« PrécédentContinuer »
in using its great economic power to try to promote human rights. I agree that we've got a great deal to do and should be doing on that score.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you.
Mr. Gaffney, it's nice to see you again. Apparently in your testimony you indicated that basically you couldn't trust these governments—and some people might argue you can't trust any government. But did we maybe make a mistake in looking at China solely in terms of economic reform, a move towards private enterprise and capitalism, and forget to notice that there was no political reform going on in China? Did we forget that it was just as authoritarian and totalitarian as it was in the past and it simply had figured out that it needed to make economic changes? Is there a difference in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union because while everything is reversible, political reform is occurring? You know, someone once said the election in Moscow may have made elections in some cities in the United States look somewhat tainted, with the opposition getting some 80 percent of the vote and incumbents, which is a frightening thought, getting defeated without opponents.
Did we miss the boat a little there as we were watching China, so excited about them mimmicking our economic system that we failed to notice they weren't changing their political system?
Mr. GAFFNEY. This has become sort of a commonplace of modern or contemporary students of the subject, Congressman. I don't profess to know the answer. I think my guess is that there is a continuing belief that economic change will bring about fundamental political transformation-with or without an counterpart effort on the political level. I think a lesson from the Chinese experience is that that ain't necessarily so.
I would also suggest to you, however, that it ain't necessarily so that the kind of political change we've seen thus far, in the Soviet Union-which is, even accepting what you've said about its novelty and perhaps its contrast with democratic practices elsewhere, still a fair piece removed from a genuine, pluralistic, democratic system-is a sufficient basis for excessive confidence. My guess is that at the end of the day we're going to find in both countries that making irreversible access to Western economic financial and technology resources, in anticipation of change on either level, political or economic, is a mistake. That's the lesson I would take away from the Chinese thing, and I'm afraid we're about to see it replicated in Eastern Europe.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Democracy is tough to hang on to almost everywhere.
Let me thank this panel for their excellent testimony. We hope to be seeing you again.
Mr. GAFFNEY. Thank you. Mr. NEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GEJDENSON. The next panel is Mr. Ye, a student at the Washington College of Law, American University, formerly on the faculty of the Chinese University of Political Science and the Law in Beijing, and Mr. Ke, a Ph.D. candidate, University of Maryland, formerly a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing.
Gentlemen, your statements will be placed in the record. Feel free to give us either a summary of your statement or read whatever parts of it you would like. We will start with Mr. Ye.
STATEMENTS OF YE NING, STUDENT, WASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY; AND KE GANG, PH.D. CANDIDATE, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
STATEMENT OF YE NING Mr. YE NING. To this distinguished panel of the U.S. Congress, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation for this great opportunity to speak with you about the difficult times my country is undergoing.
The first blood spilled at Peking has been washed away through the passing of time. The first 29 lives of my fellow citizens were publicly executed by the Peking regime. What is left behind in China is a reign of fascist totalitarian terror, and the duty of all mankind is to remove this terror.
In this extremely difficult time, I turn to you American people, calling for your strong message to be sent to the Peking regime by imposing severe, comprehensive economic sanctions. I call for sanctions because I think that the present Chinese regime deserves a drastic punishment from the world community. Gross violations of human rights in China have been found.
Premier Li Peng has argued that the military troops were forced to shoot bullets into the mob, the so-called mob, because the troops did not have enough tear gas. But the evidence shows that not only machine guns and tanks, but also "dum dum" bullets were used to shoot the peaceful civilians.
[Showing newspaper photographs.]
This picture shows the victim, one of my fellow citizens, with a hole in his head. It is so large. It is alleged that "dum dum" bullets can create such a wound.
Also, there is a picture of the body remains which were crushed, mashed by a tank.
This picture from a Hong Kong newspaper shows the results of exploding “dum dum” bullets.
I also noticed that the Chinese government participated in the Geneva Convention, which forbids such kinds of weapons. So it is not purely Chinese internal affairs. It is a kind of violation of international law.
It is also important to realize that the massacre in Peking was not an isolated event, but reflective of the growing inability of the government to deal with expressions of political freedom and religious independence.
I would like to refer to a separate case. On April 17, at Yu Tong village, Hebei Province, 1,500 Christian farmers assembled at the site where their church was destroyed during the cultural revolution for their religious ceremonies. Those 1,500 Christians were surrounded by 5,000 armed police and the armed police shot at them. Three Christians were shot to death instantly, including one child 7 years of age, and more than 100 Christian farmers were wounded.
In this haunted dark night in China's history, I turn to you, the American people. I would suggest-I would emphasize on the wording a comprehensive economic sanction, meaning only grains and medical supplies are not included in this scope.
Let me respond briefly to some argument against such kind of sanctions. First, some fear that these sanctions would force China to embrace Russia, this allegation, even though it is a fact that China has deep-rooted reasons to keep away from Russia. Second, that Russia's value to China was Stalinist. The Chinese have no interest in glasnost. The present leader is also not politically interested in the policies carried out by Mr. Gorbachev. After all, Gorbachev provided the opportunities for the demonstrators to get the world's attention. Also, the most important thing is that with the improvement of Soviet-American relations, such kind of allegation has lost its roots. And also, the Soviet Union nowadays has its own troubles, dealing with its economic problems and racial problems. So I cannot imagine that the Soviet Union would take such a terrible image to embarrass the Chinese martial law government at this point.
Second, some fear that these sanctions would shut the door on China to the rest of the world. Yet, the only part of Deng Xiaoping's legacy that remains is the open door policy on which he rode to power. If China's door is closed again, it will lose at least 20 percent of its industry and 13 million self-employed workers would lose their jobs and income. So China cannot afford such kind of self-isolation.
On the other hand, the huge coastal provinces, 14 coastal cities and the four special economic zones have formed a huge economic net relying on the open door policy. Furthermore, those bureaucrats, their illegal income, depend upon the open door policies. So it was 20 years ago that China's self-isolation brought China a stability, and then, 20 years later, today, the self-isolation policy will bring about the instability to China, will bring economic and political chaos to China. So that worry has no roots, in my opinion.
In 1983, Professor Hobuwa published a survey on the effectiveness of economic sanctions in world politics. Among the 23 cases that he studied, 11 were examples of success. The most successful case that he studied was that of Poland, a success so obvious that I do not need to repeat the point. So sanctions can work, he argues, because the economic sanction can change the attitude of the targeted country. Second, the economic sanction can help allies to work together. Third, the economic sanction can tell the people in the country that the world cares.
Of course, there is a difference between China and Poland, as mentioned by Professor Oksenberg, because in 1980, the Solidarity trade union just raised the banner for bread and butter. But in 1989, the civilian demonstrations at Tiananmen Square, they erect the guardian of democracy-that means the Statue of Liberty, because we are already at the end of the 1980s.
As the leader of the free world, the U.S. has a moral responsibility to send a powerful message to China at this time. The government now threatens to uproot our entire movement. It is hoping imprison persons whose only crime is that they have contact w the West, or in the case-I would like to take the case of Y
Wei. The name may be familiar to your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. Yang Wei was reportedly arrested again in Shanghai, and last month I met his wife, Miss Chur So Li. His wife told me her husband didn't participate in any political activities this time, but he was still arrested. This ominous message indicates that China's government wants to uproot any potential for freedom and democracy, and they want to destroy the true spirit of this nation. So the future of China cannot stand together with this totalitarian fascist regime.
During the peak of the democratic spring, and even after the June 4th massacre, loud speakers in Shanghai were mounted in the public square. Hundreds of thousands of people in the public square of Shanghai and Hong Jo, hundreds of thousands of people listened to the Voice of America, not radio Moscow.
The fourth point is that in the 1930s, when economic sanctions were initiated against Hitler's regime, the pacifist Sir Chamberlain opposed it on the grounds that the people in Germany would be hurt. Today, we are facing the similar allegation again. The Chinese people were said to be hurt if a comprehensive sanction is imposed against the bloody oppressors. I would like to state solemnly here, to punish the Peking government, to shorten the life expectancy of such an aging, corrupted regime, meets the fundamental interests of the Chinese people as a whole. Also, it would be understood and expected by a majority of Chinese people, especially the leading intellectuals and the university students.
Mr. SOLARZ (presiding). Excuse me, Mr. Ye. I don't want to cut you short, but we were hoping you could summarize your views in five minutes or so. We have another panel yet to go.
Mr. YE NING. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Solarz.
On this occasion, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the American people for their support of Chinese people and for their strong message which has already been sent to Peking regime. With your honorable efforts, many lives of my fellow citizens have already been saved. Deng Xiaoping has now expressed that the scope of killing should be limited. I shall say the sanction has already had positive consequences on Chinese people. So, on this occasion, I highly appreciate your honorable service of the U.S. Congress, not only for the American people but also for the people of China and for people all over the world.
Thank you very, very, very much.
STATEMENT OF YE NING
JULY 18, 1989
To this distingished panel of the U.S. Congress, I extend my heartfelt appreciation for this opportunity to speak with you about the difficult times my country is undergoing. In Peking, I was a Professor at the China University of Political Science and Law. I hold a law degree from China and a Masters of Law degree from the University of Michigan Law School.
On June 21, 1989, the Alliance of Chinese Patriots was established in the U.S. to provide a forum for the expression of democratic ideas about China throughout the world. The Alliance was founded in response to the tragedy of this democratic spring. I suknit for the record a copy of our declaration of principles.
The first blood spilled at Peking has been washed away through the passing of time. The first 29 lives of my fellow citizens were publicly executed by the Peking regime. What it left behind in China is a reign of facist terror. The duty of all mankind is to remove this terror.
I want to take a moment to relay an eyewitness account by an American friend of mine, Robert Woodruff, a lawyer with Sherman Sterling law firm, about the sequence of the tragedy in Tienerman Square, since a number of misconceptions remain. After agreeing finally to vacate the square, the remaining students began to leave peacefully and were directed to a narrow route of exit. Soldiers had already killed some of the demonstrators on Changdon Boulevard. During their attempt at exit and at other points in Peking, the army opened fire on them. Later enraged crowds burned two tanks and killed their drivers, after shooting of civilians had taken place at a number of points in the city.
Deng Xioa Ping, the head of this regime, proclaimed in his speech delivered on July 9, that his regime would never grant any leniency to those alleged hyeanas, counter revolutionaries. Many of my former classmates and students are now in custody or hiding. Enrollment in colleges for the next year in China will fall at least 20 persent, because there are not enough teachers to be found. This may be because of arbitrary arrests and the general suppression of intellectuals which is underway in China today.
In this extremely difficult time, I turn to the American people calling for your strong message to be sent to the Peking government by imposing severe economic sanctions. I call for sanctions because I think that the present Chinese government deserves a drastic punishment from the world community. Gross violations of human rights in China have been found.