PREPARED STATEMENT OF HELEN LIU

THE COMMITTEE TO OBTAIN JUSTICE FOR HENRY LIU

I am grateful and honored to be asked to come here today to testify before the United States Congress regarding my husband, Henry Liu, and to relate to you, and to the American People some of the history of my husband's life, what he believed in, and what he wrote about. My husband and I lived here, in Washington, D.C. together for over ten years, from 1967 to 1978, and Henry and I made many friends here during, those years. Yet though we made many friends and acquaintances in government life, we never thought that someday I would be testifying as a witness here in the Congress, and we certainly never could have anticipated what tragic circumstances would bring me here.

First, I want to state that I am also here as a representative of The Committee to Obtain Justice for Henry Liu which was organized spontaneously by many of Henry's friends and fellow journalists right after his death on October 15th, 1984. The Chairman of our Committee, Prof. Ling-Chi Wang, and our attorney, Jerome M. Garchik, are with me here today also on behalf of our Committee. Our Committee has members now all across the United States, and it includes many prominent journalists, intellectuals and community leaders, some of whom did not know my husband personally, but only knew and respected his work. Our Committee is not a political comittee, but rather is a humanitarian and civil rights group. The members and supporters hold all different political viewpoints on issues of American and Chinese questions, but they all share the same sense of

outrage and loss at the death of my husband, as well as the same feelings of fear that his murder caused among Chinese people of good will everywhere.

I believe that my husband was murdered on the orders of high government officials of the Republic of China (Taiwan), and that he was killed by them for a threefold purpose: 1) To punish him for writing about the ruling Chiang family; 2) To prevent him from writing books and articles in the future about the Chiang family, and their political and family history; and 3) To scare other journalists and writers who might also be interested as Henry was in writing about this family and its history. My belief that this is why he was killed is based on the following evidence, including the repeated efforts of Taiwanese officials to bribe Henry not to publish his book on President Chiang Ching-kuo, the sworn confession of one of my husband's killers, Wu Tun, and on the continuing efforts of the Taiwan Government to harm my husband's reputation as a writer, now that he is dead, and to cover-up all of the true facts about who in the Taiwan Government ordered his murder and why.

Who Was Henry Liu?

Everyone who met my husband knew him to be an especially talented and resourceful journalist. He was born on December 7,1932 in Jingjiang, Jiangsu, and grew up amidst the turmoil and chaos of war and revolution. When he was years old, his father fell victim to a Communist shooting. He was drafted into the Nationalist (Kuomintang) Army when he was 16, and was evacuated to Taiwan in 1949. During the 1950's he continued his education, and attended a Defense Ministry School for political cadres, run by Chiang Ching-kuo, son of President Chiang Kai-shek. There, he met Chiang Kai-shek's other son, General Chiang Wei-kuo, and General Wang Sheng.

My husband, however, didn't like a military career, and wanted to be a journalist. First, he worked for a Government radio program. Later, he became a reporter for the Taiwan

Daily News, which was published by Mr. Hsia Hsiao-hua who became a mentor to Henry and helped his career along. I met Henry in 1962 when he had that job. Henry attended university courses at night at National Chengchi University where I also was a student. After the Taiwan Daily News sent him to cover a story in Hongkong, Henry wrote a book about the island that was published in Taipei. The newspaper later sent him to report on Manila, and on the Vietnam War. Henry wrote his second book on the Vietnam War and Souteast Asia, which was also published in Taiwan.

Henry and I were married in 1967, and we moved to Washington, D.C. when Henry was appointed correspondent for his newspaper. In addition to writing for the paper, Henry took courses at American University Graduate School, for a Masters Degree, and he worked as a part-time interpreter/escort for the State Department. Henry stopped writing for the Taiwan Daily News in 1978, and we both became U.S. Citizens in 1973.

Beginning at about that time, Henry wrote and published at least 25 articles, essays and books on the ruling Chiang family, its social and political history, and about several political leaders closely associated with them over the years. I have attached a bibliography of Henry's work during this time. His articles were about Chiang Kai-shek, Mrs. Chiang Kai-shek, Chiang Ching-kuo, Governor K. C. Wu (the former mayor of Shanghai) & General Wang Sheng. When he died, Henry was working on a biography of former Yunnan Province Governor Long Yun, and had plans to write a full biography of the political career of Governor Wu. In fact, Henry had just signed a contract with the Wu family giving him exclusive access to their extensive archives, shortly before he was killed on October 15th, and some people feel that it was official fear of this book that prompted Taiwan to order Henry murdered.

Mr. SOLARZ. Now, finally, are you in a position to give us any assessment of what the impact of the Liu affair has been on United States-Taiwanese relations?

Mr. BROWN. Well, we are obviously outraged at the murder of an American citizen on American soil, and we have, as I have indicated, very sternly, vigorously, and speedily communicated our concerns on the AIT-CCNAA network. It is fair to say that the authorities in Taiwan are keenly aware, that it is abundantly clear, I would like to make another point, and that is the authorities in Taiwan through the CCNAA-AIT network, have from the beginning emphasized to us their desire to fully cooperate with us in our handling of this case.

Fingerprints were turned over on_request, photographs were turned over, we have alluded to the fact that we not only sought for the deliverance of Chen and Wu to Daly City authorities, but that if this were not possible, we would send a team to investigate them and polygraph. That was granted.

Mr. SOLARZ. Would you say that full cooperation would entail delivering Chen and Wu to the appropriate authorities in the United States?

Mr. BROWN. We have at every single conversation on this subject requested and repeated our requests on that score.

Mr. SOLARZ. Now, presumably if the authorities on Taiwan decide that it is in their interest to deliver Chen and Wu, would they be able to do so?

Mr. BROWN. Well, you get into questions of their interpretation of their pertinent law and regulations.

Mr. SOLARZ. My impression is that article 21 of the extradition law in Taiwan reserves the final judgment on these matters to the President, so that he is the authority. Is that true?

Mr. BROWN. Well, that is a subject of various interpretation. Regardless of that, we have at every single occasion repeated our request that those two be delivered to us.

TAIWAN'S ABILITY TO RETURN CITIZENS TO UNITED STATES

Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Brown, in response to Mr. Lantos' examination, you indicated you were quite knowledgeable about the political system on Taiwan, you had served there. Based on what you know of it, if the government on Taiwan wants to change a law on Taiwan, does it generally have to secure approval of the Legislative and Executive Yuans for the change that they seek?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOLARZ. If the government on Taiwan decided that the present law prohibited them from delivering Mr. Chen and Mr. Wu but decided to secure a change in the law that would permit them to deliver Mr. Chen and Mr. Wu, do you think they could secure the approval of the appropriate institutions for that change? Mr. BROWN. That is my estimate.

Mr. SOLARZ. And if such a change were made, then, of course, there would no longer be any legal barrier which would prohibit them from delivering Mr. Chen and Mr. Wu?

Mr. BROWN. That is true.

Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Leach.

Mr. LEACH. I just wanted to make one brief observation, first on a very positive note and then to undercut that positive note a bit. I know of no instance in which the Government of the United States has been as firm and stern with the Government of Taiwan in expressing U.S. concerns as in this particular one, and for that I think concerned members of Congress were appreciative of the forthrightness of the administration.

Second, I would hope you would reconsider, in terms of making a firm determination at this moment in time, a question that was put to you earlier, simply because it relates to matters of common sense and also, perhaps, dictionary definitions. Terrorism is something that has broad and very precise meanings and, with respect to the question of whether this is a terrorist act, to suggest that it isn't could well imply that one doesn't take it overwhelmingly seriously. To suggest that it is simply a gang activity also implies that it may not be taken as seriously as I think the administration has done.

So, all I would urge is that your response be tempered by a willingness to wait for the evidence to unfold and that if, for example, this proves to be a government-sanctioned murder, it would strike me as next to impossible not to label it an act of terrorism.

Would you agree with that, sir?

Mr. BROWN. Thank you for that constructive interpretation. I so accept it.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you.

Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Lantos.

BAMBOO GANG'S MOTIVATION

Mr. LANTOS. First I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Leach, for that clarification because I certainly agree with his statement.

Mr. Brown, the facts that are public in this case clearly indicate some degree of governmental complicity. It is very difficult to understand why three key people in military intelligence would have been treated the way they apparently had been thus far had there been no involvement. We don't know as yet, I take it, how high up governmental involvement is likely to have gone, but the fact there was some governmental involvement appears clear to the naked eye.

With that assumption, would you care to speculate on what the motivation could have been on the part of whoever put the gang up to this act?

Mr. BROWN. Much as I might be personally tempted, sir, I really think under the constraints that I have laid out in my introductory remarks with case or cases sub judice, investigation by relevant law enforcement agencies, it would be better for me to refrain from so speculating.

Mr. LANTOS. Let me then ask you, if I may, would it be your judgment it is in our national interest and in the interest of the Taiwan-United States relations to get this case resolved as expeditiously as possible?

Mr. BROWN. Most emphatically, yes.