors. They don't care. So Americans passed a law (prohibiting ?) the doctors come to United States. The same 2007 in China in surface there's no execution, but they did still killing and also attach (under ?)the killing inject a (leather?) to kill the prisoners.

Let me stop here and say about -- something about the current administration, Obama. So far we never heard Obama administration respond to China and we don't hear anything about China respond to Mr. Obama. But there's one response: Chinese change or reduce something from Obama's inauguration speech. They reduced one thing, reduced the communism and reduced the dissidents, two parts. So far I never hear any other country do it.

It is true we America have a lot of business with China, and Chinese bought a lot of American bombs; 50 million is a big -- no, bigger -- 50 billion is a big amount. But anyway, business is not promoting human rights or change the one-party ruling system at all in China. Unfortunately, the former, the previous administration, include Clinton, include Bush, not doing very well. I really hope Obama have a new position and put human rights in the right position. Thank you.

REP. : Thank you, Mr. Wu.

Lucie Morillon from the Reporters Without Borders. Thank you.

MS. MORILLON: Thank you. I would like to thank the co-chairs of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission for the opportunity to present this testimony today.

China has one of the world's worst records in terms of violations of press freedom. It was ranked 167 out of 173 countries in Reporters Without Borders' latest Press Freedom Index that was published last October.

The number of arrests and cases of new surveillance and manipulation is still very high. China is the world's largest presence for journalists and cyber dissidents, with 30 reporters and 49 cyber dissidents currently in jail. Despite these numbers, many news media entities are trying to elude the straightjacket of censorship and police control.

The Olympic Games were China's coming-out party to the world and an opportunity to showcase its power, but they were also the opportunity for the authorities to crack down on dissidents. And since the end of the games, the repression has not let up; quite the contrary. President Hu Jintao's promotion of a harmonious society clearly excludes democracy and free speech.

In my testimony before this commission, I will stress a main issue regarding specifically press freedom in China. We had some very interesting testimonies before and I'll try to be as brief as I can.

Despite the adoption in 2007 of new rules allowing more freedom to foreign reporters in the run-up to the games, surveillance of foreign journalists was stepped up before and during the games. More than 50 of them were attacked, arrested or obstructed during the games and dozens of Chinese citizens were arrested for talking to the foreign media.

However, last October Reporters Without Borders welcomed the Chinese authorities' announcement that those rules would become permanent. As a result, foreign reporters are (historically ?) able to move about freely in the country to conduct interviews without prior approval, and the exception, unfortunately, is Tibet where special permission is needed to go to. This is a positive step and we recognize it, but it's also a missed opportunity to really improve the situation.

First of all, the authorities should have introduced rules counting real freedom of movement, including in Tibet. We should have more freedom to interview people including officials and as a protection of confidentiality of sources for journalists and confidentiality of their communications should also be improved.

The fate of Chinese journalists and interpreters who are employed by foreign media is also still very precarious. This was the fact that these rules were actually --became permanent with proof that international pressure in China can bear fruit from time to time. Another example is at the World Trade Organization, after multiple pressures, Bloomberg and other business news wires were allowed to distribute their stories directly to the Chinese media and not only through the state news agency Xinhua, as it is the case for other news agencies.

The political police and the propaganda department are the two main forces working to prevent freedom of expression and trying to block the liberal press, Internet users and dissidents. However, the effects of their constant censorship and surveillance is not only a silencing of political or social criticisms, this is also a criminal censorship.

Let's talk about the recent tainted milk scandal. The censorship imposed by the Chinese government had a direct impact on the health of tens of thousands of newborn babies in China and in other countries, and the depth of suffering of these babies could have been avoided had journalists and researchers been able to publish the information they had about it as early as December 2007. This was published only in September 2008.

However, despite all the negatives, a few positive trends can be seen. The rise of the Internet in China has produced a new forum for discussion and is more likely to cover controversial topics such as social riots, consumer rights and so on. The Internet is pushing traditional media to cover topics they would usually not be able to cover or not be willing to cover.

Sometimes foreign journalist stories are being posted on exiled Chinese websites and these stories make it back to the Chinese Internet, even if there's heavy censorship from the authorities. And once these stories are out there, the mainstream media is forced to cover them. Some liberal media outlets have also been testing the limits of censorship. I am thinking of -- (inaudible) -- Beijing News. They have, for instance, broken the story a few months ago of how local governments were sending petitioners into psychiatric hospitals. This is a very important story that the mainstream media would not have covered.

Human rights defenders in China have also been harshly targeted by the Chinese authorities who were trying to make an example out of some of them. We mentioned earlier the case of Hu Jia being treated as a criminal in China, when he is getting international awards and attention. He received the European Parliament's prestigious Sakharov Prize last December, and this was a victory for all human rights defenders.

Chairman McGovern was asking what's the latest on his case. We were able to talk to his wife in December. She was saying he was transferred to the Beijing municipal prison in October, that his health seems to be a little better, but they have had -- he has had two blood test results that are not being known, so she was pretty worried about his cirrhosis and whether or not this is getting worse.

So we are definitely keeping an eye on this.

We mentioned also earlier Charter '08. This calls for the rule of law and respect for human rights in China. This is a very important document, a blueprint for fundamental political change in China, which has been signed by thousands of people and has provoked a harsh reaction from the government. Dissident Liu Xiaobo has been detained since December 8. But despite the efforts of the Chinese government to quiet these voices speaking out for change, the movement has been receiving attention and support on an international scale.

Reporters Without Borders has submitted a contribution to the Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review. We are calling upon the UPR to take seriously our concerns along with those of the human rights community and definitely from the political gains and alliances that are being played out in the council. It is the UPR's duty to assess fairly the situation of human rights in China, and this particular review next month is especially important since it's dealing with countries like China, Russia, important players on the international scene.

Our recommendations for China to the UPR are: to obtain the release of all journalists and Internet users detained for exercising their right to seek and provide information; continue to improve the new rules regarding reporters' access to Tibet and protection of their sources; disband the publicity department -- the former propaganda department, which exercises daily control over the content in the Chinese press; and the jamming of foreign radio stations and the blocking of thousands of news and information websites based abroad; suspend the laws and the self-discipline pacts that lead to content censorship on the Internet and the blacklisting of journalists and human rights activists, which prevent them from visiting China; lift the ban on Chinese media use of foreign news agency footage for news reports without prior permission; and legalize the independent organizations of journalists and human rights activists.

Regarding specifically the U.S., we'd like to see the new U.S. administration make human rights a priority, not a second thought in its policy toward China. We also would like to see more U.S. involvement in the upcoming UPR process.

Kumar was mentioning earlier the Global Online Freedom Act, this bill which aims at preventing American companies from being forced to collaborate with Chinese and other Internet-restricting countries. And we'd like to see Congress pass this bill. We believe it's a very important step for the future of freedom of information in China.

We also would like to see more U.S. congressmen and U.S. officials visit dissidents in China, come to meetings with their counterparts with a list of prisoners that need to be released and not only during the human rights dialogue but every time they have an opportunity. I know a lot of you already do it, but the more we do it, the more efficient it will be. Representative Frank Wolf has been very famous for doing this.

And last thing, while China is expanding its news operations abroad, giving more and more money to the state agency Xinhua and to CCTV, we also would like to see the United States denounce before the union of international telecommunication the jamming of U.S. radio stations, especially Radio Free Asia, Voice of America, stations that are being supported by Congress and being paid by -- with U.S. taxpayer money.

Thank you.

REP. : Thank you.

And I'll defer to Congresswoman Schakowsky. Do you have a question?

REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D-IL): I did want to ask some questions about freedom of speech.

So during the Olympics, there was more of an opening or no?

No? Tell me about that.

MS. MORILLON: Well, the Olympics was an opportunity for the Chinese government to crack down on dissidents. We had a lot of dissidents being arrested, some of them being sent out of Beijing before the games happened. Basically, everyone that was criticizing the government before or in the run-up to the games was considered an enemy of China and the games were actually an opportunity for the government to control the dissidents. So we've seen more repression during the games --

REP. SCHAKOWSKY: Well, what about the journalists? You were promised more freedom during the Olympics.

MS. MORILLON: Well, it was partly true for foreign reporters since they had -- since January 2007 we had these new rules where foreign reporters were able to go to different parts of China without asking for prior permission. As it was the case before, they were able to interview people and so on without prior permission again.

But we've seen dozens of Chinese being arrested. I met with some foreign reporters who were complaining that they interviewed some people about being relocated because of the constructions for the games and these people were arrested like the day after they --

REP. SCHAKOWSKY: So in other words, you may have more freedom in going around and talking to people, but the people that you talk to --

MS. MORILLON: Exactly.

REP. SCHAKOWSKY: -- then end up being arrested?

MS. MORILLON: It's a very subtle way to control the information. So I would say there was a little bit more freedom for foreign reporters but more consequences for the people they would talk to.

REP. SCHAKOWSKY: So how does that affect your work? Does that mean that you actually don't do it because of the consequences?

MS. MORILLON: Well, you're -- you try to be extra careful when you talk to people in China because you know that their freedom is at stake. And this is something a lot of reporters have been complaining during the games, that they didn't know when they should talk to the people or if they should make sure that they meet at a specific place to draw as little attention as you can. So it's less -- you have less (spontaneity ?) when you talk to the people in the streets because you're afraid they would be arrested.

Tiananmen Square was full of plain-clothes police, more than regular tourists. So if you would talk to someone there and this person would complain about anything wrong with the government, it's very likely they would end up in jail. So I guess this had some consequences in how foreign reporters were going to the Chinese people and this sort of self-censorship as well.

REP. SCHAKOWSKY: So advocating for journalists in the UPR process may not be all that helpful. We have to be advocating for dissidents or just for ordinary people who want more freedom of speech in China.

MS. MORILLON: Well, journalists are important not because they are journalists, because they are a relay between the people and what's going on. They are supposed to be holding accountable the powerful.

It's very hard for journalists working for the mainstream media, but some of them have their daily job and they write what they can. They try to push the limits of censorship as the liberal media outlets are doing, and this really needs our support. And sometimes they also, when they cannot write it down, they're going to use the Internet to cover stories, to write about stories they wouldn't be able to do in the mainstream media. So it's still very important to be supporting not only foreign reporters but the Chinese reporters who are trying to push the limits of censorship.

REP. SCHAKOWSKY: One of you testified -- was it about Yahoo and the role that -- you did -- about the -- okay -- about the role that they played in that, actually --

MR. KUMAR: Yeah, what happened was actually -- Lucie is also an expert on this. There was one journalist, Shi Tao, in China. He sent out some e-mail information to someone in New York using Yahoo account, about 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

And the Chinese police knew from this particular Yahoo account message went out. They didn't know who the person was.

So they contacted Yahoo and asked, "Can you identify?" and they gladly identified. And as a result, on the information provided by Yahoo, this journalist, Shi Tao, was imprisoned, sentenced for 10 years and he's still in prison. And to our knowledge, at least four prisoners are imprisoned -- four journalists were imprisoned on the strength of Yahoo information. These are minimum we were able to get. There may be more.

So as a result, there was an uproar and Tom Lantos and everyone -- Chris Smith and others -- took a leadership, and GOFA, Global Online Freedom Act, was brought in. And it died during the last Congress. Now it's been coming again --

REP. SCHAKOWSKY: And that legislation would've what?

MR. KUMAR: It would have restricted U.S. companies from providing information about journalists and others without checking with the State Department -- Lucie, (I'm correct ?) -- because there may be criminals -- you know, there may be genuine criminal information, law and order information Chinese may need. So how to identify genuine law and order requests from a journalist's information -- so this law basically says you have to check with State Department to make sure that this person is not to be -- (inaudible).

Even that, corporations didn't like it. So we hope under your leadership --

REP. SCHAKOWSKY: Yeah, that seems like a really sensible--

MR. KUMAR: Yeah, it's an important -- it's actually good for U.S. corporations. They can always say that, "Sorry, we can't give you without checking." I mean, they may not like to give, but they give. And there are other Internet companies, but Yahoo is the one that was directly involved in putting people in prison.

REP. SCHAKOWSKY: Thank you. Well, maybe we can initiate a rebirth of that legislation.

MR. KUMAR: Yeah. It's already been drafted, yeah. But we will get back to you on that. Thank you very much.

REP. SCHAKOWSKY: Great. In general, I think we'd all welcome at least a review of various administrative or legislative changes. That makes sense, so if you could make sure that you give us those ideas. Thank you. I'm going to have to leave but I appreciate it.

MR. : Thank you very much.

REP. : I just have a couple of questions, and then we'll close. I'm curious if you could tell me in this upcoming UPR some really helpful suggestions for the role that the United States should play in that, because I'm concerned about whether, what we get out of a process will have any validity if, you know, if there's not the right kind of advocacy, and I wonder, as China was just reviewed by the UN committee against torture, which is the oversight treaty body of the prevention against torture, what insights, if any, that any of you would be able to share, could the international community take away from that review and apply to the UPR? Perhaps, you know, there aren't lessons to be learned there, but I suspect there might be.

MS. MORILLON (?): Thank you, -- (off-mike). There are enormous lessons. The lessons are, first of all, not to be intimidated. Second of all, -- (off-mike) -- asked for specific information. (Off- mike) -- information about state laws -- (off-mike) -- and help. Many of the recommendations of the committee on torture asked further information about specific cases, whether it was -- (off-mike) --, some of the other prominent cases of individuals, -- (off-mike) -- as well. The more often these cases are brought up, the more you rest the fact that human rights addresses real people. It's not about some vague policy. It's about real people. -- (off-mike).

Secondly, there is the fact that the Chinese have tried again and again to dismiss these conclusions as somehow irrelevant or maybe even rude on the part of the -- (off-mike) -- union. They have called the part of the committee ( off-mike) working very hard -- (off-mike) -- not to degrade the issue. I gave two examples at the outset of things that I think indicate that they can ask countries like the Netherlands and Finland about whether nongovernment -- (off-mike) -- the effectiveness of government, whether -- (off-mike) -- counterproductive or not, -- (off-mike).

One of the things that is clearest is in our review in the Committee Against Torture, we have identified three overarching problems affecting everything -- (off-mike) -- China. One was the State Secrets Act. Second was the -- (off-mike) -- to human rights (defendants ?). Third was the fact that unaccountable -- (off-mike) -- were used to silence -- (inaudible) -- with no accountability. These three issues really need to be followed up. They were -- (off- mike) -- by an authoritative committee. They are well known practices, and the result of that is there's an information blockade, -- (off-mike) -- about what happened. (Off-mike) -- Province, about how the borders are treated, or every other subject -- (off-mike) -- and it is important to recognize that an overarching state secrets policy enforced by unaccountable harassment will -- (off-mike) -- further oppression, not further -- (off-mike).

REP. : Yes.

MR. WU (?): In addition to the -- (inaudible) -- to act strongly -- (inaudible) -- at the UPR process. I just wanted to mention two positive impacts it would have. First of all, at the individual levels, raising specific cases would be a strong message to the Chinese people that they have some people who are monitoring their situation, and thereby, the Chinese government will be made accountable to what it is doing. This will have a longterm impact on the broad issue of changing system in China, because ultimately, unless we have the system in China change -- (inaudible) -- we cannot hope for any long-lasting solutions. Therefore, from these two prospectives, I think it's -- (inaudible) -- that the United States pay close interest in this issue. Not just pay, but be seen as paying interest, because that's important. Sometimes saying something behind closed doors has less impact than saying something publicly.

REP. : Thank you, and I just, before you respond, I do have a question, actually, for Ms. Kadeer and Mr. Wu, and it relates to your references to the condition and status of women. And I wonder if there are particular areas of inquiry with respect to women that could be illustrated in the UPR process.

MR. : The Chinese government had a new policy, which forcefully transfers young, unmarried Uygher women from rural east Turkestan into Eastern part of China under the name of giving them employments, basically taking them out of their home environment and out of their love of their parents and to Eastern part of China to make them do sort of slave, or forceful labor. In the past, the Chinese authority -- this policy just started in June 2006.

In the past the government began to recruit young, unmarried Uygher women from 16 to 25 year olds. Now, the age of them have lowered, from 14 to 25. And we have information from Chinese statistics, putting some 240,000 instances of transfer. This transfer has been maybe more. And we're not exactly sure, but the number, in addition to, of course, the family planning and other kind of policies imposed upon the Uygher people.

But, in addition to other groups, we did submit a UPR report to the UN and the High Commissioner Office for Human Rights, but we have recently learned that this office has done a summary report of all the UPR submissions by NGO's. And among these groups, actually, Chinese government affiliates groups like All-China Women's Federation, All- China Workers' Reunion. They also, as independent organizations submitted reports for the UPR process on behalf of the Chinese government.

So, in this summary report, the UN office, office for High Commissioner for Human Rights, in its summary report, they basically use the Chinese -- affiliated groups report to counterbalance, like Tibetan groups -- (inaudible) -- reports, and human rights watch. All of their, basically, reports counterbalance them, basically diluted the human rights violation situations. So Ms. Kadeer is saying that that's why U.S. plays a very critical role in bringing up the human rights violations of the Chinese Government and take advantage of the UPR process effectively so that China will become accountable.

REP. : Is there anything that is in the review process that would identify the government affiliated entities so that it, at least there is sunshine on where that's coming from, so that one is not balancing, essentially, government entities with the independent NGO community.

MR. TSERING (?): Yeah. On the website, actually, at the website of OHCHR, you will see all the reports submitted by the independent human rights groups, such as ours, Tibetans (Amnesty ?) human rights -- (inaudible). At the same time, you will see the reports submitted by the Chinese government and affiliated groups. But on the website it doesn't say that they are affiliated, but we know they are Chinese government organizations. So, during the summary report process, it seems the office has used their reports, given equal weight to those reports, and some weight to our reports, using their so called -- (inaudible) -- to counterbalance, and basically knock off the human rights violations that we put into our reports. And that summary report is going to be used during the UPR process, unfortunately.

REP. : Mr. Wu.

MR. WU: Obama released financial support for United Nation operation control. I agree with it. But it should not include the Chinese program. And so far, we know that the Chinese has a big promotion using the United Nation money. Actually, they covered up all the truths. They selected the county for the people to be there. But this is not true. And China today has a lot of money. They don't need money from the United Nations. Thank you.

REP. : Thank you. Ms.Gaer, I think you've got a response.

MS. GAER : I'd just like to comment briefly on that. Throughout our review of China, issues of domestic violence -- (inaudible). The government of China has said repeatedly that it is not responsible for this issue, that it's been the -- (inaudible) -- of our committee, and they don't encourage it, therefore, they don't have any treaty obligations to prevent it from happening. Clearly, this is going to be the most widespread issue one could ask -- (inaudible). There is no subject that the Chinese could ask other countries more information about than how they treat women and children.

Second area is the Koreans, the North Koreans who have come into China. Large numbers of asylum seekers, mostly women, many of them trafficked, they have, many of them are seeking to escape to find food for their families. They have children who can't go to school. They are hidden. They are practically abused, including near slave-like conditions. The Chinese don't make this area available to the United Nations' High Commissioner of Human Rights. They don't help these women at all. A little sunshine there, allowing them up into that region could make a huge difference. That's another area.

There are many areas, but particularly those three are ones that involve large numbers of people. The Chinese are asking everyone what they are doing to help women, and you ought to be focused on that. Thank you for your interest.

REP. : Mr. Kumar, I have a question for you regarding legal reform. What are the legal reform efforts that have been made to protect the basic rights that are codified in the universal declaration of human rights and convention, and how effective were they?

MR. KUMAR: I don't have a full reply to that, but overall, we can say that to whatever qualification they tried, it has been pretty much nullified by the communist party full control over the -- (inaudible) -- process there. We always say there is no independence -- (inaudible) -- in China. So they may have tried on the bottom level. For example, access to lawyers. Still, we have documented that there is no genuine access to lawyers. They allow lawyers, but there will be people around them, or they restrict access to lawyers, even for a couple of months of detention. So, overall, we will say the qualification is not working there and that they have basically ignored the obligations.

REP. : Thank you. It looks like I've been left standing. I want to thank each of you for your testimony today and I'm sure that we'll have an additional opportunity to inquire of you. I think it would be actually helpful for this commission to have some sense, and you can do that offline, of the status of various of the dissidents that we've talked about because it will help for our future inquiry. And I would encourage you and we'll certainly do this as colleagues to take advantage of the suggestion made by Mr. Wolf when it comes to having an ongoing and early dialogue with the Obama administration, in particularly with Secretary Clinton as she moves forward at the State Department.

And I want to thank each of you for being here today. And I'd love to be able to ask even more questions, but as I get a little more established, and we do, on this commission, I'm sure we will have additional inquiry. Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.

END

Source