Kow-Towing to China: Clinton’s ‘Engagement’ Policy Means Joining Beijing in Stifling Human Rights in America

Protect The Independence Of V.O.A., The ‘Freedom Radios’

(Washington, D.C.): In recent days, the Clinton Administration has tried literally to “pull the
plug” on a Voice of America (VOA) broadcast that would have offended the Communist rulers of
China. Senior officials — including the President’s National Security Advisor, former Chinese
lobbyist Samuel Berger — directly intervened with the VOA’s management in an ultimately futile
attempt to prevent a recent interview with Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng from being broadcast
to the PRC.

According to yesterday’s editions of the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times, the
impetus for this official effort to suppress a voice of conscience came from U.S. Ambassador to
China James Sasser. Amb. Sasser, the Journal reports, “learned of the planned interview with
Mr. Wei and called the National Security Council to ‘express concern’ …. The
Ambassador…argued that a government-sanctioned broadcast would violate implicit assurances to
China that the U.S. wouldn’t seek to exploit Mr. Wei’s release politically.”

Complicit in the PRC’s Extraterritorial Efforts to Silence Wei

At Amb. Sasser’s urging, NSC officials and U.S. Information Agency Director Joseph Duffey
made repeated efforts to get VOA to refrain from disseminating the Wei interview. At one point,
Duffey even went so far as to write Kevin Klose — the Washington Post‘s highly regarded former
Moscow bureau chief (who knows a thing or two about protecting press freedoms from the
predations of totalitarian regimes) who now directs the International Broadcasting Bureau.
Duffey actually declared in his letter that the interview could be “detrimental to the vital
security interests of the U.S. government.” (Emphasis added.) He concluded by writing “I am
now formally asking that the [Wei] program not be broadcast.”⁽¹⁾

Fortunately, Mr. Klose — and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to whom he and the VOA
report — understood what was at stake in this instance. It was not the “vital security interests of
the U.S. government” or even the prospects that efforts to free other political prisoners still
suffering in the Chinese gulag would be set back.

Instead, the issue was whether China’s desire to exercise extraterritorial censorship would
be successfully enforced by the Clinton Administration — at the expense of the statutorily
mandated journalistic integrity and editorial independence of the Voice of America. As the
Washington Times put it yesterday:

“David Burke, chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors that oversees VOA,
said there had been complaints about broadcasts from the State Department and from
ambassadors in the past,⁽²⁾ but, ‘This is the first time anything like this has happened.
It’s disgraceful to put pressure on these journalists instead of coming to the board —
it’s taking advantage of people. If it had succeeded it would have been awful.'”

Burke — a former aide to Sen. Edward Kennedy — added in remarks to the Wall Street
Journal: “It is disgraceful that anyone in government would circumvent the [Broadcasting]
Board of Governors, which was designed to be a firewall [against] that kind of pressure.” The
Board unanimously rejected the Duffey intervention and instructed Mr. Klose to proceed with
VOA broadcasts of the Wei interview.

What Beijing Does Not Want Its People to Hear

The correctness of this response to pressure from the Clinton Administration’s China apologists
was all the more evident when the content of Wei Jingsheng’s broadcast is taken into account.
Consider the following representative highlights:

• “The most important thing that first broke my blind belief in the Communist Party was the
  constant changing faces and positions of Mao Zedong and Madam Mao during the Cultural
  Revolution. I was really disappointed and shocked to find that the Communist Party was not
  as good as it said it was. They were not working for the interests of the people but for
  themselves.”
• “[Wei’s military service, reading and travels throughout China] made me think more deeply,
  suspecting that the problems might not be that simple. It was not that this person or that
  person was bad, but probably there was something wrong with the whole system. After
  years of thinking, I reached the conclusion in the mid-1970s that the Chinese people would
  soon fall into great miseries unless the social system is made democratic and the Chinese
  people could control their own fate instead of letting it be controlled by a small number of
  people. That was the main reason I got involved in the Democracy Wall movement.”
• “…I knew the Communist Party only too well because I myself was brought up within Party
  circles….I told others [involved in the democracy movement] that our activities were entirely
  open and that if we spoke, we would have to speak the truth. Let’s get rid of the round-about
  ways. Let’s not rebel with the intention to surrender later in exchange for personal
  gains. I said, either we do nothing at all, or we do it for the ordinary people even if we
  may have to sacrifice ourselves.“
• “The communist prison has many cunning or even scientific tricks to ruin one’s health. I guess
  only when I describe them in detail in my book can people really understand all that. It cannot
  be explained in just a few simple sentences because it is hard for ordinary people to imagine
  how cruel the methods are unless one has experienced them in real life.“
• “My personal belief is that the democratic system provides a legitimate, peaceful and smooth
  process to ensure that the transition of authority is free of violent confrontation. Without this
  rational and legitimate process, there are bound to be fierce conflicts when a new authority
  replaces an old one. Generally speaking, an old authority is never willing to exit the arena,
  because after a long period of time, the individuals involved tend to regard the social
  responsibilities associated with their authority as their private belongings. This situation is very
  dangerous to society. In undemocratic countries, transition of authority is often violent and
  can be a matter of life and death. In Chinese history, there have been incidents where so many
  people were killed that blood was everywhere. This is [a] great loss and turbulence to society.
  So, from this aspect, the democratic system, at least the democratic system we see, is
  superior to all other systems.“
• “The military forces and police are the main important tools of the Communist Party. On the
  other hand, the Party is quite smart in that it knows that it is insufficient to oppress the people
  just with the military and the police. Therefore, it has adopted a method taken from the
  traditional practice. Of course, dictatorships of many countries have used it. That is the
  policy of keeping people in the blind. They try every means to keep the people in the
  dark and prevent them from knowing the truth. That is why I believe it is extremely
  important for broadcasting stations like yours and other media to get the truth across to the
  Chinese people, far more important than the military and police forces.“
• “The main trend of the reform in China is certainly towards democracy, even the Communist
  Party admits this point. The country is moving step by step towards democracy. But an
  important issue is that the Communist Party not only is unwilling to leave the historical arena
  but also has made laws that give the Party the powerful position. If you do not give in to the
  Party’s indefinite authority, you are in violation of the law. It can then explain to the Western
  world, just as Xiao Yang and Tang Guoqiang did not long ago by saying Wei Jingsheng is a
  criminal.”

“Of course, in Western countries, the term criminal bears a pretty bad meaning and
criminals deserve to be punished. This is one of the characteristics of the
Communist Party’s rule of law which does not aim to maintain social order and
stability but to maintain its one-party dictatorship. It is extremely difficult to
improve this kind of situation. It is impossible just to rely on economic progress.
Some countries are quite prosperous but not democratic. After all, when the
United States set up its democratic system at the beginning, all the material conditions
were far more backward compared with that China has nowadays. This is not an
economic issue. The social system is closely linked with people’s lives, a part of it.
There is no way that political progress naturally follows economic progress. This
argument seems a bit vague.”

• “I think an important thing is to let more ordinary people in foreign countries, in
  Western countries know more about the true situation in China because the living
  environment and behavior under democratic systems are entirely different from those under
  authoritarian dictatorships. Therefore, a lot of happenings are incomprehensible in the eye of
  the American people, government officials and congressmen and they may even misunderstand
  them. Under this kind of circumstances, it is extremely important to explain the truth to them
  and help them understand what is happening in China. I think I will first work towards that
  direction.”
• “The issue of MFN is very complex. It is hard to have the best of both worlds….In 1994
  when Communist officials negotiated with me, they told me directly that MFN was the
  most important issue. It is nearly a matter of life and death for the Communist Party….”

“They don’t want to lose MFN. They told me that they knew that I didn’t want China
really to lose this treatment either. If it is lost, the Communist Party cannot survive.
But more importantly, the real sufferers will be ordinary people. Therefore, we
certainly don’t want to see that. But on the other hand, it is the economic means that is
the most effective way to pressurize the Communist Party. Only economic pressure
can force it to face the issues.“

“Therefore, I believe that the United States should maintain this pressure,
this main pressure, otherwise there is no way to force the Communist Party to
respect the basic principles of mankind. I also believe that when absolutely
necessary, if the Communist Party simply ignores pressure from the International
Community and continues to violate human rights on a large scale, for example,
imprisoning large number of political prisoners and refusing to release them,
beating up and arresting workers who hold demonstrations in streets as it did
recently, if this kind of behavior continues, then it is absolutely necessary to cancel
the MFN treatment, to warn China that if you continue with what you are doing
and pay no attention to the basic principles of mankind, you shall fall down. If
the Communist Party doesn’t respect the rights of the Chinese people, then
it has no right to take advantage of the American market to fatten its own
purse.“

“In the current trade between China and the United States, the bilateral
trade, most opportunities are actually controlled by the Chinese Communist
Party who has the biggest share of the benefits. And most of the profits from
China-US trade have been collected by the Chinese Communist Party and its
members. Ordinary Chinese people benefit very little from it. On the other hand,
by controlling so many trade opportunities, they can force many American
businessmen to lobby in the United States for the Communist Party.
Therefore, the current trade system is the cause why sanctions will not be
effective and ordinary people will have to suffer. I sincerely hope the bilateral
trade system will be made more rational, at least the Communist Party should not
be allowed to control all the trade opportunities. This is so unreasonable, so
unfair.”

• “The propaganda by the Communist Party which is supported by the impressions left by some
  American businessmen in China is that Americans are interested in only money. As for issues
  like human rights, they sometimes shout some slogans and take some actions but everything
  seems to focus on money.”

“Although I didn’t believe this, later I sort of accepted it half-heartedly. But after I
came to the United States, all the Americans I have met, from the president to ordinary
workers like nurses in the hospital and waiters/waitresses in restaurants, are concerned
about human rights in China, I feel, not out of self-interest. No matter how you look at
it, they cannot gain any personal benefits from it. I am amazed, excited, and very
pleased about it.”

“My original logical thinking seems to be correct and the propaganda of the
Communist Party and the perception it created seem to be entirely wrong. I
sincerely hope you can convey the truth about American people to the people on
China’s mainland, so that they will understand that people in the United States as
well as in Europe and other countries are concerned about human rights, safety
and prosperity of Chinese people. At least we can say most of their concern is not
out of their self interest.”

Lessons From the Clinton Censorship Bid

The Clinton Administration’s effort to squelch Wei Jingsheng’s interview offers at least three
lessons:

1) Wei Jingsheng is a man of uncommon courage and attachment to the principles and
values with which America has historically been associated. Far from refraining from
“exploiting” his presence in this country, everything possible should be done to publicize his
views and bring them to the attention of his compatriots who remain enslaved by communist
totalitarianism.

2) Wei Jingsheng’s interview demonstrates the chasm between the Clinton
Administration’s stated purpose — the token liberation through forced exile of a few more
Chinese political prisoners — and what needs to be done, namely the freeing of the Chinese
people. The United States ought to be pursuing a policy of seeking an end to the regime in
Beijing, not the indefinite perpetuation of its tyranny, much as Ronald Reagan strove to do with
his strategy for destroying an earlier “Evil Empire.”⁽³⁾ In this regard, it is especially important that
Americans heed Mr. Wei’s warning about appearing to confirm totalitarian propaganda that we
only care about making money — a perception that only serves to embolden such despotic
regimes.

3) The editorial independence and journalistic integrity of the Voice of America and the
Freedom Radios (Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia) are in jeopardy and
must be strengthened. The Clinton Administration’s ham-handed effort to dictate the content of
VOA broadcasts is an important reminder that, unless the existing “firewalls” intended to protect
these broadcasting entities are preserved and enhanced in the course of the planned
reorganization of the Nation’s foreign policy machinery, future efforts to suborn and censor their
content are to be expected.

Already, the State Department Inspector General’s office has expressed its intention to
examine the consistency of VOA broadcasts and editorials with U.S. policy. Congress
should reinforce in pending legislation aimed at streamlining the U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy
the intention expressed three years ago in the Statement of Managers accompanying the fiscal
years 1994 and 1995 Foreign Relations Authorization Act:

“The conferees underscore that the mandate of the [State Department] Inspector
General is not so broad as to encompass investigation of editorial practices. The
conferees are concerned that journalistic independence of broadcasters would be
endangered if the Inspector General were to second guess working journalists. Such
review should be undertaken by the managers of the respective services, with proper
oversight of the Board.”

The Bottom Line

The Voice of America and its leadership have rendered a tremendous public service, and reflected
great credit on the United States, with the broadcasting of Wei Jingsheng’s 10 December
interview. The courage displayed by Mr. Wei in defense of freedom and that of Americans willing
to resist official pressure to deny him anew the right of self-expression are an inspiration — as well
as an indictment of a U.S. government too little concerned with liberty at home or abroad.

– 30 –

1. The brazen disregard for the truth that one has come to expect from the Clinton Administration
was much in evidence yesterday when President Clinton’s press spokesman, Michael McCurry,
denied that the White House officially tried to spike the Wei interview. In responding to the
question “Can you say why the White House thinks it’s proper for NSC officials to tell VOA what
it can and cannot broadcast?” McCurry said, “Well, that’s not what we did, and that would not be
proper. What the…President’s foreign policy advisor did do was to alert the Voice of America to
foreign policy implications of programs they might be considering.”

2. One particularly sordid instance occurred after VOA broadcast a powerful editorial on 15
February 1990 declaring after the fall of the Berlin Wall that the “day of the Dictator was over.”
It opined that, “The 1990’s should not belong to the dictators and the secret police, but to the
people,” and labeled Saddam Hussein as a ruler who held power “by force and fear.”

The Butcher of Baghdad formally demanded — and received — what amounted to an apology.
According to syndicated columnist William Safire, on 17 February, at a meeting attended by the
King of Saudi Arabia, then-Secretary of State James Baker “told [a] USIA representative…to
bring the VOA editorialists to heel.” Eight months after this act of appeasement, Saddam
Hussein’s forces invaded Kuwait.

3. See the Center’s Press Release entitled Center’s Gaffney Challenges Revisionists’
Deprecation of the Reagan Role in Toppling the ‘Evil Empire’ (No. 97-P 194, 15 December
1997).