Mr. BROWN. I am not sure of the full history, Mr. Chairman, but I will examine that. I just don't have much of a record. I can say that during my present watch over the past 2 years, approaches have been made on the CCNAA-AIT network for an extradition treaty or the equivalent thereof. You would understand in the present circumstances I would characterize them as unusual in the sense that we do not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan and the question would then arise as to the U.S. Senate passing on a treaty involving an entity with which we do not have diplomatic relations.

Mr. SOLARZ. Is it the position of the Department that as a matter of policy the United States does not enter into extradition treaties with governments that we do not have diplomatic relations with? Mr. BROWN. I can't ennunciate a position on that.

Mr. SOLARZ. Let me ask you this. What would be your position with respect to the desirability of an agreement between AIT and CCNAA, which wouldn't have the status of a treaty, in the sense that it would not require ratification by the Senate but would provide for extradition under mutually agreed upon circumstances? Would you be in favor of or opposed to such an agreement?

Mr. BROWN. I think that such a subject we would have to look at very carefully. It takes me into a legalistic thicket, Mr. Chairman, for which I presently am a bit concerned.

Mr. SOLARZ. Now, we requested an opportunity to interview the accused Chen and Wu in Taiwan?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOLARZ. Have we been given that opportunity?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir; Chen and Wu have been examined by specialists with polygraphs.

Mr. SOLARZ. And have we requested an opportunity to have the FBI interview Admiral Wang and his associates in the Bureau of Military Intelligence who have been remanded by the Taiwanese authorities because of their alleged involvement in this affair? If we haven't, are we considering making such a request?

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, you are asking a question about the possible conduct of the investigation that I am reluctant to answer in open session. As you can see, we are willing to inform you of what has been accomplished, but I would prefer to avoid discussing what further investigative plans are under consideration.

Perhaps I might respectfully submit that you wish to direct that question to our law enforcement agencies.

Mr. SOLARZ. You are aware of the amendment that was adopted to the Arms Export Control Act a few years ago?

Mr. BROWN. I am.

Mr. SOLARZ. It was enacted following the murder of Chen Wencheng in Taiwan. It prohibits arms sales to countries that engage in a consistent pattern of harassment and intimidation. Do you believe that the Government of Taiwan had engaged in anything that

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 you might have the authority to answ discretion within the Department of Stat 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.