I would like to thank the Commission for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.

History shows that economic liberalization usually leads to democratic reform. Why, after almost two decades, has that not happened with communist China? In China’s case, economic engagement — or at least economic engagement alone — has not produced political liberalization. Today, though it is a member of the World Trade Organization, has normal trade relations with the U.S., and is projected to have the world’s second largest trading economy by 2020, the People’s Republic of China continues to consistently violate internationally-accepted norms of behavior on a broad range of issues. It continues to proliferate dangerous weapons to terrorist-sponsoring regimes, commit widespread human rights abuses, and threaten our long-standing, democratic ally, Taiwan.

The SARS crisis is of course the latest illustration that China has made little progress, if any, toward embracing democratic values. Worldwide SARS outbreaks have served as a chilling reminder of the impact on not only the Chinese people, but also the world community, of the Chinese government’s tight grip on the media. Because of a concerted effort on the part of China’s leaders to withhold information about the outbreak, in large part through censoring the press, thousands of lives have been placed at risk. The Chinese people have hopefully begun to better understand their government’s character; however, SARS is unlikely to be China’s Chernobyl unless the U.S. government and others use the epidemic to launch a more serious campaign to change the communist regime.

One of the positive steps that we can take is to place a greater emphasis on the basic freedoms of speech, the press, and association in our dealings with China, starting with the Internet. The Internet is one of the most powerful tools to promote these freedoms by facilitating the exchange of ideas and the dissemination of information. Unfortunately, however, the Chinese government — like many other authoritarian regimes — aggressively blocks and censors the Internet, often subjecting to torture and imprisonment those individuals who dare to resist its controls.

Just last week, for example, the New York Times reported that four intellectuals, who were detained by Chinese authorities more than two years ago, were convicted of "subverting state power" for their discussions of political theory on the Internet. Each was sentenced to between 8 and 10 years.

Beijing has passed sweeping regulations in prohibiting news and commentary on Internet sites in China that are not state-sanctioned. The Ministry of Information Industry regulates Internet access, and the Ministries of Public and State Security monitor its use. The State Department’s most recent Country Reports on Human Rights Practices described the types of censorship, stating that, in 2002,

The report released last year by this Commission noted that China has even convinced American companies like Yahoo! to assist in its censorship efforts, and others, like America Online, to leave open the possibility of turning over names, e-mail addresses, or records of political dissidents if the Chinese government demands them. It would be beneficial, Mr. Chairman, for this Commission to further investigate any specific actions taken by these two companies, or others, to appease the Chinese government.

The blocking of websites in China is a widespread, far-reaching problem. According to a study released in December 2002 by Harvard Law School, as many as 50,000 out of 200,000 websites surveyed during the six-month study were blocked. Such sites included those of major foreign news organizations, health organizations, and educational institutions, among others.

Those who attempt to circumvent Internet restrictions in China are often subject to harsh punishment. For example, Huang Qi, the operator of an Internet site that posted information about missing persons, including students who disappeared in the 1989 Tiananmen massacre, was tried secretly and found guilty of "subverting state power." According to the State Department, Huang was bound hand and foot and beaten by police while they tried to force him to confess. The New York Times reported a few weeks ago that he was finally sentenced to 5 years in prison, after being detained for more than 3 years. Another individual, Li Dawei, a former Chinese police officer, was sentenced by Chinese authorities to 11 years in prison for downloading "reactionary" articles and maintaining contacts with foreigners.

These are but a few examples of the incredible lengths that the Chinese government has gone to in order to preserve control over the Chinese people and prevent change. Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, Amnesty International, and the National Endowment for Democracy — just to name a few — all utilize the Internet to try to provide news, spread democratic values, and promote human rights. But the obstacles they face in China — and in many other countries, like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea -- are great.

The U.S. private sector is developing a number of technologies to combat Internet blocking. Unfortunately, however, the U.S. Government has contributed few resources to assist these efforts and to put the new techniques to use. For example, last year, Voice of America and Radio Free Asia budgeted only $1 million for technology to counter Chinese government Internet jamming, and that funding expired long before the year’s end.

If the United States is to fully take advantage of the opportunities presented by widespread access among the Chinese population to the Internet, we must elevate the priority of Internet freedom in our public diplomacy, as well as better-coordinate, and dedicate more resources toward, U.S. Government and private sector anti-jamming efforts. I believe that the Global Internet Freedom Act, which I recently introduced with Senator Wyden, will take an important step in this direction. Specifically, this bill establishes an Office of Global Internet Freedom charged with combating state-sponsored Internet jamming and persecution of Internet users. The Office will be responsible for the development and deployment of anti-jamming technologies — using private sector expertise where available, but also hastening the invention of state-of-the-art tools that will keep free individuals one step ahead of the political sensors.

Congressmen Cox and Lantos have also introduced this legislation in the House, and I understand that it has become part of the State Department Authorization bill that will soon be considered by that body.

I cannot stress enough the importance of the Internet in promoting the flow of democratic ideas. But promoting democratic change will require more than a technological fix to circumvent Beijing’s firewalls.

It will also require the United States to clearly and consistently exercise leadership, unapologetically standing for freedom, even at times when it may seem easier to look the other way. In that regard, the United States should make clear to China’s leaders that the United States will not overlook the repression of the Chinese people simply for the sake of gaining ostensible Chinese support for other U.S. objectives, including the war on terrorism or efforts to deal with North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons. Rather, we should commit to using all of the tools at our disposal — including the Internet — to foster democratic change in that country by enabling Chinese citizens to gain unfettered access to the information that will ultimately empower them to choose their own destiny. As former President Harry Truman once said, "This is a struggle, above all, for the minds of men."

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today.