[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE LONG ARM OF CHINA: GLOBAL EFFORTS
TO SILENCE CRITICS FROM TIANANMEN
TO TODAY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 24, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.cecc.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-804 WASHINGTON : 2016
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
House Senate
CHRIS SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Cochairman
ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina TOM COTTON, Arkansas
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona STEVE DAINES, Montana
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee BEN SASSE, Nebraska
TIM WALZ, Minnesota DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
MICHAEL HONDA, California GARY PETERS, Michigan
TED LIEU, California
EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
CHRISTOPHER P. LU, Department of Labor
SARAH SEWALL, Department of State
STEFAN M. SELIG, Department of Commerce
DANIEL R. RUSSEL, Department of State
TOM MALINOWSKI, Department of State
Paul B. Protic, Staff Director
Elyse B. Anderson, Deputy Staff Director
(ii)
CO N T E N T S
----------
Statements
Page
Opening Statement of Hon. Christopher Smith, a U.S.
Representative From New Jersey; Chairman, Congressional-
Executive Commission on China.................................. 1
Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator From Florida; Cochairman,
Congressional-Executive Commission on China.................... 4
Hultgren, Hon. Randy, a U.S. Representative From Illinois........ 6
Teng Biao, Chinese Human Rights Lawyer; Visiting Fellow, Harvard
Kennedy School and the U.S.-Asia Institute, NYU Law School; and
Co-founder, Open Constitution Initiative....................... 7
Gui, Angela, Student and Daughter of Disappeared Hong Kong
Bookseller Gui Minhai.......................................... 8
Hassan, Ilshat, President, Uyghur American Association........... 10
Su Yutong, Journalist, Internet Activist, and Former News
Broadcaster for the Chinese Service of Deutsche Welle.......... 12
Franks, Hon. Trent, a U.S. Representative From Arizona........... 12
Teng Biao (continued)............................................ 16
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements
Teng Biao........................................................ 26
Gui, Angela...................................................... 28
Hassan, Ilshat................................................... 29
Su Yutong........................................................ 30
Smith, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Representative From New Jersey;
Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China.......... 32
Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator From Florida; Cochairman,
Congressional-Executive Commission on China.................... 34
Submissions for the Record
Written Statement Submitted for the Record by Wen Yunchao, May
24, 2016....................................................... 36
Transcription of Video: Words From Wives of Human Rights Lawyers
in China....................................................... 37
Letter From the Congressional-Executive Commission on China
Submitted to the American Bar Association, April 19, 2016...... 39
Letter From the American Bar Association in Response to Letter
From the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, April 25,
2016........................................................... 41
Witness Biographies.............................................. 44
THE LONG ARM OF CHINA: GLOBAL EFFORTS TO SILENCE CRITICS FROM TIANANMEN
TO TODAY
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2016
Congressional-Executive
Commission on China,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 12:05
p.m., in Room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Christopher
Smith, Chairman, presiding.
Also Present: Senator Rubio, Representatives Pittenger,
Hultgren, and Lieu.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, A U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY; CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-
EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
Chairman Smith. The Commission will come to order. Good
afternoon to everyone.
One year ago, U.S. Army Major Xiong Yan was barred from
visiting his dying mother in China. Major Yan is blacklisted,
denied access to China because he was a student leader of the
democracy protests in 1989. Major Yan's mother passed away last
year. Her son never had the chance to say goodbye.
The Communist leaders in Beijing use the blacklist along
with intimidation, repression, and the lure of the Chinese
market to stifle the discussion of the violence and oppression
of the Tiananmen protests and their violent suppression that
followed.
Academics such as Perry Link and Andrew Nathan are also
blacklisted for writing about Tiananmen. U.S. corporations,
eager to gain access to Chinese markets, also engaged in
censorship about Tiananmen. Last year, the California-based
LinkedIn began blocking Tiananmen-related articles posted
inside China or by members hosted on its Chinese site.
Almost 10 years ago, I chaired a series of hearings on how
Google and other Internet search engines had completely joined
in with the repression and with the censorship. I will never
forget we had Google CN, which was the Chinese version. We
posted it and showed in the Foreign Affairs Committee Room what
the average person would see in mainland China when they did a
search on Tiananmen Square and even the massacre in 1989.
Nothing but pretty pictures of folks, as compared to the
hundreds of millions of hits you would get using Google in the
United States or anywhere else.
The methods used by Beijing to enforce a code of silence
have gone global. The heavy hand of the Chinese Government has
expanded beyond its borders to intimidate and stifle critical
discussion of the Chinese Government's human rights record and
repressive policies.
Before I talk more broadly about our hearing today, let me
first say a few words about the Tiananmen massacre.
The Commission has solemnly commemorated the Tiananmen
massacre on and around June 4 each year. The Congress does this
because of the lives that were lost and persons permanently
injured in the massacre. We do so because of the profound
impact the event had on U.S.-China relations and because so
many former student leaders have made important contributions
to the global understanding of China. We mark June 4th each
year because the Chinese people are unable to mark this event
themselves.
This year, the Congress is not in session on June 4th, but
Senator Rubio and I will be sending a letter to President Xi
Jinping asking him to allow uncensored, public discussion of
the democracy protests of 1989--to end retaliation efforts
against those who participated in the protests and to release
all of those still detained for holding commemorations about
the Tiananmen protests and their violent suppression.
We will urge President Xi to allow discussion of China's
past history. We believe transparency is in the best interest
of the U.S.-China relations and will improve global perceptions
of China.
President Xi Jinping, however, seems to have a different
conception of what is in China's interest. As is well-
documented already in this Commission, his government is
engaged in an extraordinary assault on civil society and
advocates for human rights. China is not only interested in
containing the spread of ``Western values and ideas'' within
China, but is actively engaged in trying to roll back democracy
and human rights norms globally.
In fact, it would be fitting to have an empty chair at the
witness table today representing every dissident fearful of
sharing their story, every writer whose work has been censored
or edited by Chinese authorities without their knowledge, and
every journalist whose critical reporting has been blocked or
tempered--not just in China, but in the West.
China's recent efforts to blunt scrutiny of its rights
record and criticism of government policies include pushing
Thailand and Cambodia to forcibly repatriate Uyghur refugees
and Chinese asylum seekers; disappearing and allegedly
abducting five Hong Kong booksellers, including the father of
one of our witnesses today; supporting clandestine efforts to
discredit the Dalai Lama through a Communist Party-supported
rival Buddhist sect; harassing and detaining the family members
of foreign journalists and human rights advocates--two of our
witnesses today will attest to such harassment; threatening the
operations of non-governmental organizations engaged in work in
China through the newly passed Overseas NGO Management Law and
through other means.
Dr. Teng will talk about the cancellation of his book
project by the American Bar Association [ABA]. We asked--
Senator Rubio and I--the ABA to testify today, but the ABA
President Paulette Brown and the ABA's CEO Jack Rives were not
available to testify on this day. We will open the possibility
to any day that they would like to come and speak to our
Commission in an open hearing.
The ABA sent a letter to the Commission last month,
however, responding to an inquiry by the Commission about the
details surrounding their rescinding of the Teng book project.
They want that letter to serve as their testimony. I would hope
that they would go beyond it, and come here and face us and
answer legitimate questions posed by Members of the Commission.
A copy of the Commission's letter to the ABA and the ABA
response will be added to the record without objection.
The long reach of China extends beyond its borders to
Thailand, South Korea, Malaysia, India, Kenya, at the United
Nations, and in the United States.
These efforts present real strategic implications for the
United States and the international community. The abductions
of the booksellers challenge the ``one country, two systems''
model in Hong Kong. China's efforts to bend international human
rights norms present a clear challenge to the United Nations
and the Human Rights Council's efforts to hold China
accountable. China's efforts to enforce a code of silence,
globally, through its economic and diplomatic clout directly
challenge the Obama Administration's ``Asia Pivot'' and U.S.
human rights diplomacy.
The President and his Administration have only a few more
chances to seriously raise human rights concerns with China:
the Strategic and Economic Dialogue in two weeks and the G-20
meeting in September.
Congress and this Commission will press the Administration
to do more to advance human rights in China. President Obama
must ``shine a light'' on human rights problems in China
because nothing good happens in the dark. And glib talk and
pious platitudes simply do not cut it.
But we must also look ahead, use our Commission hearings,
our Annual Report, and other publications to make a compelling
case for the next Administration about the centrality of human
rights to U.S. interests in Asia.
It is increasingly clear that there is a direct link
between China's domestic human rights problems and the security
and prosperity of the United States. The health of the U.S.
economy and environment, the safety of our food and drug
supplies, the security of our investments and personal
information in cyberspace, and the stability of the Pacific
region will depend on China's complying with international law,
allowing the free flow of news and information, complying with
its WTO obligations, and protecting the basic rights of Chinese
citizens, including the fundamental freedoms of religion,
expression, assembly, and association.
Losing sight of these facts leads to bad policy, bad
diplomacy, and the needless juxtapositioning of values and
interests. It also sends the wrong message to those in China
standing courageously for greater freedoms, human rights, and
the rule of law. The human rights lawyers, the free press
advocates, and those fighting for labor rights, religious
freedom, and democracy are the best hope for China's future.
And, they are the best hope for a more stable and prosperous
U.S.-China relationship.
I would like to now yield to our distinguished Cochair,
Senator Marco Rubio.
[The letters appear in the appendix.]
[The prepared statement of Representative Smith appears in
the appendix.]
STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA;
COCHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
Senator Rubio. Thank you very much, and thank all of you
for being here today.
Next week marks the 27th anniversary of the student-led
popular protests in Tiananmen Square. It was spurred by the
death of a prominent reformer. Thousands gathered in April 1989
seeking greater political freedom
Their numbers swelled as the days passed, not only in
Beijing but in cities and universities across the nation.
Eventually, more than a million people, including journalists,
workers, government employees, and police, joined their ranks--
making it the largest political protest in the history of
communist China.
And then late in the evening of June 3, the Army opened
fire on peaceful protesters. The bloodshed continued until the
next day. To this day, the precise number of resulting
casualties is unknown and more than a quarter of a century
later, there has been no progress toward a public accounting of
the events of that fateful week.
Instead, 27 years later, the Chinese Government is
increasingly brazen in its repression--no longer limiting its
reach to China's territorial boundaries but instead seeking to
stifle discussion of its deplorable human rights record, both
at home and abroad. In that context, consider the following:
Dissidents regularly report that their family members who
remain in China are harassed, and detained, and even imprisoned
in retaliation for their truth-telling about the regime's
abuses. News reports abound of Uyghur Muslim and Chinese
asylum-seekers being forcibly repatriated from neighboring
Southeast Asian countries under pressure from the Chinese
Government.
Journalists and academics alike are threatened with visa
revocations, thereby allowing self-censorship to take root in
what should be the very bastions of free expression and
inquiry. Even educational institutions based here in the United
States are not immune as more have welcomed the establishment
of Confucius Institutes.
While seemingly benign at face value, the financial support
that accompanies these centers for Chinese language and
cultural education come with definite strings attached.
Sensitive topics, including Taiwan and Tibet, are excluded from
the curriculum, and invitations for the Dalai Lama to speak at
prominent universities are mysteriously withdrawn.
In 2014, the American Association of University Professors
issued a statement calling on colleagues across the United
States and Canada to reconsider their partnerships with these
centers, stating that, ``The Confucius Institutes function as
an arm of the Chinese state and are allowed to ignore academic
freedom.''
In April 2016, the Indian government blocked several rights
advocates and activists from attending an Interfaith/
Interethnic Conference in Dharamsala, India reportedly due to
Chinese Government pressures to rescind their visas.
Last month, a news story broke alleging that the American
Bar Association had canceled a proposed book project with
prominent Chinese human rights lawyer Teng Biao, who we will
hear from today. Multiple news sources reported that the
project was canceled because of fears that the initiative would
offend the Chinese Government. The ABA has denied these
reports, claiming that the staff person in question who had
interfaced with Teng Biao had been misinformed. Yet questions
remain not only about the specifics of the book project but
more broadly about the ability of groups like the ABA to
continue working in China without compromising its principles.
And, of course, any discussion of the long arm of Beijing
must include recent troubling developments in Hong Kong,
specifically the disappearance and alleged abductions of five
Hong Kong booksellers, which have rightly raised alarm bells
among Hong Kong activists, human rights organizations, and
foreign governments. The Commission will have the distinct
privilege today to hear from Angela Gui, the daughter of
missing bookseller Gui Minhai, a naturalized Swedish citizen
who disappeared in October 2015 from Pattaya, Thailand.
In the recent State Department Hong Kong Policy Act report
to Congress, the Department rightly noted that, ``These cases
have raised serious concerns in Hong Kong and represent what
appears to be the most significant breach of the `one country,
two systems' policy since 1997.''
In a sad testament to the timeliness and importance of
today's hearing topic, some of the witnesses the Commission
approached with an invitation to testify declined based on very
legitimate fears about what would happen to members of their
family who remain in China. This is an inexcusable reality.
For too long, China has gotten a free pass. The Obama
Administration's final U.S.-China Strategic and Economic
Dialogue is just days away in Beijing. Will these issues be
prioritized? Will every participating U.S. government agency be
charged with bringing human rights to the forefront with their
Chinese counterparts? Will there be consequences for China's
bold and aggressive disregard for human rights and
extraterritorial reach?
In March, the United States spearheaded a collective
statement at the U.N. Human Rights Council voicing serious
concern about a number of issues to include the unexplained
recent disappearances and apparent coerced returns of Chinese
citizens and foreigners to China. The upcoming S&ED will be a
litmus test for this Administration. The statement was
commendable, but will words translate into action?
Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Chairman Rubio.
Commissioner Randy Hultgren?
[The prepared statement of Senator Rubio appears in the
appendix.]
STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY HULTGREN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
ILLINOIS
Representative Hultgren. Well, thank you. I will be very
brief. I want to get to our witnesses as quickly as possible.
I do want to thank Chairman Rubio. I appreciate your work
on this, and Chairman Smith as well. This is so important, and
I am grateful for this hearing today. I really want to echo
what our Cochairman has said, that this is our responsibility
to continue to talk about the abuses that have happened, and
continue to happen in China.
When things are swept under the rug, hidden, that we are
lied to, frustration that we face when our own people here,
Administration or others, might say, ``Well, we do not want to
rock the boat.'' Well, you know what? Lives are at stake and we
need to do everything that we can to speak up for those who
cannot speak up for themselves.
So that is why this hearing is so important, why we must
never forget what happened 27 years ago on June 4, and continue
to do everything we possibly can for every person and for every
life to have the value that it deserves.
So thank you, witnesses, for being here. We want to work
with you. We know your families, your own future is often in
danger, and we want to work with you, fight for you, and fight
for freedom for every single person.
So with that, Chairman Smith, Chairman Rubio, I yield back.
Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Randy. I would like to now begin
with our witnesses, first with Dr. Teng Biao, a well-known
human rights lawyer; Visiting Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy
School and the U.S.-Asia Institute, NYU Law School; and the Co-
founder of the Open Constitution Initiative.
Dr. Teng holds a Ph.D. from Peking University Law School
and has been a visiting scholar at Yale Law School. He is
interested in the research on human rights, judicial systems,
constitutionalism, and social movements.
As a human rights lawyer, Dr. Teng is a promoter of the
Rights Defense Movement and co-initiator of the New Citizens'
Movement in China. In 2003, he was one of the ``Three Doctors
of Law'' who complained to the National People's Congress about
unconstitutional detentions of internal migrants.
Since then, Dr. Teng has provided counsel in numerous other
human rights cases, including those of Chen Guangcheng, and
rights defender Hu Jia, and many other religious freedom and
death penalty cases.
We will then hear from Angela Gui, who is a 22-year-old
final-year undergraduate sociology student at the University of
Warwick in the United Kingdom. As the daughter of disappeared
Hong Kong bookseller, Gui Minhai, she has followed and worked
actively on his case with governments, police, and various
human rights groups since his disappearance in October of 2015.
She also did a brief internship with his and Lee Bo's
company, Mighty Current Distributions, in the summer of 2014.
Aside from her studies and work on her father's case, Ms. Gui
is also editor and creative director of Warwick Sociology
Journal, an academic journal showcasing undergraduate and
graduate students' work from universities worldwide.
After graduation, Ms. Gui plans on continuing on to a
master's degree in the history of medicine.
We will then hear from Ilshat Hassan, who is the President
of the Uyghur American Association. Born in Ghulja, in
Xinjiang, he taught at a college in Shihezi in Xinjiang for 15
years.
In November 2003, his teaching career abruptly ended due to
his political activities. He fled to Malaysia, leaving behind
parents, a wife, and a teenage son. Mr. Hassan came to the
United States as a refugee in July 2006. He soon after joined
the Uyghur American Association where he became a very active
Uyghur human rights campaigner.
He writes in blogs, frequently in Chinese, and is well-
known in the overseas Chinese democracy community.
Finally, we will hear, then, from Su Yutong who is a
Chinese journalist and human rights defender. Because of her
involvement in commemoration of the events linked to the
Tiananmen massacre, she was invited for tea and for chats by
the Chinese authorities and kept under surveillance, and
periodically placed under house arrest.
In 2010, after she distributed Li Peng's diary, her home in
China was raided, and documents were confiscated by the police.
After leaving China in 2010, she started working in Bonn with
Deutsche Welle, the German international broadcaster.
On July 4, 2014, however, a Beijing-based media consultant
claimed in Deutsche Welle that some Western media were unfairly
critical of the Chinese Government's crushing of the Tiananmen
Square demonstrations. Ms. Su then became one of the most
outstanding voices against this whitewashing of the 1989
events. In August of 2014, Deutsche Welle ended their
employment relationship with her, sadly.
I would like to now go to Dr. Teng who is coming to us via
Skype. [Pause.]
Dr. Teng, if you could begin your testimony. And if the
camera man could move it a little to your right because you are
way off on our left, your right.
STATEMENT OF TENG BIAO, CHINESE HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER; VISITING
FELLOW, HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL AND THE U.S.-ASIA INSTITUTE, NYU
LAW SCHOOL; AND CO-FOUNDER, OPEN CONSTITUTION INITIATIVE
Mr. Teng. Can you hear me now?
Chairman Smith. Better. A little bit more. We are seeing
your chin and not your full face.
Mr. Teng. Can you hear me? Should I start?
Chairman Smith. Yes, please start. But if you could move to
your left if you would.
Mr. Teng. Okay. Thank you very much for your promoting
human rights in China.
In 2014, the American Bar Association [ABA] invited me to
write a book in which I would describe the decade I spent
engaged in human rights work in China, my experience of
disbarment, being kidnapped, being tortured, and my views on
China's politics, judicial system, society, and future. But the
formal offer of the ABA was soon rescinded. The Executive
Director of ABA publishing wrote to me: ``There is a concern
that we run the risk of upsetting the Chinese Government by
publishing your book. And because we have ABA commissions
working in China, there is a fear that we would put their work
at risk.''
So this is a typical case of censorship, but I do not want
to single out ABA. It is simply an example of the corrosive
effect of the Communist party on the West. I had the experience
of my scheduled speech being canceled by a university in the
United States. The reason given to me was exactly the same as
the ABA's.
The Confucius Institutes erode Western academic freedom.
The ``red capital'' investment in Hong Kong and Taiwan media
erode press freedom. Another example is cyberattacks on
websites of foreign governments or institutions. [Internet
connection lost.] [Pause.]
Chairman Smith. While we wait to get Dr. Teng back, I would
like to go to Angela Gui. When we get Dr. Teng back, we will
put him on after your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ANGELA GUI, STUDENT AND DAUGHTER OF DISAPPEARED
HONG KONG BOOKSELLER GUI MINHAI
Ms. Gui. Mr. Chairman Smith, Mr. Cochairman Rubio, Members
of the CECC, thank you for inviting me to testify at this very
important hearing, and thank you for the concern this
Commission has shown for people like my father who are being
persecuted by the Chinese Government in China, and now,
increasingly, abroad.
As a university student, I never would have thought I would
find myself testifying in front of the U.S. Congress, and
certainly not under circumstances like these.
However, on October 13, 2015, I had my last Skype
conversation with my father. Living in different places, we
used to call each other on Skype regularly. I would tell him
about how my studies were going, and he would tell me about
work and how he was trying to get back into shape.
Our last Skype call was not very different. He had been
renovating his kitchen in Hong Kong and sent me pictures of
what it looked like, saying he would show me in person when it
was finished.
We made plans to speak again in a few days, but then he
stopped replying to my messages and emails, would not pick up
when I called, and, about 3 weeks later, I received an email
from his colleague, Lee Bo, saying my father had been missing
for over 20 days and that he feared my father had been taken by
Chinese agents for political reasons relating to his publishing
business and bookstore.
I was later told that my father was last seen leaving his
holiday apartment in Thailand with a man who had been loitering
there, waiting for my father to return. I was also told that
three of his colleagues at the bookstore had gone missing
around the same time. We did not know that Lee Bo, himself,
would be next.
Since then, the Chinese have detained my father without
trial or charges. In November and in January, he sent me two
messages on Skype, telling me to keep quiet. As his daughter, I
could tell that he sent these under duress.
I did not hear or see anything of my father until a clearly
staged and badly put together confession video of him was aired
on Chinese state TV in January, three months after he was last
seen. It failed to explain why they had held him without charge
for three months and looked to me like they felt they needed to
fabricate a justification in face of increasing media pressure.
Mr. Chairman, it has now been eight months since my father
and his colleagues were taken into custody. I still have not
been told where he is, how he is being treated, or what his
legal status is, which is especially shocking in light of the
fact that my father holds Swedish, and only Swedish,
citizenship. In the so-called confession, my father says he
travelled to China voluntarily, but if this is true, then we
might ask why there is no record of him having left Thailand.
Only a state agency, acting coercively and against both
International and China's own law, could achieve such a
disappearance. By acting against my father and his colleagues,
the Chinese are undermining their commitment to the ``One
Country, Two Systems'' principle.
I want my testimony today to be a reminder to governments
that despite the media having gone eerily quiet, my father, a
Swedish citizen who was abducted by Chinese state agents from a
third sovereign country, is still in unofficial and illegal
detention somewhere in China, without access to consular visits
or legal representation.
Despite having been told to stay quiet, I believe speaking
up is the only option I have. Past cases clearly show that
public criticism has had positive effects, and I am convinced
my father would have done this for me, were I the one abducted
and illegitimately detained without any indication of
timeframe.
Therefore I am also here to ask for the Committee's help
and support in working with the Swedish and other governments
to demand my father's immediate release. Alternatively, if he
is suspected of an actual crime, we ought to be given official
details of his detention and proof that his case is handled
according to established legal procedure.
I also want to ask the United States to take every
opportunity to ask China for information on my father's status,
as well as urge that he be freed immediately.
Finally, the United States, Sweden, and other countries
concerned about these developments need to work to make sure
that Chinese authorities are not allowed to carry out illegal
operations on foreign soil.
Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you so very much for your testimony,
Angela.
I would like to now--is Dr. Teng ready to come back? We
will give it a shot, and if not, we will go to Mr. Hassan.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gui appears in the
appendix.]
STATEMENT OF ILSHAT HASSAN, PRESIDENT, UYGHUR AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Smith; thank you, Mr. Rubio;
thanks everyone. I would like to first thank, also, the CECC
for holding this important hearing today and for inviting me to
participate. I am a victim of the Chinese Government's constant
political persecution and a human rights activist living in the
United States.
Personally, I hope the U.S. Government and U.S. Congress
can understand the Chinese Government's long arm, which
stretches beyond China's borders to overseas, to threaten and
harass overseas human rights activists. I hope the U.S.
Government and Congress will act to hold the Chinese Government
accountable for its vicious actions.
My name is Ilshat Hassan Kokbore, also known as Ilshat
Hassan. I was born in Ghulja, East Turkistan. The Chinese call
it Xinjiang.
I have been politically active against communist Chinese
rule in East Turkistan since studying at university in the
1980s. Constantly, I was under harassment, threats, and
persecution from the regional government and secret agents, and
police. I was, in university, beaten by police. And the police
station also used an electric club to shock me. During work
hours, I was frequently visited by the police, secret service,
and I was also detained and beaten in the police station
detention center, and my tooth was broken when they used the
electric club to beat me.
Eventually, I was forced to leave East Turkistan in
November 2003, leaving behind parents, sisters, a brother,
wife, and an 11-year-old son. After I left China, when I was in
Malaysia, my only brother--the youngest--was killed by a
Chinese mob one year later, on November 27, 2004. I got the
news a few months later in Malaysia, while waiting for the
refugee resettlement through the UNHCR [UN High Commissioner
for Refugees]. In July 2006, I came to the United States.
After coming to the United States, I joined the Uyghur
community, joined the Uyghur American Association, and became
active. I actively participated in all political campaigns
organized by the Uyghur community, organizing demonstrations
against the Chinese Government's occupation of East Turkistan,
attending and holding conferences to expose the Chinese
Government's cruel policy against the Uyghur people, and
writing articles in Chinese to rebuke their claim over East
Turkistan.
My political activities greatly agitated the Chinese
Government. In the beginning, the Chinese Government held my
family members hostage, denying my ex-wife and son passports;
inhumanely causing the forced separation of my family. I was
only able to meet with my son after 10 years of long-suffering
separation. In 2014, I went to Malaysia and picked up my son--
after 10 years.
After losing the hope of getting a passport for my ex-wife,
and also to protect her from constant harassment from the
Chinese Government, I had to make the painful decision to get a
divorce. But that did not stop the Chinese Government from
continuing to harass and threaten my ex-wife.
Recently, my son called me from Istanbul, Turkey and told
me his mom--again--was visited by the Chinese police. My son
sometimes asked me, ``Can you be a little bit low profile, Dad,
because mom is still there, under the Communist regime.''
In order to pressure me to stop my political activities, on
August 17, 2014, at midnight, Chinese regional authorities
burst into my elder sister's house around 1:30 a.m. After
searching her house and taking her son's computer, she was
detained in an undisclosed place for around 8 to 10 months. I
do not know when she was released. I know after eight months,
she was not out.
Recently, my dad passed away. On the phone--I got my sister
to pick up the phone, but she was not there to speak to me,
just passed the phone to my mom. So I know she was released.
She was held without any charge, and she was a retired
nurse, single mother with two kids. Her daughter graduated from
university six years ago, and until now cannot get a job. Her
son, in 2014, was accepted by a college.
When I called my home after my dad passed away, that is the
only time since August 2014 I have been able to call my family;
I had some--a little-- conversation with my mom. She was
telling me my sister's son could not go to university and is
still staying at home with no job.
On the same day, August 17, 2014, RFA journalist Shohret
Hoshur's two brothers were also detained, and were later
sentenced. This was obvious retaliation against Mr. Hoshur, who
revealed a great deal about Chinese police brutality against
Uyghurs.
As we all know, prominent Uyghur leader, human rights
champion, and World Uyghur Congress President Mrs. Rebiya
Kadeer has constantly been accused by the Chinese Government of
being an evil separatist, and her two sons were sentenced to
jail as retaliation from the Chinese Government. The Chinese
Government pressured one of Mrs. Kadeer's imprisoned sons to
condemn his mother and to accuse Mrs. Kadeer of being an evil
criminal. As normal, civilized human beings, we cannot imagine
under what circumstances and under what kind of pressure a son
was forced to condemn his dearest mother, accusing his own
mother publicly of being a criminal.
Dolkun Isa, another prominent Uyghur human rights activist,
and Chair of the World Uyghur Congress Executive Committee, was
recently preparing to attend a meeting in Dharamsala, India.
The Indian Government, after issuing a visa to Mr. Isa, and
under the Chinese Government's pressure, cancelled the visa,
denying Mr. Isa entry into India.
In late 2009, Mr. Isa, as a German citizen, was in
immediate danger of being repatriated back to China when he
tried to enter South Korea to attend a human rights conference.
He was put in solitary confinement for more than three days in
the airport before the United States and European Union
intervened.
The Chinese Government has constantly tried to block all of
Dolkun Isa's political activities by claiming he is a wanted
terrorist according to an Interpol red notice, baselessly
accusing him of supporting and funding terrorists.
Recently, another friend of mine, a Uyghur who is a
Norwegian citizen, called me and told me that his family
members living in East Turkistan were being harassed by the
Chinese Government. Some of his family members were brought to
the police station and interrogated for several hours, and they
were told to tell him to stop any activities supporting
Uyghurs.
Of course, we all know about the Uyghur refugees who
managed to get out of China. But unfortunately, they were sent
back to China by some irresponsible countries when they were in
the process of applying for UNHCR refugee status. Some of them
were directly interrogated by Chinese police in other
countries, in Malaysia, in Thailand, and in Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, etc., and their family members were threatened.
After they were repatriated, most of them disappeared, and some
of them were given harsh sentences.
The story of Uyghurs facing the Chinese Government's
constant persecution, harassment, and threats goes on and on.
Even Uyghurs who live overseas cannot be spared from the
inhuman political persecution of the Chinese Government. The
Chinese Government's long arm keeps stretching longer and
longer. It is obvious that if China is not pressured to stop
this kind of harassment, no one will be safe, regardless of
where we live.
Thank you all.
Chairman Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Hassan.
Ms. Su?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hassan appears in the
appendix.]
STATEMENT OF SU YUTONG, JOURNALIST, INTERNET ACTIVIST, AND
FORMER NEWS BROADCASTER FOR THE CHINESE SERVICE OF DEUTSCHE
WELLE
Ms. Su. My name is Su Yutong. I am a journalist and
activist based in Germany. In June 2010, after I made public
the personal diary of former Chinese Premier Li Peng, my house
was ransacked by the police and I was forced to leave China.
In August that year, I became a journalist with the Chinese
section of Deutsche Welle, where I wrote and published nearly
1,500 articles, most of which were about human rights and
political affairs in China. The human rights lawyers and
activists I reported on included Chen Guangcheng, Ilham Tohti,
Gao Zhisheng, and Gao Yu. All of this work annoyed the Chinese
Communist Party. Its state-owned newspaper Global Times
attacked me in an article in August 2014, for ``constantly
criticizing and vilifying China.''
Before I came to the United States to participate in this
hearing, I was in contact with Chinese journalist Gao Yu and
the family members of detained human rights lawyers. Gao, aged
72, had already been jailed twice. She was arrested and
sentenced to prison in April 2014, for a third time, on charges
evidently fabricated by the Chinese Communist Party.
The real reason for her imprisonment was retaliation for an
article she published in her Deutsche Welle column, Beijing
Observation, which criticized Xi Jinping. I was her executive
director at the time. Last November, after Gao Yu was released
on medical parole, the University of Bonn hospital was
preparing to provide comprehensive treatment for her. And the
German Ambassador to China issued her a visa to Germany. But
the CCP authorities prevented Gao from leaving China for her
medical treatment and ordered that she remain silent.
Since July 9, 2015, the Chinese Government has been
conducting a sweeping crackdown on human rights lawyers and
activists. The wives of several detained lawyers asked me to
bring two videos to this hearing. To this day, these women have
been unable to visit their husbands in custody. No one knows
what abuses these jailed lawyers and activists have been
suffering.
These women are appealing, again, to the media and the
international community for assistance. I would like to request
to show these two video clips at this hearing.
At this hearing today, there is not enough time to tell the
stories of all the human rights activists in China. [Showing of
a video clip.]
All three lawyers featured in this video clip, I know them
well. I have met them when I was working in China. Later on, I
interviewed them. I was in touch with them when I was working
for Deutsche Welle in Germany.
Since Xi Jinping took power, China's human rights
conditions have worsened constantly. The most courageous and
outstanding people in China today are in prison or on the way
to prison.
I am hoping such a human rights disaster in China will
receive more international media coverage and more attention
from the international community. But there is one dangerous
trend--that is how the Chinese Communist Party has reached its
arms of news control overseas, as part of its ``Great Overseas
Propaganda Strategy.'' Such strategies include cross-border
censorship and infiltration, attempting to muzzle international
media in their coverage of China's worsening human rights
conditions. As a journalist, I urge the Congress to pay more
attention to this reality.
In 2011, Li Congjun, the head of Xinhua News Agency,
described in an article in the Wall Street Journal the ``new
global media order.'' Hundreds of Confucius Institutes
proliferate around the world as an important part of China's
overseas propaganda campaign. The Chinese Government has been
pouring large sums of money in buying up overseas newspapers
and radio networks.
Benjamin Ismail, Asia Director of Reporters Without Borders
(RSF) says RSF found a number of digital radio stations in
Paris that had been secretly run by proxy companies operated by
the Chinese Government. In November 2015, Reuters also reported
that WCRW, a radio station based in Washington, DC, has China
International Radio, a Communist Party mouthpiece, as its
hidden major shareholder.
According to an investigation by Reuters, there are already
33 radio stations around the world that are affiliated with
China International Radio. Numerous media outlets with the
Chinese Government as the controlling shareholder are scattered
around the world. And they hire local workers. At the press
conferences during the annual sessions of National People's
Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative
Conference in Beijing, CCP officials invited reporters from
fake overseas media to ask pre-arranged, non-sensitive
questions.
Buying off and cracking down. Those are the two tactics
being adopted in Hong Kong--once a paradise for books banned in
China. Hong Kong publisher Yao Wentian was sentenced to 10
years' imprisonment in China for publishing the book ``Xi
Jinping, The Godfather of China.'' French journalist Ursula
Gauthier was expelled by Beijing in late 2015 for her reporting
and commentaries on Xinjiang. In March of this year, relatives
of New York-based activist Wen Yunchao--also known as Bei
Feng--and German-based political commentator Chang Ping were
detained and interrogated in relation to an open letter calling
on Xi Jinping to resign.
Under the CCP's media control, a number of overseas and
online Chinese language media outlets have been serving as
platforms to learn about a real China. When I was young, I
secretly listened to Voice of America, which was and is still
banned in China. These media outlets have now become targets of
the Chinese Communist Party's incessant efforts at control.
Chinese embassies and consulates around the world have started
to play the role of Ministry of Propaganda.
In 2013, my former employer Deutsche Welle hired Peter
Limbourg as its new director. Soon after he assumed the post,
Mr. Limbourg paid a visit to the Chinese division of Deutsche
Welle and told the staff that he had met with Shi Mingde,
China's Ambassador to Germany. Mr. Limbourg demanded that the
Chinese division not always criticize the Chinese authorities
and should ``appropriately encourage'' them instead.
In 2014, Mr. Limbourg hired Frank Sieren, a German
businessman who is a long-term resident of Beijing, and who has
businesses with Chinese Communist Party mouthpieces, such as
the Global Times. Mr. Sieren has had numerous business
corporations with other Chinese Communist Party outlets such as
China Central TV.
In September 2014, German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung
reported the minutes of an April meeting between Deutsche Welle
and China's Ambassador to Germany, which clearly revealed that
the Chinese Embassy demanded that Deutsche Welle change.
On June 4, 2014, Frank Sieren published an article in
Deutsche Welle, in German and Chinese languages, describing
Tiananmen Massacre as ``a slip-up by the Chinese Communist
Party.'' The piece sparked a public outcry from a number of
pro-democracy activists and massacre survivors, including Mr.
Fang Zheng, who had both legs crushed by a tank during the
massacre.
I was a signatory to an open letter protesting this
article. I spoke up against the article on Twitter. Soon
afterward, the deputy director and the director of Deutsche
Welle Chinese division, both of whom were highly critical of
Mr. Sieren's article, were shifted to other positions.
Meanwhile, I was fired by Deutsche Welle.
In late August 2014, Mr. Limbourg traveled to Beijing to
attend a Chinese-German media symposium hosted by the Chinese
Communist Party mouthpiece Global Times. At the same time, I
published an open letter to him in the New York Times saying
that ``the voice of China'' is currently attempting to use
economic seduction and coercion to expand its ``great overseas
propaganda'' campaigns around the world.
My wishful thinking was that Mr. Limbourg, under the warm
reception of Global Times, would not be drowned in Chinese wine
and succumb to becoming a tool in the Chinese Communist Party's
``overseas propaganda campaigns.'' But much to my regret, Mr.
Limbourg met with Wang Gengnian, the head of China Radio
International, in Beijing on August 28, 2014. Mr. Limbourg said
that Deutsche Welle's coverage would fit into the guidance and
direction set by China. Soon afterward, he announced a
cooperative framework between Deutsche Welle and China Central
Television.
In early 2015, Germany's Bundestag took note of this
cooperation program and conducted a hearing. Deutsche Welle
announced that it would temporarily suspend its cooperation
with CCTV.
Meanwhile, Frank Sieren continues to write a column for
Deutsche Welle [DW]. In 2008, another scandal took place at
Deutsche Welle, when a DW reporter named Zhang Danhong lied on
a German TV program that the human rights conditions in China
were excellent. She was moved to another division at Deutsche
Welle after protests from a large number of members of the
audience and pro-democracy activists. But in early 2015, Ms.
Zhang was quietly returned to the Chinese department of DW and
was given her own column.
Meanwhile, the former columnist for DW, journalist Gao Yu,
who was detained in Beijing--her column was not revived even
after her release. All of these changes are sending subtle
signals.
The Chinese Communist Party has been continuously expanding
its scope of censorship. On May 10, German legislator Michael
Brand told the media that he was denied entry to China because
of his criticism of China's Tibet policy. Mr. Brand, Chairman
of the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid of the
German Bundestag, said the Chinese Embassy in Germany sent
people to meet with him in person, demanding that he delete his
articles on Tibet from his official website. They also demanded
that Mr. Brand not attend a meeting with a Tibetan human rights
organization.
Mr. Brand said, ``Such behaviors by the Chinese Communist
Party are blatant and absurd, and it is unacceptable that the
Chinese Communist Party exports its censorship to Germany.''
Mr. Brand's stance was very clear and of great importance.
We hope politicians in countries around the world dare to say
``no'' to the Chinese Communist Party. In recent years, as
China has achieved economic progress, numerous countries choose
silence and compromise on China's human rights abuses in
exchange for contracts with the Chinese Government. The most
notable is the U.S. President, Barack Obama, who has been very
weak and compromising when facing China's human rights issues.
The Chinese Government, nowadays, dares to reach its long
arms to control the world. One factor is the brutal politics
since Xi Jinping took power. The other reason is the
appeasement from a number of countries.
As a media worker, I urge democratic countries to take
notice of the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda campaigns
overseas, and its infiltration and disturbance of the freedom
of press. The United States and other countries should organize
investigations into China's infiltration of press freedom and
media outlets established by the Chinese Communist Party.
As a human rights activist, I am here to criticize and
expose the increased crackdowns and persecution of human rights
activists by the Chinese Communist government, especially under
Xi Jinping's regime. I hereby request democratic governments
not to neglect human rights conditions in China. Former U.S.
President John F. Kennedy said in his speech at West Berlin's
city hall in 1963, ``Freedom is indivisible, and when one man
is enslaved, all are not free.''
Finally, please allow me to express my gratitude to CECC's
continuous focus on China's human rights conditions and
assistance to activists all along. My special thanks to
Congressman Chris Smith and Senator Marco Rubio.
Chairman Smith. Su Yutong, thank you very much for your
testimony.
I think we are ready for Dr. Teng again. At least I have
been told that. Yes.
Dr. Teng, if you could continue your testimony and if you
could move to your left because we can only see half of you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Su appears in the appendix.]
STATEMENT OF TENG BIAO (Continued)
Mr. Teng. Okay. Thank you. I am sorry for the
disconnection. That is an example of CCP's long arm. I will
continue my testimony.
Some Western journalists have been forced out of China or
denied visas. Books and movies were partly changed or deleted
when entering the Chinese market. Many Western scholars of
China practice self-censorship--if their conclusions on a
``sensitive'' topic anger the regime, they will not get a visa,
and their position and funding will be jeopardized.
Chinese and Tibetan activists living in California, Paris,
or London were physically attacked when participating protests.
More and more restrictions on the peaceful protests applied or
organized by Chinese, Tibetan, and Uyghur activists when
Chinese leaders visit Western countries. This of course has
hurt the freedom and rule of law of the West. [Indiscernible.]
Chairman Smith. Dr. Teng, if you could suspend for a
moment. It is garbled. The connection is not good. Maybe we
could try to fix that and come back to you one last time if we
could. So we will try to fix that connection, but it is
garbled.
Without objection, your full statement will be made a part
of the record.
And I will mention some of it in my comments because it is
so brilliantly written and it tells a story that needs to be
told. So I want to thank you. If we could get this connection
cleared up, we will do so.
Let me begin with some questions to our distinguished
witnesses. Just to point out, Dr. Teng makes very serious
points, which unfortunately, we could not hear from his own
lips.
He talks about how his book--he was invited by the ABA to
write a manuscript that was to be called Darkest Before the
Dawn. In it, he would describe a decade that he spent engaged
in human rights work in China and what those experiences
illustrate about the country's politics, judicial system, and
society.
Yet, then he was told by the American Bar Association--
again, the very people who invited him to write this--and I
will quote from the email. ``I have some bad news,'' wrote an
ABA employee, ``My publisher, after receiving some concerns
from other staff members here about your proposed book, has
asked me to rescind the offer that I made for Darkest Before
Dawn on December 9. Apparently, there is concern that we run
the risk of upsetting the Chinese Government by publishing your
book.''--the employee wrote.
Let me just say, and all of you might want to comment on
this--a tale of two stories--story number one, they got back
later and said it was for economic reasons. To the best of my
knowledge, the ABA is very well-endowed with finances. When
they write books on human rights, it is not to turn a profit.
It is to tell a story, and a story that must be told. Who
better to tell it than Dr. Teng?
My sense, as a Member of Congress for 36 years, and working
on Chinese human rights for 36 years, of the human rights
abuses around the world, is that it appears the ABA
capitulated, caved. We have invited them to be here. We will
invite them again because I would like to ask very specific
questions.
I do believe it is enabling of a dictatorship when a group
with such a reputation as the ABA turns down a book like this
out of fear of retaliation. It becomes the modus operandi of so
many like Deutsche Welle and others who cave into the pressure.
As Dr. Teng points out--any of you want to respond to
this--he says he does not want to single out the ABA, although
that is with whom he has had the problem. But says it is the
latest example of the corrosive influence of the Chinese
Communist Party on the west. He talks about Yahoo. We have had
hearings in my Subcommittee on Human Rights in this Commission
that I have chaired about how Yahoo has turned over the names
of dissidents when asked and Shi Tao got 10 years simply for
telling people about the upcoming Tiananmen Square efforts by
the government to suppress.
He points out in his testimony that Facebook is flirting
with the Chinese market. Twitter has just hired a former
Chinese military and security apparatchik to head their
operations in China--that is not an ominous sign.
Su Yutong, you talked about posting your comments on
Twitter. Well, I would think Twitter is certainly that which
would be found in China would become increasingly off limits to
any kind of dissident.
Then he makes a very good point about the ABA might
imagine, for instance, that the All China Lawyer's Association
is their professional counterpart. It has been my experience
that the Chinese Government and other dictatorships always want
to have this twinning with what appears to be like-minded
organizations. The Chinese National Peoples' Congress with the
U.S. Congress, sending over delegations as if they are elected
by the population as opposed to be the party apparatchik.
Finally, he does point out--and you might want to respond
to this as well--that the rule of law human rights dialogues,
meanwhile, have mostly become a means for the party to deflect
substantive demands to change its human rights practices.
Dialogues end with vague remarks about the importance of
dialogue and the understanding in the ongoing nature of the
reform process without producing results.
The United States, another country, but a similar
dictatorship in Vietnam, has lifted the arms embargo on lethal
weapons--as we all know--without any conditionality on human
rights, without any, zero. We have appealed to him--me and
others, many others--asking--including the New York Times in an
editorial--not to do this. So we get a reprise of the same
flawed policy of the United States.
I would note, Su Yutong, you point out the most notable is
the U.S. President Obama who has been very weak in compromising
when facing Chinese human rights issues. That is an
understatement. But I appreciate the candor. Forget political
correctness. Real wonderful people are tortured--and we just
had a hearing on torture in this Commission--with impunity, and
there is barely a voice of dissent, and certainly no linkage to
trade or arms control deals as we are seeing in Vietnam when
this egregious behavior manifests itself as it does.
So if any of you would like to touch on anything that I
have said here, please do.
To Angela Gui, Hong Kong, unlike mainland China, has
historically enjoyed greater press freedom--we all know that--
and freedom of expression. Do you know why the Chinese
authorities targeted your father and his company? Is it part of
a growing crackdown? Secondly, has the U.S. Government and
other like-minded governments--what have they done to help your
father? For example, has the Swedish government responded to
your requests regarding your father's case?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Teng appears in the
appendix.]
Ms. Gui. Well, I would like to say that I am very grateful
for all the help and support I have had from the Swedish
government. However, I do believe that its resources have not
been exhausted completely yet.
I would like to ask the United States and other governments
to keep asking questions and to keep raising it with China,
both privately and publicly.
As for Hong Kong, it has not been clear what my dad,
officially, is in Chinese custody for. I have not had any
written confirmation of his being in detention. I have not had
a formal detention notice. So I do not know what the official
reason is. However, it seems to me that it is quite clear that
he is there because of his work.
I suppose that is why all of his coworkers are there as
well, or have been there. They have nominally been released.
Lee Bo, for example, has been made to return more than once.
Chairman Smith. Let me ask you, Mr. Hassan, the Chinese
Government notoriously not only puts pressure, but also
incarcerates family members, particularly of dissidents. Rebiya
Kadeer has testified here before, as you know.
We know that India's recent revocation of the World Uyghur
Congress Executive Committee Chairman Dolkun Isa's visa,
reportedly, was due to Chinese pressure. If you could speak to
the issue of this harassment, incarceration, and torture of
family members, which has to be the cruelest cut of all, to
take it out on one's loved ones, which is what is happening to
the Uyghurs and others, but also the influence on other
governments like India and there are other governments as well.
Mr. Hassan. Thank you, sir. Definitely--we were facing--the
Chinese Government prosecution is unprecedented. It is to
understand almost like a black hole. We do not know what is
going on over there. It is in the news, killing, shooting, and
arresting.
Personally, my sister's detention, it was very sudden
because of my writing in the Chinese websites about
government--what they are doing in east Turkistan, cracking
down. We were arrested--given the reason at the time when I had
conversation with my second sister, they said only the regional
authority asked to detain my sister. And they could only send
money and clothes. No visits allowed.
That same day, actually, it was not only my sister. Also
the Radio Free Asia journalist Shohret Hoshur's brother--also
it was the same day, he got arrested in--my sister was in--
another city, another 500 kilometers away city, and they would
get arrested.
So in the jail they are facing solitary confinement. What
else happened, because of the cut off of communication, after
that I was only able to call my father's cell phone before he
passed away last month. My father only picked up the phone to
say, son, we are okay. Keep safe. Then he would drop the phone.
So that is the reality. I do not know what happened to my
sister over there, or how long she was detained. It was at
least for eight months, I am sure, because that time I got
another message from my son saying she is not released yet.
Regarding the Dolkun Isa--overseas activity--Dolkun Isa was
frequently stopped by some countries that were under the
Chinese pressure. One was South Korea in late 2009. He was
involved in an international human rights conference, to attend
Seoul. When he was entering South Korea, in the airport, he was
detained. They put him in airport confinement, solitary
confinement, and for more than three days he lost contact. His
was only able to send a few messages to outside.
Then because of the United States' intervention and the
German European Union, finally he was put back on the German
airplane.
Recently, last month--the end of last month--Dr. Yang
Jianli, he organized a religious ethnic groups conference in
Dharamsala. The Uyghur Congress initially gave the names of
eight delegates. Finally, I am the only to make that trip.
Others--Dolkun Isa's visa became a big point in the newspaper.
He was issued a visa, and then it was cancelled.
Over there, we met with some dignitaries. We asked them--
they were saying because Dolkun Isa was in the Red Notice of
Interpol. But some journalists did a search of Interpol's
wanted list. Dolkun Isa's name was not there. He was only on
the Chinese list, but still Chinese can have an impact on
India's decisions and South Korea's decisions. Of course, other
human rights activists are facing the same issue.
A few years back, also, the Uyghur leadership tried to
visit India and some other countries. Taiwan also denied the
visas.
Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you. I have some additional
questions, but I would like to yield to Ted Lieu who has joined
us.
Commissioner?
Representative Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Angela, thank you for being here. I have a few questions
for you. I just want to make sure I understand this correctly.
Your father is a Swedish citizen?
Ms. Gui. Yes.
Representative Lieu. And only a Swedish citizen?
Ms. Gui. Yes.
Representative Lieu. Has Sweden taken action on this case?
Ms. Gui. They have, yes.
Representative Lieu. What have they done or requested?
Ms. Gui. They were allowed to meet him in February. They
were not given any information until this video clip aired on
Chinese TV. Before that, they were sending inquiries to the
Chinese authorities asking if they knew anything, but I have
been told that they were just told that they did not know
anything. And they were asking Sweden why they were asking them
since he disappeared in Thailand.
However, when this clip became public, it was quite clear
where he was. So then after that, Sweden started sending
inquiries to be able to speak with him or to meet with him.
That was not granted until late February.
When they finally got to meet him, he told them that he did
not want any help, and that he considered himself to be
Chinese. And then he got up to leave is what I have been told.
In my understanding, they keep asking privately for more
information on his charges, if there are any charges. They keep
asking for further counselor access, which they have not been
granted. They have not been given any proper answers to any of
their questions.
Representative Lieu. Has the U.S. State Department done
anything in this case?
Ms. Gui. Well, I read this report that was issued quite
recently. I was quite happy with that. I would like to thank
the U.S. State Department for doing that.
Representative Lieu. Is your father currently detained, or
is he free to travel within a certain area, or what is your
understanding of where he is?
Ms. Gui. That is very unclear. I actually do not know. I
have not been told directly where he is even. I do not know
where in China he is.
As I said earlier, there has not been any official
detention notice. So officially, it would seem that he is just
there.
I have had phone calls from him in which he has told me
that I am not allowed to visit. But that he is going to be able
to call me regularly which has not really happened.
That is, unfortunately, all I know.
Representative Lieu. When was the last phone call you had
with your dad?
Ms. Gui. That was a bit over a month ago.
Representative Lieu. And China has not said anything about
any sorts of charges?
Ms. Gui. No.
Representative Lieu. And then the alleged videotaped
statements he made, what was the nature of those statements?
What did they have him say?
Ms. Gui. Well, he said that he had returned to China on his
own, and that he did not wish to have any help from the Swedish
government or any institutions because he considered himself
Chinese, even though he has Swedish citizenship. He also said
that he returned because he felt remorse over a supposed drunk
driving accident in which he is supposed to have killed a
person. That is supposed to have been 12 or 13 years ago, I
believe.
This is not anything that I have ever heard of. So I
seriously doubt that it is something that even happened, and if
it did happen, I am wondering why there has not been any order
for his arrest.
I have spoken to the Swedish police, and I have been told
that there has not been any reports to Interpol from China for
my father's arrest. So it just seems very unlikely to me that--
even if it would have happened, this accident--that this would
have anything to do with it.
Representative Lieu. Do you believe he was making these
statements freely or voluntarily?
Ms. Gui. Absolutely not.
Representative Lieu. At the time that he was abducted, was
he remodeling? I read in your statement he is remodeling his
kitchen in Hong Kong?
Ms. Gui. Yes.
Representative Lieu. So if you were to believe what China
is saying, it would be in the middle of his remodel he just
decided to up and leave and go to China, and stay there; right?
Ms. Gui. Yes. Without telling me beforehand, and we had
even planned to speak in a few days after our last call, our
last Skype call, which I mentioned in my statement. As his
daughter, I was quite close to him. I am certain that he would
have told me.
Representative Lieu. Right.
Ms. Gui. If he were to suddenly decide to go to China.
Representative Lieu. Right. Thank you for your testimony.
Ms. Gui. Thank you.
Representative Lieu. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you very much, Commissioner.
I would like to ask Su Yutong, if you would. In your
testimony, you spoke about how Mr. Limbourg said that Deutsche
Welle's coverage would fit into the guidance and direction set
by China. He announced the cooperative framework between
Deutsche Welle and China Central Television, CCTV, in early
2015. But then the Bundestag took note of the cooperation and
conducted a hearing, and that they temporarily suspended that
cooperation.
One, is that still suspended, or are they cooperating now?
Secondly, your termination was based on your criticism of
China. What did the TV network tell you? For most news networks
pursuing the truth unfettered and without fear is what they
aspire to. Some do not live up to it, but when DW and others
are compromised in this way, it certainly puts a--their
reputation suffers as an objective news source.
I am wondering--in Germany, for example, or anywhere else,
has DW's objectivity suffered as a result of your aspiring for
speaking the truth about Chinese repression?
Ms. Su. Here I would like to ask all of you to continue
your support to Deutsche Welle.
I just do not agree with Mr. Peter Limbourg's--what he said
about when he paid a visit to the Chinese Division, not to
criticize the Chinese Government too much. I think as a
journalist, we should not be told what not to criticize and
what to criticize.
When Peter Limbourg told us not to criticize the Chinese
Government too much, I opposed it, and he clearly expressed
that my opinion--such an opinion was not welcome.
When I was fired by DW, the reason they told me for sacking
me was that I disclosed internal meetings, the information of
internal meetings at DW on Twitter. But to me, this is a public
affair. I have my responsibility to disclose it. This is not
internal.
So the reason, they told me when they sacked me, was that I
disclosed internal information of my employment, of my work.
But to me, for DW, hiring somebody to write articles to
whitewash the Tiananmen massacre, I think this is my
responsibility to criticize them.
I actually to the matter to the court, and the court has
made a verdict which I think is quite fair, but because of the
legal issues, I cannot disclose any more information. But the
judge did say she could see the political background in this
case.
So during the hearing of German Bundestag there was
extensive media coverage of the hearing. I did disclose that DW
did sign with CCTV a framework of cooperation that they agreed
to adopt the directives from China.
I did write numerous letters to German Bundestag, and I had
meetings with the media committee of the Bundestag, and I did
ask them not to talk too much about my personal case, but I did
ask them to pay more attention to DW. That is why the German
Bundestag held that hearing on Deutsche Welle signing the
framework of cooperation with China Central TV, CCTV. After the
suspension, I do not know how they will progress.
As for other media workers who became victims of this kind
of censorship--for example, my former colleagues, the deputy
director and the director of the Chinese Division of Deutsche
Welle, they were moved to other positions after my case. The
worst effect of my case is that many of my former colleagues at
Deutsche Welle decided not to touch the so-called ``sensitive
topics.'' The key issue here is that the employees of Deutsche
Welle, especially the Chinese Division, they chose to avoid
certain sensitive topics, topics such as Tibetan--and
Malaysians, and Xinjiang. So in choosing their coverage, Tibet
and Xinjiang, they were very choosey in determining what to
cover.
The biggest significance of my fight in this case is that
it pushed the German Bundestag to conduct the hearing. As a
result, it did pressure DW not to avoid human rights coverage
too much.
But still, I am very unsatisfied with Deutsche Welle. For
example, the columnist who wrote an article whitewashing the
Tiananmen massacre, Frank Sieren, he continues to write his
column. And in his column, he included his hidden praises of
the Chinese Government. Another columnist I mentioned before,
Zhang Danhong, continues to write her column as well.
My case is not an isolated case. After I was sacked,
reporters from French Radio International contacted me and told
me that they were censored by the Chinese Embassy. The Chinese
Embassy in France pressured French Radio International.
I have been in touch with journalist from public
broadcasters. I am still worried about such censorship, but I
have been in touch with reporters from Voice of American, and I
am happy to hear that they still take up the responsibility and
uphold their ethical standards.
But as I said, the Chinese Embassies around the world have
been increasingly taking up a role as the ``Ministry of
Propaganda.''
Chairman Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Lieu, anything further?
Representative Lieu. I would ask one more question to
Angela. The Chinese Foreign Minister, I think, had made the
remark that your father was, ``first and foremost a Chinese
citizen.'' Were you aware of that remark?
Ms. Gui. Yes.
Representative Lieu. Had your father given up Swedish
citizen?
Ms. Gui. No. He has not. I have been told that Chinese
authorities have told Swedish authorities that he wished to do
so. There have not been any papers filed to my knowledge.
Representative Lieu. Okay.
Ms. Gui. And this was after his disappearance.
Representative Lieu. Thank you. Just for the record, I find
that statement from the Foreign Minister bizarre.
Ms. Gui. So do I.
Representative Lieu. So I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Let me just conclude here. First of all, I
want to note that Chen Guangcheng and his wife, Weijing are
here, two wonderful human rights activists who have paid a dear
price for their work, having suffered in prison for four years,
and then even a similar amount of years--over three--under
house arrest. Welcome to this hearing.
Dr. Yang Jianli is also here, President of Initiatives for
China, who testified at our most recent hearing on torture. He
is here somewhere. He may be in the back.
And there are others, very notable and brave individuals.
Thank them for their work.
Let me just conclude--to Su Yutong and to all of you, I do
believe that every time, every time the Chinese Government
coerces a news organization, a policymaker, a government, and
that entity yields, not only do they get away with impunity and
in some cases murder, literally, but certainly human rights
abuse of a very high degree. It only emboldens the Chinese
Government to do more of it because it does yield results. I
would hope that all news organizations--thank you for point out
the VOA is very clear and does not stray and is not influenced.
There are others like them.
But it is very disconcerting how quickly businesses, some
corporations, particularly some like Google for so long, are
willing to just sacrifice freedom and their commitment to human
rights and democracy in order to get a piece of the rock to get
some money. On the case of the corporations to have access--you
mentioned--we were talking earlier about the fact that--I
mentioned it, but Dr. Teng, especially said that we could not
hear his whole testimony--but the whole idea of censoring like
that, and having the ABA--which again, I will ask again if they
would like to come. We will offer the opportunity for the
American Bar Association to testify as to why they revoked
their offer to print a book that just needs to be published.
It reminds me of Stanford years ago, when the man that
broke the story of coercive population control lost his
doctorate--this was in the early 1980s--because it was an
unpleasant truth and the Chinese Government pushed back on that
University. It was so bad that a number of editorials were
written, one by the Wall Street Journal. The title was Stanford
Morality. It talked about how access to China trumped telling
the truth about a hideous attack on women and women's rights
and children through their coercive population control policy.
Unfortunately--and that is why we are having this hearing--
this is part of a pattern. We held hearings recently, and we
are going to do more. We are awaiting a GAO report on Confucius
Institutes and the muzzling of American universities that have
Confucius Institutes operating on their campuses to be a little
more lax in their concerns about human rights.
Recently, I gave a keynote speech at NYU Shanghai, pointing
out concerns about human rights, because it concerns--regarding
that university. So it is an ongoing probe that this Commission
is doing.
We should just speak truth to power, and let the chips fall
where they may. And frankly, we would be amazed--I believe--on
how it will at least on the edges, and then eventually at its
core, transfer these societies that have embraced dictatorship.
I am talking about at the point of a gun.
I thank our witnesses. You helped this Commission. I think
we are going to have to wait, frankly, until the next
Administration to see any meaningful action. Hopefully whoever
wins will take Chinese human rights abuse seriously and not
mishandle it the way it has been. I say that not as a partisan,
but as someone who cares--like you--deeply about these issues.
It is all about the victim. It is all about the person who is
suffering in the Laogai or some other place of detention.
Without objection, I would just like to ensure for the
record, the transcript of the video of the wives that spoke
earlier--words from wives of human rights lawyers in China will
be made a part of the record.
And Wen Yunchao--his statement will also be made a part of
the record.
Thank you so much to our witnesses for your bravery and for
speaking truth to power. The hearing is adjourned.
[A transcript of the video clip appears in the appendix.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wen Yunchao appears in the
appendix.]
[Whereupon the hearing was concluded at 1:55 p.m.]
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements
----------
Prepared Statement of Teng Biao
may 24, 2016
The Cost of Self-Censorship in Dealing With China
In December 2014 I was invited by the American Bar Association
(ABA) to write a manuscript for a book to be titled ``Darkness Before
Dawn.'' In it, I would describe the decade I spent engaged in human
rights work in China, and what those experiences illustrate about the
country's politics, judicial system, society, and future.
But the formal offer with the ABA was soon rescinded. The reason, I
was told by the executive director of ABA publishing, was because they
were afraid to anger the Chinese government.
When ``Chinese politics'' is mentioned, most think of the factional
struggles forever roiling Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of the
Communist Party. But this is only part of the picture. The stories I've
long sought to tell are otherwise: about the activists given heavy
prison sentences for forming opposition political parties; about the
human rights lawyers who've represented persecuted Christians, Falun
Gong practitioners, Tibetans, and Uyghurs; about the rights defenders
whose dogged activism helped to abolish the labor camp system. And then
there are those who've worked against the one child birth control
policy, forced demolitions, judicial misconduct, and environmental
pollution, as well as the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who
have promoted democratic ideals, defended free speech, and pushed for
greater gender equality.
I'm one of their number: for my activism I've been banned from
teaching, been forced out of a job, had my passport confiscated, been
disbarred from practicing law, and have even been jailed and tortured.
All of us engaged in this work have paid an enormous price--but we've
made progress. No understanding of contemporary China is complete
without a thorough grasp of this community of Chinese activists.
They're the country's hope for the future.
These were the ideas animating the manuscript proposal that was at
first enthusiastically received by the ABA. It promised to be ``an
important and groundbreaking book,'' my correspondent said. But the
formal publishing contract we signed was soon reneged upon, with this
explanation: ``There is concern that we run the risk of upsetting the
Chinese government by publishing your book, and because we have ABA
commissions working in China there is fear that we would put them and
their work at risk.''
I don't want to single out the ABA. This is simply the latest
example of the corrosive influence of the Chinese Communist Party on
the West. I had the experience that my schedule speech was cancelled
for the last minute by an American university, the reason given to me
was exactly the same one as ABA. It's a crowded field: There are the
Confucius Institutes and the Federations of Chinese Scholars and
Students, both under the control of the Chinese government as they
erode academic freedom on campuses in the United States. There's Yahoo,
who provided China's public security forces with the personal
information of Chinese political dissidents so authorities could arrest
and jail them. Facebook is flirting with the China market. And Twitter
just hired a former Chinese military and security apparatchik to head
their operations in China. ``Red capital'' has flooded the media
markets in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and some Western journalists have been
forced out of China or denied visas. Books have had key passages deemed
sensitive deleted. And many Western scholars of China practice self-
censorship--for perfectly understandable reasons: if their conclusions
on a ``sensitive'' political topic anger the regime, they won't get a
visa, and their prestige, position, and funding will be jeopardized.
Chinese and Tibetan activists living in San Francisco, London,
Switzerland were attacked when participating in protests. Chinese
activists, dissidents, publishers were kidnapped in Thailand or Burma
and sent back to China, Some of them hold Swedish or UK passport.
The ABA is just one of the many major Western institutions
attempting to promote change in China--on the Communist Party's terms.
Alongside the ABA's Rule of Law Initiative, there's the U.S.-China
Human Rights Dialogue, the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue, training
programs for Chinese judges, prosecutors, and police, and exchange
programs with universities and the official lawyers' associations.
These organizations want their programs to be effective--and so they
carefully avoid a great many issues that might endanger their success.
The list is long: the persecution of Falun Gong, the Tiananmen Square
massacre in 1989, the Party's policies in Tibet and Xinjiang,
dissidents, ``radical'' human rights lawyers, and street activists.
There is a constant guessing game about which way the political winds
in Beijing are blowing. And so without realizing it, Western
institutions end up helping the Chinese government to silence and
marginalize the individuals and groups it finds the most troublesome.
Self-censorship has become instinctive, and now characterizes the very
basis of their interactions with the regime.
For the quiet sense of guilt that self-censorship engenders, there
is a tempting comfort in the idea that: ``Well, in the end we're still
creating more space for the rule of law and human rights.''
But the reality of foreign assistance has resulted in an unintended
consequence. Nearly all the major program funding has ended up in the
pockets of government departments, Government-Organized Nongovernmental
Organizations (GONGOs), and scholars with state ties. Resources meant
to support the rule of law and human rights have made their way into
the hands of those whose job it is trample upon human rights: courts,
Procuratorates, public security departments, the official lawyers
association, and Party-affiliated mass organizations like the All-China
Women's Federation.
Americans here are guilty of the classic error of mirror-imaging:
projecting onto China what is familiar to them. The ABA might imagine,
for instance, that the All China Lawyers Association (ACLA) is their
professional counterpart. This would be a deep misunderstanding. My
book discusses the extensive efforts by rights defense lawyers in
Beijing to lobby for free elections for key positions in the ACLA, and
how the attempts were shut down and those engaged in them punished.
ACLA, and all Bar Associations in China, are simply part of the
government's apparatus of control: it has disbarred numerous rights
lawyers on the orders of the Party, and has been a proactive accomplice
in drafting policies that prevent lawyers from taking on political
cases. Helping these GONGOs is worse than doing nothing.
The same can be said for the training programs directed at police,
judges, and prosecutors: Western organizations are inclined to think
that miscarriages of justice must simply be a matter of insufficient
professional training. Wrong again. The primary reason for abuses of
justice in China is because the judicial system is an instrument of
Party control, where political cadres directly and arbitrarily
interfere in legal cases.
Foreign organizations are thus limited to working in the apolitical
safe zones the regime tacitly permits. These include, for instance,
environmental protection, better treatment for handicapped people,
women's rights, HIV/AIDS, and education. Even in these sectors though,
they're still treated as ``hostile foreign forces.'' In the past few
years, in particular, the regime's realm of permissiveness has rapidly
constricted. And so we see that attempts to please the Communist Party
with mild-mannered human rights promotion haven't brought about any
concessions on the part of the authorities. The soon-to-be-passed
Foreign NGO Management Law will further narrow the space in which these
organizations can operate.
Rule of law and human rights dialogues, meanwhile, have mostly
become a means for the Party to deflect substantive demands to change
its human rights practices. Dialogues end with vague remarks about the
importance of dialogue and understanding and the ongoing nature of the
reform process. Yet rights defenders and journalists are arrested in
still greater numbers. Torture, forced disappearances, detention in
black jails, and religious persecution haven't decreased. When the
Chinese activist Cao Shunli attempted to participate in the UN Human
Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review, she was tortured to death.
Other recent prominent cases include that of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, a
Tibetan monk, who died in jail in July 2015, and Ilham Tohti, a
moderate Uyghur scholar, who was sentenced to life imprisonment last
year. Both were peaceful activists. And then there is Nobel Peace Prize
laureate Liu Xiaobo, who is still serving his 11 year sentence in
prison.
Because the Party has already fixed the realm of the permissible,
foreign organizations feel that they're limited to working only with
official agencies and scholars. But those who need help the most, who
deserve it the most, and who've taken the greatest risks for China's
future, are excluded before a conversation can even begin.
If refusing to publish my book was the price to pay for genuinely
effective work by ABA to promote the rule of law in China, then I would
happily tear the contract up myself. But the opposite is true.
The permissive attitude and mild policies on China by international
NGOs is of a piece with the West's general appeasement of China's
dictatorship. It's an approach based on short-sighted interests, and it
undermines the sanctity of universal values. Not only do these policies
fail to promote human rights and the rule of law in China, but the
relentless self-censorship has come to erode the moral prestige and
values that are at the foundation of free societies. It's high time for
a new approach.
______
Prepared Statement of Angela Gui
may 24, 2016
Mr. Chairman Smith, Co-chairman Rubio,
Thank you for inviting me to testify at this important hearing, and
thank you for the concern this Commission has shown for people like my
father who are being persecuted by the Chinese government in China, and
now, increasingly, abroad.
As a university student, I never would've thought I'd find myself
testifying in front of the US congress, and certainly not circumstances
like these.
On October 13th last year, I had my last Skype conversation with my
father. Living in different places, we used to call each other on Skype
regularly--I would tell him about how my studies were going, and he
would tell me about work and how he was trying to get back into shape.
Our last Skype call wasn't very different--he had been renovating his
kitchen in Hong Kong and sent me pictures of what it looked like,
saying he would show me in person when it was finished.
We made plans to speak again in a few days, but then he stopped
replying to my messages and emails, wouldn't pick up when I called, and
about three weeks later I received an email from his colleague Lee Bo
saying that my father had been missing for over twenty days and that he
feared my father had been taken by Chinese agents for political reasons
relating to his publishing business and bookstore.
I was later told that my father was last seen leaving his holiday
apartment in Thailand with a man who had been loitering there, waiting
for my father to return. I was also told that three of his colleagues
at the bookstore had gone missing around the same time. We didn't know
that Lee Bo himself would be next.
Since then, the Chinese have detained my father without trial or
charges. In November and in January, he sent me two messages on Skype
telling me to keep quiet. As his daughter, I could tell he sent these
under duress. I didn't hear or see anything of my father until a
clearly staged and badly put together confession video of him was aired
on Chinese state TV in January, three months after he was last seen. It
failed to explain why they had held him without charge for three months
and looked to me like they felt they needed to fabricate a
justification in face of increasing media pressure.
Mr. Chairman, it has now been eight months since my father and his
colleagues were taken into custody. I still haven't been told where he
is, how he is being treated, or what his legal status is--which is
especially shocking in light of the fact that my father holds Swedish,
and only Swedish, citizenship. In the so-called confession my father
says he travelled to China voluntarily--but if this is true, then why
is there no record of him having left Thailand? Only a state agency,
acting coercively and against both International and China's own law
could achieve such a disappearance. By acting against my father and his
colleagues, the Chinese are undermining their commitment to the ``One
Country, Two Systems'' principle.
I want my testimony today to be a reminder to governments that
despite the media having gone eerily quiet, my father, a Swedish
citizen who was abducted by Chinese state agents from a third sovereign
country, is still in unofficial and illegal detention somewhere in
China, without access to consular visits or legal representation.
Despite having been told to stay quiet, I believe speaking up is
the only option I have. Past cases show that public criticism has had
positive effects, and I'm convinced my father would have done this for
me, were I the one abducted and illegitimately detained without any
indication of timeframe. Therefore I'm also here to ask for the
committee's help and support in working with the Swedish and other
governments to demand my father's immediate release. Alternatively--if
he is suspected of an actual crime--we should be given official details
of his detention and proof that his case is handled according to
established legal procedure. I also want to ask the United States to
take every opportunity to ask China for information on my father's
status, and urge that he be freed immediately. Finally, the US, Sweden,
and other countries concerned about these developments need to work to
make sure that Chinese authorities are not allowed to carry out illegal
operations on foreign soil.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Ilshat Hassan Kokbore
may 24, 2016
Good afternoon.
I would like to first thank the CECC for holding this important
hearing today, and for inviting me to participate. I am a victim of the
Chinese government's constant political persecution, and a human rights
activist living in the United States.
Personally, I hope the U.S. government and U.S. Congress can
understand the Chinese government's long arm, which stretches beyond
China's borders to overseas, to threaten and harass overseas human
rights activists. I hope the U.S. government and Congress will act to
hold the Chinese government accountable for its vicious actions.
This is my personal story.
My name is Ilshat Hassan Kokbore, also known as Ilshat Hassan. I
was born in Ghulja, East Turkistan.
I have been politically active against communist Chinese rule in
East Turkistan since studying at university in the 1980s. Constantly
under harassment, threats, and persecution from the regional
government's secret service agency, I was forced to leave East
Turkistan in November 2003, leaving behind my parents, sisters and
brothers, wife, and child. After three years of waiting in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia for resettlement as a refugee, in July 2006, I came to
the United States.
After coming to the United States, I joined the Uyghur American
Association (UAA) and became a very active member of UAA. I actively
participated, organizing demonstrations against the Chinese
government's occupation of East Turkistan, attending and holding
conferences to expose the Chinese government's cruel policy against the
Uyghur people, and writing articles in Chinese to rebuke their claim
over East Turkistan.
My political activities greatly agitated the Chinese government. In
the beginning, the Chinese government held my family members hostage,
denying my wife and son passports; inhumanely causing the forced
separation of my family. I was only able to meet with my son after 10
years of long-suffering separation.
After losing the hope of getting a passport for my wife, and also
of protecting her from constant harassment from the Chinese government
and secret agents, I had to make the painful decision to get a divorce.
But that didn't stop the Chinese government from continuing to harass
and threaten my ex-wife, and she was continually under surveillance and
threats.
In order to pressure me to stop my political activities, on August
17, 2014, at midnight, Chinese authorities burst into my elder sister's
house around 1:30 a.m.; after searching her house and taking her son's
computer, she was detained in an undisclosed place for around 8-10
months, without any charge. Even though she was released, she still has
to report to the local police regularly, and has to get approval even
to visit our parents.
On the same day, August 17, 2014, RFA journalist Shohret Hoshur's
two brothers were detained, and were later sentenced. This was obvious
retaliation against Mr. Hoshur, who revealed a great deal about Chinese
police brutality against Uyghurs.
As we all know, prominent Uyghur leader, human rights champion, and
World Uyghur Congress (WUC) president Mrs. Rebiya Kadeer has constantly
been accused by the Chinese government of being an evil separatist; and
her two sons were sentenced to jail as retaliation from the Chinese
government.
The Chinese government pressured one of Mrs. Kadeer's imprisoned
sons to condemn his mother, and to accuse Mrs. Kadeer of being an evil
criminal. As normal, civilized human beings, we cannot imagine under
what circumstances, and under what kind of pressure, a son was forced
to condemn his dearest mother, accusing his own mother publicly of
being a criminal!
Dolkun Isa, another prominent Uyghur human rights activist, and
chair of the WUC executive committee, was recently preparing to attend
a meeting held in Dharamsala, India. The Indian government, after
issuing a visa to Mr. Isa, and under the Chinese government's pressure,
cancelled the visa, denying Mr. Isa entry into India.
In late 2009, Mr. Isa, as a German citizen, was in immediate danger
of being repatriated back to China when he tried to enter South Korea
to attend a human rights conference. He was put in solitary confinement
for more than three days, before the U.S. and European Union
intervened.
The Chinese government has constantly tried to block all of Mr.
Isa's political activities by claiming he is a wanted terrorist
according to an Interpol red notice, baselessly accusing him of
supporting and funding terrorists.
Recently, another friend of mine, a Uyghur who is a Norwegian
citizen, called me and told me that his family members living in East
Turkistan were being harassed by the Chinese government; some of his
family members were brought to the police station and interrogated for
several hours, and they were told to tell him to stop any activities
supporting Uyghurs.
Of course, we all know about the Uyghur refugees who managed to get
out of China; but unfortunately, they were sent back to China by some
irresponsible countries when they were in the process of applying for
UNHCR refugee status. Some of them were directly interrogated by
Chinese police in other countries, and their family members were
threatened. After they were repatriated, most of them disappeared, and
some of them were given harsh sentences.
The story of Uyghurs facing the Chinese government's constant
persecution, harassment, and threats goes on and on. Even Uyghurs who
live overseas can't be spared from the inhuman political persecution of
the Chinese government. The Chinese government's long arm keeps
stretching longer and longer. It's obvious that if China isn't
pressured to stop this kind of harassment, no one will be safe,
regardless of where we live.
______
Prepared Statement of Su Yutong
may 24, 2016
My name is Su Yutong. I am a journalist and activist based in
Germany. In June, 2010, after I made public the personal diary of
former Chinese Premier Li Peng, my house was ransacked by the police
and I was forced to leave China. In August that year, I became a
journalist with the Chinese section of Deutsche Welle where I wrote and
published nearly 1,500 articles, most of which were about human rights
and political affairs in China. The human rights lawyers and activists
I reported included Chen Guangcheng, Ilham Tohti, Gao Zhisheng and Gao
Yu. All of this work annoyed the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Its
state-owned newspaper Global Times attacked me in an article in August,
2014, for ``constantly criticizing and vilifying China.''
Before I came to the United States to participate in this hearing,
I was in contact with Chinese journalist Gao Yu and the family members
of detained human rights lawyers. Gao, aged 72, had already been jailed
twice. She was arrested and sentenced to prison in April, 2014, for a
third time, on charges evidently fabricated by the Chinese Communist
Party. The real reason for her imprisonment was retaliation for an
article she published in her Deutsche Welle column ``Beijing Observer''
which criticized Xi Jinping. I was her executive editor at the time.
Last November, after Gao Yu was released on medical parole, the
University of Bonn hospital was preparing to provide comprehensive
treatment for her. And the German Ambassador to China issued her a visa
to Germany. But the CCP authorities prevented Gao from leaving China
for her medical treatment and ordered she remain silent.
Since July 9th, 2015, the Chinese government has been conducting a
sweeping crackdown on human rights lawyers and activists. The wives of
several detained lawyers asked me to bring two videos to this hearing.
To this day, these women have been unable to visit their husbands in
custody. No one knows what abuses these incarcerated lawyers and
activists have been suffering. These women are appealing again to the
international community for assistance. (I would like to request to
show these two video clips at the hearing.)
At this hearing today, there is not enough time to tell the stories
of all the human rights activists in China. Since Xi Jinping took
power, China's human rights conditions have worsened constantly. The
most courageous and outstanding people in China today are now in prison
or on the way to prison. I am hoping such a human rights disaster will
receive more media coverage and more attention from the international
community. But there's one dangerous trend, that is how the CCP has
reached its arms of news control overseas, as part of its ``Great
Overseas Propaganda Strategy.'' Such strategies include cross-border
censorship and infiltration, attempting to muzzle international media
in their coverage of China's worsening human rights conditions. As a
journalist, I urge the Congress to pay more attention to this reality.
In 2011, Li Congjun, the head of Xinhua News Agency, described in a
article in the Wall Street Journal the ``new global media order''.
Hundreds of Confucius Institutes proliferate around the world as an
important part of China's overseas propaganda campaign. The Chinese
government has been pouring large amount of money in buying up overseas
newspapers and radio networks. Benjamin Ismail, Asia Director of
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) says RSF found a number of digital
radio stations in Paris that had been secretly run by proxy companies
operated by the Chinese government. In November, 2015, Reuters also
reported that WCRW, a radio station based in Washington, D.C., has
China International Radio, a Communist Party mouthpiece, as its hidden
major shareholder. The radio waves of this station cover the entire
Washington, D.C. region, including the Capitol Hill and the White
House.
According to an investigation by Reuters, there are already 33
radio stations around that world that are affiliated with China
International Radio. Numerous media outlets with the Chinese government
as the controlling shareholder scatter throughout the world. And they
hire local workers. At the press conferences during the annual sessions
of National People's Congress and Chinese People's Political
Consultative Conference in Beijing, CCP officials invited reporters
from fake overseas media to ask pre-arranged, non-sensitive questions.
Buying off and cracking down--these are the two tactics being
adopted in Hong Kong, once a paradise for books banned in China. Hong
Kong publisher Yiu Mantin was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment in
China for publishing the book ``Xi Jinping, China's Godfather.'' In
March, relatives of New York-based activist Wen Yunchao (also known as
Bei Feng) and German-based political commentator Chang Ping were
detained and interrogated in relation to an open letter calling on Xi
Jinping to resign.
Under the CCP's media control, a number of overseas and online
Chinese-language media outlets have been serving as platforms to learn
about a real China. When I was young, I secretly listened to Voice of
America which is was and is still banned in China. These media outlets
have now become targets of the CCP's incessant efforts at control.
Chinese embassies and consulates around the world have started to play
the role of the Ministry of Propaganda.
In 2013, my former employer Deutsche Welle hired Peter Limbourg as
its new director. Soon after he assumed the post, Mr. Limbourg paid a
visit to the Chinese division and told the staff that he had met with
Shi Mingde, China's Ambassador to Germany. Mr. Limbourg demanded that
the Chinese division not always criticize the Chinese authorities and
should ``appropriately encourage'' them instead. In 2014, Mr. Limbourg
hired Frank Sieren, a German businessman who is a long-term resident of
Beijing. Mr. Sieren has had numerous business cooperations with the
CCP's mouthpieces Global Times and China Central Television. In
September, 2014, German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung reported the
minutes of an April meeting between Deutsche Welle and China's
Ambassador to Germany, which clearly revealed that the Chinese Embassy
demanded Deutsche Welle change.
On June 4, 2014, Frank Sieren published an article in Deutsche
Welle, in German and Chinese languages, describing Tiananmen Massacre
as ``a slip-up by the CCP.'' The piece sparked a public outcry from a
number of pro-democracy activists and massacre survivors. I was a
signatory to an open letter protesting this article. I spoke up against
the article on Twitter. Soon afterwards, the deputy director and the
director of the Deutsche Welle Chinese division, both of whom were
highly critical of Mr. Sieren's article, were shifted to other
positions. Meanwhile, I was fired by Deutsche Welle.
In late August, 2014, Mr. Limbourg traveled to Beijing to attend a
Chinese-German media symposium hosted by CCP mouthpiece Global Times.
At the same time, I published an open letter to him in the New York
Times saying that ``the voice of China'' is currently attempting to use
economic seduction and coercion to expand its ``great overseas
propaganda'' campaigns around the world. My wishful thinking was that
Mr. Limbourg, under the warm reception of Global Times, would not be
drowned in Chinese wine and succumbed to become a tool in the CCP's
``overseas propaganda campaigns.'' Much to my regret, Mr. Limbourg met
with Wang Gengnian, the head of China Radio International, in Beijing
on August 28, 2014. Mr. Limbourg said that Deutsche Welle's coverage
would fit into the guidance and direction set by China. Soon
afterwards, he announced a cooperative framework between Deutsche Welle
and China Central Television (CCTV). In early 2015, Germany's Bundestag
took note of this cooperation program and conducted a hearing. Deutsche
Welle announced that it would temporarily suspend its cooperation with
CCTV.
Meanwhile, Frank Sieren continues to write a column for Deutsche
Welle. In 2008, another scandal took place at Deutsche Welle, when a DW
reporter named Zhang Danhong lied on a German TV program that the human
rights conditions in China were excellent. She was moved to another
division at DW after protests. But in early 2015, Ms. Zhang was quietly
returned to the Chinese department of DW, and was given her own column.
All of these changes are sending subtle signals.
The CCP has been continuously expanding its scope of censorship. On
May 10th, German legislator Michael Brand told the media that he was
denied entry to China because of his criticism of China's Tibet policy.
Mr. Brand, Chairman of the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian
Aid of the German Bundestag, said the Chinese Embassy in Germany sent
people to meet with him in person, demanding him delete his articles on
Tibet from his official website. They also demanded Mr. Brand not to
attend a meeting with a Tibetan human rights organization. Mr. Brand
said such behaviors by the Chinese Communist Party are blatant and
absurd, and it's unacceptable that the CCP exports its censorship to
Germany.
Mr. Brand's stance is very clear and of great importance. We hope
politicians in countries throughout the world dare to say ``no'' to the
CCP. In recent years, as China has achieved economic progress, numerous
countries choose silence and compromise on China's human rights abuses
in exchange for contracts with the Chinese government. The most notable
is the U.S. President Barack Obama who has been very weak and
compromising when facing China's human rights issues. The Chinese
government nowadays dares to reach its long arms to control the world,
one factor is the brutal politics since Xi Jinping took power. The
other reason is the appeasement from a number of countries.
As a media worker, I urge democratic countries to take notice of
CCP's propaganda campaigns overseas, and its infiltration and
disturbance of the freedom of press. The United States and other
countries should organize investigations into China's infiltration of
press freedom and media outlets established by the CCP; As a human
rights activist, I am here to criticize and expose the increased
crackdowns and persecution of human rights activists by the Chinese
Communist government, especially under Xi Jinping's regime; I hereby
request democratic governments not to neglect human rights conditions
in China. Former U.S. President John F. Kennedy said his speech at West
Berlin's Schoneberg Rathaus (City Hall) in 1963: ``Freedom is
indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.''
Finally, please allow me to express my gratitude to CECC's
continuous focus on China's human rights conditions and assistance to
activists all along. My special thanks go to Congressman Chris Smith
and Senator Marco Rubio.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher H. Smith, a U.S. Representative
From New Jersey; Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China
may 24, 2016
One year ago, Major Xiong Yan was barred from visiting his dying
mother in China. He was repeatedly denied access to Mainland China
because he is blacklisted, denied access to China because he was a
student leader of the democracy protests of 1989. Tragically, Major
Yan's mother passed away, her son never had the chance to say goodbye.
The Communist leaders in Beijing use the blacklist--along with
intimidation, repression, and the lure of the Chinese market--to stifle
discussion of the Tiananmen protests and their violent suppression.
Academics such as Perry Link and Andrew Nathan are also blacklisted
for writing about Tiananmen. U.S. corporations, eager to gain access to
the China's markets, also engage in censorship about Tiananmen. Last
year the California based LinkedIn began blocking Tiananmen-related
articles posted inside China or by members hosted on its Chinese site.
The methods used by Beijing to enforce a code of silence are going
global. The heavy hand of the Chinese government has expanded beyond
its borders to intimidate and stifle critical discussion of the Chinese
government's human rights record and repressive policies.
Before I talk more broadly about our hearing today, let me first
say a few words about the Tiananmen massacre.
The CECC has solemnly commemorated the Tiananmen massacre on and
around June 4 each year. The Congress does this because of the lives
lost and persons permanently injured in the massacre. We commemorate
June 4th each year because of the profound impact the event has had on
U.S.-China relations and because so many former student leaders have
made important contributions to the global understanding of China. We
mark the Tiananmen massacre each year because the Chinese people are
unable to commemorate this event themselves.
This year the Congress is not in session on June 4th, but Senator
Rubio and I will be sending a letter to President Xi Jinping asking him
to allow uncensored, public discussion of the democracy protests of
1989; to end retaliation efforts against those who participated in the
protests, and to release all those still detained for holding
commemorations about the Tiananmen protests and their violent
suppression.
We will urge President Xi to allow discussion of China's past
history. We believe transparency is in the best interest of U.S.-China
relations and will improve global perceptions of China.
Nevertheless, President Xi seems to have a different conception of
what is in China's interest. As is well-documented already by this
Commission, his government is engaged in an extraordinary assault on
civil society and human rights. China is not only interested in
containing the spread of ``Western values and ideas'' within China, but
is actively engaged in trying to roll back democracy and human rights
norms globally.
In fact it would be fitting to have an empty chair at the witness
table today representing every dissident fearful of sharing their
story, every writer whose work has been censored or edited by Chinese
authorities without their knowledge and every journalist whose critical
reporting has been blocked or tempered--not just in China, but in the
West.
China's recent efforts to blunt scrutiny of its rights record and
criticism of government policies include:
(1) Pressing Thailand and Cambodia to repatriate Uyghur
refugees and Chinese asylum seekers.
(2) Disappearing and allegedly abducting five Hong Kong
booksellers, including Gui Minhai, the father of one of our
witnesses today.
(3) Supporting clandestine efforts to discredit the Dalai
Lama through a Communist Party-supported rival Buddhist sect;
(4) Harassing and detaining the family members of foreign
journalists and human rights advocates. Two of our witnesses
today will attest to such harassment.
(5) Threating the operations of non-governmental
organizations working in China through the newly passed
Overseas NGO Management Law and other means. Dr. Teng Biao will
talk about the cancelation of his book project by the American
Bar Association.
We asked the ABA [American Bar Association] to testify today, but
the ABA President Paulette Brown and the ABA's CEO Jack Rives were
unable to testify. The ABA sent a letter to the Commission last month,
responding to our inquiry about the details surrounding the ABA's
rescinding of Teng Biao's book project. They want that letter to serve
as their testimony.
A copy of the Commission letter to the ABA and the ABA's response
will be added to the record without objection.
The long reach of China extends beyond its borders to Thailand,
South Korea, Malaysia, India, Kenya, at the United Nations, and in the
United States.
These efforts present real strategic implications for the United
States and the international community. The abductions of the
booksellers challenges the one-country, two systems model in Hong Kong.
China's efforts to bend international human rights norms present a
clear challenge to the United Nations and the Human Rights Council
efforts to hold China accountable. China's efforts to enforce a code of
silence globally through its economic and diplomatic clout directly
challenges the Obama Administration's ``Asia Pivot'' and U.S. human
rights diplomacy.
The President and his Administration have only a few more chances
to raise human rights concerns with China. The Strategic and Economic
Dialogue in two weeks and the G-20 meeting in September.
The Congress and this Commission will press the Administration to
do more to advance human rights in China. President Obama must ``shine
a light'' on human rights problems in China, because nothing good
happens in the dark.
But we must also look ahead; use our Commission hearings, our
Annual Report, and other publications to make a compelling case for the
next Administration about the centrality of human rights to U.S.
interests in Asia.
It is increasingly clear that there is direct link between China's
domestic human rights problems and the security and prosperity of the
United States. The health of the U.S. economy and environment, the
safety of our food and drug supplies, the security of our investments
and personal information in cyberspace, and the stability of the
Pacific region will depend on China complying with international law,
allowing the free flow of news and information, complying with its WTO
obligations, and protecting the basic rights of Chinese citizens,
including the fundamental freedoms of religion, expression, assembly,
and association.
Losing sight of these facts leads to bad policy, bad diplomacy, and
the needless juxtaposition of values and interests. It also sends the
wrong message to those in China standing courageously for greater
freedoms, human rights, and the rule of law. The human rights lawyers,
the free press advocates, and those fighting for labor rights,
religious freedom, and democracy are the best hope for China's future.
And, they are the best hope for a more stable and prosperous U.S.-China
relationship.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marco Rubio, a U.S. Senator From Florida;
Cochairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China
may 24, 2016
Next week marks the 27th anniversary of the student-led popular
protests in Tiananmen Square. Spurred by the death of a prominent
reformer, thousands gathered in April 1989 seeking greater political
freedom. Their numbers swelled as the days passed, not only in Beijing
but in cities and universities across the nation. Eventually more than
a million people, including journalists, workers, government employees
and police, joined their ranks making it the largest political protest
in the history of communist China.
Late in the evening of June 3, the Army opened fire on peaceful
protesters. The bloodshed continued into June 4. To this day the
precise number of resulting casualties is unknown and more than a
quarter-century later there has been no progress toward a public
accounting of the events of that week.
Instead, twenty-seven years later the Chinese government is
increasingly brazen in its repression . . . no longer limiting its
reach to China's territorial boundaries, but instead seeking to stifle
discussion of its deplorable human rights record both at home and
abroad. Consider the following:
Dissidents regularly report that their family members who remain in
China are harassed, detained and even imprisoned in retaliation for
their truth-telling about the regime's abuses.
News reports abound of Uyghur Muslim and Chinese asylum-seekers
being forcibly repatriated from neighboring South Asian countries under
pressure from the Chinese government.
Journalists and academics alike are threatened with visa
revocations, thereby allowing self-censorship to take root in what
should be the very bastions of free expression and inquiry.
Even educational institutions based in the United States are not
immune as more have welcomed the establishment of Confucius Institutes.
While seemingly benign at face value, the financial support that
accompanies these centers for Chinese language and cultural education
come with definite strings attached. Sensitive topics, including Taiwan
and Tibet, are excluded from the curriculum, and invitations for the
Dalai Lama to speak at prominent universities are mysteriously
withdrawn.
In 2014, the American Association of University Professors issued a
statement calling on colleagues across the United States and Canada to
reconsider their partnerships with these centers, stating that,
``Confucius Institutes function as an arm of the Chinese state and are
allowed to ignore academic freedom.''
In April 2016, the Indian government blocked several rights
advocates and activists from attending an Interfaith/Interethnic
Conference in Dharamsala, India reportedly due to Chinese government
pressure to rescind their visas.
Last month, a news story broke alleging that the American Bar
Association (ABA) had cancelled a proposed book project with prominent
Chinese human rights lawyer Teng Biao, who we will hear from today.
Multiple news sources reported that the project was canceled because of
fears that the initiative would offend the Chinese government. The ABA
denied these reports, claiming that the staff person in question who
had interfaced with Teng Biao had been misinformed. Yet questions
remain not only about the specifics of the book project but more
broadly about the ability of groups like the ABA to continue working in
China without compromising its principles.
And of course, any discussion of the ``long arm'' of Beijing must
include recent troubling developments in Hong Kong, specifically the
disappearances and alleged abductions of five Hong Kong booksellers,
which have rightly raised alarm bells among Hong Kong activists, human
rights organizations and foreign governments. The Commission will have
the distinct privilege today to hear from Angela Gui, the daughter of
missing bookseller Gui Minhai, a naturalized Swedish citizen who
disappeared in October 2015 from Pattaya, Thailand. In the recent State
Department Hong Kong Policy Act report to Congress, the Department
rightly noted that, ``These cases have raised serious concerns in Hong
Kong and represent what appears to be the most significant breach of
the `one country, two systems' policy since 1997.''
In a sad testament to the timeliness and importance of today's
hearing topic, some of the witnesses the Commission approached with an
invitation to testify declined based on very legitimate fears about
what would happen to members of their family who remain in China. This
is an inexcusable reality.
For too long, China has gotten a free pass. The Obama
Administration's final U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue is
just days away in Beijing. Will these issues be prioritized? Will every
participating U.S. government agency be charged with bringing human
rights to the forefront with their Chinese counterparts? Will there be
consequences for China's bold and aggressive disregard for human rights
and extraterritorial reach? In March, the United States spearheaded a
collective statement at the U.N. Human Rights Council voicing serious
concern about a number of issues to include the ``unexplained recent
disappearances and apparent coerced returns'' of Chinese citizens and
foreigners to China. The upcoming S&ED will be a litmus test for this
Administration--the statement was commendable, but will words translate
into action?
Submissions for the Record
----------
Statement Submitted for the Record by Wen Yunchao
may 24, 2016
Honorable Representative Christopher Smith, Senator Marco Rubio,
and CECC:
I, Wen Yunchao, hereby solemnly declare that the following
narrative and news coverage about me and my family are true facts.
I arrived in the United States on December 27th, 2012. I lodged my
application for political asylum in July, 2013. I have been waiting for
the decision on my application. During this period, I have been
subjected to tremendous pressure and harassment from the Chinese
government.
In March 2016, the Chinese government suspected I was related to
the publication and distribution of an ``Open Letter Calling on Comrade
Xi Jinping to Resign from All Party and State Leadership Positions.''
My parents and other family members and the family members of my wife
Liu Yang in Guangdong were harassed, blackmailed, and threatened
numerous times and were forced to disappear. My parents and brother
were taken away by authorities on March 22nd and were released a week
later. My wife Liu Yang's parents, brother and sister-in-law have been
barred by the Chinese government from leaving China. Her parents had to
cancel their plan to visit the United States in April. Liu Yang's
brother and his wife have been subjected to disturbances in their daily
work and life.
The facts in the following report by New York Times about me and
the forced disappearance of my relatives in China are all true.
Wen Yunchao, a Chinese activist living in New York, said in a
telephone interview that his parents and younger brother in
southern China had been missing since Tuesday (Mar. 22, 2016),
after police officers and officials warned his parents that Mr.
Wen should tell them what he knew about the letter. Mr. Wen
said he had nothing to do with distributing the letter on the
Internet, and so refused to bow to the demands.
The letter, signed by ``Loyal Communist Party Members,'' was
sent by email to people with ties to China around the time it
appeared on Wujie, shortly after 12:01 a.m. on March 4.
On Twitter, Mr. Wen, the activist, urged President Obama to
ask Mr. Xi to release his parents and brother. ``He kidnapped
them on March 22,'' Mr. Wen wrote. Mr. Xi is expected to visit
the United States next week for a summit meeting on nuclear
security.
Mr. Wen said in the interview that his sister-in-law had told
him that his parents and his younger brother, Wen Yun'ao, a
driver for a local government, were all missing. Mr. Wen said
his sister-in-law had given no details of when or how his
parents disappeared but had said Wen Yun'ao, her husband, was
taken away by officials.
Starting this month, Mr. Wen said, the police and officials
repeatedly visited his father, Wen Shaogan, 71, and mother, Qiu
Xiaohua, 64, at their home in Jiexi County, Guangdong Province,
and told them that Mr. Wen had to admit to helping spread the
letter.
``At the start, they said they wanted to know if I had
anything to do with the open letter calling for Xi Jinping to
resign,'' Mr. Wen said. ``But on the 17th (Mar 2016), they said
directly that they knew I hadn't written the letter but
believed I had something to do with spreading it. They promised
that if I told them who wrote the letter and passed it on to
me, and how I spread it around, then I would not be held
culpable and it would not be held against my family. Otherwise,
they said, my younger brother might lose his job.''
Mr. Wen, a vocal critic of the Chinese government who is also
known by the pen name Bei Feng, said he had passed on a message
to the officials through his parents that he had nothing to do
with writing or distributing the letter.
``I told them very clearly that I could not admit to
something that had nothing to do with me,'' Mr. Wen said. ``I
told them very clearly that I didn't write the letter and had
not helped anyone to distribute it, and I had not issued the
letter on any websites.'' (The New York Times: China Said to
Detain Several Over Letter Criticizing Xi, By EDWARD WONG and
CHRIS BUCKLEY, Mar. 25, 2016)
Please see below a report by AFP about me and the release of my
relatives after they were forced to disappear. The facts in the article
are all true.
Two overseas dissidents said on Wednesday (March 30) that
Chinese police had released family members they claimed were
detained as part of an official probe into a letter calling on
President Xi Jinping to resign.
Wen told AFP that his father, mother and brother had been
released after being held in the southern city of Guangzhou in
southern Guangdong province.
The three were not charged with any crime and security
officials accompanied them to tourist sites during their
detention, he added.
``I think my family's release is related to Xi Jinping's
visit to the US,'' he said, referring to the Chinese
President's participation in a Washington summit this week.
Wen earlier claimed that his father warned before his
detention that officials in Guangdong believed the exiled
activist had ``helped spread'' the letter. (AFP: Dissidents say
China relatives released in letter probe, Mar. 30, 2016)
Around the anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre in 2015 and during
the annual sessions of China's National People's Congress and the
Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in March 2016, my
New York home's WiFi network was under DDOA attacks. I was unable to
use the Internet properly. Days before the 25th anniversary of the
Tiananmen Massacre in 2014, and just before Xi Jinping visited the U.S.
in September, 2015, a number of Chinese government officials harassed
my parents in Guangdong. They warned me not to criticize the Chinese
government, especially not to criticize Xi and the Chinese economy.
Furthermore, I have been a frequent target of systematic online
attacks and harassing phone calls since I left China in 2010. I believe
these attacks are related to the Chinese government. For details,
please refer to my testimony on June 25th, 2013, at the CECC hearing,
``Chinese Hacking: Impact on Human Rights and Commercial Rule of Law.''
Wen Yunchao
______
Transcription of Video:
Words From Wives of Human Rights Lawyers in China
Hello friends in the United States. We're wives of citizens and
human rights lawyers who were arrested in the ``July 9 Mass Arrests''
in P.R. China. I'm Wang Qiaoling, wife of attorney Li Heping. I'm Yuan
Shanshan, wife of attorney Xie Yanyi. I'm Li Wenzu, wife of attorney
Wang Quanzhang. We feel very grateful to the international community
and American friends for your persistent concerns about rule of law in
China and the ``July 9 incident.''
During the process of ``July 9 mass arrests,'' not only were the
arrests illegal but also the homes and workplaces of all involved
lawyers and citizens were searched illegally. Moreover, they were
detained secretly in ``residence under surveillance.'' Their family
hired lawyers for them, yet their lawyers were barred from meeting them
in person. Their lawyers were deprived of rights to meet and
communicate with them.
After 6 months detention when the cases reached the state of
``formal arrest,'' the family of each detainee received ``Notification
of Arrest,'' yet our loved ones were still deprived of their rights to
meet and communicate with their lawyers. The Public Security
authorities said that our loved ones have been assigned lawyers in the
detention center, so the lawyers hired by us as family members were
dismissed. But the lawyers hired by us want to have the chance to meet
their clients to confirm the status of power of attorney, but they were
also deprived illegally of their rights to meet their clients.
After the authorities locked up our loved ones illegally, they even
put some requirements on us to obey their rules of ``four not
allowed'': we're not allowed to hire lawyers by ourselves; we're not
allowed to communicate with relatives of other detainees; we're not
allowed to accept interview of media from abroad; we're not allowed to
speak out on Internet. Facing these illegal and groundless requirements
from the government we as family members didn't give in.
In the past 10 months, we worked together with our lawyers to stand
fast in striving for our rights following legal procedures and insisted
to speak out in public. After March 10, 2016, one statement from 12
countries to the United Nations about human rights situations in China,
brought turning point to the ``July 9 incident.'' After the publication
of the statement from 12 countries to the UN on human rights situations
of China, the situation of the ``July 9 incident'' began to change in
China.
First of all, the prosecutor's office began to accept our letter of
accusation. While before that, they rejected dozens of our letters of
accusation [of illegal procedures]. The second part of the change was,
the police officer handling this specific case tried to persuade each
of us in private, requesting us as family members to accept the lawyers
assigned by the government. The third part of the change was, in the
previous two months Secret Police of China continuously approached the
fellow countrymen in our hometowns, our old classmates and friends, our
parents and elderships, the sisters and brothers of our loved ones,
including us the wives of the detainees, and tried to get video
recordings from us, and asked us to talk in front of the camera to
persuade our detained family members to plead guilty. But to my
delight, of course, all of us as family members held the same attitude
and refused to do so. We requested the government to release our loved
ones unconditionally.
During the whole course of the ``July 9 incident,'' public
attention from the international society on this case pushed it toward
the better ending. We owe thanks to all of you! We're also anxiously
hoping our American friends continue to speak out and protest
continuously without compromise in the days to come. Please unite with
other Democratic countries to protest against the government of P.R.
China. We also hope that the United States can use the chance of G-20
meeting as leverage to bring complete change to the ``July 9
incident.''
The Chinese officials take it as very important to be able to
arrange private meetings with top leaders of Democratic countries. We
hope that our American friends will request the Chinese officials to
release people [in illegal detention] when they request private meeting
[with the President of the United States]. Please ask the Chinese
government to release all the citizens and lawyers detained in the
``July 9 incident'' for their human rights activities. We as family
members of them admire one line in the national anthem of the United
States, that is: ``the land of the free and the home of the brave.'' We
hope our American friends in the land of the free and the home of the
brave will give helping hands to rescue all the Chinese citizens and
human rights lawyers that were detained in the ``July 9 incident.''
Thank you all!
______
Letter From the Congressional-Executive Commission on China Submitted
to the American Bar Association, April 19, 2016
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Long Arm of China:
Global Efforts to Silence Critics from Tiananmen to Today
may 24, 2016
Witness Biographies
Angela Gui, Student and Daughter of Disappeared Hong Kong
Bookseller Gui Minhai
Angela Gui [rhymes with `way'] is a 22-year-old final year
undergraduate Sociology student at the University of Warwick, UK. As
the daughter of Gui Minhai, she has followed and worked actively on his
case with governments, police, and various human rights groups since
his ``disappearance'' in October 2015. She also did a brief internship
with his and Lee Bo's company Mighty Current Distributions in the
summer of 2014. Aside from her studies and work on her father's case,
Ms. Gui is also editor and creative director of Warwick Sociology
Journal, an academic journal showcasing undergraduate and graduate
student work from universities worldwide. After graduation Ms. Gui
plans on continuing onto a master's degree in the History of Medicine,
funded by the Wellcome Trust.
Ilshat Hassan, President of the Uyghur American Association
Ilshat Hassan is president of the Uyghur American Association. Born
in Ghulja, in Xinjiang [pronounced SHEEN-JAHNG], he taught at a college
in Shihezi [pronounced SURE-HUH-ZI] in Xinjiang for 15 years. In
November 2003, his teaching career abruptly ended due to his political
activities. He fled to Malaysia, leaving behind parents, a wife, and a
teenage son. Mr. Hassan came to the United States as a refugee in July
2006, and soon after joined the Uyghur American Association, where he
became a very active Uyghur human rights campaigner. He writes and
blogs frequently in Chinese and is well known in the overseas Chinese
democracy community.
Su Yutong, Journalist, Internet Activist, and Former News
Broadcaster for the Chinese Service of Deutsche Welle
Su Yutong is a Chinese journalist and human rights defender.
Because of her involvement in commemoration events linked to the
Tiananmen massacre she was ``invited for tea'' and for ``chats'' by the
Chinese authorities and kept under surveillance and periodically placed
under house arrest. In 2010, after she distributed Li Peng's Diary, her
home in China was raided and documents were confiscated by the police.
After leaving China in 2010, she started working in Bonn with Deutsche
Welle, the German international broadcaster. On July 4, 2014, a
Beijing-based media consultant claimed in Deutsche Welle that some
Western media were unfairly critical of the Chinese government crushing
of the Tiananmen demonstrations--Ms. Su then became one of the most
outspoken voices against this whitewashing of the 1989 events. In
August 2014 Deutsche Welle ended their employment relationship.
Teng Biao, Chinese Human Rights Lawyer, Visiting Fellow at the
Harvard Kennedy School and the U.S.-Asia Institute, NYU Law School, and
Co-Founder of the Open Constitution Initiative
Dr. Teng Biao [rhymes with `lung'] is a well-known human rights
lawyer, Visiting Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and the U.S.-Asia
Institute, NYU Law School, and the Co-founder of the Open Constitution
Initiative. Dr. Teng Biao holds a Ph.D. from Peking University Law
School and has been a visiting scholar at Yale Law School. He is
interested in the research on human rights, judicial systems,
constitutionalism, and social movements. As a human rights lawyer, Dr.
Teng is a promoter of the Rights Defense Movement and a co-initiator of
the New Citizens' Movement in China. In 2003, he was one of the ``Three
Doctors of Law'' who complained to the National People's Congress about
unconstitutional detentions of internal migrants. Since then, Dr. Teng
has provided counsel in numerous other human rights cases, including
those of Chen Guangcheng, rights defender Hu Jia [Who Jah], and many
other religious freedom and death penalty cases.
[all]