[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AUTHORITARIANISM WITH CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS: POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS
HUMAN RIGHTS CHALLENGES IN CHINA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND NONPROLIFERATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 10, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-86
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-546PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York Member
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida JOE WILSON, South Carolina
KAREN BASS, California SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts TED S. YOHO, Florida
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
AMI BERA, California LEE ZELDIN, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
DINA TITUS, Nevada ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York BRIAN MAST, Florida
TED LIEU, California FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLPS, Minnesota JOHN CURTIS, Utah
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota KEN BUCK, Colorado
COLIN ALLRED, Texas RON WRIGHT, Texas
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania GREG PENCE, Indiana
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
DAVID TRONE, Maryland MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
JIM COSTA, California
JUAN VARGAS, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
Jason Steinbaum, Staff Director
Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and Nonproliferation
BRAD SHERMAN, California, Chairman,
DINA TITUS, Nevada TED YOHO, Florida, Ranking Member
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
GERALD CONNOLLY, Virgina ANN WAGNER, Missouri
AMI BERA, California BRIAN MAST, Florida
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan JOHN CURTIS, Utah
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia
Don MacDonald, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
INFORMATON SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Information submitted for the record from Representative Sherman. 4
WITNESSES
Zenz, Dr. Adrian, Senior Fellow, China Studies, Victims of
Communism Memorial Foundation.................................. 18
Jawdat, Ferkat, Uyghur American.................................. 23
Siu, Joey, Vice President, City University of Hong Kong Students
Union.......................................................... 32
Richardson, Dr. Sophie , China Director, Human Rights Watch...... 40
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 61
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 62
Hearing Attendance............................................... 63
AUTHORITARIANISM WITH CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS: POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS
HUMAN RIGHTS CHALLENGES IN CHINA
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and
Nonproliferation
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Washington, DC
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m., in
room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brad Sherman
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Sherman. The subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, all members will have 5 days to submit
statements, questions, and extraneous material for the record,
subject to the length limitation in the rules of the committee.
We do expect votes to be called on the floor of the House.
When that happens, we will adjourn, and we will reconvene when
that voting is completed.
Today is a special day for two reasons. First, this is U.N.
Human Rights Day; and, second, this is unfortunately the day
when the human rights of the entire Congress will be abridged
by knowing that Mr. Yoho will not be with us for more than an
additional 12 months.
But it is auspicious that today is Human Rights Day because
this completes a series of three hearings of the subcommittee
on human rights. First, we focused on Southeast Asia; then we
focused on South Asia. Much of that hearing was focused on
Kashmir, but we also had one witness who focused exclusively on
Pakistan, and we had considerable discussion regarding Assam,
Sri Lanka, and other issues.
Today we focus on China. We were going to have a hearing
covering all northeast Asia, but there is so much going on in
China. I should mention that that--had we gone broader, that
hearing would have covered North Korea. To honor Human Rights
Day, the Administration has refused to sign off on a U.N.
Security Council discussion of human rights in North Korea.
That decision is definitely questionable, and the human rights
in North Korea are an abomination that angers the world.
So this hearing will complete our three hearings on human
rights, and I should also mention that I expect tomorrow that
the Financial Services Committee will vote to make me chair of
its Capital Markets Subcommittee.
Those of you familiar with Congress know that you can only
have one gavel at a time, and I do not--if I had a gavel here,
I would hand it to the gentleman from northern California, Mr.
Bera, who I am sure will take over this committee in the weeks
and months to come, and has been an outstanding member. This,
of course, is all subject to a meeting of Democrats on the
Foreign Affairs Committee, which I am sure will go very
smoothly.
So I know this subcommittee will have completed its work on
human rights hearings and will be in good hands in the years to
come.
Today we focus on human rights in China. One of the
greatest human rights crises in the world is China's ``strike
hard'' campaign against the Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities
in Xinjiang Province. Under the guise of counterterrorism, the
Chinese Communist Party is seeking to eradicate Uyghur culture
and religious belief. At least a million Uyghurs and perhaps
far more are in what one Pentagon official has called
concentration camps. Whether they are concentrated or not, they
are camps surrounded by barbed wire where people are not
allowed to leave.
The ``strike hard'' campaign has also witnessed the
systemic use of forced labor, which is now, unfortunately,
entangled in Western supply chains to a degree that we do not
fully understand, and perhaps our witnesses can enlighten us.
The Communist Party has built an Orwellian surveillance
State in Xinjiang that is gradually being adopted perhaps
over--across China, and even worse may be a Chinese export.
Last week the House passed the Uyghur Act. The text that
was passed was an amendment in the nature of a substitute that
I wrote and presented to the full Foreign Affairs Committee. It
was based on legislation from three separate bills, one put
forward--with legislation being put forward by Jim McGovern and
Chris Smith; by myself and my ranking member, Ted Yoho; and by
Gerry Connolly and Ann Wagner as well.
The Uyghur Act would require President Trump to impose the
Global Magnitsky sanctions against all Chinese officials who
are responsible for the suppression of the Uyghurs. We are long
past the point when this should be done, and it should not be
linked to any ongoing negotiations on trade or any other
subject.
The legislation requires that the Commerce Department
prevent U.S. technology that can be used to repress Uyghurs
from being exported to China. This bill passed I believe
unanimously on the House floor, and I urge our colleagues in
the Senate to pass the Uyghur Bill Act and send it to the
President, who should sign it.
The last 6 months have seen massive protests in Hong Kong.
At times, two million Hong Kongers out of a population of just
over seven million have taken to the streets. These protests
began in response to a bill that would have allowed people in
Hong Kong to be extradited to mainland China where the court's
respect for human rights is highly questionable.
Since then, the protesters have added four additional
demands, including an independent inquiry into the police's
excessive use of force as well as universal suffrage in Hong
Kong in its elections. It should be worth noting that Beijing
committed itself to universal suffrage in Hong Kong as part of
is basic law for governing the city, but it is yet to make good
on that promise.
Although the Hong Kong government has withdrawn the
extradition bill that initially spurred the protest, it has yet
to commit to the protesters' other demands. Sadly, in recent
weeks, there has been growing violence by the Hong Kong police
and to some degree by demonstrators. And I would point out that
the demonstrators in Hong Kong are most effective when they are
peaceful.
In response, Congress has passed, and the President has
signed into law, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act,
and legislation that restricting exports of certain police
weapons to Hong Kong. Among other things, the Hong Kong Human
Rights and Democracy Act requires the Secretary of State to
annually certify that Hong Kong still enjoys sufficient
autonomy from the mainland to justify the U.S. giving that
territory preferential treatment on trade and other economic
concerns.
I should also note that the House passed the Stand with
Hong Kong Resolution, which I introduce with Ranking Member
Yoho, Ms. Wagner, Mr. Connolly, and others. There are countless
other human rights issues in China today, including Tibet,
where the Communist Party is seeking to control who will
succeed to the position of Dalai Lama when the current Dalai
Lama passes on.
On this issue, Jim McGovern and Chris Smith have introduced
the Tibetan Policy and Support Act of 2019, which I am a co-
sponsor of. I believe that the full committee will be taking up
this bill shortly. Ranking Member Yoho also has a resolution
supporting Tibet's autonomy and supporting the current Dalai
Lama.
But the Communist Party is also seeking to extend political
control beyond its borders. It is a threat not only to human
rights within China, but also here in the United States. Many
Americans were first made aware of this when the Communist
Party targeted the Houston Rockets' general manager because he
chose to support the Hong Kong protests, yet the NBA is far
from a unique case for the Communist Party of China has used
access to the Chinese markets to compel U.S. and foreign
businesses to toe the party line on countless issues, from
Taiwan to Tibet to Hong Kong to Xinjiang.
Hollywood, very important to my district--I represent more
studios, I believe, in Congress than anyone else--has been
especially targeted. What the Communist Party does is it said
only 34 U.S. films can be shown in China each year. Then it
dangles that in front of studios, making it plain that their
films will not be among the 34 if they were to dare to make a
film about Tibet or Xinjiang or Hong Kong.
I also fear that the Communist Party's efforts to control
speech around the world will grow more intense as it introduces
this social credit system. This system will give a social
credit score to individuals and businesses based on their
loyalty to the Communist Party of China.
I recently had a meeting with the former Chinese Ambassador
to the United States, who remains very active in policy, and
several others from the Embassy, where they all denied knowing
that there was anything being worked on called a social credit
score in China.
So without objection, I will enter into the record 12
articles, all describing these in detail, all from publications
respected in China.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sherman. This social credit score will also be used to
penalize those who buy, say, American cars or otherwise help
reduce the U.S.-China trade deficit.
I want for the record, though, to point out that I am not
implacably anti-China. I have been the loudest voice on the
committee for peace in the South China Sea, and for a cooling
off of naval relations between our countries. But what China is
doing with regard to human rights is something for us to focus
on today on U.N. International Human Rights Day.
And with that, I turn it over to the ranking member.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sherman. There are 10 minutes left in votes, so we can
hear your opening statement and then go to the floor, if you
want.
Mr. Yoho. All right. Yes. Let's go ahead and do that. I
will not be more than 10.
[Laughter.]
First off, thank you for the job you have done. I think you
have been a very valuable and effective chairman, and I will be
sad to see you leave. But I am glad you are pointing to that
fellow there because I think Dr. Bera will do an outstanding
job in your footsteps. So thank you for your service.
The social credit scores of China--wow, what a powerful
tool. Would any government love to be able to control their
citizens, so that nobody runs a red light, nobody crosses,
jaywalks? What a great tool. But what a threat to freedom and
liberty.
This is a scary thing that we are going on, and this
meeting--this hearing is so important. And I want to thank
Chairman Sherman and our brave witnesses for making the hearing
possible today. There is no more important topic for the
subcommittee to focus on, and this is a message that needs to
get out to the world. This is something that our manufacturers,
our NBA--not only the owners but the players--need to
understand. What is going on?
How many people in the audience are from Xinjiang or you
are Uyghurs or you have been to that area? How many people? And
I am doing this because I know china is probably going to watch
this, and I hope you guys are OK with that.
We know what is going on over there, and we are going to
let the world know what is going on. It is unacceptable. We
have been through this before. We saw General Eisenhower after
World War II when he went to the concentration camps say,
``Never again.''
But it is going on, and it is going on right now. And every
time you buy a product that says, ``Made in China'' you are
empowering the suppressive Communist regime, which incidentally
in their manifesto, in their Statements say there is no higher
power than the Chinese Communist Party. Period. There is no
deity. Xi Jinping is the closest thing to a deity in China. And
the role of the Chinese people according to the Chinese
Communist Party is to serve the Chinese Communist Party.
Whereas, in Western democracies, the role of the government is
to protect the God-given rights of our citizens and to empower
our citizens.
And this is why this message and this hearing is so
important, because that message needs to get out. When our
manufacturers go over there, they do it for profit. When NBA
goes over there, they do it for profit at the expense of people
that you know.
The Chinese Communist Party's repression is the greatest
threat to global human rights and Democratic freedoms. As I
said in an op-ed I published late last year titled ``China's
Second Century of Humiliation,'' Xi Jinping is the most
accomplished human rights violator alive today, and history
will record that, and I hope he is listening.
Our witnesses today are on the front lines of a global
struggle against Xi Jinping and his Communist Party that offer
socialism with Chinese characteristics. Give me a break. It is
Communism with suppression on steroids.
They are leaders. They are leaders. The brave Hong Kongers,
like Joey here, thank you for coming to our office and I
appreciate what you all are standing up to do. And I know you
have put your life in jeopardy, but you are standing up for
those innate values that we have all been born with of liberty
and freedom.
So thank you for standing against the CCP's foot soldiers,
defend their rights, and wake up the world to their threat.
Ferkat, you have shown the world a shining example of
bravery in the face of oppression. Somebody heard one of your
podcasts today. They were sharing this story, and they broke
down in tears with your story, and I hope you share that today
as you fight to free his family from the horrific
imprisonments.
Dr. Richardson and Dr. Zenz, thank you for being here. You
guys are global leaders in bringing the CCP's abuse to light.
The human rights challenges we all face is massive in scale.
The recent weeks of secret party documents on Xinjiang, the
Xinjiang papers, revealed the worst of the abuses occurring
inside China and are personally directed by Xi Jinping himself.
This is a wakeup call, and I am glad these papers came out
because this is people within the Chinese Communist Party
knowing what he is doing is bad. And so this is something that
the more we talk about this, and the more we bring this out and
the awareness campaign, the more it is going to affect their
decisions.
Xi has directed a party to use all organs of dictatorship
to oppress people. Over and over again, the nature of the
Chinese Communist Party is revealed. But despite the scale of
these abuses, the world remains largely silent. Our goal is to
make them wake up, so that their hearing aids are turned on.
In fact, many countries openly support the CCP's
atrocities. In the U.N. and on the international stage, dozens
of countries have defended China's concentration camps.
Unacceptable. And the international response to Beijing's
ongoing interference in Hong Kong has been limited at best.
More and more countries are adopting oppressive laws
modeled after China's digital authoritarianism, and the CCP is
exporting its repression around the world. He has offered ZTE
technology to Maduro in Venezuela, Iran wants it, Putin wants
it, and I cannot think of a better tool for a dictator to have
than that.
China-subsidized tech companies sell dystopian technologies
to dictators, and the CCP forces international businesses to
echo its censorship and propaganda. You know, the NBA is a
perfect example, Marriott Hotels for recognizing Taiwan,
airlines for saying we are flying to the country of Taiwan. Oh,
you cannot do that because you have offended somebody in China.
Disney was going to show films--their new film coming out
that had the nine-dash lines and said Taiwan was a province of
China. Thank God for some of the ASEAN countries that said this
is BS; you are not showing those movies in our country. I
applaud those countries.
The scale of CCP human rights abuses, combined with CCP's
ability to export these abuses globally, has no parallel. We
need to be on the right side of history. The world has never
before been challenged by this kind of technology in a
threatening and negative, suppressive way that China is using
this today.
The United States has taken some significant steps in 2019,
including the enactment of the Hong Kong Human Rights and
Democracy Act, the House passage of the Uyghur Human Rights
Policy Act, we passed the Cambodia Democracy Act, but there is
much more to be done and we have not yet brought the full
weight of the U.S. Government to bear.
The world is still mostly silent on the CCP human rights.
Without a mobilized international response, the United States
has to continue to lead, and that is why I am thankful for our
hearing today, so we can reflect their human rights leadership
in our policy.
And I look forward to discussing the current state of the
CCP's repression and the individual freedoms and democracy and
suggestions on our next steps. And I am looking forward to
coming back because I am kind of fired up about this.
[Laughter.]
You all take care. We will see you in a minute.
Mr. Sherman. One thing that illustrates the need for human
rights in China is that 1 minute after we all leave, which is
right now, I am going to ask the cameras to turn off, and my
staff will work with anybody in the audience who cannot have
their face on the tape, so that we will have a place where
people can watch and where there will be no filming.
With that, we stand adjourned until after votes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Sherman. I should point out, so I believe staff has
taken action to make sure that anybody who does not want to be
in this video, their face will not appear.
I should point out that I have got to commend Mr. Yoho for
the title of his article, ``The Second Century of Chinese
Humiliation,'' now being humiliated by their own government.
Now I will stack that up against what my staff came up with as
the title for this hearing, ``Authoritarianism with Chinese
Characteristics.''
With that, I will ask whether anyone wants to make an
opening statement. The man who will soon be yielding me
sufficient time to make small opening statements at hearings of
the subcommittee, Dr. Bera.
Mr. Bera. Yes. I just wanted to make a quick statement on,
you know, it has been a pleasure working with you as the
chairman of this subcommittee, and certainly the issues that
you have taken on with regards to human rights and human
dignity and looking for a better, more collaborative world.
So I have appreciated your leadership on that. And, I will
try to take the baton and keep that going in the same direction
and trajectory. So, with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Sherman. Ann, do you want an opening statement?
Mrs. Wagner. Just to echo the gentleman's--associate myself
with his words. We are glad, as someone who serves on Financial
Services, that you will be moving up the dais in that regard
and will be sorely missed here, but we look forward to carrying
on in your good stead. So we thank you.
Mr. Sherman. I thank you.
We have four witnesses today. Two of them have been
suggested by the minority party. Two of them have been selected
by the majority party. There is so little partisanship on this
effort that no one watching these hearings will be able to
figure out which are the two witnesses Yoho selected and which
are the two the chairman selected.
But the first witness I will call on is Adrian Zenz, who is
a former senior fellow in China studies at the Victims of
Communism Memorial Foundation. He supervises Ph.D. students at
the German-based European School of Culture and Theology. He
has arguably done more than any academic to expose China's
massive detention centers in Xinjiang, and the general
oppression of the Uyghurs.
Please proceed, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF DR. ADRIAN ZENZ, SENIOR FELLOW, CHINA STUDIES,
VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION
Dr. Zenz. I would like to thank you, Chairman and the
ranking member and the others, for inviting me to testify.
In 2017, China's Xinjiang region embarked on the probably
largest incarceration of an ethno-religious minority since the
Holocaust. Now it is clear that this internment forms only the
first internment forms only the first phase of a long-term
strategy of unprecedented and intrusive control.
Beijing's long-term strategy in Xinjiang is being
implemented under the heading and guise of poverty alleviation,
notably industry-based poverty alleviation. I have identified
three schemes or flows by which the State seeks to place the
vast majority of minority adults into different forms of
coercive or at least involuntary labor.
Flow 1 pertains to persons in what I call vocational
training internment camps. Camp detainees can end up in
factories on internment camp compounds, in industrial parks
which can be located near camps, the camps in them, or village
satellite factories. One document promised a participating
company that 500 internment camp laborers would be brought to
the facility with accompanying police guards.
The employing companies receive 1,800 Chinese yuan State
subsidy for each internment camp laborer they train, 5,000 yuan
for each they employ, and a shipping cost subsidy of 4 percent
of their sales volume.
In 2018, Huafu Corporation, which operates the world's
largest dyed yarn production in Xinjiang, received half a
billion Chinese yuan, approximately $71 million U.S., in
subsidies from the Xinjiang government.
Flow 2 pertains to a vast government scheme that puts
hundreds of thousands of so-called rural surplus laborers into
centralized training involving 1 month of military drill, 1
month of political thought indoctrination, and 1 month of
vocational skills training. Workers are then sent off to their
new work destination in large groups.
Flow 3 places rural Uyghur women into village factories
equipped with nurseries for infants as young as a few months
old. Government village work teams use thought transformation
to convince these women and their parents of the benefits of
full-time factory labor.
Government documents note that factory work transforms
women away from tradition and backward-thinking. One propaganda
text States that this causes minority workers to become born
again. The Chinese term for born again used here is the same as
in the Chinese Bible, equating forced labor with starvation.
Beijing is turning its internment campaign into a business
of oppression where participating companies benefit not only
from government subsidies and from--but also from cheap
minority labor. As a result, they will be able to undercut
global prices.
Particular concern is that all of these labor flows are
mixing beyond recognition. Graduates from interment camps work
alongside workers from other flows. Products made by any
combination of these workers are then exported or shipped to
eastern China. As a result, many or most products made in China
that rely at least in part on low-skilled labor-intensive
manufacturing can contain elements of involuntary ethnic labor
from Xinjiang.
The Better Cotton Initiative, BCI, the world's largest
cotton standard, which aims to promote sustainability and
better working conditions, recently stated that a continued
presence and engagement in Xinjiang would continue to benefit
local farmers.
BCI states there is no direct evidence that forced labor is
being used on BCI-licensed farms in Xinjiang. After Huafu,
which is on the BCI council, was scrutinized. BCI responded by
noting that Huafu had commissioned an independent social audit,
which did not identify forced labor. Asking for an independent
social audit in an environment as controlled as Xinjiang is
like asking the fox to check that no hens are missing.
My own research on Huafu comes to far more troubling
conclusions. Over 90 percent of its staff are ethnic
minorities, mostly rural surplus laborers. Huafu's website
states that a large number of world surplus laborers are idle
at home, which brings hidden dangers to public security.
Company reports depict hundreds of Uyghurs in military
uniforms at a staff training event, and a Xinjiang government
website reports that Huafu is part of an official training
initiative where Uyghurs are put into centralized military
drill, thought transformation, and de-extremification.
Once employed, staff are subjected to intensive ongoing
political indoctrination, including oath swearing sessions and
mandatory written reports designed to establish correct values.
The German company Adidas audited Huafu's spinning
facilities in Aksu and found, quote, ``no evidence of force
labor or of government involvement in the hiring of their work
force.''
A cursory search shows Chinese media outlets citing Huafu's
own management openly saying that the local government sends us
workers according to our staffing needs. A report from the Aksu
government propaganda bureau confirms that the prefecture
trains and then sends Uyghur workers to Huafu. Government
reports that in that very region as many as 200 adults from a
single village were rounded up by government work teams and
shipped off to work at factories.
The third example pertains to garment maker H&M, which
continues to procure yarn from Huafu, but from their yarn mills
outside of Xinjiang. However, 19 provinces and cities in
eastern China are mutually paired with minority regions in
Xinjiang. This involves extensive state-mandated labor
transfers.
Government reports state that one county in Xinjiang alone
sent 103 rural minority surplus laborers to Huafu's factory in
Anhui Province in eastern China.
I am coming to a close here.
In order to benefit from--in light of these present
findings, I call upon the U.S. Government to embark on a
detailed investigation of policies and practices of involuntary
labor in relation to Xinjiang and the involvement of American
companies. After passing their Uyghur Human Rights Act,
stopping the business of oppression in Xinjiang is the next
step.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Zenz follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
We will now call upon Ferkat Jawdat, who is a Uyghur
American activist and software engineer. He immigrated to the
United States in 2011 with three of his siblings to live with
his father who had immigrated in 2006.
In February 2018, Ferkat's mother was sent to an internment
camp in Xinjiang, along with his--along with two younger
brothers and in-laws. Ferkat has been publicly advocating for
his mother and her family and their release, and has met with
Secretary Pompeo on that issue.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF FERKAT JAWDAT, UYGHUR AMERICAN
Mr. Jawdat. I would like to thank Chairman Sherman and
Representative Yoho and all of the members of this committee
for giving me the chance to share my story and be the voice of
my people here today.
I am here to speak as a Uyghur American, subject to China's
long arm of terror. I am here to ask the Congress and the
President to stand up for freedom. I came to the U.S. in 2011
with my three other siblings to reunite with my father who had
came here in 2006 and applied for political asylum. But my
mother could not reunite with us because the Chinese government
would not issue her a passport. We had exhausted all of the
legal channels to get her here. China holds her hostage as
leverage over us.
On February 6, 2018, my mother left me her last message on
WeChat, the Chinese version of WhatsApp. She told me she was
going to the school. This is a code word that they use to
describe the camps. Then she disappeared.
A month later, five people from my father's side, they all
wound up in 1 day and sent to one of those camps. I waited for
more than 7 months, praying my mother and the relatives will be
released. It was the darkest period of my life. I was
desperate, I was scared, and I was nervous.
Finally, I decided to speak out. Since September 2018, I
have met many U.S. officials and gave interviews to more than
40 news outlets around the world. I was worried and scared.
Each time I spoke out, my cousins, uncles, aunts, and even my
75-year-old grandmother was threatened by the Chinese officials
or the police. They were forced to sign documents stating that
they will cutoff all contact with me.
Three days after I had the meeting with Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo in March this year, the Chinese police transferred
my aunt and uncle to the prison, and later they sentenced them
for 7 and 8 years for crimes that they never committed.
After my story was published in The New York Times in May,
I received a phone call from my mother. She told me she was
released and then begged me to stop criticizing China and
speaking out. Three days later, I found that she was released
only for 1 day to call me, and she was surrounded by police
officers and then brought back to the camp again the next day.
After my mom became ill in the camp, she was brought to a
hospital. An ethnic Chinese senior doctor told officials that
the only way to keep my mother alive is to allow her to
contact--having contact with her family members and to get
proper medical treatment. My mother was released in June, and
we can now talk by phone. But she is in constant monitoring,
and she is being visited by the Chinese police or the
government officials every single day.
She had to pose for the videos or pictures holding an apple
or just pretending that she is drinking or eating at the house.
Since my mother was released, the Chinese security agents
contacted me twice on WeChat. They demanded that I listen to
them and work with them in order to keep my mother safe.
They hinted they could get her released to the U.S. if I
cooperate with them. When I refused, they told me I should be
ready to pay the price as I was going up against a global
superpower. They told me I was worthless. I was powerless.
The State Department issued a statement on November 5
calling on China to release the families of three Uyghur
Americans and stop threatening us. Four days later, the Chinese
government falsely branded me and Arafat Arkin, who is sitting
here in the audience, as members of a terrorist organization.
And then they also released a video of our parents, our family
members, where they say that they have never been sent to the
camps and that they are living happily.
As a result of my testimony in this room today, China may
release another video or another article where they force my
mom or my relatives to speak against my will. I worry about
what will happen to my mother, and then especially after The
New York Times' podcast released yesterday. Even before that,
they already threatened that they can just kill my mother if
that has been--if it has been published online.
The U.S. Government has led the world in responding to the
Uyghurs' nightmare. All of the Uyghur Americans, including
myself, my family members, we all really appreciate it, and
then thankful for being a member of this great country.
I also ask Congress to pass the Uyghur Human Rights Bill
before the end of the year, and send it to the President's desk
and urge him to sign it and let it come a law. I also ask
Congress to increase funding for Radio Free Asia, the Uyghur
Service, and also provide more funding for the Uyghur
organizations like the Uyghur Human Rights Project and the
Uyghur American Association.
And for the last, as a son, I ask your help to bring my
mother to the U.S. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jawdat follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. What you tell us is chilling and
may justify the tariffs we have on Chinese goods, even if we
did not have a trade dispute.
I now go on to Joey Siu, who is vice president of the City
University of Hong Kong Students Association, is an activist
with the Hong Kong protesters. Ms. Siu has organized peaceful
protests, including the assembly of 60,000 people calling for
international support in August of this year.
She has met with over 60 political leaders from eight
countries over the past 3 months and has testified at the
United Nations in Geneva.
Ms. Siu.
STATEMENT OF JOEY SIU, VICE PRESIDENT, CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG
KONG STUDENTS UNION
Ms. Siu. Good afternoon, Chairman Sherman, Ranking Member
Yoho, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for holding
the hearing on the Human Rights Day, the day when the free
world countries celebrate the adoption of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
However, there is a totally different story under the
Chinese authoritarian regime. Millions of people face severe
oppression in their daily struggles to defend human rights. We
Hong Kongers are one of them, and at this critical juncture, we
are facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis.
Ever since the movement broke out on 9th of June, the crowd
has not stopped taking to the streets for our five demands. The
massive arbitrary arrests and political prosecutions have
created a chilling effect on the rights to freedom of assembly
and expression in Hong Kong.
Police siege of the Polytechnic University represents the
most serious occasion of human rights violations. Voluntary
first-aiders and journalists were arrested and forced to kneel
with their hands tied--a scene which may not be visible if in a
war zone. Medical supplies, food and water supplies, were
cutoff from the campuses then.
The hygiene soon became a problem, and the desperate
atmosphere was also traumatizing. The government created a
humanitarian crisis in Hong Kong.
On the most critical night, more than 1,000 Hong Kongers
went onto the streets to rescue the trapped victims inside the
Polytechnic University. The police responded with brutal
suppression, resulting in a stampede. Until today, the police
have fired around 10,000 tear gas canisters, 6,100 rubber
bullets, and 19 live rounds. Although the police brutal arrest
and dispersion tactics counts as gross violations of the
international human rights standards, they continue to enjoy
impunity from the law and receive full support from the Chinese
communist government.
In detention centers, detainees are often tortured or ill-
treated, where access to legal assistance and medical supplies
is often denied. Victims have also reported sexual and gender-
based violence committed by police officers. In a shocking
case, a teenage girl filed a complaint against the police after
allegedly being raped inside the police station by multiple
police officers. She even needed to undergo a termination of
ensuing pregnancy.
The pro-democracy camp's landslide victory in the district
council election 2 weeks ago demonstrates Hong Kongers'
overwhelming support for the five demands. Yet we must bear in
mind that candidates who advocates for independence or self-
determination for Hong Kong are still deprived of the right to
stand for elections.
In 2016, Edward Leung, candidate representing Hong Kong
indigenous, was barred from participating in the legislative
council election. And in the same year, six elected lawmakers
was disqualified.
Edward Leung is now serving his 6-year imprisonment of
rioting, a crime under the public ordinance, for his
participation in the 2016 Mong Kok arrest. The vague
terminology, combined with the disproportional sentences,
allows the Hong Kong government to arbitrarily arrest and
prosecute protesters. The ordinance has been repeatedly
criticized by the United Nations for curtailing the freedom of
assembly and expression.
As the court hearings regarding the 2016 Mong Kon unrest
continues, more than 6,000 politically motivated arrests have
been made since June. As a result of political prosecution, Ray
Wong and Alan Li, founders of Hong Kong Indigenous, fled Hong
Kong in 2017 and were granted asylum status in Germany.
They were the first two political refugees from Hong Kong
and now we fear that the world is seeing more and more from
Hong Kong. Freedom of press and academic freedom are also under
threat. Major media companies have been bought by the pro-
Beijing tycoons resulting in serious censorship in news
publications.
Police unauthorized entry into the universities,
accompanied by invasive use of force, severely encroach upon
academic freedom. The government has installed a considerable
amount of intelligent street lamps with high resolution
security cameras across the city. Police force was also found
to have used facial recognition technology to identify
protestors since 3 years ago.
The China Communist government clearly has a plan to
establish totalitarian control in Hong Kong. Having been turned
into a police state, the city is not far from becoming a
surveillance state. The threat of Chinese interference is not
limited to Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong.
China has been exporting a surveillance technology, along
with its mode of totalitarian governance, to countries along
the Belt and Road Initiative. Beijing's grand imperial projects
is posing a significant challenge to the rules-based order and
democratic values across the road.
We are grateful to the U.S. Government for passing the Hong
Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. The earlier the
Administration imposes sanctions on the perpetrators of human
rights violations, the less human cost Hong Kongers need to
suffer.
We sincerely ask the U.S. Government to lead all other
democracies in the world, to ensure China complies with the
international human rights standards. We ask urgently the U.S.
Government to lead an international inquiry on Hong Kong police
brutality against the Hong Kong people.
We defend freedom and human rights, not only for ourselves
but also for the other people around the world. We need the
United States and the other countries to stand with us.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Siu follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
After we hear from the last witness, I will call upon Mr.
Bera, and then Mr. Yoho, for their questioning.
And earlier in my opening remarks, I criticized the
President for not signing off on having U.N. hearings today on
human rights in North Korea, but I should point out he did sign
the legislation that we passed overwhelmingly in the U.S.
Congress on Hong Kong.
With that, I will recognize our last witness, Sophie
Richardson, who is China Director at Human Rights Watch and is
the author of numerous articles on domestic Chinese political
reform, democratization, and human rights. She has testified
before at the U.S. Senate, but much more importantly, at the
House of Representatives.
And she is qualified to address not only the issues address
by our other witnesses, namely Hong Kong and Xinjiang, but can
also enlighten us with regard to Tibet, and the great Chinese
heartland where human rights are also a concern.
Ms. Richardson. Dr. Richardson.
STATEMENT OF DR. SOPHIE RICHARDSON, CHINA DIRECTOR, HUMAN
RIGHTS WATCH
Dr. Richardson. Chairman Sherman, Ranking Member Yoho,
members of the subcommittee, we wish we had better news to
share with you with any of many issues I have been asked to
talk about today. But from the 156th self-immolation last week
of a Tibetan, to more than 10,000 rounds of tear gas fired at
largely peaceful protests in Hong Kong, from the one million-
plus arbitrarily detained Uyghurs who, contrary to party
officials' claims that they have, quote, ``graduated'' are
clearly not free, to authorities crushing independent civil
society and peaceful dissent, partly through pervasive State
surveillance, including the social credit system, the realities
are, at best, challenging.
In addition, Chinese government threats to human rights no
longer stay within China's borders. They range from undermining
norms like academic freedom at universities in the U.S. to
undermining key institutions like the U.N.'s Human Rights
Council.
I would like to spend my time today talking through a
couple of different areas of recommendations. I hope that is
acceptable to you. The first is about multilateralism,
specifically with a view toward accountability. We have got a
lot of evidence of grave human rights violations in Xinjiang.
We are good on that.
What we need is to combat China's power in the
international system and particularly within the United
Nations, which is effectively blocking many of the different
pathways to accountability. Let's recall today the proceedings
began this morning in The Hague against the Myanmar government
for its gross violations of Rohingya's human rights. We have to
imagine the same outcome for the family members of all of these
people who are sitting here with photographs.
The United States has found ways to support some of the
efforts related to Xinjiang at the Human Rights Council and at
the General Assembly in New York. But the reality is that the
U.S. not being a member of the Human Rights Council has
hampered those efforts. It has ceded that institution to
greater Chinese influence, and it has made that institution
that much more difficult to access for independent civil
society from China.
So, quite simply, if we have any expectations that the
Chinese government is going to be held to the same standards as
any other government in the world, the U.S. has to be a robust,
principled, consistent, reliable player there. So that is one
area we can talk about.
With respect to sanctions and export controls, we certainly
share your views about Global Magnitsky sanctions that are
appropriate for multiple China situations. I think the
Administration's willingness to use that tool, just in the last
day or two with Cambodia and Myanmar, but not in China, has not
escaped Beijing's attention.
We are encouraged by the Department of Commerce's additions
of the Xinjiang public security bureau, particularly to the
entities list. We also encourage scrutiny of CETC, which is the
conglomerate that is responsible for building the integrated
joint operations platform, which is sort of the central brain
of high-tech surveillance in Xinjiang.
We particularly appreciate the current Uyghur Act's
approach to export/re-export in in-country transfers, that it
focuses on the potential threats to human rights rather than a
specific technology or a specific company, because that matches
the grim reality today in China, which is that authorities do
not necessarily want things like handcuffs or tasers to commit
human rights abuses; they want things like DNA sequencers. And
U.S. legislation needs to catch up to that reality.
Third, with respect to pending legislation, we are
certainly broadly supportive, both of the Tibet Support and
Policy Act and the Uyghur Act and encourage the Senate to take
those up quickly and pass them.
One other area I want members to think about is ensuring
that U.S. companies, universities, and other institutions are
not part of the problem. I think this committee can certainly
do a lot of work in urging any U.S. company that has a presence
in Tibet or Xinjiang to publish its due diligence strategy to
show that it has thought through the human rights risks to
doing business in those regions.
On a related note, we would certainly urge very close
scrutiny of any assessments that claim they have unfettered
access to supply chains. As Professor Zenz has pointed out,
this is a very difficult region to independently assess much of
anything, but U.S. universities I think also need to be pushed
to ensure that they are taking all possible steps to mitigate
clear Chinese government threats to academic freedom on
campuses.
I am happy to elaborate on the work that we have done
setting out steps that schools can take to challenge these
kinds of threats. We sent it to all 50 U.S. State university
systems. Relatively few have replied at all. None of them I
would say have replied thoughtfully to show that they are
taking these concerns seriously.
Last but not least, it is imperative that the U.S. continue
to support independent civil society in China. The Chinese
government's foreign NGO management law has made that
considerably more difficult. We have confidence that the U.S.
can be nimble and thoughtful and agile and keep supporting the
people inside China who are really trying to make change.
We also hope the U.S. is actively tracking and vigorously
pushing Chinese authorities over those authorities' harassment
of family members inside China for the activism of people
outside China.
So I think combining these different elements makes for the
most successful possible human rights dialog between people in
the U.S. and in China, and I am happy to answer any of your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr.. Richardson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
Mr. Bera.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this important hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for
having the courage at some risk to step up and share the
stories. It is incredibly important, and to have a platform
such as this.
When I think about my introduction to activism, it was as a
young college student in the apartheid movement in the early
1980's, and so forth, and it almost is as though we have got to
create public awareness and a similar movement to build on what
I hope are our core values as the United States of America of
human rights and human decency and not sit silent.
Dr. Richardson, you may have the best perspective on this.
Obviously, China controls the flow of information within China,
information from Hong Kong, information from Xinjiang. How much
does the rest of the Chinese domestic population know what is
happening within their own borders?
Dr. Richardson. Well, getting at that kind of information
requires a couple of things. First, access to a really good
VPN, which has gotten much harder. But it also requires knowing
to ask, knowing enough to go looking. And if you have been told
all your life that, Xinjiang is a hotbed of terrorism, and,
therefore, Chinese government policies in the region are
justified. And you have never had the opportunity to second-
guess that or been given reason to do that. You are probably
not going to.
And, some of my colleagues speak very eloquently about the
very jarring reality of, for example, leaving the country to
come to school, for example, in the U.S. and being confronted
with a completely different set of facts and not--and going
through the process of understanding not just that what you
have been taught all of your life is, at best, questionable, if
not completely fictitious.
But then the process of relearning and understanding how
you can actually give credence to certain kinds of information,
it is very challenging on many levels.
Mr. Bera. And what tools do we have, say, in the
multilateral Western world to get information into China about
potentially what is going on?
Dr. Richardson. I think that ranges everywhere from anti-
circumvention technology, or I should say pro-circumvention
technology, to the wonderful work that is done by different
services like VOA and RFA.
I think keeping the doors open to students and to scholars
who want to come to the United States is critical. And treating
that impulse as an opportunity for solidarity rather than just
a national security issue, which is really how it has been
discussed here for the last year, I think those are all
important ways of giving people access to alternative
narratives and information.
Mr. Bera. You touched on the role of the U.S. corporate
sector, as well as academic institutions, and certainly, again,
going back to my introduction in the early 1980's some of that
was putting pressure on the U.S. corporate sector as well as
the U.S. academic sector. At this juncture, do you see much of
that happening at the grass-roots level, or, you know, from a
State-by-State perspective? Or is it still very early?
Dr. Richardson. I would say that it is very fragmented, and
I think they are very different discussions about the
involvement of companies and the kinds of due diligence
standards that they are expected to uphold. I think the
discussion for and about universities is different, which is
not necessarily to say that some of them are not just as
problematic in their relationship. So I think they have a
different set of responsibilities and obligations.
I think universities are really struggling to understand
the scope of threats to academic freedom that stem from Chinese
government pressure. They seem to think for the most part that
unless a Chinese diplomatic is, for example, telling them they
cannot have--telling a senior-level administrator that they
cannot have a particular event on campus, that there are not
problems. They are not--they are not looking at examples like
at the U.C. Davis campus a couple of weeks ago, you know,
students ripped--pro-Beijing students ripping down Lennon Walls
and other pro-democracy Hong Kong materials.
The school is not proactively saying, in a very broad
sense, you cannot do that and taking a stand on issues like
that. Some of it is very, through micro-level awareness, that
big institutions I think are struggling to get their heads
around.
Mr. Bera. So probably, you know, one thing that definitely
is within our control, if you are in the U.S. domestically, is
to raise that awareness, to make sure proper information is
getting out to kind of the U.S. corporate social
responsibility, community, and certainly to the big academic
institutions, and that flow of information getting out there,
and certainly to the big academic institutions and that flow of
information getting out there.
And, again, not going to be easy, but certainly I think it
is incredibly important to create both a grass-roots--one last
question, kind of on the multilateralism where Western
democracies, countries that share similar values about human
rights, we have not heard as much of that kind of multilateral
coalition coming together to exert pressure or exert economic
pressure.
Now, are you seeing some of that coming together or----
Dr. Richardson. I guess maybe I have a bit of a different
view on that. I mean, the 25 governments, not including the
United States----
Mr. Bera. And maybe that is the perspective that----
Ms. Richardson [continuing]. Came together in July to offer
up the first serious criticism via the Human Rights Council
president about Xinjiang calling for access.
Mr. Bera. And maybe playing off of that, how diminished is
our role by not being part of the human rights community right
now?
Dr. Richardson. Well, it is about being part of the Human
Rights Council particularly. But, you know, I cannot in 5
seconds answer. It is enormously problematic. Other governments
wants the U.S. leadership. They want the air cover.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you.
I will yield back.
Mr. Sherman. I now recognize the gentlelady from Missouri.
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
ranking member allowing me to jump ahead here.
The New York Times recently published hundreds of pages of
leaked party documents relating to oppression of the Uyghurs.
Some seem to suggest that the rampant human rights abuses in
Xinjiang had caused rifts in party leadership. Mr. Jawdat, how
significant are these dissenting voices? And how can the United
States leverage internal disagreement to blunt Beijing's attack
on the Uyghur Muslims?
Mr. Jawdat. So, for that question, I think before, like, we
come to the question part, like it is really important to know
that the documents were released by someone inside a party.
Mrs. Wagner. Right.
Mr. Jawdat. And then he or she stated that the reason that
he risked his or her life to publish the documents is to get Xi
Jinping and then the party officials in front of justice. So we
have to get the signal.
And then the world is waiting for a document or proof or
evidence, like for years, but now we got--we have got the hard
proof. It is coming directly from Xi Jinping himself.
And then there is disagreements between the Communist Party
about what to do, how to suppress the Uyghurs. But it is really
good to see that there is at least some people in the Chinese
government, the ethnic Chinese officials, that they are trying
or saying no to the Xi Jinping's order.
Mrs. Wagner. Well, I hope we can continue to leverage a
little bit of that internal dissent, and it is up to us to give
voice. I thank you for your courage and all----
Mr. Jawdat. Thank you.
Mrs. Wagner [continuing]. That you have endured.
More than a year ago, in a controversial bid to insulate
Chinese Catholics from persecution and intimidation, the
Vatican signed a deal with the Chinese government allowing it a
role in appointing Catholic bishops in China. In the meantime,
China has launched a Sinicization campaign to dilute the
religious, ethnic, and cultural identities of minority groups.
Dr. Richardson, how is Sinicization affecting Chinese
Catholic communities, both State-sanctioned and underground?
And how has the Vatican responded?
Dr. Richardson. ``Sinicization'' means being loyal to the
party and the government, above anything else.
Mrs. Wagner. It is an amazing word; is it not? Yes.
Dr. Richardson. And it is a little hard to reconcile with
the concept of the freedom to believe.
Mrs. Wagner. Correct.
Dr. Richardson. Since one rather does seem to replace the
other. So the problems that we are seeing as a result of the
Sinicization campaign are not unique to people who are
worshiping in State-sanctioned Catholic churches versus
underground ones. This is relevant to Tibetan Buddhists. It is
relevant across different faith communities.
It is hard to see much of a consequential response
whatsoever from the Vatican. There was a Global Times story
this morning that I believe suggested that the Pope had China
and the Chinese people central to his heart. It is up to the
Vatican to say whether that is accurate, but negotiations seem
to be proceeding between the two about the selection of
bishops.
Mrs. Wagner. Well, as a cradle Catholic, I believe that it
is incumbent upon the Vatican to call this Sinicization
campaign out, especially given the agreement that they have
undertaken with the Catholic bishops in China. And I would very
vociferously call on that here.
China is in the process of assembling and implementing a
dystopian social credit system that uses data mining and
surveillance to score citizens--to score citizens based on
their, quote, ``trustworthiness.'' I understand China plans to
deploy a similar system now to track businesses operating in
China.
Dr. Richardson, again, what is the status of the corporate
social credit system? And how do you anticipate it will be used
to coerce and intimidate foreign actors?
Dr. Richardson. The most recent development was about 3
months ago when Chinese authorities announced that they were
going to use the social credit system, whether they were going
to apply the corporate version of it not just to domestic
companies but to foreign ones as well. I can only assume that
our collective social credit scores are pretty low at the
moment.
It is very difficult to tell just how integrated across the
country these systems are. And at the moment, from our
perspective, they appeared designed to reward or induce
particular kinds of behavior. It is not exactly clear what
sorts of punishments will follow for having a low score.
We know that if you have got a good score, for example, you
are more likely to be able to enroll your child in the school
that you want, or you will not have problems doing things like
buying plane tickets or accessing State services. But if you
have a low score, you can run into problems.
And, of course, in a normal world, this might just be sort
of a consumer rating system maybe. But we are talking about an
environment in which the law is whatever the Chinese Communist
Party says it is when it says it is that. And there is no right
to privacy, and there is no way for people to know fully how
they are being rated, what the consequences are. It is an
entirely arbitrary system.
And in a way, I think to the extent some people inside
China have expressed enthusiasm for this idea, that is as much
a commentary on how politicized and corrupt the legal system is
in not being able to deliver consistent verdicts about what
behavior has been codified by law, it is----
Mrs. Wagner. The repression and the brainwashing is
significant. My time has expired. I want to thank you all for
being here, for your courage. And everyone who sits behind that
this Congress and this committee care deeply about bringing
light to this process and this disgraceful humanitarian regime.
So I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sherman. Yes. Dr. Richardson, when the Chinese
diplomats were in my office, they denied the social scoring
system even existed. Do organs of the Chinese government at
least admit that this is happening? Or do they consistently
deny? Or is it like they deny on Mondays and admit it on
Tuesday?
Dr. Richardson. Well, I mean, let's recall that this is the
government that denied for a year was arbitrarily detaining any
Uyghurs, and then, you know, and there is----
Mr. Sherman. But is the Chinese government on record as
saying they are developing a social scoring system? Or do they
try to deny it constantly?
Dr. Richardson. You know, some parts of the government have
publicly acknowledged the social credit system, mostly at the
municipal level, governments that are using it for access to
local public services. But, no, there is evidence out there. It
is not a problem.
Mr. Sherman. And they claim that they will lower their
tariffs, we will lower ours, and we will have fair trade. Can
this system be used to punish either individuals or companies
that choose to buy products or services from the United States
when they could have bought them from Chinese companies?
Dr. Richardson. I do not think we have any information to
answer that question yet. So I guess I would default to a more
general observation that it is our arbitrary, right?
Mr. Sherman. Right. And we do know that it is the position
of the Chinese government, buy the Chinese products, and that
is one of the reasons why we have the world's--the largest
trade deficit in history with China.
The World Bank is supposed to be helping countries that are
trying to develop. We had Mnuchin come before the Financial
Services Committee and think it was a great victory that China
was only going to get $1 billion--turns out it is closer to 2
billion--of concessionary loans from the World Bank, including
our money.
But it particularly troubles me, in light of this hearing,
I am told that the World Bank currently funds several
vocational schools in Xinjiang. Does the World Bank have the
capacity to make sure that those schools are not part of this
incarceration/retraining system? Mr. Jawdat?
Mr. Jawdat. I just wanted to add, like as a comment, like
to your question is, well, like you said it is that more than
$1 billion, some part is from our money, that some part is
coming from my tax in the U.S. that I am making, I am paying
for the government. And then it is being used to put my mom in
the camp.
Mr. Sherman. Why the U.S. Government has not drawn a line
about our participation in the World Bank and demanded a zero
approach to subsidizing the Chinese government is something I
addressed to Mr. Mnuchin, and you may want to address to the
Administration as well.
I know the State Department is not represented here at this
hearing, but is the United States doing all we can to get our
diplomats and to get nonprofit--rather, non-governmental
organizations access to Xinjiang? Does anyone know? I do not
even know if we are even trying. Dr. Richardson?
Dr. Richardson. I think it is a little bit different for
diplomats and for NGO's. I certainly would not object to the
State Department being more adventurous, actually trying to
send diplomats to----
Mr. Sherman. I certainly have not read any report of
anybody making it from our embassy in Beijing out to western
China.
Dr. Richardson. I think their calculation is that they
would be so heavily surveilled they would be turned around on
arrival. And, look, that is the reality. That would happen. But
I think at this point the U.S. should be considering, for
example, stating explicitly that it is pursuing consular cases.
There are plenty of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents
who have family members who have been detained.
Mr. Sherman. Right.
Dr. Richardson. I see no reason why the State Department
could not be more aggressive in trying to visit the region to
try--with the explicit stated purpose of trying to visit those
family members, even if they do get turned back. Let that be
reported.
Mr. Sherman. Exactly. And I would point out that Chinese
diplomats fly around our country as they will. What can the
United States do to ensure that Americans are not purchasing
goods made with forced labor?
Dr. Zenz. I think the U.S. Government is becoming aware of
the issue slowly. I have done my part in this. The problem is,
the forced labor situation is very complex and very
complicated. It does not just involve internment camp labor. It
involves involuntary training, putting women into small-scale
village factories, and transferring minorities to work in
participating larger corporations in eastern China. And that is
one of the examples I gave in my testimony.
And so the problem is there is a lack of understanding and
awareness, especially of the cross-linkages between Xinjiang
and eastern China. And I think it would be very good if the
U.S. Government, for example, sent a strong signal, a strong
message of concern to the business community, because my
impression is that the business community is just really trying
to get away with whatever they can as we have seen in recent
weeks.
Mr. Sherman. I am going to sneak in one question quickly,
because I do not know if anybody has an answer. Do any of you
have a view as to why the Trump Administration has not used the
Global Magnitsky sanctions on a single Chinese official, not
even the party secretary for Xinjiang?
Let the record show no one could answer the question.
Dr. Zenz. I have heard through the grapevine that the
Treasury Department--and this is not my personal observation,
but it has been heard through--it has been rumored through
several grapevines, let's put it that way, and it has become
almost maybe public knowledge that the Treasury, which is, you
know, primarily of course responsible for agreeing to the
Magnitsky, did not in any way want human rights considerations
in Xinjiang to impact the trade negotiations. So prioritizing
the trade negotiations.
Mr. Sherman. One would hope that people would read the
statute and realize you cannot ignore human rights statutes,
even if you think that is achieving another purpose.
With that, I will recognize the ranking member.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
everybody's testimony. I think it all comes down to the money,
and I am going to address that later.
But first off, I want to say how blessed I am to have been
born in America, to live in this country, because I--and I feel
guilty for not appreciating it every day. But when I see you
holding up signs and pictures of your family members, how
fleeting freedom is, and how fortunate we are in this country.
Thank you all for being here. Thank you all for braving coming
out in public.
And I am going to ask the audience again, of the members of
your family that have been picked up and sent so-called to the
re-education camps, how many of those did that freewill? I see
no hands, so I would say none.
How many were gainfully employed and law-abiding citizens
before they got picked up? How many? Your mother was? Anybody
else?
All the pictures here, these people had jobs? They were
working? They were lawfully employed? Law-abiding citizens? How
many of them were deemed terrorist or were troublemakers? That
is what we know, yet China says it is for their own good.
We have talked to other members from Xinjiang, pharmacists,
accountants, doctors, that were just living their life, and
they had a belief, a religious belief. And I wanted to say to
Ambassador Wagner that the Pope is going to have some
explaining to do when he meets up at the Pearly Gates of St.
Peter's that he has put God under the Chinese Communist Party,
because China said that there is no God.
Dr. Richardson, you brought out--you talked about, can you
send this committee and my office the letter you sent to the 50
universities?
Dr. Richardson. Of course.
Mr. Yoho. I would like to help you have a followup with
that.
Dr. Richardson. Thank you.
Mr. Yoho. Because I want that answer, too, because we have
asked that. We cannot dictate to China. We cannot force China
to do anything. The message we need to send to China is--and to
our manufacturers is to institute what we have deemed the ABC
policy in manufacturing, and that is called manufacture
anywhere but China, because it is about the money.
The only thing that allows China to do what they are doing
is because of the money. They have cornered the market on the
rare earth metals. They have cornered the market--100 percent--
of the vitamins and minerals that go into our livestock feed.
They control 85 to 90 percent of the APIs, which are the active
pharmaceutical ingredients. And the list goes on and on and on.
And so we cannot force them to do anything, but we sure can
put public pressure on our manufacturers. We can put public
pressure on the NBA. And it makes me sick that they come out in
defense of China, but yet they are actively supporting a
government that is actively suppressing the people. And it is
just not the people of China. It is what we see in Hong Kong.
And thank you for standing up and doing what you do, Joey.
I have followed you and this protest over the weekend. I want
you to know that it is not going unnoticed. It is noticed here
in the United States of America. It is noticed around the
world. And as the chairman said, the more you can do it
peacefully, the stronger the message is, because China cannot--
they do not know how to deal with freedom of thought, because
you do not honor the Chinese Communist Party on a pedestal and
bow down to it, because that is not the way we are designed.
But you know what we can do, is when I went shopping this
weekend to do some projects around the home, I had to buy
something. It was made in China. I put it back, and I looked
until I found something that was made in the country of Taiwan.
I paid $1.50 more--maybe extra for it, and I am happy to
support the country of Taiwan over supporting a Communist
regime that I know is not looking out for humans and human
rights.
And so that is what we can do individually as people. And
if enough of us do that, that message gets over there clear,
and I think with the people releasing those 400 pages, I think
that is awesome, and that person should get the Nobel Peace
Prize when this all settles, because these people on--this is
what we are fighting--the suppression of people that have
normal family lives. It is just because they choose to have a
religion that the Chinese Communist Party does not agree with.
We have seen this in Tibet. We have seen the erosion of the
Tibetan culture. The Chinese government has put drugs in there
to dilute that society. They are doing it in Xinjiang. They
want to do it in Hong Kong. Who is next?
When I first took over the chairman--if you do not mind me,
Mr. Chairman--when I first took over the chairmanship last
Congress of this committee, we had a meeting with the country
of Taiwan. My office staff--one of them is right here--said
that the Chinese Ambassadors called them, says, ``We do not
want your member to have that meeting.''
Can you imagine that? I am a sitting member of the U.S.
Congress, and I am getting a call from--the Ambassador from
China says, ``You cannot have that meeting.'' I told them to
mind their own business; I will meet with whomever I want to.
I was in the country of Chile with a Congressman down
there. His brother had received two ambulances from the country
of China. His brother is the mayor in a town. The Congressman
was having a meeting with the country of Taiwan. China told
him, ``If your brother has that meeting with Taiwan, you will
not get any more ambulances.'' That is the kind of reach they
have.
Dr. Richardson, you brought up the effect on our
educational system. You obviously saw what was going on in
Canada over the weekend and last week. Pro-Beijing people were
demonstrating and causing conflict with the people that stood
up for the human rights and the people standing up in Hong
Kong. This is something we, as people of free societies, can
and will and will stand together to make this come to an end.
I do not want to buy anything from China. When they start
acting properly, maybe they will have to sing Amazing Grace or
something. I do not know what it is. But then we will treat
them as normal.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and thank you for
your time.
Mr. Sherman. I recognize the gentlelady from Nevada.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize that today's
committee hearing is about the egregious abuses by China of
human rights. But it goes much further than that. This is more
than just bilateral relations between China and the U.S. It is
multinational, and it certainly is a regional problem.
I would ask Dr. Richardson if we could pick up where Ami
Bera left off. It seems to me there is a double dilemma here.
On the one hand, the U.S. is conceding its leadership role in
the protection of human rights. I think that is international,
but certainly an example is China. On the other hand, China is
in a position where it can exert economic and security
pressures on certain countries.
So when we tell them, ``Do as I say, not as I do, but you
have to do this or we will put sanctions,'' how are they going
to balance their attempts to protect human rights with that
pressure that they are receiving from China? And what can we do
to try to intercede there, to be a player again?
Dr. Richardson. I think that is sort of the $64,000
question of our time. I think, first, the U.S. has to make sure
that it is itself fully compliant, and behaving in accordance
with established international human rights law.
I would refer you to my colleagues who work on the U.S. to
speak more specifically to some of those issues. But I think
the U.S. has been slow to recognize and respond to the ways
that--the many different ways that the Chinese government and
Communist Party have moved into all different spaces of
international relations. It is not just about U.S. development
assistance competing with, for example, the Belt and Road
Initiative.
There are very complex discussions about the use of
technology and who is going to set and defend international
standards on things like privacy rights, or who own certain
kinds of technology and can deploy that. There are a lot of
different areas where I think the U.S. has some catching up to
do in crafting policies that are consistent with international
human rights standards, but also offer compelling alternatives
to countries that are increasingly dependent on Chinese
government money.
Ms. Titus. Anybody else?
Mr. Jawdat. One example I think of is the overwhelming
passage of the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act from the House.
Like right after that, Australia and then the EU yesterday,
they implemented their own Magnitsky sanctions for the human
rights abusers. So even before that bill becomes a law there is
already enough momentum around the globe that other countries
are following the U.S. steps.
So it is really--like many great things start from here. So
once that bill becomes a law, it is really a great chance for
other countries to really stand up, and then it will give you
another like alliance, and then another power to go after
China.
Dr. Zenz. The biggest problem, the Chinese are very good at
strategy, and they have always been for a long time. And I know
that you pick countries out one by one, so the strategy is to
isolate and to bilateral.
The approach to contain China's human rights violation that
we need to take must be multilateral. And China, knowing that,
has moved to paralyze and co-opt the few multilateral
institutions that we actually have. And that I think is the No.
1 problem that we are facing, and that must be recognized. And
I am not sure where the right solution even starts, but I think
that is the key problem and a lot of countries are afraid to
counter China very directly.
I mean, look at Sweden. I mean, they just took a Swedish
citizen, you know, in front of diplomats and put them--Gui
Minhai--put him in prison. Yes, he is ethnic Chinese, so they
think he is one of the, no matter what his passport is. And
Sweden is not even publicly doing anything about it, and then
the Chinese Ambassador to Sweden regularly lashes out at the
media and everything.
And then one of the Swedish ministers was going to attend a
ceremony to honor or commemorate or something Gui Minhai, their
detained citizen. And then Chinese Ambassador to Sweden
threatened that if the minister would attend that she would get
on a blacklist, a Chinese blacklist.
If I was head of Sweden, I mean, I would not just say
something, but I would say something strong. And I have no idea
what these people do and how they think that they can get
pushed around, but I think this is more than ridiculous. And it
is amazing it has even gotten this far.
Ms. Titus. Well, when you create a trade war, and then try
to resolve it and make that the priority as opposed to human
rights, that is the kind of results that you get here in this
country. We seem to be afraid to stand up as well. That is the
problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
For the record, if China is watching, I hope you put me on
the blacklist. I would be honored.
Mr. Yoho. I will be with you.
Mr. Sherman. Good. And Mr. Yoho, too.
For the record, I want to apologize for not calling on the
gentleman from Michigan first, and I will call on Ms.
Spanberger for her questions, and we will see if the gentleman
from Michigan makes it back.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And to our witnesses, thank you for being here today.
To all of the families who are present, thank you for your
continued activism. Thank you for being here with photographs.
Thank you for reminding Members of Congress what exactly it is
that you are working for.
And I see my colleague has just entered. Okay. I will
continue. Thank you to my colleague from Michigan.
Dr. Richardson, my question is for you. In your opening
statement you said something to the effect of ``To commit human
rights offenses, China does not need handcuffs. They need DNA
sequences'' or ``they will be using DNA sequences.'' And
through artificial intelligence and the use of more than 200
surveillance cameras, China is developing the capability to
conduct widespread surveillance and enforce social control.
These capabilities, specifically the use of biometrics,
facial, voice, iris, and gait recognition software, and
pervasive video monitoring, are being used extensively in
Xinjiang to identify individuals who Chinese authorities
consider threatening.
I am concerned about China's development of artificial
intelligence surveillance technology, but I am also very
concerned about reports that China is exporting this technology
to other countries for their potentially repressive purposes.
How can policymakers prevent U.S. actors from contributing
either through the provision of capital or technology to the
construction of the Chinese government's surveillance networks?
Dr. Richardson. It is a big question. I mean, the first key
piece clearly is knowing who is selling what, and how that
technology is being used. I mean, the nearly 2-year-long
conversation that we had with Thermo Fisher Scientific, a
Massachusetts-based technology firm, revolved largely around
the fact that they were extremely reluctant to acknowledge the
possibility that their technology might be used in a really
nasty way.
So I think the conversation really has to start with
understanding what technology is being sold and to whom and how
it is actually being used. And the reference to handcuffs was
that the sanctions that went into--that the U.S. imposed after
Tiananmen, which have weakened considerably, were largely about
crowd control or police equipment.
But what has not kept up is U.S. legislation that responds
to what Chinese police are now using as tools of repression. It
is a very different set of equipment. So I think the relevant
committees really need to look at who is selling what to whom,
especially in light of either the addition of the Xinjiang
public security bureau to the entities list, and the greater
focus on some of the Chinese tech companies.
We actually wrote in 2014 about ZTE selling voice
recognition software to the Ethiopian government, which was at
the time using that equipment to surveil conversations by the
political opposition. This is knowable information. Some of us
are working in different ways on gathering some of it, but
presumably Congress has resources at its disposal to do a
broader survey.
But I think one piece of this I would encourage you to
focus on that has not gotten as much attention as we think it
should is also the role of sort of research and development and
some academics and institutions in working with Chinese public
security research institutes--such things exist--and there has
actually been an alarming amount of collaboration between
foreign experts and those institutions with a view toward
refining technology.
Last but not least, it is concerning to us that there is
ongoing cooperation between some of the companies that are now
on the entities list and U.S. universities. MIT's flagship
computer science laboratory has an ongoing partnership with
iFlytek. I do not quite understand how that works now, but
iFlytek is on the entities list.
But in the same way that we need to look at what
universities are doing with respect to academic freedom, I
think there is also room to look at what they are doing in
terms of collaboration with some of these kinds of companies.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Chairman, I do not have a timer, so I think I am
running short. But I want to thank the witnesses, and I yield
back.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
And now I will yield as much time as he may consume to the
very patient gentleman from Michigan, who I should have called
on earlier.
Mr. Levin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
I want to congratulate you on your outstanding leadership of
this subcommittee. I do not know if this is the last hearing
you preside over before you move on to other leadership duties,
but I really want to thank you personally for your great work
here.
And I want to say to--on this Human Rights Day--we could,
sadly, spend days of hearings on different human rights
problems in China--the surveillance State and their sort of
global reach on those issues, which you were just talking
about, the situation in Xinjiang. And I give a shout-out to all
of our Uyghur brothers and sisters. We see you. We hear you. We
are going to fight for you, no matter what it takes, until we
can take apart this repressive gulag, really, that exists in
Xinjiang.
And in Hong Kong, Ms. Siu, I was in Hong Kong in May, late
May 1989, when over a million people took to the streets in the
democracy movement. And I just salute your brave activism
there.
But later in that summer, I went on to Chengdu and tried to
get into Tibet, and I want to focus my questions on the
situation in Tibet. On my way, I was not able--Tibet was closed
in 1989, and I was in Chengdu during the Tiananmen Massacre,
and that is a whole other story.
But anyway, on the way home--I was a graduate student in
Tibetan philosophy--and on my way home I interviewed the Dalai
Lama in Los Angeles. And then a couple months later, 30 years
ago today, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Thirty years
ago today, and it is very sad to see what has happened to the
Tibetan nation since then.
So, Dr. Richardson, one problem is that U.S. policymakers
have little access to the Tibet autonomous region, and they
have been denied access to it. The United States has requested
permission to open a consulate in Lhasa and been repeatedly
denied.
What should the U.S. do about this? Should we prohibit
China from opening up any new consulates here until the Chinese
Party allows us to open a consulate in Lhasa? I mean, how can
we monitor human rights there or support the Tibetan people
there if we do not--we are not there?
Dr. Richardson. Well, I mean, first of all, I think that is
a reasonable strategy to try. Doing good research on human
rights violations in Tibet is extremely challenging, and I
would say that that is maybe one of the only things that has
prepared us for some of the work that we have been doing over
the last couple of years on Xinjiang, where one has to be
incredibly patient and puzzle pieces of information together.
The information flows have narrowed considerably,
particularly as there are greater restrictions on Tibetan
language social media and Tibetan's access to social media.
Mr. Levin. Right.
Dr. Richardson. The numbers of Tibetans leaving the region
have plummeted. The numbers of people who used to come out
through Nepal are a tiny fraction of what they were 10 years
ago, and it is much more difficult for people to get into the
region.
That said, human beings are creative in how they manage to
get information out. We have been doing some work on access to
bilingual education, which is not bilingual, and have actually
managed, through various channels, to obtain some testimoneys,
that speak to what is happening in the region, and we encourage
anybody who is able to do that kind of work and share those
stories safely to do so.
I think the U.S. has resources to know what is happening in
the region. It would be good if it was a little bit more vocal.
Mr. Levin. Right. Well, that is a whole other matter we may
or may not have time to get to. But let's talk about the whole
question of the succession of the Dalai Lama.
The 14th Dalai Lama has said that he alone has the
legitimate authority to--about where and how he would be
reincarnated, but trying to signal its intention to control the
process. Of course, we have the famous situation with the
Panchen Lama, who they said they picked their own and then he
is--he and his parents have never been seen since.
I just want to emphasize that Tibet has four major--there
are four major sects of Tibetan Buddhism, and they all have
many reincarnate lamas. And the Dalai Lama sect, which has been
for a long time sort of politically most powerful, would never
dream of telling the Sakyas or the Kagyus, or whatever, who the
reincarnate lamas are. I mean, there is no--it is a
completely--it is a question of religious freedom, and they
think they believe that this is actually a reincarnation
process. So a government cannot pick someone.
So it is especially shocking. But what is--what do you
think we can do--I mean, what do you see as the outcome of this
dispute given what has happened with the Panchem Lama and the
wildly higher stakes of the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama?
What is going to happen here?
Dr. Richardson. Well, I think one succinct, to answer, is
to say that any Dalai Lama chosen by Beijing will be completely
devoid of any legitimacy, both in a spiritual or a religious
sense, but also in I think a diplomatic and political sense.
You know, it is painfully clear, both by basic human logic
and international law, that the right to make those decisions
pertains solely to the community that is affected by them. And
I think one of the best aspects of the legislation that is
under consideration is making that view unambiguously the U.S.
Government.
Mr. Levin. The policy of the United States, yes.
Dr. Richardson. And I think going out and making common
cause with like-minded governments on that position will be
helpful.
Mr. Levin. So how long have you been doing human rights
work for Human Rights Watch or otherwise?
Dr. Richardson. I joined Human Rights Watch in February
2006.
Mr. Levin. So can you comment on the weight that the Trump
Administration has given human rights vis-a-vis other aspects
of foreign trade, military policy, U.S. national security, in
terms of your experience with the Obama and the George W. Bush
Administrations? With China, in general, and not just Tibet.
Dr. Richardson. In 15 seconds?
Mr. Levin. No. No. My chairman was good enough to give us--
so when you are--my time will expire whenever you are doing.
You have as long as you wish.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Richardson. I think----
Mr. Sherman. But then it will expire.
Dr. Richardson. Be careful what you offer. I think the
Trump Administration's much more aggressive posture toward
China is a very welcome change. We have been saying for over a
decade this is a government that presents a serious threat not
just to the 1.4 billion people inside China, but to the world.
And while President Trump's loathsome remarks about
President Xi is his best friend or that he is a brilliant guy
or these sorts of things, are I think deeply problematic
because they allow the Chinese leadership to choose which
version is actually U.S. policy.
I think the Trump Administration gets credit for doing
things like, you know, trying to find, you know, solutions or
support for people in the community here who are being harassed
for speaking relentlessly about religious freedom. The rhetoric
has been good, look that we have seen additions to the entities
list. I mean, these are not--these are not small steps to take.
And I suspect that the U.S.-China policy will never be
quite the same again, which is as much a function of the
Chinese government's aggression and its terrible track record
on human rights issues, but I think U.S. policymakers across
the spectrum are much more not just clear-eyed, I do not mean
to suggest that people in the past did not understand this, but
I think people are much more focused on what the stakes are and
what steps they need to take now to ensure that there is
actually some accountability and some way of pushing back
against Beijing's encroachments, not just on rights but on
others' use, too.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
Rather than adjourn, I am going to ask one question of Ms.
Siu because I do not believe you have been asked a question. On
November 24th, Hong Kong held elections for district council. A
record 4.13 million people were registered to vote. Almost 3
million people voted, turnout over 71 percent. The pro-
democracy candidates won 388 seats, up from 126, with a similar
decline on the pro-establishment candidates.
As a result, the pro-democracy bloc will hold a majority in
17 out of 18 of the district councils. You knew all of that. My
question is: what possible leverage does the protest movement
gain from that landslide victory? And what impact will these
district council elections have on the legislative council
elections in 2020?
Ms. Siu. Well, so, first of all, on the 24th of November,
the pro-democracy camp gained 85 percent of the district
council seats in the 2019 district council election. And there
are actually several symbolic meanings that the result brings
us. First of all, it is a very encouraging signal that
signifies that the majority of Hong Kongers are still in
support of the five demands that the protestors had been asking
for for the past 6 months.
And it is actually also a very great advantage that the
pro-democracy camp gained, that we got more financial resources
in support to our--to the political prisoners that are put in
jail and will be put in jail after the trial is brought to
court.
However, one very uncomfortable truth is that the
legislative power that the district council counselors have are
actually really small comparing to the legislative council
counselors. And we Hong Kongers are expecting to win more
States in the legislative council election.
However, another question about the district--about the
legislative council election is that even when we got most of
the States for the directly elected legislative councils, most
of the seats of the functional constituencies are still in
hands of the pro-democracy--in the hands of the pro-Beijing
side. And that is a very grave problem that hinders any acts or
bills that are in a foundation of the pro-democracy side or
Hong Kongers, only bills that benefits pro-Beijing camps or the
businessmen will get passed into legislative council.
So that is why--that is also one of the reasons why we had
been asking for an authentic universal suffrage from both the
executive branch and also the legislative branch, because that
is the only way to grant this, and to grant Hong Kongers a
responsive government, and also legislative counselors that
draft bills that benefits Hong Kongers.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you for your response. I want to thank
my colleagues for being here.
And we now stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]