Has your organization looked into this? Has it sought to detail the parameters of the abuse? I would be happy to yield to the gentleman afterwards. Mr. NEIER. The general answer is no. The exception is that in reports that we published dealing with Tibet we dealt with the question of coerced abortions. But other than in those reports on Tibet, we have not dealt with the issue. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would ask that you raise this with your board, as I have asked Holly in the past, because I think this is a very important human rights issue, as to whether or not families can choose freely to have children or not to have children. It seems to me that when you have a coercive population control policy, as we have seen in the PRC, and that which has taken place in Tibet has just been a mere extension of what the Chinese are imposing upon their own people, you should include that information in your human rights reports. Mr. NEIER. Congressman, let me just say that we have limited ourselves to the category of rights that are generally known as civil and political rights, and we have not dealt in any of our work with the category that is known as economic and social rights. The question that you raise I think is arguably at least not within the mandate that we have carved out for ourselves. In the case of Tibet, and in the case of the practice of coerced abortion, the issue there seemed to us to be sufficiently in the civil and political rights side of the ledger to make it an appropriate issue for us to deal with, since it seemed to be part of a policy which also included encouragement of transfer of population and other things so as to dilute Tibetan ethnic identity in the traditional regions of Tibet. So we got into the question on those grounds. But, in general, we tend to be resistant to getting into questions which are not in the framework of what are generally considered civil and political rights in the scheme of international human rights. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Okay. I would repeat my request that it at least be looked into by your board. Mr. NEIER. It will certainly be looked at. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. SOLARZ. Thank you. Mr. Gilman. Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the panelists before us with their thoughts. I commend you for conducting this hearing at this appropriate time. As we know, on June 29th the House passed a China sanctions amendment to the foreign aid bill, which reflects to some degree that U.S. national security interests won't somehow magically follow economic reform in China, and if we so desperately desire the market that China represents, and if we want China to be a positive force in the global community, and if some officials have reason to think we need to depend on China for geopolitical and military strategies, then I think we have to strongly condemn and act unequivocably against the repression. I don't believe that we have done so up to this time. For many of my colleagues and me who worked so hard on t Tibet issue, the legislation represented a welcome recognition the role that we must play in our policy. Although the executive branch has embraced the Chinese perspective the Tibet is an integral part of the People's Republic of China, the Congress has not allowed so-called national security considerations to determine that the all-important issue of national sovereignty should prevail. There has been much talk in the media about the big lie of the People's Republic's version about what happened in Tiananmen Square. However, the West's lack of a strong response to that big lie regarding Tibet's national sovereignty and the riots and killings in Lhasa directly influenced the June crackdown and the subsequent official Chinese interpretation. It follows, therefore, that if the executive branch continues to ignore His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, and we do not strongly support his efforts to peacefully negotiate a settlement, the prodemocracy movement will continue to suffer. As for our business interests, the atmosphere will stifle the secure environment needed for such investment. Accordingly, I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I look forward to hearing the witnesses' opinions with regard to some of these comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SOLARZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Gilman. Mr. Oksenberg, you're familiar, I assume, with the omnibus amendment that passed in the House? Mr. OKSENBERG. Yes, sir. Mr. SOLARZ. Did you support that legislation? Mr. OKSENBERG. Yes, sir. Mr. SOLARZ. I noticed you had a bit of a quibble in your testimony about the extent to which it might restrict the flexibility of the President. But you are, I am sure, aware of the fact that the amendment provided the President not with one but with two waivers, one on human rights grounds and the other on national security grounds. Mr. OKSENBERG. Right. Mr. SOLARZ. Don't you think that provides sufficient flexibility to the chief executive? Mr. OKSENBERG. That's why I stated, why my testimony reads in the way that it does. I think much depends on the escape clause, and I am content with the Senate and House versions. Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Neier and Mr. Gaffney, do both of you support a comprehensive trade embargo with China? Because when I add up the various sanctions you seek to impose, it's not clear whether there is anything left to be sold or purchased. So I would like to know, do you favor a comprehensive economic embargo, and if not, why not? In other words, why do you stop short of a total prohibition on trade? Mr. NEIER. I would say if a comprehensive trade embargo would, for example, require American businesses that have manufacturing operations in China to close those operations, we have not called for anything of that sort. I suppose the question of why one stops short of something like that is essentially a question of whether a level of sanctions that can be applied is sufficient to register the seriousness with which the United States regards what has transpired. I think that the sanctions that we've called for, which do not include something like that, do seem to us to register the seriousness with which we regard it. Mr. SOLARZ. You also didn't mention the textile quota. Are you not in favor of removing that? Mr. NEIER. Frankly, I haven't informed myself sufficiently on that particular question to be able to answer specifically with the textile quota. I should also add that I have a personal reason for not wanting to be involved in that, and that is I have a wife who benefits on one side of that equation and I would rather recuse myself on that particular issue. Mr. SOLARZ. And do you have any relatives who own farms, because we export a good deal of agricultural production to China. Mr. NEIER. No. Mr. SOLARZ. So are you in favor of prohibiting the sale of American agricultural goods to China? Mr. NEIER. I would not call for a prohibition on the sale of agricultural goods. Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Gaffney, what is your position on a comprehensive trade embargo? Mr. GAFFNEY. Well, I think, without the qualifiers and recusals, I generally agree with what my colleague has said. I believe that in all of these cases a discriminating policy is a preferable one to a sort of blanket policy. I hope before we break that we will have a chance to address, with or without Congressman Leach, the question that he put, because it does tie into this. Mr. SOLARZ. Well, if you folks are not in favor of a comprehensive, across-the-board prohibition on trade, then it is not clear to me why you believe the steps that have already been taken are not sufficient to convey the message that we want to convey and why you believe that by taking away MFN status and the right to receive high tech goods that we would be sending the message, whereas we're not sending it now, and furthermore, we would be sending it in a way that doesn't necessitate even more sanctions. In other words, what is the magic of MFN and high tech, which is what you both seem to think we should be putting the stop on? Mr. NEIER. I'm not certain that there is magic with respect to any one thing or any other thing. I do think the reasons for dealing with MFN are several. One reason, the most important reason from my standpoint, is that MFN is tied by law to the way a government deals with emigration as a result of the Jackson-Vanik amendment. I don't think it can be properly said at this moment that China is complying with what is required by Jackson-Vanik. So, first and foremost, it's a question of law from my standpoint. Mr. SOLARZ. On that point, you referred, for example, to the recall of passports and the like. I have to confess, I don't know exactly what the situation is. I fully agree with you, that if the law requires a particular course of action, we have to take it. But if it should turn out that the measures you referred to were entirely temporary in nature, and that new passports are being issued and the situation with respect to emigration rapidly becomes what it was before the crackdown in Tiananmen Square, as a result of which you would presumably then say the law no longer 1 1 } V t. fo ΟΙ fo. sh lev requires the suspension of MFX, sader tine carcumstances. favor the suspenace of MEN, or are you sing se trimary on the grounds they no longer permt fertum cration ergo has to be taken away! FOR. The second part of what I would say with respect zu States as set forth as the penalties than we (RACECT, CE you seem to feel otherwise, let me ask you light of the fact that when General Jare In a law on Poland in 1981 we imposed a series ANT VIC among other things, included a suspension of at. If the fact that we don't give MFN to the soCF = Eastern Europe-the GDR. Czechoslovar3cmaria-primarily on the grounds that their vices leave much to be desired, on what basis do sold actinue to provide MFN status to China Brand established martial law and when its wes at the present time can hardly be deemed su← tang of Four" in Eastern Europe? Ongressman, I would defend this on several ma is not Poland, and Tris a profound statement. Never before in the Gear Fut it is worth remembering, as my testimony of the Communist countries, a process of way, of uncertain consequence, and of an unWe really do not know what particular actions aocular consequence. Therefore, the measured reI have associated myself, and I think with ated yourself, is the prudent course, particutet Union and China among the Communist * 20wers. what set of internal pressures and external presthe systems to go in very different directions before. I think that is part of the notion of one you get to Mr. Leach's question, would you sahat if, in fact, China has suspended the right conclusion that people are no longer relatively free to emigrate from China, would you agree that, as a matter of law, MFN status should be terminated? Mr. OKSENBERG. Absolutely. That's the Jackson-Vanik amendment. You will remember the conversation that the United States had with China on that particular issue. I would remind you that, to date, the United States and not China has been the main source of limiting emigration from China to the United States. Mr. ŠOLARZ. You're a China scholar and expert. So far as you know, has China, in effect, terminated the right of emigration? Mr. OKSENBERG. To the best of my knowledge, no. But I would also stress at this time that there is a great deal about the situation that is unknown, and I wouldn't want to be held to that particular statement. China is in flux. It is too early to conclude that emigration has been halted. And as far as I can tell, from the vantage of the University of Michigan, the students to whom we gave visas have been arriving. Mr. SOLARZ. Under existing circumstances, do you think it would be a good idea for former President Nixon and Mr. Kissinger, either or both of whom seem to be contemplating a visit to China, to go there? Mr. OKSENBERG. Yes. Mr. SOLARZ. Why? Mr. OKSENBERG. I think it is important to have people whose stature is of long standing and respected by Chinese leaders attempt to convey to the leaders of China our reaction and why we have reacted in the way we have. I am not sure that, within the Byzantine world of high-level politics in China, Deng Xiaoping really understands why the United States has behaved in the way it has. If there is one person who is capable of reaching him, I think it's President Nixon. Mr. SOLARZ. Do you think Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger understand why the United States has reacted the way it has? They haven't exactly been leading the chorus here. Mr. OKSENBERG. Well, I would say that they may not agree, but I think they understand. Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Neier and Mr. Gaffney, I suppose, if you could be assured that the two would have a one-way ticket, you might support their going. [Laughter.] Mr. NEIER. No comment. Mr. SOLARZ. But, on the assumption that they will return, do you think it's a good idea for them to go? Mr. NEIER. I'm not happy with the prospect of photographs of Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger shaking hands with Deng Xiaoping, appearing on Chinese television to signify to the Chinese people that these international figures, people who held the highest offices in the United States, are in some way supportive of the actions of the Chinese leadership. Mr. GAFFNEY. May I get a word in edgewise, Congressman? I believe on this point, pursuant to the Helsinki Accords and all manner of other agreements, that free emigration and free trarfrom this country and so on are rights that we ought to ac even President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger. |