could be characterized as a pattern of harassment and intimidation against people in our country?

Mr. BROWN. Are you asking me, sir, whether this murder in our view constitutes a consistent pattern?

Mr. SOLARZ. Let me ask you first, do you think murder constitutes an example of either harassment or intimidation?

Mr. BROWN. This is an extremely difficult question.

Mr. SOLARZ. I should think that question is easy to answer. The tougher one would be whether it is a pattern.

Mr. BROWN. I am sorry, I missed the thrust. Yes, your point is well taken.

Mr. SOLARZ. So murdering someone would be an example of harassment or intimidation.

Mr. BROWN. An extreme example.

Mr. SOLARZ. I should think so. There are two questions here: Does this by itself constitute a pattern? If not, are there any other examples of harassment and intimidation that you are aware of which, if linked to this, could constitute such a pattern?

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, the law enforcement agencies, the relevant law enforcement agencies have brought to me nothing thus far which would suggest to me that we have here a consistent pattern of harassment or intimidation, nothing in terms of proof. Mr. SOLARZ. If such proof were provided, would the administration be prepared to enforce the law?

Mr. BROWN. We would have to look at that very, very carefully, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Brown, are you saying that even if proof is provided establishing that there has been a consistent pattern of acts of harassment and intimidation by the authorities on Taiwan, that there is a possibility we might not enforce the law to require a termination of arms sales?

Mr. BROWN. If there were a proven pattern, proven consistent pattern of harassment and intimidation, Mr. Chairman, the law would come into effect.

Mr. SOLARZ. That is what I thought would be your answer.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Leach.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you.

I do want to raise just a point of clarification. There has been a little bit of a difference of attitude expressed in the subcommittee regarding the possibility that high or low government officials may or may not be implicated. According to press reports, the admiral that is head of the particular agency in Taiwan has been relieved of his command and is under investigation. Would you describe the position that the admiral holds as high or low level within the Government of Taiwan?

Mr. BROWN. I would describe the position of the head of the IBMND as a responsible position.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you.

I only have two questions that might be relevant of the kind that you might have the authority to answer. One is, do we have the discretion within the Department of State to order the cutting back of CCNAA offices in the United States?

Mr. BROWN. I would hark back, sir, to the relevant portions of the Taiwan Relations Act of April 1979. I don't believe I have the text available with me, but I do believe that it called upon us to have the sufficiency of the Taiwan instrumentalities, that is, sufficiency of number of offices of what is now CCNAA.

Mr. LEACH. I think your statement is valid, but it is not an answer to the question. Does the U.S. State Department have the authority to request a cutback in the offices of CCNAA in the United States?

As we know, they have been increased in the last few years.
Mr. BROWN. Yes; we do have that discretion.

Mr. LEACH. Second, do we have the option of suggesting to the Government of Taiwan, if there are indications that perhaps an intelligence agency or officials of a prominent intelligence agency are implicated in any way in serious harassment of U.S. citizens-as you indicated in this case the most serious harassment conceivable, that they withdraw to Taiwan, representatives of those agencies who may be stationed in the United States?

Mr. BROWN. Most certainly we have that option.

Mr. LEACH. I would only suggest that as this investigation continues that those might both be options the Department should seriously consider.

Thank you.

Mr. SOLARZ. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Dymally.

Mr. DYMALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

EXTRADITION TREATY WITH CUBA

Mr. Brown, this is for you. Did we have an extradition treaty with the Battista government in Cuba?

Mr. BROWN. We are not sure.

Mr. DYMALLY. Do you have one now with the present Government of Cuba? The answer is obviously no.

Mr. SURENA. There is an agreement, as I recall, relating to hijacking.

Mr. DYMALLY. You understood my question before I asked it. Thank you.

So we have an agreement with the Castro government on matter of breaking certain kinds of law. That was something that was negotiated directly?

Mr. SURENA. Yes, sir.

Mr. DYMALLY. In the absence of an extradition treaty, so it is theoretically possible that you could negotiate this sort of an agreement?

Mr. SURENA. Theorethically but I am not sure what sort of agreement?

Mr. DYMALLY. Any kind. You negotiate one with a country we beat up everyday on hijacking, surely you could negotiate some agreement with any country on murder.

Mr. SOLARZ. Would the witness please speak up a little bit?

Mr. SURENA. If I have understood the question, yes, we can negotiate.

Mr. DYMALLY. Thank you very much.

Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Roth.

ADMINISTRATION COMMENT ON RESOLUTION

Mr. ROTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Brown, this resolution-you have had a chance to read it, it is very short-is the State Department in favor of this resolution? Mr. BROWN. I have no problem with this resolution, sir.

Mr. ROTH. Actually the resolution would do very little. Congress would merely be requiring that Taiwan send the two people that we feel were involved in this murder back to the United States.

Mr. BROWN. It is precisely what we have been requesting, sir. Mr. ROTH. As far as the issue of extradition, that seems to be somewhat of a complicated issue. Didn't we have problems with Brazil a couple of years back? Many times we have troubles with countries like Brazil on extradition, don't we?

Mr. BROWN. We have had, I am sure, innumerable problems in many different individual cases, but I don't think I am competent to go into that.

Mr. Surena.

Mr. SURENA. Just to second what Mr. Brown has said, it depends very much on the individual case. Much to our dissatisfaction, our treaty partners in extraditions also have certain difficulties with successfully getting extradition from the United States from time to time. It depends very much on the case.

Mr. ROTH. For example, the Chinese tennis player, didn't we have a problem?

Mr. SURENA. I don't believe that was an extradition case.

Mr. ROTH. Or Robert Vesco?

Mr. SURENA. Well, we have not been able to extradite him to the United States.

Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, could you give us your own background in Taiwan affairs? Have you spent any time in Taiwan? Do you speak Chinese? Have you been a student of United States-Taiwan relations? What are your credentials in this field? Try to be as immodest as possible.

Mr. BROWN. Well, sir, I studied Chinese on Taiwan over 20 years ago in what was then the State Department Language School, halfway down the island in Taichung, and I was the Deputy Chief of Mission, the last Deputy Chief of Mission in the American Embassy in Taipei until December 31, 1978. I was the last Chargé. After our Ambassador departed, I was the last Chargé in Taiwan. I closed down the Embassy.

I then, under the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act, became a private person, as did all others who remained at the time, so that there were no U.S. officials stationed on Taiwan. I became the first Acting Director of the American Institute in Taiwan in Taipei, the Taipei branch.

Mr. LANTOS. What is the total number of years that all of these involvements entail approximately?

Mr. BROWN. Well, I studied the language there for over 1 year and I was in various incarnations there for over 1 year.

I might say that I have served in many other Chinese language posts, if you will-Hong Kong, Taiwan, Taichung, Taipei, Singapore, and again on Taiwan.

Mr. LANTOS. It is fair for us to assume, therefore, that you are one of the most knowledgeable officers of our State Department in dealing with Taiwan? Would this be a fair statement? Again, set aside your well known modesty. It is a factual statement isn't it? Mr. BROWN. Thank you for your compliment.

NATURE OF THE MURDER

Mr. LANTOS. All right.

Having established that-and I don't wish to get into the arena where you will admonish me as you admonished Chairman Solarz that the question should be directed to the FBI or Daly City Police because neither of them is here and we are interested in your views-at what point did the department conclude that the murder of Mr. Liu was not an ordinary murder?

Mr. BROWN. An ordinary——

Mr. LANTOS. Yes, not just a common, garden variety killing, that is right.

Mr. BROWN. After we were briefed by the FBI, sir.

Mr. LANTOS. Approximately when was that, Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. We received a full briefing, what I would characterize as a comprehensive briefing in December, sir.

Mr. LANTOS. What was the reaction within the Department upon receiving that briefing?

Mr. BROWN. Outrage.

Mr. LANTOS. How fully was this outrage communicated to the Taiwan authorities?

Mr. BROWN. Immediately and vigorously.

Mr. LANTOS. And at what level?

Mr. BROWN. Those communications ran through the auspices of the American Institute in Taiwan, with its counterpart at the highest level.

Mr. LANTOS. Is it reasonable for this committee to conclude that the Secretary of State was fully briefed on this event?

Mr. BROWN. It is, sir.

Mr. LANTOS. Was there any discussion within the State Department of this event being typical of the kind of terrorism that the State Department has so properly and publicy denounced in recent years?

Mr. BROWN. There was extended discussion of this and the possible implications, but I would decline to go into the nature and conclusions of such discussion.

Mr. LANTOS. Is it your view that that murder can be properly described as a terrorist act?

Mr. BROWN. I would prefer not to so characterize it.

Mr. LANTOS. I realize that you would prefer not to, but I am asking you to characterize it either as a terrorist act or as a nonterrorist act.

Mr. BROWN. Well, this appears to me to have been a killing by a gang and therefore, not within what I would characterize the motivations of a terrorist act.

Mr. LANTOS. Is it your testimony that the gang acted on its own authority or was the gang put up to it by government officials?

Mr. BROWN. I would suggest that you direct that question to our law enforcement agencies, sir.

Mr. LANTOS. In your discussions with the Taiwan authorities, did you explore the question of coverup, did you advise them that coverups in an open society, as Watergate so clearly demonstrated, simply don't work? And did you caution them that any attempt at a coverup at any level would so galvanize the Congress into action that repercussions could be extremely serious?

Mr. BROWN. I think they speedily came to that conclusion, sir. Mr. LANTOS. Are you suggesting that this is your impression or that it is because the State Department so counseled?

Mr. BROWN. I think that on the basis of our vigorous interventions conducted through AIT, they came to the proper conclusions.

ACCUSED IN PHILIPPINES

Mr. LANTOS. My final question, Mr. Brown, relates to one of the suspects, who I understand is presently at large in the Philippines, is that correct?

Mr. BROWN. That is my understanding, sir.

Mr. LANTOS. When did this individual escape from Taiwan to the Philippines?

Mr. BROWN. That was to the best of my knowledge, subsequent to that individual's return to Taipei and prior to a sweep by the authorities of criminal gangs on Taiwan in I believe November.

Mr. LANTOS. Are you implying the escape of this individual to the Philippines took place without governmental complicity? Mr. BROWN. I am not implying anything, sir.

Mr. LANTOS. Well, what is your judgment?

Mr. BROWN. I have no judgment. I simply note that the movement to the Philippines by this individual reportedly took place after that individual returned to Taiwan in October and before a sweep of criminal gangs and their members in Taiwan in November.

Mr. LANTOS. Did we request cooperation from the Government of the Philippines to return this individual to the United States?

Mr. BROWN. We have communicated to the Government of the Philippines our earnest desire to be in contact with that individual. Mr. LANTOS. What has been their response?

Mr. BROWN. They have so noted.

Mr. LANTOS. What does that mean in English, Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. I believe the individual is at large and they have certainly taken note officially of our desire.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Solomon.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, first, I think we all have to be sensitive or hesitant because I know Mrs. Liu is in the audience. I think we have to be careful sometimes what we say when we talk about a murder, when we talk about "garden variety" type things like that. I just want to say I think we ought to be careful.

Second, I just want to clarify this business of coverup, Mr. Brown, that the previous colleague was alluding to. As I look at the