(Update April 29, 2012: with response to Kai’s comment below. Update May 1, 2012: highlighting analysis done by reader perspectivehere in the comments section. May 5, 2012: Chen had dealings with the NED since 2004. See details below.)
From the Chinese perspective, the West’s willingness to go so far as to bestow the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize to a convicted criminal, Liu Xiaobo, really goes to show the level of religiousity in their pursuit of “democracy” and “human rights” against the Chinese government. China in recent years has started to use the phrase “judicial sovereignty” to more categorically deny Westerners attempt at meddling in China’s internal affairs. It is with such perspective I think most appropriate in understanding the likely outcome for recently escaped from house-arrest Chen Guangcheng (陈光诚).
Personally, I am saddened by Chen’s plight. Before his troubles began, Chen was in fact lauded in fighting for the rights of ordinary Chinese citizens. He successfully sued a Beijing metro, forcing the company to comply with new law permitting handicapped individuals to ride free on public transport. He was even featured on CCTV.
What is impressive is that his legal activism was based on Chinese law learned on his own. What makes him even more amazing is he did all that despite being physically blind.
Chen’s troubles began after he sued local Linyi officials for alleged brutalities in enforcing the “one-child” policy. While his suit was not accepted by the courts, that, however, prompted the National Population and Family Planning Commission to investigate, and in September 2005, some local officials were detained.
The “one-child” policy is very complex, and within China today, debate still rages on in terms of how to reform. Some even call for its abolition. Enforcement has been problematic, especially with the many changes in the policy over the last few decades. (For a detailed report, see this Global Times article, “Baby Steps.”)
To understand Chen’s case, it is important to have a broader perspective on that policy objectively. Lawrence W. Green wrote the following abstract for an article in the Journal of Public Health Policy which provides that:
After years of urging China to take more aggressive action to control its population, the United States government withdrew support from the United Nations Fund for Population Activities on the grounds that that agency supported China’s new policy. The policy provided for the achievement of a norm of one child per couple through economic incentives and rewards, and family planning services including abortion. Charges of forced abortion in the Western press led to withdrawal of the U.S. funds by the Agency for International Development. In this analysis of the policy and its implementation, the alleged incidents of forced abortion were found to be isolated cases of overzealous local functionaries trying to meet quotas. Publicity and public education surrounding the policy and campaigns to implement it provide the best assurances that most people would know that they have options and should not be subjected to coercion for abortion. The Chinese government has implemented new safeguards to prevent and punish cases of attempted abortion against the will of couples. 1
That perspective must be understood, for Western press frequently bashes China whenever the “one-child” policy makes news. For example, in The Telegraph’s latest article about Chen, it referred to the Chinese family planning policy as:
China’s draconian family planning policy
The use of negative emotive words like ‘draconian’ to describe everything ‘China’ or ‘Chinese’ in fact fits the larger pattern of a Collective Defamation in the Western press.
If you accept the propagandized view of the “one-child” policy as ‘draconian,’ then you are more likely to be biased towards seeing Chen’s fight, either to undermine it completely or to resist partially as nothing but ‘just,’ let alone against specific instances of brutal enforcement.
What transpired following Chen’s failed law suit? Well, some would in fact argue what Chen had done was already a success, since some Linyi officials were detained as a result of the investigation by the National Population and Family Planning Commission.
The blind legal activist started to engage with entities outside China, including TIME. This is likely where he might have run afoul with Chinese authorities.
In March 2006, Chen lead a public protest against local authorities, resulting in damaged properties, and was arrested. He was convicted and imprisoned. According to this Washington Post report, local Linyi authorities also charged him colluding with foreign anti-China forces:
Party sources said Linyi officials distributed a report in Beijing that portrayed Chen as a tool of “foreign anti-China forces,” accused him of violating the one-child policy and made much of the fact that he had received overseas funding for his work as an activist on behalf of the disabled. 2
After serving his sentence, Chen was put under house arrest. Christian Bale, with assistance from CNN, made headlines in the West while trying to gain access to Chen for which the network was criticized for making news.
Anyways, Chen is making headlines in the Western press again for having escaped Linyi few days ago. His whereabouts are still unknown.
Few facts have emerged, which I think is going to be damning for Chen as far as Chinese authorities are concerned. While this is circumstantial, Chen’s recent escape has been assisted with ‘activists’ linked to China Aid, where the NGO is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). This is the same organization that gave money to Liu Xiaobo. The purpose of NED is to foment political opposition in foreign countries by the United States.
It is also interesting that Chen has appeared with Hu Jia following the escape, who too ran afoul with Chinese authorities. And, yes, Hu was also a recipient of NED money.
Chen has made a video asking Wen Jiabao to personally intervene on his behalf. In the video, he recounts the brutality from Linyi authorities. The latest report from USA Today says he is under U.S. protection, and that high level talks are under way.
This leads to my final remarks; my speculation on what happened and my thoughts.
Between September 2005 and March 2006, there are not much information publicly available detailing what transpired. My guess would be that Chen likely received money from abroad, perhaps from the “China Aid” NGO which is funded by the NED.
Chen at some point realized he would be in a lot of trouble. His only recourse is to resort to a populist strategy – to get the Chinese public to sympathetize with him. If that fails, which is going to be the case, because the Chinese government censors, then he will have to rely solely on organizations like “China Aid” – and obviously on the Western press who gladly circulate his videos and always ready to speak against the Chinese government.
It seems Chen’s plight now rests on the outcome of the talks between the U.S. and China. The narratives, either in China or in the West will be certain though. Need I spell that out? 😉
[Update April 29, 2012]
This update is based on the following response from “>Kai, where he wrote:
YinYang, most people familiar with your blogging already know of your criticisms against:
1. Westerners voicing opinions about what happens in China;
2. Bias and prejudice against China in the Western media;
3. The raison d’etre and activities of the NED;
4. Chinese citizens labeled as “dissidents”;Those are all worthwhile issues for discussion and even criticism, but I fear they’re being used here to conflate and muddy the issue, even poisoning the well.
What I and I’m sure quite a lot of other people are interested in reading are your views on whether or not Chen Guangcheng has been properly and lawfully (according to Chinese law, not foreign law or opinion) handled by Chinese authorities throughout all of this. Specifically:
1. Did he do anything wrong and illegal in suing Linyi authorities alleging compulsory sterilization and rare cases of forced abortion?
2. Did he do anything wrong and illegal in speaking to or engaging with foreigners?
3. What evidence for illegal speech or engagement with foreigners is there?
4. Why was he not charged with illegal speech or engagement with foreigners and instead charged with property destruction and obstruction of traffic?
5. Was his subsequent unofficial house arrest legal according to Chinese law?
6. Is escaping unofficial house arrest wrong and illegal according to Chinese law?
7. Is guilt by association and circumstantial evidence punishable under Chinese law?
8. Is receiving money or funding from abroad illegal under Chinese law?
9. What evidence is there for this funding being used for illegal purposes under Chinese law?
10. Is there something wrong and illegal with populist strategies under Chinese law?
11. Is there something wrong and illegal with foreign organizations and media speaking against the Chinese government according to Chinese law?
12. Has his rights and freedoms under Chinese law been respected, upheld, and protected by Chinese authorities?The attention and opinions of foreigners is irrelevant to whether or not we can judge the legality of both Chen Guangcheng’s activities and those of Chinese authorities. Chen Guangcheng must abide by the laws of the nation he resides in. Chinese authorities too must abide by the laws of the nation they both reside and serve in. Moreover, the guilt or innocence of Chen Guangcheng has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the authorities.
First of all, I disagree with Kai about those criticisms are conflating and muddying the issue. If there is any poisoning of the well, then the Western media have long ago poisoned the entire ground water. Even now, their narrative about Chen is unanimous and singular: Chen’s plight is the entire fault of Chinese authorities and there is no rational basis for what is happening. Opinions of foreigners do impinge upon the relationship, especially between China and the U.S.. They either pressure U.S. officials to take certain stance or escalate official United States foreign policy. What the Western press so far has failed to do is to look at how Chen is possibly used.
We should ask a simple question: why would Linyi authorities restrict Chen following serving his full sentence?
There could be corruption within the Linyi municipality. But, I don’t think the central government would allow Chen to be under house arrest for no reason. It is not that the central government is unaware of the issue.
I will repeat what the Washington Post wrote which I believe is at the crux:
Party sources said Linyi officials distributed a report in Beijing that portrayed Chen as a tool of “foreign anti-China forces,” accused him of violating the one-child policy and made much of the fact that he had received overseas funding for his work as an activist on behalf of the disabled.
Now, if the Western press care so much about transparency, then why haven’t they asked the National Endowment for Democracy whether they have given money to Chen? Why don’t they look into whether it was “ChinaAid” colluding with Chen to protest in March 2006? Certainly, I am speculating here, but not on groundless basis. As I have written above, “ChinaAid” seems to be intimately tied to Chen’s escape from house arrest.
ChinaAid’s mission is tantamount to undermining Chinese law, as they implicitly advocate for underground churches. Underground churches are illegal in China. China does not want religion to participate in politics. China does not want religious groups to align politically with the Vatican or any organization outside China.
It is also worthwhile noting the Washington Post’s narrative about what the local Linyi authorities are charging Chen with. ChinaAid would argue they are simply there to advocated “religious freedom,” but they won’t say in the process they are breaking Chinese law. Similarily, as Chen was featured on CCTV for advocating rights of handicapped persons on public transport, it is preposterous for the Washington Post narrative to say that he would simply get into trouble for receiving foreign money to do the same.
In combating terrorism, American citizens have largely accepted detention of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo. One may ask under what law? I am not so sure if Americans understand the legality of it. However, what is clearly a rational view is that many of the detainees had or possibly had connections with Al Qaeda. Those individuals could harm America, and hence the public supports their detention. (Some may argue there’s opposition to Guantanamo. Sure, as there are supporters of Chen in China too. However, such voices are in the minority, because Guantanamo is still there.)
Liu Xiaobo was convicted by the Chinese courts for attempted subversion of state power, which is a very serious crime in China. On similar grounds, I don’t think the Chinese government would be bashful in restricting Chen.
At a personal level, as I stated above, I am saddened by Chen’s plight. Chen and his wife’s recount of the brutish treatment their family received, if all true, is indeed a testament of how bad things can still be in China. I have seen the video they smuggled out around the time of the CNN/Bale confrontation.
I also should point out about the moralist hypocricy that exists in the Western press. Imagine if we have as many articles written about brutally killed Iraqi and Afghan children as are for Chen? Can we imagine CNN bringing activists to confront a NATO operation in Afghanistan where children were killed? Imagine if we have as many articles written about the plight of the Libyans following the bombing of NATO since the rebel faction have taken control of that country?
Now I will answer each of the questions Kai raised:
1. Did he do anything wrong and illegal in suing Linyi authorities alleging compulsory sterilization and rare cases of forced abortion?
Of course not. However, his suit was not accepted. That suit might have been too broad or denied for any number of reasons. We don’t know. To suggest that a Chinese citizen for merely attempting to sue can be viewed as illegal in China is naive.
2. Did he do anything wrong and illegal in speaking to or engaging with foreigners?
Local Linyi authories alleged him colluding and receiving funding from abroad to undermine China’s one-child policy.
3. What evidence for illegal speech or engagement with foreigners is there?
I haven’t seen any.
I find it interesting that Western journalists in China thus far haven’t gotten Linyi authorities to speak. Equally interesting is why they haven’t pressed the NED whether one of the NGO’s they have funded were involved with Chen.
The Chinese media have largely been censored from covering Chen. I can see the Chinese position that they don’t necessarily have to indulge in certain infatuations that the Western press so happens to be fixated on.
4. Why was he not charged with illegal speech or engagement with foreigners and instead charged with property destruction and obstruction of traffic?
Fair question.
I don’t know, and I hope too one day China gets to a legally ‘matured’ society like the U.S. where charges are clearly stated. But as I have noted above, Guantanamo is a clear example even in such a society whom I just put on a pedestal, can have its excesses. At least Chen is not being water-boarded, chained, or locked up in solitary confinement.
5. Was his subsequent unofficial house arrest legal according to Chinese law?
This really comes down to how much the Chinese government as a whole believes in local Linyi authority’s allegation that Chen was “colluding with anti-China forces.”
6. Is escaping unofficial house arrest wrong and illegal according to Chinese law?
Is escaping from your kidnapper illegal? Of course not! Your question presupposes the allegations false. How did you know?
7. Is guilt by association and circumstantial evidence punishable under Chinese law?
Normally I wouldn’t think so, but when it comes to national security issues, I think every country exercise with certain amount of excess or precaution. Again, witness Guantanamo. And, again your question presupposes the allegations false.
8. Is receiving money or funding from abroad illegal under Chinese law?
Receiving funding from abroad is not illegal. Witness the number of foreign funded NGO’s in China doing many great things! Receiving funding from organizations abroad to do illegal activities in China is of course illegal.
9. What evidence is there for this funding being used for illegal purposes under Chinese law?
What’s the point of this question while both you and I know that the Chinese authorities have not divulge this information? Well, at least I haven’t been able to find thus far.
10. Is there something wrong and illegal with populist strategies under Chinese law?
I am not sure what you mean by this.
David Li, who is (or will soon be) on People’s Bank, China’s central bank, policy committee recently commented that Bo Xilai’s policies in Chongqing is populist. He is using public funds to dish out short-term benefits to the population. That makes him popular, but he is not making the necessary reforms that are fundamental to the progress of the municipality.
I would argue the Chinese government see populism as a cancerous side-effect of some democracies. Bo Xilai is a serious test case where the current leadership have decided to make an example of.
As relates to Chen, I think it’s possible his March 2006 public protest was a populist strategy to counter what the local Linyi authorities were about to charge him with.
Pop stars engage in populist activities all the time. So, obviously, populism per se is not illegal. Context matter. I am not certain what you are trying to imply with this question.
11. Is there something wrong and illegal with foreign organizations and media speaking against the Chinese government according to Chinese law?
Is this a trick questions? The way you have asked, who would say “yes?”
Collective Defamation in the Western press against ‘China’ and ‘Chinese’ is a serious matter which this blog spends a great many articles on.
I would add, even domestically, American media in the U.S. polarizing the population is cancerous to American society. What the U.S. media have done thus far is legal (I think), but is that necessary good for society? Many Americans would say no.
12. Has his rights and freedoms under Chinese law been respected, upheld, and protected by Chinese authorities?
Looking at the smuggled video from February 2011, I believe some of his rights were likely not upheld. I personally yearn for China to become better than what Chen and his wife have alleged – some of which we can clearly see in the video.
In summary, I will simply quote what reader hehe had just said below:
I doubt that people shouting at each other about CGC’s case actually have the full set of information available before they are determined to make a case for/against him/his case. The truth is likely to be somewhere in between I dare to say, i.e. CGC is neither a devil nor an angel. I would pay particular attention to the context in which CGC transferred himself/was transferred from a citizen rights advocate into a political dissident icon of China.
Notes:
- Lawrence W. Green, “Promoting the One-Child Policy in China,” Vol. 9, No. 2 (Summer, 1988), pp. 273-283, Journal of Public Health Policy ↩
- Philip P. Pan, “Chinese to Prosecute Peasant Who Resisted One-Child Policy,” Saturday, July 8, 2006, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701510.html?sid=ST2010090903263 ↩
colin says
First! Great coverage and filling in some pieces of the puzzle.
I really don’t know what CGC expects to gain by pulling this stunt? If the full facts of this case are put out before the opinion court of the Chinese, I hardly think they would be sympathetic.
Does he expect to flee? What about his family?
On a separate note, I’m sure the CPC knows about these NGO’s. Why do they let the NGO’s, acting with clearly harmful intent, operate seemingly unfettered? Why don’t they engineer some activists to fake out the NGO’s?
Raj says
“Between September 2005 and March 2006, there are not much information publicly available detailing what transpired. My guess would be that Chen likely received money from abroad, perhaps from the “China Aid” NGO which is funded by the NED.
Chen at some point realized he would be in a lot of trouble. His only recourse is to resort to a populist strategy …”
“you guess” This is really not becoming of you yinyang. I mean whats the point in just guessing? It makes you, and by extension your blog, no more than rumor-mongers. And yet things we know more about, the beatings of him and his family, the local officials preventing his daughter going to school, and in fact his whole potential illegal detention, you make no comment of. You say he was placed under house arrest, but what evidence do you have that this was in fact the case, and not arbitrary detention. Where is your evidence that this was carried out in accordance with law?
colin says
@Raj
Get off your high horse. Injustice happens every where. In fact, too much happens, as seen by the Iraqi orphan example and many more atrocities unseen. But you guys and the west seem to love trying to turn a few petty examples in China into tools and weapons of foreign causes. Well congrats, I’m sure CGC’s life will never be the same again, and I don’t think it’s for the better for him.
Raj says
Colin you seem very emotional. Please stick to the subject at hand rather than making personal attacks.
Injustice does happen everywhere, your faked example aside, and they should be challenged and tackles wherever they may be found.
As to his life being worse now, perhaps, but how much worse could at get than having yourself and family imprisoned in your own home and brutalized?
The Shandong government shot the Central government in the foot, though Wen himself knew of the problems and had an opportunity to act- he chose not to…
Bob Thomas says
yinyang,
As I understand it, CGC wasn’t officially under house arrest. If he has gone to the US embassy, what law has he broken by doing so? Surely, for “judicial sovereignty” to be an issue, the law must have been broken.
raffiaflower says
`I mean whats the point in just guessing?”
Ha5, yinyang! You need to go for a journalism course in how to spin, Western-style!
I mean, you should phrase it, like: according to sources, who spoke on conditions of anonymity. That sounds authoritative. Who knows whether those “anonymous sources” can be confirmed?
“ I guess” is too touchy-feely, not usually used in propaganda writing, Western style.
aeiou says
They gave Obama a Nobel just for being black. Take a minute to let that sink in.
Raj says
Raffi, no amount of spin or humor will make up for what is a poor, speculative, ill- informed post lacking in substance. When you criticize others for the same kind of thing, you need to be squeaky clean yourselves.
This post was clearly rushed, but that’s no excuse
denk says
raj
richard said he didnt ban me
but i had been blocked since 2005 at the fucking duck
was it u who banned me ?
u are an admin there aint u ?
YinYang says
@Bob Thomas
True, I don’t know what law he has broken.
No Western media as I am aware of has spoken to the Linyi courts or authorities. Neither did any Western media have gotten legal experts in China to weigh in.
I would also add, no Western media has looked into whether Chen received money that ultimately traced back to the NED.
I give credit at least to the Washington Post for at least mentioning what local Linyi authorities were charging Chen with.
YinYang says
@raffiaflower
Exactly!
denk says
Bob Thomas
*As I understand it, CGC wasn’t officially under house arrest. If he has gone to the US embassy, what law has he broken by doing so? Surely, for “judicial sovereignty” to be an issue, the law must have been broken*
hey bob
are u ignorant or what ?
amerikan embassyies = coup de tat centres
any 5 yr old knows that
so any citizen who liase with amerikan embassy are highly suspect
got it ?
W. Tseng says
Just wondering how CGC (who need to tap his way to the toilet) can do a Houdini when he’s supposed to be under house arrest & monitored 24/7? If he’s not monitored or under house arrest, what’s the big deal?
YinYang says
@colin
It’s a mystery. Liu Xiaobo received funding from the NED, yet the verdict (albeit we haven’t seen proceeding details) didn’t specifically mention it.
Raj says
“amerikan embassyies = coup de tat centres
any 5 yr old knows that
so any citizen who liase with amerikan embassy are highly suspect
got it ?”
Denk many of the main posters here have had liaisons with American consulates and embassies as part of their visa and immigration processing. Are they “highly suspect” too?
denk says
raj
cgc isnt any ordinary citizen seeking visa
he is a high profile *dissident* in the mode of hu jia, liu xiao pao
a wittig or unwitting patsy of fukusi
rather disingenuous aint u ?
u still havent answer me, did u ban me at the fucking duck ?
also i see that u conceded amerikan embassies are coup de tat centres hehehe
Bob Thomas says
@YinYang,
If he hasn’t committed a crime, and if it is true that he and his family were being held against their will, then why couldn’t/wouldn’t anybody in China help him? Why should it matter so much if (if) foreign NGOs did help him?
denk says
as the saying goes
*folks like to talk about things that they find wanting*
is that why anglos like bob thomas like to bleat about *rule of law* ?
http://tinyurl.com/7j7974h
since raj is standing in for bob
may be he’d like to answer that too hehehe
Bob Thomas says
Denk, do you then not advocate the rule of law?
denk says
bob u dont see the irony ?
those who yap the most about the rule of law
happens to be the biggest outlaws out there hehehe
YinYang says
@Bob Thomas
In regards to your first question, it’s a real mystery. Despite all this reporting in the Western media, I simply can’t understand why no authorities from Linyi is interviewed about this case.
There’s new Chinese law requiring government departments to comply with citizens’ and media’s right to know.
I haven’t seen coverage in the Chinese media about this matter either.
So, I don’t know on what legal grounds Linyi authorities are restricting him.
If his March 2006 protest was done in collusion with NGO’s whose mission is to undermine the current Chinese government, then of course it matters. That’s not unlike what got Liu Xiaobo got convicted for – attempt to subvert the state.
Bob Thomas says
yinyang,
When I referred to NGOs allegedly aiding CGC, I meant in aiding his “escape” from Linyi. If he hadn’t committed a crime, why should it matter if they helped him get to Beijing?
Bob Thomas says
@denk
So, by asking for just treatment according to the law, CGC is an “outlaw.”
denk says
Bob Thomas
* Why should it matter so much if (if) foreign NGOs did help him?*
forchrissake bob
r u *that* innocent ?
u dont know what *ngo*s do for a living ?
http://tinyurl.com/6tfpayg
http://tinyurl.com/8xe99ty
i almost feel embarrassed fo u
take ur time
dont commit more snafus 😉
denk says
Bob Thomas
*So, by asking for just treatment according to the law, CGC is an “outlaw.”*
are u feinting innocent or dumb
i say fukusi is the biggest outlaw out there
as for u
*People who like to yap about the rule of law should see to it that their own government obeys the law*
http://tinyurl.com/y9lkstf
dont bother to tell me u aint no gringo either
since the anglophone countries collectively is the greatest crime syndicate bar none heheh
excuse me for a while…
Bob Thomas says
@denk
Yes, those articles are interesting. But, if foreign NGOs have helped CGC get to Beijing, how could that possibly be subvertive? What laws have they broken if indeed this is what they have done?
Bob Thomas says
@denk
I was hoping to have a meaningful debate. Could I bring you back to my question:
If indeed foreign NGOs did help CGC get to Beijing, how were their actions subvertive or illegal?
hehe says
“raj
richard said he didnt ban me
but i had been blocked since 2005 at the fucking duck
was it u who banned me ?
u are an admin there aint u ?”
@denk
Good luck if you believe Richard’s bullshit. His Peking ducker pond is designed to be a single narrative lecture room where duckers tirelessly repeat what has been repeated by themselves many many times, their daily/weekly ego reinforcement doses (e.g. FORAP is one of their spokemen from the pond).
I used (not anymore) to have a look at the ducks now and again but quickly realised that the chief peking ducker(s) there was kind of a control freak who is quite censor trigger happy.
Bob Thomas says
@denk
A shame you had to leave the debate. I would be very interested in your reply to my post (no. 26) if you have time.
zack says
wow, it appears the western media/political apparatus also gone ‘total war’ on the Chinese, just as the western militaries have gone full spectrum cold war on the Chinese as well.
zack says
@Sam
don’t know if trolling, or incredibly stupid
raventhorn says
Surely, there are many forms of Lawful detentions, even legal restrictions imposed upon a suspect from traveling, ie. bail, ban of flight from lawful jurisdiction.
Even parolees in US are technically out of “prison” but are restricted in travel (or must at least seek permission from parole officers in charge).
zack says
If China were to use the United States as a role model, they would’ve used a drone to take out CGC, as the US military did with one American citizen who was publishing anti-american vids in Yemen. And this was before Obama signed the bill allowing for such extrajudicial killings
Blackman Ray says
The level of debate here has really degraded into childish, irrelevent nothingness. The CCP lapdogs have no other choice in this case as its clear there is no justified defence for how they have treated this man. Such a shame that so many of them refuse to accept what is staring at them in the face.
LOLZ says
What would Americans think if some Chinese right wing group rescued Bradly Manning and hid him in the Chinese Embassy? Would folks like Raj support this idea?
I would not be surprised if China allowed this “escape” to happen. In some ways Chen leaving China is a win/win for the US and CHina. US gets to be called a “human rights champion”; China gets rid of one critic and can claim “improving human rights conditions”. However, I got a feeling that the US based neocon/Christian groups like China Aid will not be happy until the US goes on war with China. The diplomats from both sides now will have to work overtime.
denk says
Bob Thomas19
*Denk, do you then not advocate the rule of law?*
u didnt answer my question,
*People who like to yap about the rule of law should see to it that their own government obeys the law*
http://tinyurl.com/y9lkstf
denk says
Bob Thomas 26
*Yes, those articles are interesting.*
interesting eh ?
u mean u read it in less than 5 min ?
it says western *ngo*s work hand in hand with fukus embassies
to subvert their host nations
china is one of the chief victim
* But, if foreign NGOs have helped CGC get to Beijing, how could that possibly be subvertive? What laws have they broken if indeed this is what they have done?*
so u’re willfully obtuse i see
is this what they teach u in that debriefing ?
u think us or uk or any other *democrazy* would tolerate known subversive outfits from hostile countries colloborating with their dissidents ?
is it ok if chinese intel *helping* , *guiding* brad manning
bob ?
denk says
hehe 28
i know all about the fucking duck
i just want to show it in broad dayligt
duckies are hypocrites n ….liars to boot
they have the cheek to cross over here giving lecture
lol
pug_ster says
I love it when people living in Western Countries complain why today we are still giving foreign aid to countries like China, India, and Russia but these governments did nothing to cut of funding of foreign aid. This whole foreign aid BS is so white man Burden-ish thinking that countries are helping these ‘less fortunate’ countries when the countries ‘receiving them’ don’t really want it. These ‘foreign aid’ is not really helping those countries but rather undermining them by funding elections of Western Backed Thugs, to helping ‘human rights’ group like CGC to help him escape from his village and somehow managed to get him to a US embassy. This whole stunt is a plot by the US government to embarrass China. Who cares. Let China allow him to have a one way trip to the US like all the other Chinese traitors.
Charles Liu says
@Bob Thomas
How is a group with foreign paymaster involving itself in domestic politics of another not a violation of state’s right to sovereign independence? In US we have FARA outlawing such activity.
Kai says
yinyang, most people familiar with your blogging already know of your criticisms against:
1. Westerners voicing opinions about what happens in China;
2. Bias and prejudice against China in the Western media;
3. The raison d’etre and activities of the NED;
4. Chinese citizens labeled as “dissidents”;
Those are all worthwhile issues for discussion and even criticism, but I fear they’re being used here to conflate and muddy the issue, even poisoning the well.
What I and I’m sure quite a lot of other people are interested in reading are your views on whether or not Chen Guangcheng has been properly and lawfully (according to Chinese law, not foreign law or opinion) handled by Chinese authorities throughout all of this. Specifically:
1. Did he do anything wrong and illegal in suing Linyi authorities alleging compulsory sterilization and rare cases of forced abortion?
2. Did he do anything wrong and illegal in speaking to or engaging with foreigners?
3. What evidence for illegal speech or engagement with foreigners is there?
4. Why was he not charged with illegal speech or engagement with foreigners and instead charged with property destruction and obstruction of traffic?
5. Was his subsequent unofficial house arrest legal according to Chinese law?
6. Is escaping unofficial house arrest wrong and illegal according to Chinese law?
7. Is guilt by association and circumstantial evidence punishable under Chinese law?
8. Is receiving money or funding from abroad illegal under Chinese law?
9. What evidence is there for this funding being used for illegal purposes under Chinese law?
10. Is there something wrong and illegal with populist strategies under Chinese law?
11. Is there something wrong and illegal with foreign organizations and media speaking against the Chinese government according to Chinese law?
12. Has his rights and freedoms under Chinese law been respected, upheld, and protected by Chinese authorities?
The attention and opinions of foreigners is irrelevant to whether or not we can judge the legality of both Chen Guangcheng’s activities and those of Chinese authorities. Chen Guangcheng must abide by the laws of the nation he resides in. Chinese authorities too must abide by the laws of the nation they both reside and serve in. Moreover, the guilt or innocence of Chen Guangcheng has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the authorities.
Bob Thomas says
@raventhorn
You refer to Chen as a ‘suspect.’ Apparently he had already completed his previous sentence. What crime was he suspected of committing after finishing his sentence?
If you believe he was on bail, could you please give evidence to support that.
If he was on bail, why can’t the government release a press release stating that he had broken the terms of his bail and arrest him?
Bob Thomas says
@denk
Yes, I read those articles pretty quickly. They discuss how NGOs can be subvertive. So…..
‘If foreign NGOs have helped CGC get to Beijing, how could that possibly be subvertive? What laws have they broken if indeed this is what they have done?’
Bob Thomas says
@Charles Liu
“How is a group with foreign paymaster involving itself in domestic politics of another not a violation of state’s right to sovereign independence?”
Even if there is proof that a foreign NGO helped CGC get to Beijing, how is this “involving itself in domestic politics?” Is CGC standing for office or something?
raventhorn says
Actually, I didn’t refer to Chen as any thing.
He might be a Parolee under the facts, ie. he was released based upon a set of conditions, in this case restriction on movement.
“why can’t the government release a press release stating that he had broken the terms of his bail and arrest him?”
The government could do any number of possible things, including to use him as diplomatic bargain with US, (since US got him now as the hot potato).
I assure you, a government (even a Chinese government) would be a lot more imaginative in the treatment of criminals and ex-con’s than you seem to believe them capable of.
Hey, if Chen is not a fugitive, then US might have kidnapped a Chinese citizen. And whatif Chen dies in US custody? Perhaps US tortured a Chinese citizen?
The thing about taking in “hot potato” is, you don’t know if it’s going to burn your hand, until it burns your hand.
You might as well ask, why hasn’t US government made its position clear about Chen? Then you will understand 1/2 of the answer.
Bob Thomas says
So do you think he was being legally detained? If so, then the government could state that. As it is, there have been no reports about this case in the mainland media.
raffiaflower says
The person spinning here is Raj. The author has not gone into detail about the activist’s family, the beatings, potential (as you say) illegal detention.
But that does not mean he is not aware, or unsympathetic; he acknowledges (and shows disagreement) with the line:“ Personally, I am saddened by Chen’s plight.”
HH is a specialized China blog; readers who read it would already have been aware of the actions against Chen, his wife and family, by the local authorities.
The brutality is accepted as established fact; hence the author attempts to infer the causal factors that marked the formal shift of Chen from hero to “dissident”.
He makes a reasoned speculation that it is could be due to Chen’s source of funding, networking with foreign media to support his cause, etc.
This is unlike gratuitous speculation, eg, “Bo Xilai’s sacking has caused the greatest crisis in the party since Junexxx, blah,blah,blah, coup rumors, etc.”
As for the legality of Chen’s confinement, the august (ahem) publication NYT has two opinions, apparently: Andrew Jacobs calls it extralegal detention, ie, illegal, while Jane Perlez in the first line states house arrest.
aeiou says
@Bob Thomas
>So do you think he was being legally detained?
as oppose to… the central government “illegally” detaining him? lol.
or did you mean illegal according to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! HOOAH!
Bob Thomas says
@raffiaflower
The whole article is an exercise in spin.
The author talks about bias in the Western press, but only mentions one word in one article (draconian).
‘If you accept the propagandized view of the 「one-child」 policy as 『draconian,』 then you are more likely to be biased towards seeing Chen’s fight, either to undermine it completely or to resist partially as nothing but 『just,』 let alone against specific instances of brutal enforcement.’
As I understand it, Chen’s fight is against forced abortions, not the one-child policy. He’s attracted a lot of attention and support because he’s a blind lawyer fighting against forced abortions. He is the ultimate ‘underdog’ fighting against an unjust system.
raventhorn says
I thought “legally detained” was implied by the authority of the government. Why does the government need to state that?!
raventhorn says
@Bob Thomas
“The author talks about bias in the Western press, but only mentions one word in one article (draconian).”
I think that word has been used over and over again in the Western press, on China’s many policies.
But hey, maybe that word isn’t much of a “bias” because the West admits itself as “Draconian”??
“Draconian” Wars of intervention.
“Draconian” torture camps.
“Draconian” human rights sanctions that starves millions.
Oh right, West doesn’t talk about itself as “draconian”, only as “humanitarian”.
raventhorn says
@Bob Thomas
“As I understand it, Chen’s fight is against forced abortions, not the one-child policy. He’s attracted a lot of attention and support because he’s a blind lawyer fighting against forced abortions. He is the ultimate ‘underdog’ fighting against an unjust system.”
1 second, it’s the “force abortions” he’s fighting against. Next, it’s the “unjust system” he’s fighting against.
So I guess you are implying that because he’s fighting as the “underdog” against “forced abortions”, then the whole “system” is UNJUST??!!
Yeah, no bias at all from you! Right….
Bob Thomas says
So he is not an underdog, forced abortions did not occur, and the system is just.
I’m just no seeing the ‘hidden harmony.’
silentchinese says
Seems like it is too much to ask for some people to have some perspective.
What’s interesting here is the predictable response of those here whose self-righteous words hanging off their mouth much like siliva hanging off a babbling baby’s mouth.
The reactions themselves tells us much more about the commentator then the actual story itself… that self-righteous rethorical one liners has become replacement for actual discussion, that enforcement of (mostly western) moral norms has become call of the day; and that any mettlesome and intellectually challenging understanding of the detailed issues involved can be avoided, as long as slogans and dogmatic assertion is used.
Is it me or do I feel like living in a dark age again…. all moral issues are settled! no more debate needed! those who hold contrarian views shall be labeled as heretics and burned at the stake.
Pity those who are stupid and shallow, may they inherit this broken earth.
p.s.
Those who love liberty, must read voltaire, and Voltaire was friend with Fredich de Grosse, Frederick penned the famous “anti-Machievillian” amongst other things was famous for Prussia being an enlightened absolutist state where a highly effect beauracracy overrode the rights estates (Burghers, landlords etc) and establish the supremacy of the state. After him, In Prussia, The supremacy of state as the utlimate garantor of peace and growth was established.
if Frederick were alive today I wonder what abuses these self-proclaimed shallow lovers of freedom would heap up on him.
raventhorn says
Plenty of “underdogs” in every legal system, (AND forced abortions). For example, US had a history of its own secretive “forced sterilization” programs conducted by US government on its citizens, and did NOT admit to it until the 1980’s and 1990’s.
(BTW, in China, “forced abortion” is not an official policy/program. While in US, it was.)
What does that say about the “justness” of a legal system in US?
You are far too superficial in your view of “justness” and “harmony”.
and you are just making your own bias very apparent.
silentchinese says
Last week was 20th Aniversary of LA Riot. Rodney King was beaten by LAPD in broad day light, on camera, and those who beat him silly walked away.
YEs, so by some people’s logic, just as force sterilization and abortions took place in china means chinese society is ill and whoever in charge is just bunch of thugs.
I assume under the same logic that because in US Black people can be beaten by the police and nothing will happen. thus US is still ruled by white supremists and thugs. and US Society is still extremely racist.
Obviously most of the commentators would think my 2nd statement is ridiculous, but how come they still hold the view on china as described in my first statement.
What do you mean those jews are people and Earth revolve around the sun! You must be a heretic! recant or burn at the stake!
Charles Liu says
@Bob Thomas
Raj, news reports have confirmed Bob Fu of China Aid and Hu Jia are involved in Chen’s escape from house arrest due to political cause Chen advocated. US govt payments, in the form of NED grants, is also publicly available on ned.org. In
That is evidence of agents with foreign paymaster involving in China’s domestic politics. Bob Fu’s role in defending cult involved in bloody turf war is further evidence of his agent privacateur status.
Jason says
@Bob Thomas: As I understand it, Chen’s fight is against forced abortions, not the one-child policy.
Forced abortions is a integral part of one child policy when couples who refuses to pay for second child when the child is born.
@Bob Thomas: So do you think he was being legally detained? If so, then the government could state that. As it is, there have been no reports about this case in the mainland media.
The reason is endangering public security. By opposing one child policy, the more the population without sufficient resources equals more poverty much like India will be in the future.
raventhorn says
Actually, I think you have that wrong. Forced abortion was never a part of any government program/policy as a consequence of refusal to pay fines.
On that note, what constitutes “force” is also debatable. If psychological and emotional pressuring are “force”, then even US abortion clinics would be guilty of that to a degree.
denk says
bob thomas
*I was hoping to have a meaningful debate*
wtf
i am wondering if i’ve been talking to a recording at the other end
stop beating about the bush n answer this
do u agree that
1] +People who like to yap about the rule of law should see to it that their own government obeys the law*
http://tinyurl.com/y9lkstf
2] no country would tolerate subversive *ngo* from hostile countries abetting *dessidents* within its sovereign border
Jason says
@Actually, I think you have that wrong. Forced abortion was never a part of any government program/policy as a consequence of refusal to pay fines
Chapter 6 Article 41 A citizen who bears children in violation of the provisions of Article
18 of this Law shall pay the social upbringing charges according to law.
Where the social upbringing charges that should be paid are not paid in full
within the prescribed time limit, additional late fees shall be charged according
to the relevant provisions of the Stat e from the day of the delayed payment;
where still no payment is made, the administrative department of family
planning that decides the charge shall apply to the people’s court for forcible
punishment.
http://eng.chinafpa.org.cn/file/Law%20on%20Population%20and%20Family%20Planning.pdf
So what is forcible punishment?
A few months ago, there were stories of billboards that threaten couples of having a second child and the government tries to tone down the language.
hehe says
I doubt that people shouting at each other about CGC’s case actually have the full set of information available before they are determined to make a case for/against him/his case. The truth is likely to be somewhere in between I dare to say, i.e. CGC is neither a devil nor an angel. I would pay particular attention to the context in which CGC transferred himself/was transferred from a citizen rights advocate into a political dissident icon of China.
yide-angle says
I like the title of a NYT piece on this story: A New Pawn in China’s Two Tugs of War (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/world/asia/chen-guangcheng-is-new-pawn-in-chinas-two-tugs-of-war.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2).
China screwed this up pretty badly, and there is an analysis by Yiyi Lu on WSJ’s China Realtime Report (The Baffling Case of Chen Guangcheng,
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/04/30/the-baffling-case-of-chen-guangcheng/) which provides possible reasons why this has happened. Chen’s story as being told in the youTube video appears entirely true. But, however tragic his story is, he is but a small pawn, not only in China’s two tugs of war, as the NYT piece has eluded, but also a bargaining chip between US and China. I like to borrow Mike D’Antoni’s now famous proclamation (New York Knick’s ex-coach) when he found his missing point guard in Jeremy Lin–I think the US is going to ride Chen “like freakin’ Secretariat”.
Bob Thomas says
@silentchinese
Do you think that perhaps I do need to get some perspective to see past my ‘moral norms’ that find forced abortions abhorrent?
Bob Thomas says
@raventhorn
My bias? You assume just because I am critical of the way this case has been handled that I must be an American.
What I find truly unbelievable is how the postings above refer to a number of terriblly unjust periods of (solely) US history. What is your point? That because the US government did these terrible things to its own people that you can’t criticise the Chinese government?
Bob Thomas says
@denk
Let’s not “beat about the bush.”
“People who like to yap about the rule of law should see to it that their own government obeys the law.”
None of the NGOs that you refer to are from my country.
“no country would tolerate subversive *ngo* from hostile countries abetting *dessidents* within its sovereign border”
I could see what you mean if there were groups advocating the violent overthrow of a government by force. But how is seeking justice for alleged victims of forced abortions subversive? And, as you are asking me not to “beat about the bush,” perhaps you could answer my question:
If it can be proved that foreign NGOs have indeed helped CGC get to Beijing, how is this subversive or illegal?
Bob Thomas says
@hehe
“I doubt that people shouting at each other about CGC’s case actually have the full set of information.”
I guarantee it that nobody here has the “full set of information.” It would be great to hear what the Chinese government has to say about this case and also interesting to get the opinions of the Chinese (who are actually there) themselves. However, the mainland media aren’t reporting on it and the great firewall is trying to block all online discussion. If this forum was in Chinese on a Chinese website, our posts would have been deleted long ago.
Don’t believe me? I read Chinese. Send me a link of a news article on this case or an ongoing debate on a discusssion forum.
Bob Thomas says
@hehe
“I doubt that people shouting at each other about CGC’s case actually have the full set of information.”
I guarantee it that nobody here has the “full set of information.” It would be great to hear what the Chinese government has to say about this case and also interesting to get the opinions of the Chinese (who are actually there) themselves. However, the mainland media aren’t reporting on it and the great firewall is trying to block all online discussion. If this forum was in Chinese on a Chinese website, our posts would have been deleted long ago.
Don’t believe me? I read Chinese. Send me a link of a mainland news article on this case or an ongoing debate on a discusssion forum.
LOLZ says
@Bob Thomas
What is just and what is unjust in China should be decided by the Chinese, not by “Bob Thomas”, not by politicians looking to get elected in the US, and certainly not some hardcore Christan fundamentalist group funded by the US government.
hehe says
If “nobody” has the whole truth, then I suggest that people refrain from taking a self-righteous attitude when approaching the subject. Have more analysis “based on available and verifable information” while step back from drawing a conclusion as if “everything” is known. Science has alreay proven that human brains have a fasinating capability to (automatically) fill information “gaps” with imagination.
Bob Thomas says
@LOLZ
I completely agree. So how do you suppose the Chinese people can judge whether the handling of the Chen case is just or unjust when it is not reported on in the mainland media and blocked from discussion on the internet?
silentchinese says
Yes, exactly, or I should take the liberty to modify your words little bit.
you need some perspectives so that you can past beyond your “moral norms”, and realize that you being rethorically dewelling on “forced abortion” is the thing that prevent a meaningful discourse on subject taht really matters to the livelihood and wellbeing of this species.
Example:
The US government bombs and kill people alomost every day, even insurgents and terrorists once a while. do I see people dwelling on the facts that people are getting killed, not by accident but by choice, that whole repulsiveness nature of this happening prevent a full and meaningful debate on the course of foreign policy of United States? you know, the whole Judeo-Christian “thy shall not kill” thing on the what-you-might-call-it 10 commendment thing as a overriding principle?
Should the fact that people are getting killed by deliberate actions of government of United States drown out the debate on the foreign policy of united states of america?
Does the fact that people are getting killed by deliberate actions of government of United States drown out the debate on the foreign policy of united states of america?
Does the fact that killings does not actually drown out the debate on the foreign policy of united states of america, juxapose to the fact that some people here is actually succeeding in using the “forced abortion” to drown out the discussion…
by those two facts, I can inferr that you value the life of actual grown fully livin’ human being much less than that of the fetus?
Further more, by your incessent dewelling on the unfortunate details and takes a absolute moral stand, what was some very personal tragedy and should be respectfully treated in any circumstance, i.e. forced abortions has be come, in your using a moral stick and rethorical device to gain some points on some pointless blogsphere. that in the end would neither help the actual situation on the ground or advance any greater moral question of man-kind.
I find that fact highly repungant. and you sir, shallow, base, and highly repungant.
silentchinese says
From a utilitarian perspective,
because obviously the entire subject has become a tool for external radical groups seeking influence in china and internal groups seeking support from outside.
will there be net good result from these kind of open discussions?
I personally don’t think so.
So, No, I don;t in principle object to banning speech. (which is not my opinion but countless supreme court justices of united states in past has held that opinion)
but ofcourse some people hold some principles near and dear disregarding actual cost to people.
Oh Well.
silentchinese says
This is very unfortunate.
by hooking up with the crowd that he is with now, He has effectively just became a geo-political tool, and ceased to be an advocate for citizen’s rights and interests.
silentchinese says
The whole problem boils down to this: which is reflective of Will Cooper’s Salient point…
the people who are in charge in china, are for most part utilitarians and use utilitarianism as the guidanding principle of their actions. which is mostly a reflection of their own countryman’s attitudes. (see how chinese adapted communism to suit their needs, see how chinese adapted capitalism to suit their needs, see how chinese adapted “everything” to suit their needs, and even those that are written down are unifying diacotemys: Mao’s Contradictions, Deng’s Black-Cat-White-Cat, Yin-Yan, Confucius Analect, Sun Zi’s Art of War etc etc )
the people who are in charge in the west, are for most part not utilitarians and do not use utilitarianism as the guidanding principle of their actions. instead they dwell on some norms and set laws which are treated as absolutes (10 commendments, Torah, New Testament, Papal Infallibility, Church Dogmatism, Monarchy Absolutism, Magna Carter, Constitutions, Napoleanonic code, Bill-of-Rights, UN Convention of etc etc, etc etc… and each and every one of these absolute assertions are treated contemporaneously as a time-invariant absolute truths ). and their own people’s attitudes are largely reflective of this.
The western mind simply can not hold two opposite thought and see that as a unifying whole.
No shit they will be talking past each other, “Bull-head-fiting-a-horse-mouth”
!
those who straddle the divide should and must see this clearly.
pug_ster says
@silentchinese
I agree. CGC has already became a political tool for the US because of the way that American NGO’s ‘helped’ him escape and the American Embassy sheltering him. The Chinese people know that. I mean if the Chinese government start funding human rights based NGO’s in the US, the Americans would probably be pissed at not at the human rights issues in the US, but at China for funding them.
I don’t think anybody here denies there are human rights issues in China, as it has in much rest of the world, Kai. But Western propagandists with this white man’s burden thinking as a way to ‘help’ China is an idiot or a tool.
silentchinese says
@pug_ster
The best thing West can do to chinese liberals right now, is simply fold their hands and stay out. so that the chinese liberals (or ChiLibs) do not become discredited. and force to grow up on their own.
or conversely the west can attempt to meddle some more, which will become so egregiously and plainly harmful to the interest of china, and provoke a mass backlash in response that is akin to what happened in march 2008, that finally another douse of cold water is poured on the head of ordinary chinese and they will become even more awake to the stupidity and/or connivings of those in the west.
wwww1234 says
@Bob Thomas
restraining human reproduction is a successful government policy, and as long as it is equitably applied to everyone, then it is fair and just, and a public good.
If it has to be coerced eg for people like CGC, so be it. Just like the US has the death penalty and Europe does not, peoples have different outlook.
If the west, and you, like to consider it as an abuse of “human right”, then you can explain why, and suggest practical alternatives. The Indians would for sure be listening in as well.
yide-angle says
Again, I would like quote a CBS piece:China, U.S. are likely bargaining over missing blind activist Chen Guangcheng:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57423904/china-u.s-are-likely-bargaining-over-missing-blind-activist-chen-guangcheng/?tag=contentMain;contentBody
“He does not want to go into exile, says activist Zeng Jinyan. He wants to stay in China to continue with his work.
He might not have a choice. The U.S. is likely bargaining for Chen and his family to go to the United States. ”
I have a feeling that Clinton and company may feel that they have not fully taken advantage of the Bo Xilai/Wang Lijun incident, and they don’t want to miss this one. To me, the potential defection of Wang has far more value than CGC. But somehow, maybe the embassy is not fully prepared as what to do when Wang suddenly landed on their lap (or there is something happened we just simply don’t know). This one, however, the NGO was involved and facilitated in the drama. It remains to be seen how Chen would decide his own fate, if he has a choice–I won’t doubt that the information surrounding his case is filtered to him, probably more so than when he was in “house arrest”.
yide-angle says
Good question! I am all ears, Mr. Thomas!! But then again, the world is round. I am sure Mr. Thomas can come up with a valid argument as to why India’s democratic solution is better than China’s coerced, Draconian approach, one maybe he truly believes in. To me, you can always argue an issue from a specific angle. That’s why I feel some of the arguments here are irrelevant and futile. I just hope the readers here can judge for themselves the core issues based on the flow of information available, which I think HH has done a tremendous service.
pug_ster says
@yide-angle
Typical White Man’s burden thinking of how the US should run the Chinese government. Now it is the US deciding how China should implement its one Child policy using CGC as a bargaining chip.
silentchinese says
@yide-angle
In any case the policy debate is going on in the background, the population planning policy may be loosening in the cities, if not outright replaced by a 2-child policy. it is natural result of rapid industrialization and urbanization. and the concurrent policy shift.
but it is not due to the credit of any US pressure or agitation.
I think this is nothing but once again an wedge issue used by washington to sow discord and take some credit (see we helped! you should thank us!) for a policy eventuality (the loosening of population planning policy) that they really had no positive hand in.
it is spin spin spin to the utmost degree on part of washington.
silentchinese says
On the part of Wang.
He very much could just walked in, ordered a big-mac and fries meal, and sat down and say nothin for 2 days. US Consulate is just a calculated way for him to extricate himself away from Bo Xilai and get the national security apparatus to take him into protective custody.
but may be beijing is worried that this set a bad precedent. by mixing domestic politics with foreign influence.
again beijing can not be blamed for going into a crack down mode.
yide-angle says
If this is the case, I would say that Wang is a highly intelligent and politically savvy guy. But somehow I feel the truth lies somewhere in between. That’s huge risk to take no matter which way he takes after he set feet in the US consulate. But then considering what happened to Hayward, this is not a bad choice at all.
I also hope this is what CGC has in mind, as all indications have so far pointed to. But in his current situation, what options he has may not really be what he wants.
yide-angle says
There are all shades of NGOs. That’s why this brain child of Reagan’s is highly successful. Talk about CIA and we know what it is and what is does. NGOs? Uh, friends of Panda and friends of Syria are two different things. Besides, the stated goal and purpose of an NGO could be the polar opposite of what it actually does–you know that, right?
“If it can be proved that foreign NGOs have indeed helped CGC get to Beijing, how is this subversive or illegal?”
I have to agree with you, Mr. Thomas, on this one. There is nothing illegal about it. But just image for one second that a fictitious Chinese NGO has somehow managed to fish Bradley Manning (or maybe some other notable, yet less controversial figure) into its embassy and wants to negotiate with the US for his political asylum to China. Could you help me predict what kind of fire storm it might trigger?
I will let other readers draw the conclusion as to what purpose this kind of antic was intended.
zack says
the only way for CGC to prove he isn’t some sort of NED stooge, and to prove his loyalty will be to surrender his own personage to the central government-the central government is impartial to the entire fracas-which is more than can be said for the United States government or “China Aid” or even the Linyi local government.
I am of course assuming his handlers will allow him the freedom to go where he chooses rather than keeping him under lock and key so they can milk him for all it’s worth
yide-angle says
I did a quick search for “julian assange world tomorrow” on Google, which by the way, is on its second episode already, and none of the “main stream” news media outlets, e.g. CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc. mentioned it. Editorial oversight, perhaps?
I suspect that people in China could get access to CGC’s story if they know how and for those who care. Just like here about JA and his TV program on RT.
I’m not trying to be an apologist for China’s censorship policy. I just know every country has its own forms of censorship, for various reasons. And for a totalitarian country like China who depends on the country’s stability to feed its 1.3B mouths, you bet ya!
There, I just said I don’t want to be an apologist for China. Damn!
Jon says
The last time the white man help China, she was broken into pieces. There are thousands of people doing the same work as CGC. These people work within the system to change the system. Once CGC ran to country that wish to contain China and mocked Chinese constantly in the media, he is a traitor. I have no respect for political tools.
For all the self-righteousness that American spout of everyday, they ignore the dire humanitarian disaster that they caused in Iraq and recently Libya. We no longer hear about these people, as the Western media as a whole, simultaneously stop reporting on these events, as it no longer serve their interest. The new news story is human rights in Syria.
Throughout history, the Western’s intolerance of differing thoughts have destroyed thousands of society and millions of people, yet today people continue to believe that America is somehow a ‘beacon of freedom’. Come to America, and say something against the prevailing norms, and you would be fired on the spot.
In America, Chinese are targeted by thugs and criminals. People see Chinese as less than human. However if that Chinese serve their interest, he will be showered with praise.
Frankly, I could care less about CGC…the hypocrisy by Obama and Hillary regime and American can no longer be ignored.
Kai says
Thanks, yinyang, for replying.
First, I asked for “your views on whether or not Chen Guangcheng has been properly and lawfully (according to Chinese law, not foreign law or opinion) handled by Chinese authorities throughout all of this.”
I already said I’m already familiar with your perspective on certain Western media coverage of Chen Guangcheng. I do not disagree with you on there being evidence of bias in that Western media coverage. I simply want to know what you think of CGC’s case itself.
Second, your simple question is a fallacy. You’re presuming that there must be a legitimate (and legal!) reason without offering any. You entertain there may be corruption but presume the central government wouldn’t allow it, when there is no persuasive evidence for that presumption. It is already common knowledge that corruption exists and can persist when the central government knows about it. You presume there is no corruption in the central government and that the central government always acts legally so long as it knows about the illegal. This isn’t true.
What we do know is that there is no legal charge nor reason given for what has happened to CGC or why what has happened has been allowed to continued by authorities who are aware of the matter.
The Washington Post excerpt is not the crux of the issue. CGC wasn’t even charged with subversion or colluding with foreign anti-China forces. He was charged with and convicted on an entirely different crime. What the Washington Post reported was the smear campaign conducted by the threatened Linyi government authorities.
Your paragraphs about the NED, ChinaAid, Western hypocrisy are still irrelevant to the question of the legality of Chen’s treatment. I’m not arguing with you about the transparency of the Western media or that America and other countries also have questionable policies or have engaged in questionable activities in violation of their laws. I’m saying the introduction of those issues into a judgement of CGC’s situation is conflating, muddying, and poisoning the well.
We need to judge CGC on the evidence and laws of his case. Likewise, we need to judge the treatment of CGC against the laws of the nation as well.
1. No, I’m not trying to suggest that and I don’t know why you would think that. I asked the question so you could share “your views on whether or not Chen Guangcheng has been properly and lawfully (according to Chinese law, not foreign law or opinion) handled by Chinese authorities.” His suit was not accepted, yes, and do you actually know why or do you presume there must be a legitimate and legal reason?
2. You didn’t answer the question. Anyone can allege anything. The question is whether or not there is proof. The circumstantial evidence of Linyi authorities not actually charging him (only smearing him) with colluding and receiving funding from abroad to undermine China’s one-child policy suggests there is no legal proof persuasive enough for conviction under Chinese law. There’s also no prosecution for how any funding from any foreign sources is actually being used to undermine anything under Chinese law. If you simply buy what the Linyi authorities say in such a contentious and controversial issue, you’re willingly subscribing to the appeal to authority fallacy. Chinese law provides for challenging authorities because Chinese law recognizes that authorities are not always right or just.
3. You haven’t seen any evidence so what is your personal reason for having such conviction in the allegations of the Linyi authorities who have a conflict of interest in the matter?
4. So are you saying as long as Americans violate their laws in their treatment of certain people, you’ll accept the Chinese doing the same? I think you’re smarter than that but that’s the response you’re giving me.
5. No, it doesn’t come down to that. It either is legal or illegal. Which is it? You need information and a knowledge of Chinese law to make a determination. What you’re doing is abdicating judgement to another authority. You’re again saying, “if they did it or allowed it, then I trust they had their reasons.” The thing is, this isn’t a very strong or rational foundation for the evaluation and judgement of the issue. The law exists precisely to check this kind of fallacious rationalization.
6. Because under Chinese law, there’s the principle of innocent until proven guilty, yinyang. Under Chinese law, it is you who is presupposing that the allegations are true, even in light of the fact he was never formally charged by Chinese authorities with the allegations you’re citing in the Chinese courts under Chinese law.
7. Your answer here boils down to there’s probably exceptions when it comes to national security. Probably isn’t a very credible position to be in. So far you have no evidence for CGC being a legitiate national security threat except for hearsay. Is that admissible under Chinese law?
8. No, I don’t feel silly asking these questions because I didn’t think you were would not understand the relevance of the question. Remember my overall question: What are “your views on whether or not Chen Guangcheng has been properly and lawfully (according to Chinese law, not foreign law or opinion) handled by Chinese authorities”? You’ve written at length about foreign funding damning CGC. I ask this question so you can provide evidence for how that funding actually damns him and makes legal the treatment he has received or the due process under Chinese law that he has not received.
9. The point is so you can offer your views with due consideration for the actual facts, evidence, and law that is relevant to a judgement of CGC’s situation and his treatment by both local and central authorities.
10. I read a tone of contempt in your statement about CGC “resorting” to populist strategies. I read a tone of contempt in your mere labeling of his public protest as a “populist strategy”. Populism typically carries a negative connotation, am I wrong? It helps to know how you feel about people mobilizing others to support a cause. Fundamentally, Chen did nothing different from what the government does: mobilize popular or public support for something.
11. No, not a trick question, but a question so we can reexamine your statements about CGC. You said if his populist strategy fails, “he will have to rely solely on organizations like “China Aid” – and obviously on the Western press who gladly circulate his videos and always ready to speak against the Chinese government.” As I wrote, I want to know your views about his case outside of foreign opinion, but you insert criticism of the Western press at every turn. Can we get back to CGC?
12. Okay, good, so you acknowledge that there is evidence of his rights and freedoms being violated. What is the evidence available to justify the behavior of the authorities?
Hehe is right that people don’t have the full set of information. But why am I nearly the only one here who is asking the relevant questions that are actually relevant to this guy even being in the news having any attention paid to him at all?
Why are you guys not asking questions about the cause of the issue and jumping straight to indignation about certain reactions to the issue?
Charles Liu says
@Kai
Kai, I disagree with your narrow view on Chen’s actions. What he did should be viewed more broadly, including his affiliation.
I mean, by contrast, should the Chinese pump money into US to help Brad Manning escape? And more to your point, legal or not, should Manning stay and work within the system, or abscond when arranged by the Chinese contrary to US law, legal or otherwise?
Do you think as abused and poorly treated by the US government and his rights violated as Manning is, would any patriotic American wanting to right their country’s wrong seek or accept help from foreign paymaster with stated goal to interfere with America’s sovereignty? Would any reasonable American accept such action as the correct course beneficial to America as a nation?
To some degree that’s exactly what happened to Chen’s escaping house arrest to US embassy. Check NED’s China grant publication, both Hu Jia and Bob Fu (of China Aid) who played prominent role in Chen’s flilght to US embassy, are on US government’s payroll. Bob Fu even highlighted The Three Grades of Servants as example of religious persecution against his own country, when the fact is Three Grades cult’s Xu Shuanfu, who appointed himself as the Messiah Reborn, instigated a bloody turf war over church membership in Henan.
To me, this sad episode seem to be manufactured by US government, or at least financially underwritten by our tax dollars. IMHO my pittance can be used more wisely, not to mention by turning to foreign paymaster and turncoats that already pledged allegiance against China, would in reality create a backlash against Chen and popular support for the CCP money can not buy.
Seems the CCP has nothing to worry about, and those who are truly concerned with China’s rights progress, do.
Charles Liu says
And to add to point 8 – state’s right to sovereign independence is a universally accepted rights, with most if not all countries outlawing foreign involvement in its domestic politics. In US Code such activity is illegal under Foreign Agent Registration Act (a catch-22 law requiring foreign agents to register and subject oneself to espionage indictment.)
China is no exception. For examples Hu Jia was doing some really good AIDS awareness in China, only got himself in trouble when he started passing political information to US embassy. Also in reading of Liu Xiaobo’s court verdict, accepting and withdrawing foreign remittance from his wife’s Bank of China account was part of the evidence that convicted him.
Bob Thomas says
I have just read yinyang’s update (posted April 29).
“In combating terrorism, American citizens have largely accepted detention of 「enemy combatants」 at Guantanamo. One may ask under what law?”
Extraterritoriality. I’m not an American. I think Guantanamo is a disgrace. However, the American people all know it’s there and they’ve seen the photos and they know that terrible things happen there. The American people know about it and as you say, they have “largely accepted” it. The sad fact is that the streets in America aren’t lined with people everyday demanding its closure. Some might say it gives them security, but at what cost?
So Americans know about Guantanamo, but they largely accept it. I’d like to compare Guantanamo to another case only as an example of a nation’s citizens tacitly accepting something many of them agree to been unjust. Would the Chinese people consider the handling of the Chen case as just? When I say ‘just,’ I don’t mean by my standards, or by American standards, but by their own. The fact that it is not being reported on in the media leads me to believe that whoever controls the media thinks that a large number of Chinese people would have serious questions. If the government really did have the sort of support they often claim to, then surely the Chinese people would approve of all that they do. In this case, why can’t the media report on this and other similar cases?
“I also should point out about the moralist hypocricy that exists in the Western press. Imagine if we have as many articles written about brutally killed Iraqi and Afghan children as are for Chen?”
You referenced the Daily Telegraph before, so I thought I would use it again. I searched for “Guantanamo” and “Chen Guangcheng” on its website. The former got 3470 hits, the latter got 47.
1. Did he do anything wrong and illegal in suing Linyi authorities alleging compulsory sterilization and rare cases of forced abortion?
“Of course not. However, his suit was not accepted. To suggest that a Chinese citizen for merely attempting to sue can be viewed as illegal in China totally underestimates how far China has come in her judicial system.”
If the Chinese system has really come that far, then why wasn’t he allowed to sue the Linyi local authorities? If they were certain that they had done nothing wrong, it should have been an easy case to win.
3. What evidence for illegal speech or engagement with foreigners is there?
“…………..The Chinese media have largely been censored from covering Chen……”
If you are referring to the mainland media, I would suggest “completely censored from covering Chen.”
9. What evidence is there for this funding being used for illegal purposes under Chinese law?
“What’s the point of this question while both you and I know that the Chinese authorities have not divulge this information?”
If there is no evidence, then why focus so much on alleged ties with NGOs in your article?
11. Is there something wrong and illegal with foreign organizations and media speaking against the Chinese government according to Chinese law?
“Collective Defamation in the Western press against 『China’ and 『Chinese’
is a serious matter which this blog spends a great many articles on”.
Yet a lot of what I see on this website could be seen as collective defamation of criticism.
12. Has his rights and freedoms under Chinese law been respected, upheld, and protected by Chinese authorities?
“Looking at the smuggled video from February 2011, I believe some of his rights were likely not upheld. I personally yearn for China to become better than what Chen and his wife have shown.”
I agree. But I honestly didn’t get a sense of this in your first article. From that article, and others’ posts, I get the impression that some people are willing to accept certain injustices as a necessary evil in maintaining “stability.”
Time and again, people attack the West (largely America) for being biased or overly critical, then they themselves compare injustices in China to those in the West (again, largely America)!
By referring to injustices in the West (America), this is either:
A way of deflecting criticism without discussing the questions it raises.
or worse:
A way of justifying or defending certain actions by saying, in effect, “they do the same or worse.”
colin says
@Kai,
Straw man attempt. You are asking for answers that, as stated by others earlier, probably no one on the outside has answers for. Evidence? Are you kidding me? The NYT/WSJ/etc. has no “evidence”, but are happy to perpetuate misinformation and a biased narrative. On thus, that narrative is taking hold has “fact” in the western populace. Suffice it to say, I’m sure there are charges against CGC in the chinese police system, warranted or fabricated (as happens in every country). To think otherwise would be stupid. Following on that, his escape has most likely broken the law and made him a fugitive.
@Charles Liu
I think I agree that China doesn’t have to do anything. CGC is basically a fugitive now. Who cares where he is. His family and friends are not going anywhere. If this episode becomes popular inside China, all they need to do is air out CGC’s dirty laundry to stamp out any organic support.
Echoing others, CGC might have done good work in the past, but the moment he decided to link himself up with US NGO’s and Hu Jia is the moment he crossed the line over to national subversion, rather than just being an activist.
All this episode does, as stated by others, is take resources away from real issues the US and China could be addressing.
jxie says
In short, if Chen was subject to illegal detention and harassment, his friends in and out of the media circle should’ve pursued legal means to fight, i.e. lawsuit at the city/provincial level or even all the way to the Supreme People’s Court. You ought to respect the system… and the system has brought vast majority of the people better lives. Heck, I have issues with a lot of the policies, censorship (let’s gradually end it), one-child policy (if it doesn’t end soon, the demographics in a couple of decades will not be pretty), etc. But the key is trying to reform and improve the system, not destroy it — which will make you an enemy of the vast majority.
raventhorn says
@Bob Thomas
“Time and again, people attack the West (largely America) for being biased or overly critical, then they themselves compare injustices in China to those in the West (again, largely America)!”
I think when we call West as “biased”, we are comparing the overall, aren’t we??! Who said, we are not supposed to compare?!
I think the West is “biased”, because it’s the West that doesn’t want to compare the real records!!
Well, when China gets all self-righteous about Human Rights in the West, and start sanctioning and Gitmo’s, then you might have a point.
We compare, because China, at least, does not pretend that it has the answers.
If you have the answers, go NUTS on the West! If you get somewhere with it, we can compare again.
Charles Liu says
Here’s an interesting read:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/blind-chinese-activist-is-us-ned-proxy.html
PP is usually very critical of China.
jimmy says
Chen, Liu & others of their same kind are snakes and spineless characters. They remind me of those who believed in AND even colluded with triumphant Jap conquerors during their occupation of Malaya. After the Japs surrendered those people(snakes) were properly dealt with by the local populace. Read articles at http://www.scribd.com/jimmyfung40 for more.
YinYang says
@Kai
Hi Kai,
Thanks for your new comments.
As others have pointed out, and I will repeat what I said earlier, we really don’t know much, and so I am not in a position to say what are the details of the charges were that has put Chen in house arrest this past year plus.
I agree with you, if the Linyi authorities would come out and tell us, that’d be the right thing to do.
You said:
That is not what I am saying. I am to rational people, which you are among, that despite the ‘model’ legal tradition that is of America, she can still ‘falter’ too and come short in being transparent and legal. China has more work to do.
Granted, Guantanamo has received tremendous criticisms. Your criticism specifically in regards to Chinese law is sound. I don’t deny them. As I said, I yearn for China to become better, because the Chinese people deserve better. I wish Chen did not have to go through the ordeal that has plagued his life and his family’s since the house arrest.
You said:
It is you who presume the Linyi authorities have no pertinent evidence on national security or like grounds.
I am not sure if we can reconcile on this point, Kai. You give Chen the benefit of the doubt. I give the Chinese authorities the benefit of the doubt. The Western media’s narrative is that the Chinese government is wrong. So, again, Kai, it comes down to whether Chen acted in collusion with some organization like the National Endownment for Democracy. The key event is the March 2006 protest.
I am about to translate this article at MITBBS, because I think this contains the pertinent details from the Linyi authorities:
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/ChinaNews/32543417.html
You said:
But, hearsay or not, it is up to the Chinese authorities to decide. That’s the norm around the world. But, again, Kai I agree with you charges must meet the crime and made known for a person to defend himself. Your criticism in this regard is rational and I agree with you.
You said:
Simply because we are responding to the dominant Western media narrative on this story.
As I have already asked, basically:
1. Why isn’t the Western press getting answers from Linyi or other Chinese authorities about this case?
2. Why isn’t the Western press talking to NED and get some answers of their possible involvement? ChinaAid? If these organizations deny, the Western press should report that.
LOLZ says
Again, you are projecting your sense of morality onto the Chinese citizenry. Ultimately the local people are responsible for their own governments and policies, including the level of censorship. If large mass of Chinese are unhappy with their government, it would crumble within and no longer be in power today. That is how it always has been with China and most nations.
As with all nations, there are plenty of good and bad stuff going on in China right now. On popular Chinese forums, it’s not difficult to find thousands of posts complaining about the government or the current state of the society. This sort of thing drives changes in China. However the last thing China (or any other nation IMO) needs is for external forces to dictate what is right and what is wrong, what China should do and should not do. The reasons is obvious, the US government does not answer to the Chinese interests which would benefit China, but US interests which would benefit Americans. Majority of the voices cheering for Chen’s escape are the same ones who are calling to boycott China or for China to give up its strategic territories, acts which would give US/Western governments more leverage over China but hurt ordinary Chinese citizenry. This is exactly why I find it so ironic for foreign governments and posters such as yourself to pretend that you care about Chinese people. If you really cared for/respected China why not just let the Chinese society evolve on its own?
wwww1234 says
@Kai
The idea of law being unbendable with uniform application is good in theory, but it is more suitable for a society that is relatively static and homogeneous eg Europe.
Even the Americans have their own respective state laws that do not cross geographic boundary.
A rigid law system may not be practical for a multiethnic nation like china (a sum of hundred nations), or for any nation in fast social/economic transition.
As law can become unjust, out of date, or detrimental.
No one needs to be reminded that the idea of law is based on achieving justice, not only in its procedures but I think ultimately in its results.
When the existing law cannot deal with the mafia, like in Chongqing, the mafia still has to be dealt with.
When existing law does not adequately compensate peasants whose representatives have signed LEGAL contracts, be it for corruption(like Enron) or bad business decision(eg Lehman Brothers), the law has to be (illegally!)back tracked.
This happens often, when an apparent good deal becomes being perceived as an exploitation in retrospect, due to unexpected economic progress, esp with land.
So the existing law can only be expected to handle 98 % of these disputes, with 2% to be dealt with by a spirit of justice.
I think this is what a “harmonious society” is meant by Hu, ie, flexibility with the existing imperfect legal system aiming for more just results, rather than being purely procedurally correct.
Raj says
So you are saying this Chen case is an example of “harmonious society in action”?
Really?
silentchinese says
Looks like Not even people on the Prisonplanet is buying this stuff. which I wonder why some of those here are so eager gulp it down.
denk says
denk
+do u agree that
People who like to yap about the rule of law should see to it that their own government obeys the law*
http://tinyurl.com/y9lkstf*
bob thomas
*None of the NGOs that you refer to are from my country*
????????
what r u talking about dude
*********************************************************
bt
** But, if foreign NGOs have helped CGC get to Beijing, how could that possibly be subvertive? What laws have they broken if indeed this is what they have done?*
denk
+so u’re willfully obtuse i see
is this what they teach u in that debriefing ?
u think us or uk or any other *democrazy* would tolerate known subversive outfits from hostile countries colloborating with their dissidents ?
is it ok if chinese intel *helping* , *guiding* brad manning
bob ?+
bt
*But, if foreign NGOs have helped CGC get to Beijing, how could that possibly be subvertive? What laws have they broken if indeed this is what they have done?*
******************************************
dude
u say u wanna meaningful debate
but are u human in the first place
or just a fucking recording
just repeating the same craps over n over again ?
denk says
wow
raj of the fucking duck is back
i’d have thought that someone who has been
exposed as hypocrite n liar would at least lie low for a while
so tell me raj
are hypocrisy, dishonesty, thick hide like a rhino
pre-requistes for a duckie ?
colin says
@denk
Those at the duck pond, much like the western NGO’s and china bashers are supreme hypocrits. That main duck there is the biggest censor of all, often overcome with emotion and anger. He once posted about a book a friend of his wrote, about the cultural revolution period. All kinds of nasty demonizations about china. When I looked up the book, it turns out that it was a work of fiction. Of course, he never mentioned that in his post. When i posted comments protesting the bias and misinformation, he promptly banned me. His persona in a nutshell perfectly embodies the misguided ideas and hypocrisy of the china bashers, western governements and NGO’s. He/They only see the evil in others, while completely oblivious to their own much greater misdeeds and character flaws. It would one thing if they genuinely wanted to help china and the chinese, but all they is sow discord and chaos – anything to keep America on top, right?
drake says
Colin please provide links and other evidence or your comment is simply spam.
As for an English language website which is blocked in China causing “discord and chaos” well maybe it does in your and denks already confused mind, but i wouldn’t read too much else into it…
YinYang says
folks – Raj has been using different usernames, including Cathy Graham. He’s probably using some spamming service to always grab a different IP address when he comment on this blog. This is how he got around our IP blocks.
YinYang says
denk – please, no explicatives.
YinYang says
@jxie
amen.
zack says
@YinYang
i knew the little shit was up to something
Lime says
@YinYang
Here’s a partial answer to your first question in #98.
According to a New York Times article written last June, when the newspaper was investigating Chen’s house arrest, “Local authorities did not answer phone calls seeking comment”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/asia/18china.html
After a brief search, I haven’t been able to find any other mention of attempted contact with the responsible authorities.
A better question though, I think, would be why doesn’t the Chinese press get some answers from Linyi or other Chinese authorities about this case? If I lived in China, I think this would be something I would be even more interested in knowing about, as it would not be merely academic.
denk says
colin 105
the duckies are pathetic
shameless xxx
demonisation is just one part of fukus arsenals against china
http://tinyurl.com/6f2vgcv
the others include covert wars [tibet, xinjiang, flg, tam, etc]
overt wars [sudan, libya etc], proxy wars [south china sea]
cyber war, black ops [chinese killed in africa etc] biowars [bird flu, sars etc]
yinyang
i appreciate it
will try my best to control
but at times when those xxx are practically asking for it
n i let slip my tongue
hope u understand 😉
anybody knows whats that *drake* kid mumbing about ?
YinYang says
@zack
As denk mentioned above, Raj was admin over at the PD. Yikes.
@Lime
Thx.
That’s such a lame excuse. They have people on the ground. I am sure they know where to find Linyi officials in China. Have they tried?
I agree with you that the Chinese press should find out what the deal is with Chen.
After all, the Chinese media totally controls the narrative, so what’s wrong with the population knowing what the deal is.
But as I mentioned previously, perhaps the Chinese government decided they simply didn’t want to draw attention. In PR strategies, I think this is one of those things where you don’t want others to dictate the agenda; don’t want to indulge in every ‘criminal’ the Western press decide to infatuate over.
Anyways, for ‘better’ or for ‘worse.’ In my opinion, the more the Chinese public know about this sort of cases, the better it is all around. Perhaps local officials wouldn’t be so crude and ‘brutish.’ Perhaps the Chinese public can be even more aware of what certain foreign ‘NGO’s” are trying to do within China.
denk says
Are cases like this one of the reasons you left China and have decided not to come back??
YinYang says
Btw, denk#114 is Raj. He’s pretending to be denk. He’s likely that same porn troll. I left the above comment there because I want to remind readers we have a “Countering Trolls” section to the right of this blog. See our first article in that section by Melektaus:
The idiotic “Why are you still in America?” fallacy
denk says
yinyang
some asshole use my name
i didnt post 114
zhongziqi says
trying to find more about this guy and I came across this. pretty plain descriptions. lots of citations are western press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Guangcheng
denk says
yinyang
this is the kind of occasion when those assholes really ask for it
the sneaking bastards
it so happen that im in the loop at this moment
if i am away n miss that
they’d succeed in sowing discord here
denk says
colin
see how pathetic the opposition is
they have abandon debating coz they dont have a leg to stand on
now they resort to such low life tactics
shameless twigs 😉
Bob Thomas says
1. I state categorically that I of course view this case through my eyes and from my own moral stance. And by my standards, I find the way that Chen has been treated unjust.
2. There is no media coverage of this case in the mainland media and all interent posts discussing it are being removed (I read Chinese, if you find evidence to the contrary please post links).
3. So, one could infer that whoever controls the media and the internet in mainland China believes that a number of Chinese people would also find the way that Chen has been treated as unjust. If not, why censor?
4. Therefore, in this case, my moral stance does not appear to be far from that of a number of Chinese people as assumed by whoever controls the media.
Bob Thomas says
@YinYang
yinyang, I would very much like to read any responses you have to my post (92) if you have time.
Thankyou
Charles Liu says
@Bob Thomas
Raj I’ll take #2 – I guess you didn’t even bother to Baidu his name did ya?
http://www.people.com.cn/BIG5/paper83/11411/1029986.html
http://bookmark.people.com.cn/toViewBookmark.do?id=208475
http://www.gov.cn/xwfb/2006-07/11/content_332711.htm
http://gb.cri.cn/3821/2004/12/30/[email protected]
http://www.people.com.cn/BIG5/paper83/11411/1029986.html
Also, you might want to read the MITBBS article DW posted in comment 98.
Bob Thomas says
My apologies, I was referring to current internet activity. You have found a number of sites, but they all date from quite a while ago (please see below). I searched using google and modified the search to cover the past week. I haven’t been able to find anything.
Furthermore, my post referred to media reporting and internet forums. I would be particularly interested in any mainland internet forums discussing the recent case.
Thankyou for replying so quickly. Part of my argument above was that censorship of the recent case is taking place. If censorship is not occuring, my argument does not stand. Do I take it from your post that you believe censorship is not going on?
2004 –
http://www.people.com.cn/BIG5/paper83/11411/1029986.html
2011 –
http://bookmark.people.com.cn/toViewBookmark.do?id=208475
2006 –
http://www.gov.cn/xwfb/2006-07/11/content_332711.htm
2004 –
http://gb.cri.cn/3821/2004/12/30/[email protected]
2004 –
http://www.people.com.cn/BIG5/paper83/11411/1029986.html
Bob Thomas says
One more thing Charles, I find it rather ironic that in a post apparently (my apologies if you are not) refuting internet censorship in China, you advise me to visit the MITBBS site.
In an introduction to MITBBS (see link below) you will find the following sentence:
‘One characteristic that distinguishes it from other Chinese online forums is that it has no censorship imposed by the Chinese government.’
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ladamic/courses/networks/si508si708cs608/projects/MITBBS.pdf
drake says
BTW http://www.mitbbs.com/ is blocked in China
LOL
These guys really get themselves tied up in knots!
Charles Liu says
December 2011 is pretty current.
Most school kids in China knows how to get around the swiss cheese gfw to get to pron, using ProxyHunter. I’m suprised old China hand like you don’t know that, Raj.
And again, you’ve failed to do a simple Baidu with the article title, else you’d noticed articles like that came from Chinese netters:
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_711a1b5b0100v3ij.html
Must I do all your homework for you?
drake says
Even easier to get around when you don’t actually live in China eh Charles?
I wonder why, if its so easy for the Chinese people to get around that the govt still invests the peoples money in having such a system. Arn’t there more pressing matters than trying to block news about blind legal advisers?
And another link from Liu which says nothing of recent events…and the best you could do is find something in a blog, really? The blogger seems to follow the same M.O as you guys too. Allude to all sorts of dealings and money taking from “overseas forces”, and yet at the end of the day all he is charged with is impeding traffic.
The rest is just hot air and BS.
It wasnt written by you was it? LOL
Charles Liu says
Foarse, is that you?
Charles Liu says
Not look and start b!ching about censorship doesn’t make it any more true. Try a couple keywords on Baidu News, like this one:
http://www.guancha.cn/html2/60321/2012/04/27/71436.shtml
据称，陈光诚周日从山东家中脱离软禁，并可能已经寻求外交庇护。
drake says
Great a list of links, one to BBC on this specific matter. That really is some in -depth research and hard hitting reportage!
LOL
Go on Charlie, tell us there is no censorship here…..
Charles Liu says
again, must I do all your homework? have you actually tried do some original search on baidu yourself, instead of b1tch b1tch b1tch?
http://bbs.hzcom.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=16055
陈光诚突围早有计划
http://bbs.hzcom.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=16049
陈光诚出逃 中美高层谈判
I’m gonna have to start charging you.
Bob Thomas says
Thank you for posting those links Charles. In your opinion, does this show that in mainland China:
a) censorship of the Chen case has not occurred
or
b) censorship has occurred, but some posts/articles still get through
I ask this in reference to my argument, stated above (120)
perspectivehere says
I think the case of Chen Guancheng raises numerous questions which are not easy to answer, and no one has all the facts. But human nature being what it is, it is our nature to try to piece together a narrative or rationale from the information available. So here’s my theory of why CGC attracted the amount of attention he has received from the authorities, which to many observers (myself included) has seemed excessive and unwarranted.
I note this video by Professor Jerome Cohen about his meeting CGC and his assessment of his capabilities and character. As Jerome Cohen is one of the foremost Chinese law scholars in the western world and has contributed enormously to the building of legal institutions and education in China, I’m pretty well inclined to trust his opinion on CGC.
What I really don’t understand is, knowing that the PRC government is very interested in institutionalizing the rule of law and legal education generally, and knowing that the central government is also focused on monitoring and reducing local government malfeasance and abuses, why would the government not be supportive (or at least not be so averse to) the actions of CGC in advocating for the unmet needs or covered up abuses towards the local people? What is the “unwritten rule” that CGC has broken that would cause the government to react the way it has? After all, China has hundreds of thousands of lawyers, and development of the rule of law is one of the government’s own priorities.
The Wikipedia entry on CGC stated this: “Chen met with foreign reporters in Beijing to publicize his lawsuit and the allegations within it that Linyi officials were engaged in compulsory sterilization, and more rarely, forced abortion. Local officials responded by portraying Chen as working for “foreign anti-China forces”, pointing out that he had received foreign funding for his campaign. After Chen refused negotiations with local officials to cease his activism, Linyi authorities placed him under house arrest from September 2005. He attempted to escape for contacts in Beijing in October, but was beaten and held back.”
The Wikipedia entry cites a 2006 article from the Washington Post, which had written this:
“Party sources said Linyi officials distributed a report in Beijing that portrayed Chen as a tool of “foreign anti-China forces,” accused him of violating the one-child policy and made much of the fact that he had received overseas funding for his work as an activist on behalf of the disabled….By linking Chen to hostile foreign forces, party sources said, the Linyi officials made it politically risky for anyone to intervene on his behalf. The national population commission, for example, rebuked Linyi officials and singled them out for criticism, but refrained from defending Chen or bringing the case to top party leaders, the sources said. “In the current political environment, in this political system, no official has any incentive to help him,” said one Chinese scholar involved in the case who spoke on condition of anonymity.”
**********************************************
Okay – so he is accused of receiving overseas funding for his work. Is this true?
This article by Melinda Liu from The Daily Beast in 2002 about “barefoot lawyers” perhaps gives a clue as to how CGC got on the radar of the authorities:
“Peasants, emboldened by the liberalization of society as a whole, are less docile than before. Grass-roots activists tend to have a bit more education and often have some experience outside their village–say, by serving in the Army or working as migrant laborers in one of the booming coastal cities. Shandong native Chen Guangcheng, for instance, hails from a flyspeck village 200 kilometers from the provincial capital of Jinan that barely gets a television signal. “If it rains,” says the chatty 32-year-old, “no one can watch TV.” In 1998 he traveled to Nanjing to study at the Traditional Medicine University; he majored in acupuncture and massage, while picking up a bit of legal knowledge on the side.
Chen is also blind. His first experience with the law came in 1996, when he went to the shangfang office in Beijing to complain that his family was being compelled to pay tax for him, even though his disability exempted him. To his surprise, his parents later received a tax refund. More recently, after returning from Nanjing, he organized farmers from his hometown and 78 surrounding villages to press for the closure of a paper mill that had been polluting a nearby stream since 1988. The black, noxious, untreated wastewater destroyed corn and melon crops, killed fish and turtles, even triggered skin and digestive ailments, say local officials.
Chen and village leaders complained to higher-ups and wrote petitions about the toxic stream–and when all else failed, they contacted Western diplomats and journalists. Ultimately the British Embassy agreed to help bankroll a 180-meter-deep motor-pumped well, with irrigation and potable-water pipelines, to bring clean water into the area.
Local authorities are still skittish about activists’ having contacts with foreigners: Chen was interrogated after receiving a letter from the embassy.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2002/03/03/barefoot-lawyers.html
**************************************
Okay, so it may not seem like much from a Westerner’s perspective for CGC to contact Western diplomats and journalists, to obtain funding from the British Embassy to bankroll a well in their village. But clearly, this made the local government nervous – the Daily Beast points out that the foreign support made the local government “skittish about activists having contacts with foreigners.”
Looking at it from the Chinese perspective, what is the local government and the central government supposed to think about a grass-roots activist who receives funding for projects from foreigners? How does the government prevent activists from becoming agents of foreign governments which pursue the agenda of the foreigners or governments bankrolling these projects?
My experience of Chinese law and regulation is that the government heavily regulates and monitors any foreign funding or investment in projects – this is ordinary regulation for commercial matters. These rules are designed to protect local people against foreign funding which is unfair or violative of local peoples’ rights.
Ordinarily, if a foreign investor is funding a capital project, it would need to go through many layers of approval. In this case, the British embassy funded a project which involved some capital investment. What were the terms? Wouldn’t these need to undergo some kind of approval process? Why would funding by a foreign government of a local project not be subject to any government approval or oversight? I don’t have enough facts to know, but it’s clear enough that the local government was concerned to question the arrangements, which should not be unexpected.
The British have a long history of using funding support of native groups as a “divide and conquer” tactic, which enabled it to influence, divide, weaken, and conquer the many peoples they colonized.
Given China’s experience of these types of divide and conquer tactics at the hands of foreign colonizers, the fact that CGC received British government funding was probably one of the factors that made the authorities suspicious of his activities, and ultimately make the decision to try to put limitations on this actions.
Unfortunately, the fact that CGC seems to have become a Western media symbol only serves to confirm the suspicions in many Chinese peoples’ minds that CGC was being set up (funded) to become a kind of victim / martyr in the Western media of the evil Chinese government. They refer to him as the “forced abortion activist”, when, as the Daily Beast article of 2002 clearly shows, the government was already suspicious of him when he was simply getting funding for building a well.
But clearly, if the media styled him as a “blind environmental activist against polluting paper mill”, that would probably upset the right-wingers that are supporting him.
This is all speculation on my part, without any special insight on the facts, and relying only on publicly available information. Happy to hear countering views.
FOARP says
@Charles – No.
Bob Thomas says
@perspectivehere
What’s more important: the feelings of the local and central government , or clean water for the villagers?
Do you think that the reason why the local government were so annoyed could have been because the case had highlighted their negligence (as you note above) and caused them to lose face?
perspectivehere says
@perspectivehere
On the growth of legal education in China (with supporting statistics), see Legal Education in China: A Great Leap Forward of Professionalism. Of particular interest in this article is the author’s discussion of the adoption of an American style educational system in legal education.
This speech by Jeffrey Lehman, the Founding Dean of the Peking University School of Transnational Law (STL), The Changing Face of Legal Education in China also presents interesting perspectives. My favorite quote, starting at 41:24:
“I think that in the coming century we all stand to learn something from experiments like STL. So – for starters we need to help our native english speakers to be more sophisticated about language, more sophisticated about the english language.
In an era when the english language has become the lingua franca of commerce and law, we need to teach our students who are native speakers of english how to understand statements in english by people who are not native speakers of english. Often people who are not native speakers are using english words to express ideas that have their origin outside of Anglo-Saxon culture, and a listener whose frame of reference is limited to Anglo-Saxon culture may miss subtleties and nuances that are important, and that is not the speaker’s problem – it is everyone’s problem. And we want to make sure that audiences now can deal with this new reality.”
yide-angle says
@perspectivehere
An analysis by Yiyi Lu on WSJ’s China Realtime Report (The Baffling Case of Chen Guangcheng,
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/04/30/the-baffling-case-of-chen-guangcheng/) has ventured 3 possible reasons why this has happened. Of the 3 possibilities she proposed, I think the 3rd one, that “nobody, not even higher up in the hierarchy, was willing to intervene once the decision on how to deal with Chen had been made by a certain agency or official” is the most likely reason. Chen might have touched some nerves of a powerful local official, and what happened has all signatures of a local warlord flexing his/her power. And Chen’s daring move to seek attention of central government via a visit to US consulate makes sense.
YinYang says
Folks – drake and Bob Thomas could be Raj, FOARP, or anyone. Thus far, HH has a open comments policy, so people could specify whatever username they want.
Anyways, engage in comments only if you think it is worth your time. If you want to expose a bigot, that’s good reason. If you want to make a hypocrite look stupid, that’s a good reason too.
The best type of comment to engage in are those thoughtful, which represents a wider misconception.
Charles Liu says
@YinYang
Agree, when Raj whips out the “50 Cent Party” McCarthyist accusation and cannot back it up, the conversation is over.
My German sports car needs super unleaded which is well over $4 a gallon, I need to be in the 500 Yuan Party, as a minimum 😎
And when that happens, it’s still pittance compared to the million Yuan NED grants these turncoats get.
pug_ster says
@Bob Thomas
Most often when the rural people from the local village petition to the government about putting a pump, they are often asked to pay back in increased taxes as such. Of course, many times the people in the local rural people ask for it anyways but don’t want to pay for the increased taxes. Of course, sometimes donors will foot the bill to do that. As you can see from Jerome Cohen’s youtube video, that’s not the reason why he got jailed in the first place.
yide-angle says
@YinYang
Is it possible to restrict one user name per e-mail address registered? That way at least a troll won’t be able to impersonate another poster.
zhongziqi says
this one says that some of the helpers are released
http://www.bbc.co.uk/zhongwen/simp/chinese_news/2012/05/120501_chenguangcheng_hujia.shtml
this one says that CGC might go to the US with family
http://www.bbc.co.uk/zhongwen/simp/chinese_news/2012/05/120501_chenguangcheng_chinaaid.shtml
from what I have read so far, looks like CGC isn’t such a bad guy. so if he and his family end up in the US, it probably is a good thing for all. hopefully Beijing will do some house cleaning in Linyi. this looks like pretty bad abuse of power by the local government. western media exaggerate China’s problem is bad enough. Liyin local government’s ridiculous treatment of a blind man makes me feel these imbeciles are intentionally feeding the fire.
YinYang says
@perspectivehere
Thanks for that analysis. I’ve drawn attention to it at the top of the article as an update.
I am sympathetic to zhongziqi’s view too – that he wasn’t a bad guy. I still think the March 2006 period was the turning point as reader hehe suggest above.
Indeed, it’s possible Chen for having a string of successes in his legal activism, he continued to push the envelop not realizing his receiving funding abroad (circumventing Linyi authorities process) would draw ire.
One big problem I find with Wikipedia or Western press is they often omit crucial facts from the Chinese side. It’s selective omission – very effective censorship of truth. Could be unintentional too. All it takes is a colored lens.
For example, in the Liu Xiaobo case, they never talk about NED funding him. What the Washington Post mentioned of Linyi authorities alleging foreign collusion are the rare nuggets that we find only after going through mounds of Western press articles to get a sense of the Chinese perspective.
YinYang says
@yide-angle
We could change the blog so that in order to comment, you will have to log in first.
Allen and I have decided to keep it open comments policy thus far. If things get too out of hand, we may consult with our other authors and then decide to change the policy.
For the two of us, I think we are generally somewhat ‘tolerant’ of the trolls. Ignoring trolls is hard – but focus on responding to meaningful comments is usually most fruitful.
Certain comments clearly stand head and shoulders above the rest. They tend to muscle out the junk on their own.
Charles Liu says
@YinYang
DW, if you look at the pre-riot Chen Guangcheng, he had the support of the media and his rights activity without involvement of foreign paymaster was genuinely grassroots. And they yielded results, such as court victories for the disabled.
What went wrong for Chen was when he hooked up with RFA, a US government mouthpiece, and started doing work against his own people. He was arrested for instigating a crowd to cut fences and block highway traffic for hours. After he had money and foreigners to back him up, he became confrontational, beyond the legal and social norm for China. The result is not only detriment to himself and his fellow villagers who was determined to be left along, but more so to his causes.
Same thing with Hu Jia, he was doing some good AIDS awareness in China, until he got in trouble for passing political information to US embassy (ref: Babur Mehsut,). I guess that’s the sad part about NED grants, they are completely misguided, and when the political chicken behind the money comes home to roost, that government money corrupts individuals and violates others sovereign independence in favor of US foreign policy agenda and self interest.
colin says
@yide-angle
Just read that analysis at WSJ. First of all, the bias is obvious in that article. In all three scenarios, the author attributes bad intentions to the chinese governments (local/national). As the saying goes, never attribute malice to what can be attributed to incompetence (or lack of resources in this case). The west always attributes malice first when discussing china.
I actually think the first scenario, of the central gov’t not knowing or having enough resources to effect every single issue, is just as valid as any. For example, even large very dynamic organizations like Microsoft often have left arms that do not know what the right arm is doing, so to speak. To proclaim “here is injustice”, and expect the CPC must immediately intervene is naive. After all, china is many magnitudes more complex and difficult to manage than say a Microsoft. Certainly, there is much corruption at the local level, yet the central CPC have not been able to address it effectively, so it strikes me as very reasonable that the national gov’t simply has other priorities to deal with and have set this lower on the totem pole. And to be frank, they should be dealing with more important issues given that every organization has limited resources and need to set priorities.
YinYang says
@Bob Thomas
Thanks for your lengthy comment. I think other readers’ response to you and my response to Kai have addressed most of your points.
I accept your criticism that my OP didn’t emphasize enough that I truly wish for a China that’s better than what was made light of from Chen’s smuggled videos.
By all means, bad things happening in China should not be excused nor excused by bad things out in the West (or America).
The comparison are put in place because there are many bigots and hypocrites out there who simply believe the Chinese or the Chinese government are evil. The only way to counter such perspectives is to really appeal to the idea that despite all that advancement in “model” countries as those in the West, there are still huge problems. China was ravaged by imperialism and bad policies, so she had a handicapped start. We want people to recognize this fact and criticize with sincerity.
As I said to Kai above, your views and mine are probably not going to reconcile. I think I am given the Chinese authorities more benefit of the doubt, because the circumstantial evidence I see points to NED supporting Chen. Chen’s legal activism has become political activism.
You are right to say the Chinese authorities ought to show evidence. That’s where we are. America exercise with excess in this regard too when national security concerns are in question.
One more thing – with regards to how much Guantanamo is covered in the Western press. Yes, Europe is very skeptical of what the U.S. is doing there. So naturally you find them talking about it much more. But, NATO countries do not care about Iraqi and Afghani children being killed. That’s the more apt comparison. Search for those and compare against how frequently Chen is covered now.
colin says
@YinYang
Striking contrast that a open forum is allowed here, while the duck’s site heavily censors those who don’t fit into their ideology.
Kudos.
colin says
Here’s an interesting thought. What if CGC was allowed to escape to take coverage away from the Bo debacle?
YinYang says
@Charles Liu
I think that’s their strategy. Go to all corners of China and find these activists to ride. Turn them into political activists. Ride one to the max and when jailed and useless, move unto the next.
YinYang says
@colin
thx.
yide-angle says
@YinYang
One of the more effective way to suppress trolling yet still maintain the democratic nature of the comment section that I have seen implemented elsewhere–but I don’t know whether it is possible or feasible to implement here–is to maintain a like/dislike counter for each post that can be voted by users (only once). When the counter reaches a certain negative value, it would automatically convert the post into a link which you have to click to view the content. This way you can keep a relatively “clean” comment section with those offensive comments out of sight. You can still check out those comments if you wish.
Bob Thomas says
@YinYang
‘But, NATO countries do not care about Iraqi and Afghani children being killed.’
How can you say ‘there are many bigots and hypocrites out there who simply believe the Chinese or the Chinese government are evil’ and then you yourself make such a sweeping generalisation as the one above? It is simply demonisation. From the quality of your other posts, I expected something more.
I took your advice and did an advanced google search on the Telegraph website for ‘iraqi civilian death.’ It returned 11’400 hits. ‘Chen Guancheng’ got 1’480.
YinYang says
@Bob Thomas
You are right. Criticizing the country is not fair. I accept your criticism. I really meant to say the NATO countries mainstream media do not care.
However, your search method is deeply flawed. Did you try to see what the articles turned up was actually about?
Case in point:
Bob Thomas says
There are China-bashers and Western-bashers ( I admit, the latter is not as catchy). And then there are those that say:
‘These guys really get themselves tied up in knots!’ (Drake)
And later:
‘I think that’s their strategy.’ (yinyang)
From both sides of the debate, what’s all this ‘us’ and ‘them’ stuff? Dangerous rhetoric. What possible good can be achieved by such talk? I don’t subscribe to the view that we, as human-beings, can probably not reconcile our views. We would all be pretty useless human-beings if we went through life without ever adapting our stances in light of new information or the views and feelings of others. There is hope….
For me, I’ve learnt some interesting stuff about NGOs. However, the focus has all been on Western NGOs. What about Chinese NGOs? I’m sure you all know of the Confucius Institutes?
Bob Thomas says
@YinYang
Yes, of course I looked at what the articles were about. I used the same search as I did before, with the same website (google search of Telegraph website). I’ll try another website if you prefer.
90000 civilians ‘killed in Iraq war’ over five years
Wikileaks: Death toll 15000 above previous estimate
‘Shoot first, ask questions later’ … the order in Iraq that brought death …
These are the first three hits that I got. It really doesn’t look like the whole of the Western media is glossing over civilian deaths and you cannot, repeat cannot make such a sweeping statement as ‘the NATO countries mainstream media do not care.’
My search strategy is flawed? Please tell me how I can improve it. You on the other hand make a sweeping statement about the whole of NATO and reference an article that only mentions America.
Bob Thomas says
@YinYang
Apologies if my last two posts are a little out of sync. I only saw your post (154) after posting 155.
YinYang says
@Bob Thomas
Well, easy test. Go to BBC, AFP, Globe & Mail, etc from NATO countries and look for coverage of the March 1, 2011 killing of Afghan children as a result of the NATO lead helicopter attack. Show us the links to articles to that single event – never mind the other deaths from the almost decade long conflict in the region.
The reason I said you search is flawed is because those numbers you turn up are meaningless. You have to look at the articles to see whether they are talking about the plight of those dead and their families. But if the article is a casual mention of some dead stats while propagating the narrative of why NATO need to be in those countries, then that’s not talking about the dead.
YinYang says
Stephen Colbert’s “Delicate Advice for Chen Guangcheng:”
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
FOARP says
@YinYang
I’ve said before, it’s not me. Please leave me out of this.
Bob Thomas says
You said:
‘Search for those and compare against how frequently Chen is covered now.’
I did, and posted the figures.
Then you said:
‘Did you try to see what the articles turned up was actually about?’
I did, and posted the headlines.
Then you say:
‘……those numbers you turn up are meaningless.’
If those numbers are meaningless, then why did it form part of your argumentation in your original article?
‘Imagine if we have as many articles written about brutally killed Iraqi and Afghan children as are for Chen?’
YinYang says
@Bob Thomas
Sigh. I give up on you.
Bob Thomas says
‘yinyang believes a better understood China is better for the world.’
Is this how you go about achieving this? By posting:
‘Sigh. I give up on you.’
Post 161 shows how I have tried to respond to your questions. I spent time doing this. I raise questions about your argumentation. You have simply ignored them.
Bob Thomas says
The event that you refer to in post 158 was reported on in the Western media.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12624332
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/asia/03afghan.html?_r=1&src=me
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030206431.html
http://www.france24.com/en/20110312-karzai-nato-stop-operations-civilian-casuaties-afghanistan-pakistan-war-usa
pug_ster says
American Propagandists complain that China don’t have a rule of law in the case of Chen Guangcheng. I mean enforcing one child policy is apparently not good enough on their books and American politicans want China to follow in their footsteps.
http://www.timesleader.com/stories/Pennsylvania-law-on-fracking-worries-doctors,143285
In America, Fracking for gas is good for cheap natural gas, but many people are protesting because of the environmental hazards it cause. Apparently, people are going to doctors complains of symptoms due to fracking thus going after these companies about it. So what better way to solve this problem to say there is no ‘health crisis’ due to fracking is to make it illegal in Pennsylvania for doctors to report it.
Apparently PETA has been going undercover and exposing the cruelty of farm animals by filming them. The problem with PETA is that they are undermining the profits of these corporate companies and PETA are nothing but ‘corporate terrorists.’ So the US government pass the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) so that they can arrest these ‘bad people’ and them throw in Jail.
In this May 1 OWS protests around the US, these OWS people are nothing but an annoyance. So the US government passed HR 347 which makes it illegal for protesters to protest near government buildings. Hey, people can still protest right? Just don’t do it near government buildings.
What China needs in addition of the one child policy, is a Law which makes it illegal for Chinese citizens to conspire with foreign people to protest against the government. I should call it Anti-foreign Conspiracy Act (AFCA) where anybody conspiring with ‘foreign agents’ is an act of espionage and terrorism, which carries a maximum of 30 years in jail. That way, China does have a rule of law and can legally deal with the CGC problem.
YinYang says
@Bob Thomas
For nine Afghan children killed, you could only come up with with less than a dozen links. That’s because there is not much coverage as FAIR have pointed out for in the U.S., and the other NATO countries media follow the same narrative.
Why don’t the Western press show the pictures of those children? Why not show the plight of those families? Why not do video interviews? Why not press for NATO to take full responsibility for these deaths?
Now, for a single person, Chen, count the number of articles in the Western press detailing his plight.
You don’t see the hypocrisy?
Charles Liu says
@Bob Thomas I’m sure you all know of the Confucius Institutes?
I’m not aware of the Confucius Institute paying Americans to advocate abolition of US Constitution, or organizing jail breaks, or otherwise materially fomenting any asymertric, unconventional, non-violent warfare on US soil.
For example I’d like to see you link Confucius Institute with today’s May Day protest, where as the failed Jasmin Revolution has since been linked to US government funded dissidents based in US, IMHO a blatant violation of China’s sovereignty.
Think about it, would any reasonably patriotic American allow this happen to our country?
Bob Thomas says
@YinYang
As with my comments in 161, you ask:
‘Show us the links to articles to that single event’
I have done so. Yet, having done this, you now ask for links with pictures and suggest that the list of links I found was exhaustive. It was not. There are other articles, if you had done your own research before posting 158, you would be aware of this. As with you earlier posts (see my reply in 161), you ask for evidence, and then after I provide it, you alter the scope of your questions or simply ignore them and ask new ones.
‘the NATO countries mainstream media do not care’
You have failed to support this with evidence. If you are going to make such a sweeping statement, you really need to back it up. The onus is on you to do the primary research. I object to the above statement, because it is blatant demonisation. And that is no better than the China-bashers and scare-mongerers.
YinYang says
@Bob Thomas
I have wasted enough time with you. For each of the report you found, answer my questions in the prior comment if you like. It’s up to you.
YinYang says
Xinhua reports, “Chen Guangcheng leaves U.S. Embassy in Beijing”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-05/02/c_131564088.htm
Charles Liu says
@YinYang
Well, I wonder what’s going to happen now that Chen pretty much burned the bridge. Chen may still have an audience with Wester media and the “rights activists” who are pannning for their own piece of Uncle Sam’s bitter “fuck China” pie, but he’s not going to have the respect of the ordinary Chinese people.
It’s best he just walk away, having two houses built on western government’s patronage should be more than enough for him.
Shcmitt says
yinyang, looks like you got your arse handed to you!
LOL
YinYang says
@Shcmitt
In case you are Bob Thomas, Raj, or whatever, nice try.
YinYang says
This just in:
Basically, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Liu Weimin says U.S. should apologize. 6 days at U.S. embassy is inappropriate; not proper function for an embassy. U.S. meddling in China’s internal affairs.
Charles Liu says
yinyang
178.63.216.199
Wayne
178.63.216.199
Shit!!!
Mirk says
the hyprocrisy is so clear in the western main media’s strategy when i read them and make comparisons, and yet there are bigots (like bob thomas) who are bent on having the last say in every rejoiner & trying to distort or divert the focus to their favor. but then, it’s only my opinion. i think at this point, it would be better to agree to disagree coz after 160+ comment-long, it only proves there is a western bigot in a china-centric blog. one wonders if bob thomas had expend such amount of time, energy and resources to be ‘righteous’ in other western-centric blogs. if yes, appreciate if he could show me the link. i for one would be most keen to read. if not, then i guess his actions here simply reinforce the said hyprocrisy & bigotry.
YinYang says
LOL. Shcmitt and Raj share the same IP address. Oops, he forgot to rotate the different IP addresses he’s been using to troll this blog. Bob Thomas is Raj too, probably.
Raj
178.63.216.199
Shcmitt
178.63.216.199
What a moron.
茉茉 says
鸭谷正传- 帝宫两个傻太槛
Rats, I mean, Raj!! You are back? Did Night Shymalan send you? (mental note to self: Must be a 6th Sense I-see-dead-people moment.)
With a new…? friend!! Bob? Bubba? Hubba?(*Whatever.*)
Welcome to China again! We are honored by friends from afar, Confucius says, and all that.
Poison you? No, duckies!!! Not poison – POTION!! My knock-out Brics-Wall cocktail of Chinese maotai, Russian vodka, Indian coconut toddy, plus traces of Brazilian native and African witch brew!
Stronger than the Chinese Firewall, hahahaha! (*Yikes!! Have to check on that shanzhai Lucrezia Borgia online poison store!!*)
You brought me presents…again? BOTH of you, this time?
Your family jewels? In these bottles? Hmmmm. These….little shrunk things that look like BUTTON MUSHROOMS?! (*wtf!!*)
What? Didn’t half-lings like you DIE with the Last Emperor?!!
(*Gasp*) You mean, Dorkies must surrender their Family Jewels as a sign of loyalty? (*Flabbergasted*)
All unauthorized babies are….?? (*Disgusted*)
TOTAL VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS!! Orderly, send CGC at once to Valley of the Dorks & fight for reproductive rights!
NO MORE STERILIZATION!
We have a Responsibility to Protect! Get me Billary on the hotline now!
Darling!! Mah-vellous to chat again!
Did you like the bling-bling accessories made of depleted uranium I sent?
Yes, totally explosive style, I know! Not at all, dear! What’s a little depleted uranium between friends?
Though I hear you have an issue about it with the Iranians! I’ll get Ahmadinejad to send some black gold from Tehran first, so you can get pal-ly again!
You don’t have to be eternally grateful, sweetheart! Now, a little favor:
I need you to invade somewhere and bomb, I mean, bring some democracy to some deserving people!
Two traitors, I mean, dissidents have just told me about the draconian regime in the Valley of the Dorks!
Yes, we need to create a No-Fly Zone to protect the castrated citizens!
Yes, and a media disinformation campaign by the New Pork Times, Washed-up Post and Doily Telegraph to demonize the Dork kingdom first!
Is there oil under the land? Well, I am not sure what lies under the thick slime. But we can still make a bundle from those dead birds!
I’ll get Cathy Horyn to talk up next season’s Fashion for Feathers!
Toodle-loo, dah-ling!
There, Rats and Bubba!
Your friends and you will soon enjoy true freedom! Have a sip of this mango drink, Philippines Killer, I mean, Thriller. Enjoy it with a BAKED bird embryo egg, a Filipino favourite!
Now your question: coverage about CGC in Chinese media, not…much? That’s because….Rat? Colonel?
Now you know: that’s because, rumors are bad for your health!
Orderly, burn them like those stupid Tibetan monks! Make them symbols of martyrdom against the Dork regime! (*ha3, talk about really useful idiots!*)
Return their Family Jewels to the Valley! They can always be…BAKED!
YinYang says
@Shcmitt
Raj, you are digging a deeper grave for your self. You are exposed here for the bastard you are.
Schmitt is now on: 195.254.134.2
Schmitt/Raj/Bob Thomas has just faked as Charles Liu above:
https://hiddenharmonies.org/2012/04/chen-guangcheng-escapes-waging-pr-campaign-with-western-press/#comment-51129
Okay, I have enough with this clown.
denk says
this sick fxxx raj is the admin of the fxxx duck
enuff said
Wayne says
We need to hunt that guy down and anally gang- rape him! Whose with me?
denk says
茉茉178
*Rats, I mean, Raj!!
good post, but may be a bit unfair to the rats 😉
Wayne 182
no thanks
that sob is full of *craps* 😉
zhongziqi says
Beijing took this like a man! I am never more proud of Beijing than today! a good step to a more open and tolerant political environment. Kudos to the reformist side of the party!
From the report, I am pretty proud of my countryman CGC too. It takes some “big swinging balls” (as Colbert likes to say) to insist on staying in China (and more insanely) to pursue a study of law in Tianjin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/world/asia/chen-guangcheng-leaves-us-embassy-in-beijing-china.html?_r=1&ref=china
zhongziqi says
Damn, what’s with this conflicting story again?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/zhongwen/simp/rolling_news/2012/05/120502_rolling_chen_zeng.shtml
hehe says
@YinYang
“LOL. Shcmitt and Raj share the same IP address. Oops, he forgot to rotate the different IP addresses he’s been using to troll this blog. Bob Thomas is Raj too, probably.
Raj
178.63.216.199
Shcmitt
178.63.216.199
What a moron.
”
This is exactly the reason I do not trust the camp of the so-call “univeral values”, be it Chinese or foreign. Just like some holy Christian preachers preach “holy values” to their followers during the day while they molest children at night. They have two sets of “univeral values”, one for preaching, the other for themselves. The duck pond is just one of this type of preacher assembly points.
pug_ster says
@hehe
I think molesting children is going a little too far. However, US has hundreds of people detained illegally without charge over the years, either in gitmo, or other CIA black sites throughout the world. And how these people are detained is hell compared to what happened to CGC.
aeiou says
@pug_ster
1 in 10 black American men are in prison. Blacks and Hispanics disproportionately represent the majority of prisoners in the system; despite the fact that drug taking habits amongst blacks are more or less the same as whites; the U.S has the highest prison population per capita in the world. American police brutality is legendary, much more intimidating and vicious than what passes for police in China; the Chinese police could learn a thing or two about what constitutes citizen abuse. i.e most victims usually don’t make it far enough to complain about their human rights.
silentchinese says
I am sadden by the events today.
If the people here really care about the long term interest of a stable, cohesive, and prosperous china, they should be sadden like me.
I am afraid no long term good will come out of this.
The Reformist, led by Wen, in their eagerness to pushforward and batter domestic opposition, has sold chinese soverignty to an external force for a little more domestic leverage.
now this has become a un-omfortable precedent that Americans can use to weld leverage on domestic chinese politics. And because of this only bad things will happen.
Next time there is domestic political disagreement, one faction will again to leverage some other external power to gain the upper hand.
Chinese modern history is littered carcasses of dometistic political forces trying to gain upper hand with foreign support. In the end china becomes more divided and weaker.
also notice He choose to live in Tianjin,
Wen Jiabao is from tianjin and weld substantial influence in tianjin. see the connection?
This is bad. effectively he has gone into internal exile in a “safe” part of china, which means because that means domestic rift and regionalism is even more clear cut then ever and regionalism is now intertwined with central government’s domestic politics.
This is recipe for disaster and I hope the people in china realize this before it is too late.
p.s.
I really don’t care about the fate of one man, I really, really, really don’t.
weighed against fate of a billion people. one man’s tragedy is not worth the attention if this will negatively affect the fate of 1 billion people.
silentchinese says
Also notice the triumphalism in American media (NYT)’s tone which is usually a indication state-department’s mood.
They will not be such triumphalism if it is only for one man. The reformists in china has made a devil of a deal with the Americans and now State-Department has them by the balls.
I only hope now is for the reformists to be swepted out of power by the next Leader of china, who purportly to be a nationalists.
silentchinese says
The Westphalian Sovereignty has been delt a great blow today. I would argue more so than Iraq-Afghanistan wars combined.
Americans has successfully intervened in the domestic legal and poltical affairs of a major nuclear power, with much as a whimper, and intervened on behalf of one Chinese citizen and the lawful authorities of his country.
With out sovereignty Human rights can be protected, history has shown that time and time again.
p.s.
I find this comment worth reading;
” MobyParis, FranceReport Inappropriate Comment.Vulgar.Inflammatory.Personal Attack.Spam.Off-topic..SubmitCancel.
Flag
..A little common sense seems to be in order, as it appears it is in short supply in the US lately :
– if the Chinese government wanted Chen to disappear, it would have done so a long time ago. Accidents happen, and not only in the US ( Ed Wiley anyone ? or any other suspicious deaths around influential people over the past 50 years or so ) or France for that matter ( Grossouvres and Boulin for those who are not familiar with french shenanigans ) Therefore, if he is still alive, and able to enter an US embassy without armed escort, it means that his importance to the Chinese is less than what it is supposed to be in the West.
– what right do the USA have to negotiate anything between one Chinese citizen and the lawful authorities of his country ? I find this insulting to the rule of law, not even mentioning diplomacy.
What would you people say if Robert Bales went into hiding in the Afghan Embassy ? or the China one ?”
Charles Liu says
Well, looks like Chen Guangcheng’s mom called him home for dinner. I guess the American food at the US embassy didn’t help his stomach problem. Now he’s getting his law school orientation at a mental hospital. I hope all the other China rights activist will learn the lesson about the price of eating NED’s free lunch.
But all ya expat China critics have nothing to worry about, the US embassy will still honor your golden helicopter ticket out of China, should the shizzle evar hit the fan.
YinYang says
@silentchinese
Exactly. That’s the crux of the issue.
Western press may propagandize this story as a “human rights” one, but the rest of the world knows what this means.
The U.S. understands too, and that’s why they assured the Chinese government this type of incident won’t repeat, as the foreign ministry spokesperson satated. I just heard this same thing by Louisa Lim reporting on NPR this morning, from the U.S. Embassy side.
Also, don’t follow the Western press too closely on this. Have some patience and see what the Chinese press report.
I made the mistake of following the Western reporters on Twitter too much these last few days, and I am yet reminded they are more about activism than journalism.
zack says
the moment CGC decided to return to Chinese soil, the Western propaganda machine wasted no time in claiming-without any evidence, might i add- that CGC had been coerced into returning to Chinese authorities ‘because his wife was threatened to being beaten to death’.
Words alone cannot describe the sort of sick twisted fevered imagination that dominate the likes of the New York Times, or CBS etc.
Perhaps it might be poetic justice if the chief editors of these papers were ‘beaten to death’ whilst walking somewhere in new york or something.
YinYang says
@zack
Understand the frustration. It’s better to channel energy to help expose the wrongdoings of the press. Imagining violence is wrong and unhelpful. Let the media do it all they want, because they get exposed, for example:
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/14/us_media_takes_the_lead_on_iran/
zack says
@YinYang
it’s not enough to simply expose the wrongdoings of the US corporate media, especially if there’s a compliant domestic audience that’ll accept everything that’s reported without question, which is why i approve of CNTV and CCTV America and their approach to journalism. Both english speaking Chinese media stations are surprisingly balanced and fairhanded when reporting issues-an approach i highly approve of-given how powerful the temptation to ‘pull an RT’ might be for the Chinese newscasters.
It’s a smart long term plan, win over audiences with journalistic integrity and balanced reporting and eventually, enough ignorance about China will be allayed such that the audiences will be immune to sinophobic scaremongering tactics by their politicians.
Jon says
Im sick of Western media making stuff up as they go. Their journalistic integrity is in the gutter. At this point, nothing written about China, or any enemy of the US is true. The Western media is used more as a weapon and opinion piece than anything resembling news.
silentchinese says
Correction, and I want to emphasize on this point.
“With out sovereignty Human rights can NOT be protected, history has shown that time and time again.”
and
The best force for protection of human rights on this planet today is the system of sovereign states and its system of governance. Undermine soverignty to protect human rights is yǐnzhènzhǐkě, Drink poison to quench one’s thirst.
This is not my opinion but a prominent human rights lawyer and a friend of mine long long time ago.
zhongziqi says
@silentchinese
I share your view that western hands in Chinese domestic politics only makes things worse, not better. This is exactly the reason I deplore the thought or act of relaying on western influence to change China politically.
However, I want to focus on the subject matter of this thread and argue that CGC’s case doesn’t fall in this category. As far as I know, his earlier work involved in improved convenience access and some tax breaks for disable people. His later work (that involves western forces) include a water pump for the village supplied by the UK embassy and advocating against forces sterilization and abortion by seeking redress of the local policy violations in Beijing publicly, which include interviewing with foreign press. The family planning commission’s later investigate caused local official detained. What happened after that looks like Linyi’s officials took it out on CGC and in the process abused government power. It would have been a simple matter of dealing with local corruption and misuse of government power if Beijing had not ignored it. But in the end CGC chose to seek escaping to US embassy to demand Beijing to grant him and his family freedom (out of detention) and justice. I found it hard to blame him to do that in the said circumstance.
It is the appropriate thing to do for the department of foreign affairs to demand the US not to engage this kind of activities in their embassy. But it is also important that Beijing takes prompt and tough actions against local corruption and misuse of government power. While Chinese citizens shouldn’t engage with foreign political forces, Beijing should provide outlet for the people to seek justice or improve local governance. The society won’t be harmonious if either side doesn’t take up their responsibilities.
There are bad things happening in China but many more good things are also happening. It’s totally unfair for western media to focus this much on the bad things. But I think when the government has provided the basic rights (as discussed in one of yinyang’s earlier article) to the people, we would have made their (western media) job harder to bitch about China (as a country), Chinese people, and Chinese government all the time. And that to me is quite desirable.
Charles Liu says
@zhongziqi
ZZQ, do you think the Chinese should help Brad Manning abscond, publicize his ill treatment from the Chinese embassy? I concede different case different degree, but the principle of not violating other’s sovereignty is the same, no?
@YinYang maybe it’s time to digest all the stuff about CGC in a separate blogpost, the thread is getting too long. You know, stuff like “the CGC I know” article from Chinese netter, and this one:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/02/china-usa-threats-idUSL1E8G2CVM20120502
zhongziqi says
wow! the whole story is getting so twisted now. What the hell is going on?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/world/asia/chen-guangcheng-leaves-us-embassy-in-beijing-china.html?_r=1&ref=china
zhongziqi says
@Charles Liu
I totally agree with you on the non-interference policy. However, CGC walked in to the US embassy essentially as a free man, not a fugitive, at least officially. CGC didn’t pursue asylum. the US embassy obviously passed words between Beijing offcials and CGC and also insisted CGC and his family’s safty and freedom protected. I see some interference but don’t think much of China sovereignty has been violated. If the US demanded that local officials involved to be prosecuted, I think that would be a big violation of our sovereignty.
in Manning’s case, I see his guy as a hero (albert a mentally ill one). Considering the US will not stop making rights demands on us, I see no harm that we demand Manning receive minimal sentencing given his mental illness, playing the moral high ground game right back at them.
zhongziqi says
adding to my previous post, I think given the moral game played by the west has no ending in sight, maybe China should engage some at the verbal level. throughout much of the history our Chinese civilization was superior in almost every way, I think if we were to regain that former glory we need to excel in many fronts. there are no reason that we won’t be the leader of world economy, technology and innovation, military power, and moral value (Confucius) and practice.
silentchinese says
you are convulving two seperate issues here.
1. US meddling in another country’s essentially internal governance affairs. as a mean to influence the domestic politics of a coutnry.
2. Internal governance of a country.
the failure of 2) does in no means justify 1).
The end for US is clearly 1) not 2), 2) is just a mean to achieve 1).
China is not even in the bad list of governance of a country.
I would persoanlly rank it above most countries in the world. include some notable democratic ones.
p.s.
foreign intereference in US domestic politics is badly looked up on. Foreign Agent registration act specifically deal with that issues.
I happen to have a very basic golden rule that’s accepted I think by most world religions…
Don’t do to others what you don;t want to others do to you.
( and I would add the corollary: or else bad things will happen. )
In that regard by interfereing in this manner US is not only practically doing bad things that in long run will run against its own interest;
but also, by the golden rule, which is accepted by most world religions for thousands of years, as oppose to very temporary phenomenom of “Human Rights and Individual Freedom”, can be seen as morally and ethically wrong.
colin says
@zhongziqi
“But it is also important that Beijing takes prompt and tough actions against local corruption and misuse of governmen”
In an ideal world yes, the CPC has all the resources it needs to do everything it wants to for the betterment of the people. But this isn’t an ideal world. It’s naive to think that the central government will have the resources to thoroughly investigate every case of local injustice. There are probably tens of thousands of others who do the same thing, but without resorting to sedition with foreign forces. Quite frankly, CGC isn’t that important. CGC and Ju Jia and Liu are all bad precedents. Now any activist think they can get whatever they want by colluding with foreign forces and money. China rightly should put an end to such incidents.
colin says
The little that is leaking out is funny. Apparently CGC said the CPC would torture his family, while the US state department denies any such conversations. Is CGC another case of lying wolf in sheep clothing? He’s been well versed in the ways of demonization by the NGO’s.
silentchinese says
If we take the media report as it is.
But US is already using its considerable influence to negotiate conditions which how a citizen of a foreign country is treated. There are right and wrong ways to treat people. But that’s absolutely not the business of US to decide for other countries. these are two different concepts!
I do not see how this is construed as any thing other than interference in other countrys affairs.
It is as if during Rodney King LA Riots, Rodney King walks into Chinese consulate in LA and Minister of Foreign Affairs of People’s Republic of China negotiated with US Dept of State on the future status of Rodney King, promising a fair trial and direct intervention onf behave of Mr King.
Would US Accept that and not call that an interference in US domestic affairs???
===
btw, I think China has just degenerated into a banana republic as far as sovereignty goes.
These kind of bendovers I expect of near failed state or former US dependents like haiti and panama. Not a sovereign nuclear power on the UN security council.
I really wish a coup let by patriots would go on in china and topple those who are in power right now. however their good intentions, they are unfit to rule china.
to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and traitors.
Liberty also means the right to run its own affairs!
zhongziqi says
@silentchinese
if my previous posts weren’t clearly, I’d like to state again that I agree with you that non-interference policy is better. I certainly don’t like the US violating China’s sovereignty. and 2) doesn’t justify 1), absolutely. good governance only comes from internal development and maturity. I think this is one of the central theme of this blog. agreeing with this theme is why I am here.
I also said that in the handling of CGC’s case, US did violate China’s sovereignty to some extent. But not much. in my limited understanding, the violation is not a big one. I think their figure pointing on capital punishment is a big violation.
I actually think China should start experiment a bit with pointing fingers to the US. It might help them to understand that the Chinese teaching: if you don’t want it, don’t force it onto others.
silentchinese says
@zhongziqi
The bad part is there are people in china with power, that allowed this bendover.
This is worst part.
I don’t agree this is ” But not much”. This is one of the worst attempts and succeeding. Because the factions in chinese government is leveraging that external influence for its own political agenda. This is also the first open attempt to use the dissident issue.
I really hope there is a coup to get rid of these people.
sovereignty is a necessary condition for human rights.
pug_ster says
@zhongziqi
I wouldn’t believe half of the garbage that is coming from the Western Propaganda about CGC. Apparently there’s another article coming from huffingtonpost that China has threatened CGC family’s life. CGC is not as innocent as it looks.
silentchinese says
. NYT is so interwined with state dept that people at state-dept PR goes straight into NYT editing-room. Btw NYT pushed the previous story about a purported leak by an unnamed State official (non-otherthan some undersec for pulbic diplomacy, i.e. spinner in chief) of some other chinese official talk about chinese core-interest in SCS that started the whole pivot into SCS thing.
so look for NYT to toe the State Dept Line. which will toe the line to make current adminstration’s strategy look good. The current strategy btw is giving US alot of leverage into chinese domestic politics and that’s what’s StateDept is liooking for. so they will not rock the boat.
CGC’s dissident friends prob hasn’t gotten the memo yet, and it is still pissed that Reformists in Central Government and Clinton is in bed, so they can’t rock the baot anymore and ride CGC’s caus-celeb status.
so they will agitate a little but look for that to stop.
CGC is nothing but a pawn in all of this. poor guy.
also notice foreign policy wise china has been retreating across multiple fronts. Syria, Sudan, NK. more and more compliant towards US views. conflict avoidance.
They are trying to stabilize internally or preping for somthing big.
zhongziqi says
@silentchinese
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and traitors.”
I generally don’t categorize people as patriots and traitors anymore. looking into history, I find these two concepts are not easily defined. I look at individual events to find right and wrong rather than paint a person with broad brush.
Sun, Jiang, Mao all engaged western powers in domestic political struggle. it’s impossible for me to label them patriots or traitors. I think smooth leadership transitions during the past two decades has ensured China’s economic boom. An informed and rational citizenry is the best way to ensure it continues to be so.
Looking at the divided partisan politics is disheartening. unable to compromised and work across the isle is weakening the US. I surely hope that the left and right wing in China, backed by such a rich civilization, will have the ability to work together to develop a healthy political atmosphere and build a strong country.
silentchinese says
There is a thing called loyal opposition.
Once that line is cross it is treason. What Wen is doing today is essentially treason.
silentchinese says
Sun, reliance on foreigners, a failure.
Jiang, reliance on foreigners, a failure.
Mao and communists, not until they get rid of the ComInt advisor and the “domestic faction” led by Mao acquired power that they were successful.
after 1949 essentially very little direct outside interferences on domestic chinese politics.
until today! the devil’s deal has been made!
zhongziqi says
@silentchinese
I guess we can disagree on how much China’s sovereignty has been violated by this.
But can we agree that sovereignty doesn’t guarantee human rights? also can we agree that in order to achieve human rights Beijing should both protect China’s sovereignty and do more to improve China’s internal governance (not because Beijing was told so but because that’s what Chinese people want)?
YinYang says
Charles is probably right I should do another post, but at this point, I am thoroughly exhausted being such a geek on the CGC news. Reading the cesspool of junk (okay, some decent reporting do exist) in the Western (okay, I should say Anglo-saxxon) press has really put me off.
Anyways, personally, I sympathize with zhongziqi’s take on CGC. I feel his legal activism prior to 2006 (or thereabouts) should be lauded. My guess is after he got involved with the NGO’s, he got turned into a political ‘activist.’ He is a blind guy – probably had no clue what he was getting into.
Ability to get money from abroad probably felt really empowering. We haven’t seen official reports of his connection with ChinaAid, but given the circumstances of his escape, I bet the NED funded NGO was involved way early on.
That said, I think what transpired in terms of the ‘deal’ reached between China and the U.S. to allow CGC’s custody to revert to China in the grand scheme is the right thing. For the U.S.-China relations, that’s a great thing.
China on principle might voice stronger displeasure, but there is something to be said about she being pragmatic. Yes, you get slapped from time to time. That’s what you have to accept being the weaker party.
Jerome Cohen was part of making that ‘deal’ and has said:
zhongziqi says
@silentchinese
“Mao and communists, not until they get rid of the ComInt advisor and the “domestic faction” led by Mao acquired power that they were successful.”
I agree with this part. But after WII, without assistance from the Soviets, the communist party wouldn’t have won.
but again, my point is that I wouldn’t label them patriot or traitor because of this.
pug_ster says
@YinYang
After reading the Time article, it does affirm what I think of CGC in the first place. He is nothing but a tool of the US government as a bargaining chip toward China’s policies. No offense, he is blind physically and mentally.
silentchinese says
@YinYang
willing to bendover and force to bend over are two different concepts.
@zhongziqi
Sun, relied on Foreigners, Failure.
Jiang, Relied on Foreigners, Failure.
Mao&Communists , After ComInt get kicked out and Domestic faction led by Mao took over, They were successful.
after 1949 the intereference largely disappeared as a force in domestic chinese politics, the days where a local fation warlord was sponsored by British/French/Japanese was gone.
This is a bad precedent.
raventhorn says
@zhongziqi
” However, CGC walked in to the US embassy essentially as a free man, not a fugitive, at least officially.”
You are jumping to conclusions.
CGC’s original sentence was 6 years, he served only 4 years plus of prison term.
Officially, China hasn’t said anything about CGC’s legal status, so again, stop making conclusions about CGC being “a free man”.
raventhorn says
@Jason
“Where the social upbringing charges that should be paid are not paid in full
within the prescribed time limit, additional late fees shall be charged according
to the relevant provisions of the Stat e from the day of the delayed payment;
where still no payment is made, the administrative department of family
planning that decides the charge shall apply to the people’s court for forcible
punishment.
http://eng.chinafpa.org.cn/file/Law%20on%20Population%20and%20Family%20Planning.pdf
So what is forcible punishment?”
In China, debtor’s prison for those who cannot pay debts or fines.
“forcible punishment” does not equal to “forced abortion”.
raventhorn says
@Bob Thomas
“@raventhorn
My bias? You assume just because I am critical of the way this case has been handled that I must be an American.
What I find truly unbelievable is how the postings above refer to a number of terriblly unjust periods of (solely) US history. What is your point? That because the US government did these terrible things to its own people that you can’t criticise the Chinese government?”
I said your “bias” was apparent, I didn’t say I assumed that you are American. Frankly, it doesn’t matter which national origin your “bias” is coming from.
if you don’t get my point, let me say it, (hopefully I don’t have to repeat myself).
I don’t justify the action of any government with my “comparison”. My “comparison” of events from US vs. China, mean to make apparent your “bias” in your avoidance of “comparison”, or more accurately, your avoidance of the WHOLE truth.
Your apparent discomfort with the “comparison” makes it very clear that you are “biased”, ie. you like to examine China’s actions without “comparison” of any kind, to the end of making simplistic absolute superficial moralistic self-righteous judgments.
Frankly, we don’t need that kind of assessment about any nation.
If “comparison” doesn’t justify some government’s actions, then your lack of “comparison” certainly don’t justify your “bias”.
raventhorn says
and yet, you are going on and on about how innocent CGC is and how wrong the whole situation is.
I guess waiting for information is not your forte? Much rather make up your own as you go?
raventhorn says
I guess the “hot potato” CGC finally burns the US embassy.
Now CGC is calling them liars basically.
Hey, CGC is a lawyer, Chinese government should put him under house arrest, and then let him sue US government as “collaborators”, especially Gary Locke and Hillary Clinton.
*Oh incidentally, surely US embassy took some pictures of CGC’s body for the evidence of his claimed “torture” for the past months? At least to cover their own aSS, just in case later someone claimed that CGC was tortured in US custody? (I mean, you would think the State Department and the Embassies have learned their lessons after Gitmo).
I’ll wait for the photos. (If not, I guess CGC has more lawsuits about US embassy coverup).
zhongziqi says
@raventhorn
I found this old news article linked from CGC’s wiki page. this BBC page states 4 years and three months as reported by Chinese state media. I wasn’t able to find the state media page to verify. If you have a source for the 6 year prison term claim, please do share as I think it will change the whole story. I get the impression many here are under the impression that 4 years and 3 months was his sentence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5281440.stm
also, when you make a demand (“stop making conclusions”), would you please use “please”? Given the blog’s commitment to “fostering a community”, I think being polite goes a long way to achieve this goal.
pug_ster says
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/02/11497242-blind-activist-chen-guangcheng-chinese-officials-threatened-my-wife?lite
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57426678/u.s.-china-deal-sours-now-that-activist-chen-guangcheng-wants-out/?tag=cbsContent;cbsCarousel
American propaganda just spin, spin and spin to no end. First CGC was adamant about staying in China and don’t want asylum. Then China and US allegedly made up a deal where CGC would stay in Tianjin so he can study to become a lawyer. Afterwards, CGC got lonely in the hospital because there were nobody from the US would stay with him. Now he make up new allegations that he was threatened by Chinese officials of his or his family’s life if he doesn’t leave the embassy and want to leave the country. He made up an excuse that he left the embassy because of threats against his family.
I don’t know about you, but this sounds more like a soap opera starring CGC and this guy is like a 5 year old and wants Uncle Sam to coddle him. Next time, if the US start paying off these activists like CGC, make sure that activist have some backbone.
pug_ster says
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/30/11474717-who-is-fu-chinese-exile-is-gods-double-agent?lite
Another article about the ‘details’ of the American Faith based NGO Chinaaid helped this guy escaped. Seriously, the Chinese government should ban this NGO from operating within China.
Robert Thomas says
Dear Raventhorn,
Thanks for bringing me back in on the debate. For some reason I haven’t been able to post under my previous domain name and I believe that one of my posts was removed. It could be that some users have mistaken me for one of your perennial trolls or it might just be that I’m having technical problems at my end (I’m not that computer-savvy). I have emailed Allen regarding this and I’ll forward those emails to yourself and yinyang.
‘Your apparent discomfort with the 「comparison」 makes it very clear that you are 「biased」, ie. you like to examine China’s actions without 「comparison」 of any kind, to the end of making simplistic absolute superficial moralistic self-righteous judgments.’
I myself make a comparison, prior to your above post, between a case in America and one in China:
‘I’m not an American. I think Guantanamo is a disgrace. However, the American people all know it’s there and they’ve seen the photos and they know that terrible things happen there. The American people know about it and as you say, they have 「largely accepted」 it. The sad fact is that the streets in America aren’t lined with people everyday demanding its closure. Some might say it gives them security, but at what cost?
So Americans know about Guantanamo, but they largely accept it. I’d like to compare Guantanamo to another case only as an example of a nation’s citizens tacitly accepting something many of them agree to been unjust. Would the Chinese people consider the handling of the Chen case as just? When I say 『just,』 I don’t mean by my standards, or by American standards, but by their own.’
You may describe my comments as ‘simplistic absolute superficial moralistic self-righteous judgments.’
‘I find the way that Chen has been dealt with is unjust’ (see post 120).
I would like to compare this to a statement made by yinyang:
‘NATO countries mainstream media do not care’ (post 147)
Thank you for your time in reading my post, I look forward to your response.
Regards,
Bob
Robert Thomas says
@raventhorn
Sorry, I forgot to click the reply tab. Hopefully now that I have you will get an alert telling you that someone has replied to your post.
LOLZ says
Interesting developments so far. With Chen saying that one US diplomat told him “China would beat his wife and family to death” unless he exits the embassy. The US officials however “adamantly denied” telling Chen this. Someone is lying, and I think the former is more likely.
A more important question is, how will any of this help or change China/US for the better? Chen is only arming the hardliners from both sides; his biggest supporters are religious freaks and neocons in the US, while he is helping the Chinese hardliners to make the case that the US is scheming to destroy China.
On a side note, I can’t believe how desperate are some of the trolls here. Complaining about China’s human rights issues while creating multiple sock puppets, disrupting discussions, then impersonate other posters, that’s just plain stupid.
Robert Thomas says
@LOLZ
‘In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.’ (Wikipedia)
You can read my previous posts and decide for yourself whether or not you think this is trolling. Is it impossible that I am a genuine user and not one of your perennial trolls under a different username? I am just someone interested in debating serious current issues with others.
On a side note, I have never impersonated other posters and I have already explained why I am using a different username. Furthermore, Robert Thomas is obviously Bob Thomas; it is not as if I am trying to convince anyone that I am a new or different user and therefore I think the term ‘sock puppet’ is unwarranted. Apologies if this was not in reference to my posts.
pug_ster says
@LOLZ
Exactly, first CGC wants to stay, then he wants to leave referring to a ‘threat’ from a mysterious Chinese official on her family’s life. CGC is probably realizing that he has been used by the US like an old rag doll. First he was paid by the US to provoke the Chinese government doing illegal things that got him jailed and subsequently house arrest. Then an American faith based NGO helped him escape, their ‘leader’ ‘Paster’ Bob Fu, gets to be on TV and used CGC as a poster child. Then Clinton came into China and ‘secured’ his release to Tanjin and used CGC as a platform for human rights China Bashing. Then US officials left him in the hospital leaving him behind to the care of the Chinese government who doesn’t have much love for him and the US government who cares about their “We are better than China” mentality more than this guy.
This guy got nothing out of the deal. Other ‘dissidents’ who are still in China like Ai Weiwei made millions selling of his disgusting artwork to the Western countries and Liu Xiaobo family got a nice pad in near Beijing, paid by the US government. He was hoping to make money to be some kind of trained lawyer but let’s face it, no Western Based law firms operating in China doesn’t want to hire some local barefoot lawyer.
Another funny thing coming from the Western Propaganda is that they are alluding to that the Chinese government is on the verge of collapse (again) because of this incident and how Bo Xilai was brought down, when it fact it is just business as usual in Beijing.
TonyP4 says
US is creating another conflict with China by helping the blind dissident. The territory disputes with Japan, Philippine, SE Asia… will be another big conflict backed up by US. Selling arms to Taiwan and the fleet surrounding China is not a friendly gesture.
Many small conflicts will lead to a big one and wars eventually. I will be sad when my adopted country and my native country go to war like your parents throwing stuffs at each other. I hope it will not happen in my life time.
The market could lose 50% back to the last support level when China withdraws its US debts. Folks will have even harder times to find jobs. The poor will suffer with less money from the government and from private donations. In a sentence, wars are not good for every one on earth except politicians to re-direct of their inability to fix our problems.
zhongziqi says
given the new situation, why don’t Beijing just give CGC his passport back and he and his family just go through the normal procedure to apply for a tourist visa? That violate no laws and loses nobody’s face. then the big boys can talk about more important things. Honestly, I am quite excited about this round of talks. I think there are signs that the two are more willing to corporate with each other. If the two are able to get over the CGC problem quickly in terms acceptable to both and successfully do their originally intended job, which is to work together more closely on some of the international issues, I think this would be the beginning of decent relationship that the involved parties can actually get along with each other with decades to come.
jxie says
@LOLZ
A far more plausible scenario is there was some Clintoneque double-speak and/or lawyerly talk involved. Even for an intelligent Chinese with perfect sight, such talk can be very confusing. Even if China, or some fraction in China, or some local officials wanted to threaten Chen, why the heck would they convey that through some US officials? The conversation might have gone this way:
US official: If you stay here, there is no telling if your wife and child will be beat up.
Chen: What? Did you hear anything from the Chinese officials?
US official: I am not allowed to disclose all conversations I had with the Chinese officials.
The hapless blind man culturally just isn’t ready for that.
silentvoice says
http://tinyurl.com/c2ckruv
看来他宁愿做一条美国狗，也不愿当个中国人。
I agree with the position that they should just banish him and grant his wish. 对这种人，没什么好说的了。
pug_ster says
@TonyP4
The job market is already going downwards. Recently, I am looking for a job that is somewhere a little bit more than my pay and alot of jobs out there want someone who the same experience as what I have for less pay. Not to mention that alot of jobs out there they no longer want a permanent position, but rather a temp or temp to perm position. At this rate, I will probably go back to my native country for a decent job.
@zhongziqi
I would say be patient about this and this will happen soon. Looks like globaltimes is already labeling CGC as a tool.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/707532/Chen-and-embassy-should-not-delude-themselves.aspx
http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/707684/Chen-no-longer-real-activist-but-unwitting-tool.aspx
I wouldn’t be surprised that the Chinese government is exploiting this snafu and many Chinese will start labeling many of the Chinese dissidents trying to undermine the government as tools. I’m pretty sure that the Chinese government will put a pretty face in this situation and let this guy go.
yide-angle says
As events surrounding CGC evolve surrealistically, it appears more and more that CGC is just a simple man, whose past experience hasn’t prepared him for the rise from a small village in Shangdong to international spotlight. To me the only one who knows both parties involved well, understands the situation and the potential fallout, and who has a genuine, non-ulterior interest in helping CGC is Prof. Cohen. And I totally agree with his analysis in the Time piece that the deal stricken earlier for him to stay in China to pursue an education is the best for all parties, esp. for CGC. For if somehow he is granted to come to the US, his existence will be totally irrelevant.
Maybe after he left the US embassy and started talking to his wife, and both have conjured up this utopia vision that they could come to the US and live a dream life provided by Uncle Sam–one that only people in small villages can come up with.
I feel sad for him. He IS becoming a hot potato now and more and more irrelevant, and it appears that he doesn’t know it.
Robert Thomas says
@yide-angle
I completely agree with your sentiment: ‘I feel sad for him.’ I’m sure nobody would want to be in his position. We can guess as to why he has apparently changed his plans and your reasons above are possible.
Here is a link to a recording of a recent interview with CGC on the Guardian website in which he discusses this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/03/chen-guangcheng-us-embassy?newsfeed=true
colin says
“China has an ample supply of “petitioners” whose “requests are not met by domestic authorities”. The implication is that the United States has a choice: it can either repurpose its embassy as an overbooked hostel for persecuted activists, or it can engage with the Chinese government on the vital economic, diplomatic, and security issues of the day. ”
http://atimes.com/atimes/China/NE04Ad01.html
It would be quite funny if China were to say to all the dissidents, “Alright, go ahead, the US embassy is at your disposal.”
yide-angle says
@Robert Thomas
The drama never ends. Chen may have unwittingly overplayed his hands.
I would like to stress two observations I have made regarding this case.
One is that CGC is a simple man, maybe smart and savvy in his own right, but never to the level required when you got sucked into the geo-political war game between 2 super powers.
The other assertion I’ve made a few days ago: “it remains to be seen how Chen would decide his own fate, if he has a choice–I won’t doubt that the information surrounding his case is filtered to him, probably more so than when he was in “house arrest”.”
Now check out this piece on the Atlantic–it appears that the US really wants this hot potato out its hands as fast as you can say, uh, “hot potato”:
“Chinese Activist ‘Very Disappointed’ in the U.S., Says Officials Lied To Him”
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/chinese-activist-very-disappointed-in-the-us-says-officials-lied-to-him/256675/
p.s. I still maintain that I believe Prof. Cohen has the welfare of CGC as the uttermost goal as he provided his advice to Chen.
colin says
@yide-angle
Wow, wow, wow.
1) “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” applies to CGC. First against the CPC, and now the US. Simply Wow. Does he expect further help from the US embassy after publicly shaming them?
2) CGC’s accounts of torture as far as I’m concerned is hearsay. Where’s the proof for all of this? He has access to much of the media. Is anyone going to validate his claims?
3) This is yet another case of American machinations that end up shooting itself in the feet.
Robert Thomas says
@yide-angle
Not that I am supposing anyone should take one article as representative of a whole country/people/etc…, but check out the title and paragraph of this article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/how-to-avoid-the-next-chen-guangcheng-mess/256684/
It’s a good example of how quickly the focus of news can change. The author chooses to focus first on the impact of the Chen case on domestic US politics and China-US relations. There is no mention in the article about CGC’s welfare.
If Cohen does have the welfare of CGC as his utmost aim, that’s great, but everyone has their own interests and agendas. They affect all that we do.
Charles Liu says
Am I the only one noticing the timing of this is very suspicious? We’ve nailed down the players involved in this story and their NED link, but the timing just couldn’t be better – right on for an important state visit? Obama administration wouldn’t do this to itself, what would be an all too obvious exploit which forsaken the all too important economic issues America desperately need redress prior to the presidential election?
But there’s a flip side to that – the Republicans who are trying to win the upcoming election:
– Both Hu Jia and Bob Fu are NED grant recipients from Bush era; Chen Guangcheng hooked up with RFA about the same time. Here’re records of Hu and Chen being lauded by the International Republican Institute:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22International+Republican+Institute%22+Hu+Jia+Chen+Guangcheng
– Bob Fu of China Aid is based in Texas and has close tie with the conservative evangelical Republican crowd:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Bob+Fu+China+Aid+Southern+Baptist+Convention
Would these people try to sabotage Obama just before an election? I think there’s your answer.
yide-angle says
2). I totally believe him. As I said before CGC is a simple man. There is no reason for him to lie about it. And if you know anything or have experienced the Cultural Revolution, you would believe it too. There is nothing that the dimwit, local overlords won’t do. Never underestimate the power of the ignorant.
3). For you and me, and people who care to dig a little bit deeper. For the rest of people who glue to the tubes–they totally believe the sound bites Hillary uttered in front of the camera.
Robert Thomas says
@Charles Liu
Wooooo there Charles!
Sounds like a conspiracy theory, and as Jerry (Mel Gibson) says, ‘a good conspiracy is unprovable.’ Anyway, you couldn’t plan something like this. There are too many variables. I personally don’t think the powers that be are that smart or capable. The way that both sides have dealt with this issue shows that.
YinYang says
@Charles Liu
Wow. It’s very possible. What a crazy world!
jxie says
Well apparently NJ Republican Congressman Chris Smith, who was rejected a Chinese visa earlier, just called an emergency hearing on Chen. The story tagline has changed to an anti-abortion activist being sold out by Obama, which can be quite useful in an election year.
BTW, don’t you find the fact that Chen can talk all he wants after he left the US Embassy, is quite amazing?
Robert Thomas says
@yide-angle
Granted. I’m not saying it is impossible. Perhaps I should have said ‘it would be monumentally difficult to do do something like this.’
How about this for the start of another theory….
How did he even get out of Linyi? Did he have inside help? Are there people on the inside who had something to gain by his escape and the ensuing stand-off between China and the US? Who…..
I’m not seriously suggesting this as a new conspiracy theory, but do you see my point?
YinYang says
Jerome Cohen said something to the effect of him fearing CGC now turning against the U.S. government in the link I provided earlier.
That’d be some drama if he publicly divulges ChinaAid or what the Chinese authorities have called the “anti-China forces” dealings.
Charles Liu says
Well, that’s why the comment is prefaced with question marks, and provided a wide net of evidence for readers to digest and decide for themselves.
Well, Bob Fu stated in interviews Chen’s escape was premeditated well ahead:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Bob+Fu+Chen+planned+long+time
People should comb thru the Google and decide for themselves. It is no secret there’re plenty of “Blue Team” anit-China hawks in US government, or in-waiting from think thanks like AEI/IRI, ready to start WWIII.
Robert Thomas says
@YinYang
I agree, it would be a quite a drama, if it is all true, and as we have said before, all the facts of the case are not known yet. However, I really don’t think that this would be his priority now. In my utopian take on the world, I would say he’s thinking about what’s best for his family and I’m sure we would all do the same.
If you get a moment, this is a recording of a recent interview with him:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/03/chen-guangcheng-us-embassy?newsfeed=true
Robert Thomas says
@Charles Liu
Sorry, I meant it in jest. I’ll try to be clearer.
Sure, you could plan the escape, but would it be possible to predict or control the ensuing political wrangling enough to be able to benefit from it in domestic politics? Granted, you could create a crisis to put a politician in a difficult position, but they might surprise you by dealing with it well!
The law of unfintended consequences.
pug_ster says
@Robert Thomas
Seriously, if these “true” dissidents want to flee China, they can smuggle themselves southwards to Thailand and go to a US embassy there. Illegal NGO’s like Chinaaid can probably smuggle them there. Many North Koreans went thru the same route. However, many ‘fake’ dissidents just sneak themselves out to some Western Country like Canada and declare Asylum saying that they are FLG.
@Charles Liu
Probably, who knows what those liars at ChinaAid promised him.
On a separate note. I think The CGC is not exactly the best spokesman against China’s one child policy considering that he has 2 kids… Also, do you guys see alot of Chinese in China protesting against the government over this? This stunt seems only to stroke the fears of US hegemony in China.
On another separate note: Clinton should read what they do to this guy before complaining about human rights in China.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/daniel-chong-cell-four-days-survival-mode_n_1473753.html
Charles Liu says
@pug_ster
I seem to recall this all got started because he wanted to have another kid, but being on public assistance there’re family planning laws on birth spacing which he did not wish to obey. Then he got friends and relative to riot, cut fence to take over a highway, stopped traffic for hours.
Rest we know, he got 10 years for inciting riot not because he opposed China’s law on family planning per our objective media. Chen served 4 year and was paroled to house arrest as leniency, all legal but our media BS on the “house arrest” as illegal when he wasn’t even confined (liberties restricted, yes.)
pug_ster says
@Charles Liu
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/mitt-romney-chen-guangcheng_n_1475117.html?ref=elections-2012
Probably not a conspiracy theory as Romney is already exploiting this. Romney with his white man’s burden attitude says “It is our belief that not only is that the right thing to do because it comports with our principles and our belief in freedom and human rights, but also because we actually think China will be stronger as it opens up and liberalizes its own system.”
Robert Thomas says
@Charles Liu
Interesting insight. If, as you say, everything was legal, has he broken the terms of his house arrest by going to Beijing and do you think the authorities will return him to Linyi to complete the remainder of his sentence?
Charles Liu says
@Robert Thomas
What should happen to parolees who break the terms of parole? They go back to jail if in America.
Don’t get me wrong, I do sympathize. If his wife is prego she shouldn’t be so scared of family planning she had to hide in the hills. But Shangdong is like the South, very backwards especially in the villages so I would believe there are isolated incidences of local government acting outside the family planning law.
But this does not excuse his crime, nor should his artificial “rights activist” status garner him any extra-judicial treatment like this free law school admission BS, do you know how hard it is to pass the college entrance exam in China?
Robert Thomas says
@Charles Liu
Interesting. I understand what you’re saying about local government and I appreciate that college entrance exams are hard. There are always many sides to a story.
What do you think the government should do and why?
What do you think the government will do and why?
Charles Liu says
@Robert Thomas
“There are always many sides to a story”
I’ll take this and loop back to your original censorship comment – our free and impartial media seems to always toe the party line, echo chamber the Official Narrative on China, and self-censor the rest.
I mean can you find one media outlet that actually covered China Aid’s NED grantee status? It’s a well vetted fact.
Robert Thomas says
@Charles Liu
I’ll check up on the China Aid grantee status.
Thank you for sharing your opinions on the Chinese media.
I’d be very interested in your answers to my two questions in post 258.
Robert Thomas says
@Charles Liu
According to NED’s annual reports, China Aid received a grant in 2009. However, it did not in 2010 and on their current website there is no mention of a grant to China Aid (links below).
‘ChinaAid and China Digitial Times are NED grantees,’ (from Demdigest) could mean that they have received grants before, does it definitely mean that ChinaAid is currently receiving funding?
Is it possible that China Aid is no longer receiving a grant from the NED?
http://www.ned.org/publications/annual-reports/2009-annual-report/asia/description-of-2009-grants/china
http://www.ned.org/publications/annual-reports/2010-annual-report/asia/china
http://www.ned.org/where-we-work/asia/china
raventhorn says
that possibility does not exonerate China Aid from its past misdeeds.
pug_ster says
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/hardball/47286770#47286770
Lol, now that moron Rep. Chris Smith of Florida thinks that he is running the Chinese government and can ‘convince’ China to get CGC asylum to the US. He thinks by having introducing some US bill that will get China allow people who want to leave China for asylum by threatening China not to buy their stuff. Notice that Bob Fu (that ChinaAid guy who is milking CGC BTW) in the beginning of the video is in some hearing having CGC on the phone.
Charles Liu says
@Robert Thomas
I was talking about recent mainstream media coverage on China Aid’s NED grants. China Aid has been on NED payroll going back as far as 2005:
http://www.ned.org/publications/annual-reports/2005-annual-report/asia/description-of-2005-grants/china
Jason says
@pug_ster
Chris Smith is from New Jersey. Another strong advocate for Christian fundamentalists’ pro-life agenda, same with Bob Fu.
pug_ster says
@Jason
You’re right. Chris Smith not from Florida.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/47279953#47279953
I found this video funny. An interview with Gary Locke with Chinese officials helped to bring his family to Beijing, promised CGC full scholarship to one of the 7 universities that accommodate his handicap, housing for his family, investigation of the abuses in his village. Apparently, that wasn’t good enough and wants to come to the US. CGC sounds more like a whining baby.
Rhan says
“看来他宁愿做一条美国狗，也不愿当个中国人。”
哈哈，令我想起了笑傲江湖第十一回 聚气 :
桃干仙道：“她也未必会骂咱们是六条狗子。”桃根仙问：“那骂甚么？”桃干仙道： “咱们六兄弟像狗子么！我看一点也不像。说不定骂咱们是六条猫儿。”桃叶仙插嘴：“为甚么？难道咱们像猫儿么？”桃花仙加入战团：“骂人的话，又不必像。咱们六兄弟是人，小尼姑要是说咱们六个是人，就不是骂了。”桃枝仙道：“她如骂我们六个都是蠢人、坏人，那还是骂。”桃花仙道：“这总比六条狗子好。”桃枝仙道：“如果那六条狗子是聪明狗、能干狗、威风狗、英雄好汉狗、武林中的六大高狗呢？到底是人好还是狗好？”
Robert Thomas says
@Charles Liu
I appreciate that you are interested in the current source of China Aid’s funds. Although, as you note, China Aid was receiving funds from the NED as far back as 2005, it is apparently not now.
If this is the case, do you think that info-wars should have mentioned this?
The following article mentions China Aid’s current sources of funds:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/03/us-china-usa-chinaaid-idUSBRE8420Y620120503
Charles Liu says
@Robert Thomas
Of course the republicans will take care of their own. I’m not suprised money dried for Bush era NED grantee. Congressman have the ability to get friends to write big checks for them. Did you know 6 million dollars went to Falun Gong thru a quasai-NGO called “Friends of Falun Gong”, all from private donors at the behest of fmr. congressman tom lanto’s wife?
Robert Thomas says
Before we move on, if it is the case that they were no longer receiving NED funding, do you think the info-wars should have mentioned this?
pug_ster says
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/chen-guangcheng-blind-act_n_1476696.html
Looks like CGC got a paid tuition to study Law in NYU. I like the comments the in the page though. Now people are complaining that how CGC managed to get undivided attention of politicians, free tuition when Americans have to borrow to the hilt, and a red carpet treatment from a whiner.
yide-angle says
@pug_ster
Don’t you have this feeling that Hillary and Obama just can’t wait for CGC to disappear into NY Chinatown?
Just a wave of Harry’s magic wand and say “disapearado” (OK, it wasn’t in the original screen play).
Romney’s just waiting in the wing for a field day if this keeps dragging on.
And CGC better make use of his 15 min fame and grab whatever he can get now. ‘Cos this ain’t gonna last long.
yide-angle says
There is a Chinese saying that “new born calf’s not afraid of the tiger”. So far his brashness and lack of knowledge of the political intrigue kept CGC along. I think the folks on the congress floor must either be amused or dumbfounded, depending which side of the aisle you are on…
jxie says
@pug_ster
Because taking care of an oversea “dissident” in a comicbook-quality story is a whole lot easier. It has that feel-good factor — reinforcing your worldviews and for a brief spell making you forget how grim the domestic affairs are, doesn’t it? Granted the facade is crumbling since the real Chen keeps babbling.
yide-angle says
Check out the comment section of the HuffPost’s story–there you get the reaction of ordinary US folks on this melodrama. I think CGC may soon want to forget the “welcome” he would get from the folks around here–when it comes down to it–tax dollars, an opportunity at NYU (my nephew’s there–you don’t want to know how much his parents is paying) vs. uh, what, human right you say? Not over my lunch.
colin says
@yide-angle
“2). I totally believe him. As I said before CGC is a simple man. There is no reason for him to lie about it. And if you know anything or have experienced the Cultural Revolution, you would believe it too.”
I still disagree. Sure things were bad during CR times, but that was 40 years ago. Yes, some backwaters of china are still bad, but I’m not going to take what CGC says at face value. His story doesn’t hold up.
If according to CGC, the linyi officials had really bound his wife up in rugs and kicked and beat her much earlier, why did he think upon leaving the embassy that he and his family would be safe in any way? What could have happened to his wife during the past week that could have been worse than that to change his mind that he is not safe and needs to flee?
I think he’s an opportunistic liar, who really wants economic and reproductive advantages disguised behind the human rights bruhaha. He seemed to have achieved this by having scored the economic lottery of getting him and his family a paid immigration journey to the US.
The cynic in me is quite impressed with CGC, that this guy was able to play the 2 superpowers against each other and pulled off of his goal of a (relatively) cushy life in the US.
yide-angle says
Check out this interview given by Gary Locke, US ambassador to China on MSNBC:
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/47279953#47279953
You can’t help but come to the conclusion that CGC has made a total clown of himself. A lot of stuff that Locke mentioned in the video–what Chinese government has offered him–are not covered by the media, at least not in the main media here.
The package that the Chinese government has offered: full scholarship to any one of the seven univ, full investigation into local government’s misbehavior. etc, etc. It pretty much includes everything under the sun that you can ask for.
Unless there is something we don’t know, and it appears at this point there isn’t much we don’t know–this guy has made a total fool of himself.
pug_ster says
@yide-angle
I agree. The Chinese government probably wants these dissidents to have a one way ticket out of the country anyways. There was another American tool Yu Jie who apparently got asylum 4 months earlier, without much fanfare.
colin says
@yide-angle
I think if anything, CGC has made Locke and the embassy look confused and incompetent, which is a shame. Locke’s interview was basically defending the the embassy against the portrayals by CGC, and yes, while this does shed some shadows on CGC, the state department is having to climb an uphill battle here with it’s own credibility. It’s a shame cause something like this could affect Locke’s political career adversely later.
colin says
@colin
Upon thinking about this some more, just think how badly a position Locke and the embassy are in when they have go on american news tv and basically praise some very respectable promises and action by the CPC. This would be hilarious were it not so sad.
yide-angle says
@colin
Well, I guess we can agree to disagree on what we “believe” could have happened to him back in the little village there–oh my gosh, I start to sound like Rumsfeld now.
You said:
“The cynic in me is quite impressed with CGC, that this guy was able to play the 2 superpowers against each other and pulled off of his goal of a (relatively) cushy life in the US.”
Again, we can disagree on this too–I doubt very much he would have a cushy life in the US. To the contrary, I think he would have a very comfortable life in China. Just look at what has happened to Fang Lizhi–and this is a guy with an astrophysics degree. What can Chen do once he’s here? Not the least is that he can’t utter a single English sentence–oh, wait, I take it back. He did say that he wants to kiss Hillary. Better not try that in front of Bill.
Better work very hard to pull off a law degree from NYU…
pug_ster says
@yide-angle
Probably not cushy life, but since he is ‘well connected’ in the US, it won’t be hard to find a job in one of these ‘China Rights’ groups in the US. That said, Jerome Cohen probably pull some strings to get him admitted to NYU. Fang Lizhi is a different story, he is well educated and was probably placed into a teaching position at University of Arizona.
yide-angle says
US who is singing the human right high note got what it’s wishing for–NOT!
I wonder if it will keep singing these high notes in the future or not.
Better not, or its consulate will get quite busy from now on.
There will be a lot of folks who will want to “talk to Hillary” or “talk to Obama”, or just “want to be on the plane with Hillary back to the US”, or get a live feed to the congress floor.
I think it is not just Chen who made a fool of himself. The Obama admin too. Although I doubt if it has planned it this way.
yide-angle says
Well, problem is after this, does anybody still want to deal with him given the kind of loose canon he is?!
colin says
@yide-angle
“Well, problem is after this, does anybody still want to deal with him given the kind of loose canon he is?!”
Ha ha, I can see it now. After a year in the US, CGC complains bitterly that the US had not lived up to their promises of a cushy life.
pug_ster says
@yide-angle
Errr… Considering that he is against China’s one child policy, I’m sure that Bob Fu will be more than happy to use him as a spokesman for ChinaAid. If not, he would easily find a job in some NED funded ‘Chinese Christian’ group whom are against abortion.
BTW, I think it would take some time for him to get a real law degree from NYU considering considering that he wasn’t that educated compared to the other dissidents. However, NYU just might give him some honorary degree anyways.
yide-angle says
NYU can just give him that right now to save some trouble and money. Just send him to ChinaAid. Oh, wait, who is footing their bill now that it’s not on NED patron list? We are talking about a blind “lawyer” (BTW, the media here already termed him a “lawyer”, which I don’t know where he got from) with family to feed…
YinYang says
CGC’s connection with NED went back to 2004! h/t to bearcanada.com
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20070818-83275/Blind_Chinese_leads_way_in_fight_for_rights_of_poor
YinYang says
NPR just reported Foreign Ministry spokesperson Liu Weimin saying CGC free to apply visa to U.S.. Hopefully, drama ends.
pug_ster says
@YinYang
I hope so too. The problem with the way the Linyi authorities how they enforce the one child policy is deplorable and unfortunate. The Chinese government should’ve given a heavy taxation if couples decide to have a 2nd child instead. Also, I think China should scale back its one child policy into two. I also think the policy is counterproductive as if couples decide to have the second child, she can probably sneak to the next providence or even trying to birth at home, thus dangering the health of the expected mother.
CGC was used as an American tool until the end. He really thought that he was going to be a ‘platform’ for Change to address China’s one child policy when he ‘accepted’ the offer to study in Tianjin as a lawyer but in fact that he became nothing but a distraction. The biggest hint that he is a tool was when he made that open announcement video to Premier Wen thinking that the Chinese people would go to his side.. I think that someone talked some sense to him in the hospital and realized that he won’t be a platform for change and decided it was probably better to leave China altogether.
Western Propagandists think they know an average Chinese’ interests is aligned with the West. Far from it. An average Chinese probably cares about a better job, cleaner environment, no more wars, etc… Western propaganda always poke China on IP, currency, Tibet, Xinjiang, South China Sea, North Korea and of course Democracy. Do you think that an average Chinese care about those things that US cares about? Of course not, in fact the more they prod China about it, the more the Chinese distrust the US. Considering America’s track record for spreading ‘democracy’ to other countries in the past 60 years, only an idiot or a tool would believe them.
pug_ster says
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/imitation-outrage-faking_b_1473268.html
I thought that this is a good article coming from huffingtonpost. The author Robert Scheer wrote up an excellent article of this kind of fake pity towards the Chinese in terms of human rights. Of course, the quacker in Chief from the Daffy Duck website seems to know what an average Chinese thinks about all day long, human rights. With his white man’s burden attitude, this bungling idiot seems so adamant about ‘caring’ China’s human rights and USA has human rights issues too, he seems to ignore the whole gist of the article itself.
Robert Scheer starts off opium wars, US contemplating on going nuclear on China 60 years ago, to 150 years of humiliation, carving up Hong kong and Macao, wars with the US in Korea and Vietnam. Now all of the sudden the same country who did all that all those years ago and now they ‘cares’ about China’s human rights. The Chinese who learned history and not get suspicious about this, must need to get his/her head examined.
Obviously, China’s one Child policy is a thorn to Pro-life groups in the USA. So ‘Pastor’ Bob Fu and this fake ChinaAid NGO helped rescue CGC and said that they did it because they deplore China’s human rights. Yes CGC’s human rights was violated, but maybe the Chinese see thru his lies about their ulterior motives?
When that fake NGO brought CGC to Beijing, at around the same time and place where Hillary is going to have summit with the Chinese leaders (what a coincidence) and harped China that we care about human rights, do you think the average Chinese care about what she says when a couple of weeks ago she also harped at China being a ‘bully’ in South China seas?
Somehow the quacker in Chief doesn’t think there are great human rights issues in working conditions. People in China protest all the time on unpaid wages or crappy working conditions, and he thinks an average Chinese cares more about people like CGC and Liu Xiaobo rather than their working conditions.
People like Richard doesn’t understand what an average Chinese care about. Instead, they think that an average Chinese care about American tools like CGC and Liu Xiaobo’s human rights, and they are standing on the side of the Chinese, when the Chinese knows that these people are a bunch of hypocrites. This is what fake pity is, and they don’t need it.
jxie says
@pug_ster
It’s pretty apparent Scheer used “we” as the US-led West at large. He argued the West at large really doesn’t care about Human Rights in China, and never argued individual Westerners not genuinely care about Human Rights in China. (Though I hope them channeling their energy to domestic issues that they at least know a bit more and can potential do more good than harm.)
MatthewTan says
US CANNOT SAY “YES” to the UN resolution that “access to clean water and sanitation is a fundamental human right”. 122 countries say “yes”. US leads the whole Western club (41 countries) NOT TO SAY “YES”.
If I need to provide clean water to another 100 million people and if there are people trying to spoil what I want to do, I will not hesistate to put 100,000 of them in prison, and even execute some of them to “shock and awe” the rest – if necessity requires me to do it. Lawful or not lawful I don’t care very much because WATER is above all human rights and law and justice.
US’ human rights are upside-down. Water is not important.
If you think about China providing food and water and jobs and electricty to hundreds of millions of people who never have them before, maybe you think less of “human rights” of individuals and more of “human rights” of the nation.
—
Side-Question:
Is this website a re-incarnation of Fool’s Mountain? What happened to it??
YinYang says
@MatthewTan
You can get the gist here when Allen and I started Hidden Harmonies couple of years ago:
https://hiddenharmonies.org/2010/02/welcome-to-hidden-harmonies/
MatthewTan says
@YinYang
Thanks yinyang. Just paid a visit back there and saw that it is still alive.
MatthewTan says
Chen very confusing messages:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/112410328940182271437/posts/Qbm5WdfSHXp#112410328940182271437/posts
Huafang Li
2012-5-4 – 公开
Four points from Chen Guangcheng:
According to a source from Yushan Guo who helped the blind Chinese lawyer Chen Guangcheng fled house arrest, Chen Guangcheng stated four points via Guo.
First, Chen never said that he sought political asylum. What he said is that he has an invitation from New York University, and as a freeman, he wants to be in USA as a tourist and have a couple months rest, then he will be back China. He does not change his mind. He respects all the common diplomatic efforts made by both US and China. He also understands there is no tiny issue in foreign relations between great countries. An agreement which is made is a truly serious agreement.
Second, he walked out of the US embassy in Beijing voluntarily and he did not criticize US embassy directly or indirectly for forcing or inducing him to walk out. He appreciated the week long help from the embassy. He never blames anyone with the embassy directly or indirectly, but only appreciates helps from Hillary Clinton, Gary Locke, and other officers.
Third, there is unhappiness at the first day in Chaoyang Hospital, especially, the threat from some Chinese officers of Shandong province to Chen’s wife Yuan Weijing. It brought Chen and his family inconvenience and painfulness and made them feel anxious and nervous. He hopes that the Chinese government, under the pressure of the world opinion, will bring the Shandong local officers’ long time illegal persecution of him and his family to justice.
Fourth, Chen gives special thanks to the care and protection from press all over the world. He also hopes the press will take his complicate and sensitive situation into consideration and fully understand and react with his whole expression and related emotions rather than pieces of information. He does not hope people misunderstand those who helped and are helping him and put them in an awkward situation. He never criticizes the US embassy officers in any way but only appreciates their helps.
Thank you all.
Wahaha says
‘I’m not an American. I think Guantanamo is a disgrace. However, the American people all know it’s there and they’ve seen the photos and they know that terrible things happen there. The American people know about it and as you say,….
******************
Robert Thomas,
Do you know the difference between OWS and other protests?
Have you ever heard of H.R.347? (imagine China had passed such a law.)
What if a public figure says something the “free” media doesn’t like ? he/she will be forced to apologize or resign.
What if a politician says something the “free” media doesn’t like ? his political career is over.
American people have been brainwashed to like what the media likes, dislike what media doesn’t like. You have the so-called “freedom” of speech because you don’t have different opinions (American people have only one opinion : Government is my b1tch.)
Lastly, do you know the price you pay for the freedom ? I give you a hint :
People consists of the rich, the media and journalists, the parasites, the criminal, the hardworking people.
Power to the people means :
Power to the rich.
Power to the media and journalists.
Power to the parasites.
Power to the criminals.
Finally, power to the hardworking people.
Freedom to the people means :
Freedom to the rich.
Freedom to the media and journalists.
Freedom to the parasites.
Freedom to the criminals.
Finally, Freedom to the hardworking people.
Hope this will wake you up.
Robert Thomas says
@Wahaha
Please see my reply to your post in ‘Russia Today.’
Hope this will wake you up.
Wayne says
@Wayne
That gay comment was not written by me but by someone posing as me.
The administrators know my email, my IP.
So you should be able to suss out that the other ‘Wayne’ is a fake.
Thanks
Hugh Wells says
@Wayne
BS
At least have the balls to man- up.
Freak
Robert Thomas says
@Wayne
It could be possible that the comment was written by someone posing as Wayne. Was an announcement made to this effect? Did any other users complain?
What about yinyang? Look at how he responded to the offensive, hate-inspiring, homophobic post:
‘I don’t see it in terms of 『progress.』 But I suppose you could see it that way. I simply think Chinese society is much more respectful for plural views. That’s what gives me hope; not to descend into a state where people with such different orientation gets killed as we see elsewhere.’
There is no mention, whatsoever, of the offensive content of the post. At this, I was shocked.
hugh thomas says
Well should you be shocked, Sir! It’s a Nationalist site – as Lime says. Love it – or Leave it!
Before you leave, take your duck feather boa with you, back to where you came from, to hide your naked Little shame! Goodbye!!
YinYang says
Folks, this person indeed is not Wayne. Probably Raj. Hugh Thomas is probably Raj too. IP address and fake email is in our log.
Robert Thomas says
@YinYang
yinyang, I must refer you back to my post (301). You have explained that the poster was impersonating another user, but you have not explained your response.
Frankly, I am concerned.
YinYang says
@Robert Thomas
Of course, violence and hate are wrong. We don’t condone that.
If we don’t address everything in a comment it doesn’t mean we agree or disagree with the rest. It just means we don’t find it interesting to respond to all of a comment. That’s the nature of these forums.
We do appreciate you bring to our attention.
Anyways, there’s been too many trolls lately. We are trying to figure out how to put an end to that nonsense.
Robert Thomas says
@YinYang
Thank you for your reply.
Do you have a policy on offensive comments and moderation, if so, where can users access this?
I hope you can see that if offensive comments are not criticised, moderated or removed, it may appear that the moderators of the site either agree, or are not willing to disagree, with such comments.
The issue of trolls, as I understand, is a problem for many sites. Unfortunately, this can sometimes result in genuine users being incorrectly labelled as trolls.
YinYang says
@Robert Thomas
In response to your comment below, then expose them all you want. I didn’t notice you jumping on that troll who pretended to be Wayne and spouted such homophobic nonsense either. Do I then judge you?
Look, we are not here to be kindergarten teachers and grade every single comment. When the mods are online and we see stupid stuff, we will dump them into the spam queue. Take a look at the vitriol in the WSJ, NYT, the Economist, Youtube. They are everywhere. That’s the nature of these forums.
Again, we are not going to babysit.
Now, if you still have issues, I suggest you go to the Open Forum. This thread has been distracted long enough with this issue.
Sleeper says
Media is a weapon. He who controls media controls hearts and minds. Unfortunately, China is vulnerable againt media blitz from the west. During this year I was understanding why Chinese government setting up media censorship, especially on the internet (I’m talking about the “GFW”. Luckily this blog isn’t banned, for I’m leaving comment in China XD).
It’s not shame for China that setting up media censorship. It’s shame for China that she could only barely implement “pure defence”, for she’s not able to engage western media actively.
Although CGC incident is less than a drama and not as important as expected by “some people”, it still exposed the fact that China is no match for the western media……I’m already sick of reading foolish comments such as “the victoty of freedom”, “a dagger in CPC’s heart” in Chinese blogs.
perspectivehere says
Using “blind lawyer” as a search term in Youtube turns up several videos posted about CGC.
But the search also turns up a video entitled “The Lawyer and the Blind Sheik – USA” that is worthwhile to watch.
It describes the case of Lynne Stewart, now a 72-year-old grandmother with breast cancer sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in 2010 over alleged crimes conducted in her representation of a convicted and notorious terrorist leader, the “Blind Sheikh”.
According to Wikipedia, throughout her legal career, “Stewart has represented a number of economically disadvantaged clients as well as more high profile cases. Stewart is a self described “movement lawyer” who took a wider interest in promoting the general political interests of those she represented, rather than only dealing with the specific charges against them.”
She has represented members of the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground.
“Stewart says that all her high-profile clients share the distinction of being revolutionaries against unjust systems or people whose cases expose those injustices. However, unlike most movement lawyers who found communications with prosecuting attorneys to be repugnant, former assistant US Attorney Andrew McCarthy, found Stewart “eminently reasonable and practical” and commented that “when she gave her word on something, she honored it — she never acted as if she thought one was at liberty to be false when dealing with the enemy.”
The New York Times reported on her appeal in March.
The New York Law Journal has an extended article about her case.
Apparently, she was sentenced for 10 years because of what she said on the courthouse steps after her trial in 2005. According to her lawyer, “Lynne Stewart was unfairly punished for free speech when comments she made after sentencing outside the courthouse helped persuade a judge to more than triple her prison term in 2010” because they showed she had a “lack of remorse”.
The LA Times wrote a good editorial urging for her appeal to be considered: Lynne Stewart: 8 more years for mouthing off – The lawyer’s remarks after her conviction in a terrorism-related case didn’t justify a big increase in her prison sentence.
We frequently see the English-language press referring to CGC’s conviction by the local authorities as “trumped up charges”. Would the media be correct in characterizing the unjustified sentence for Lynne Stewart in the same way?
Perhaps her supporters will draw strength from the US Government’s support of CGC to argue that it would be incongruous for the US to keep Lynne Stewart in prison while gaining freedom for CGC.
There is a committee formed for her defense – “Justice for Lynne Stewart”, and website devoted to her cause: http://lynnestewart.org/
colin says
@perspectivehere
Beautiful. If we extend the CGC analogy a bit, LS should take refuge in the Chinese embassy and Fudan should extend her a fully paid fellowship and have visa’s arranged.
Sleeper says
@perspectivehere
I don’t know whether I can forward this story to Chinese forums (such as Tianya) to make some arguement……
Zack says
@colin
If the US insists on providing aid and comfort to such anti Chinese agitators, then it’s only a matter of time before someone in Beijing decides to play the game.
colin says
http://offbeatchina.com/us-netizens-on-chen-guangchengs-arrival-in-nyc-why-is-he-here
When it hits their pockets, Americans obviously stop drinking the rhetoric kool-aid.
China may be on to something. Round up all the troublemakers and make them America’s problem to feed them. And what else did China extract out of the US in this deal? Ka-ching!
“Chinese activist who fled house arrest lands in US: Where he was welcome with Free Healthcare, Free Room and Board, Free Money, Free Education = Free Free Free while Laughing at the American Tax Payers who will finance him”
Like I’ve said before, as a cynic, I really admire this guy. Who’s playing who for a fool?!
And one too funny not to share:
“The joke is on him! The jobs are all back in China..”
Zack says
@colin
the Elites in the US will not hesitate to throw good money at any act they perceive will undermine their foes and enhance their own position; i’m laughing at how much it’s backfiring on them. THey tried to make the CGC incident into a propaganda vehicle, only to have their own citizens opine quite loudly how crappy their own living conditions are, freedom or no freedom.
Charles Liu says
Dissident immigration like CGC happens all the time, it’s a cottage industry:
https://hiddenharmonies.org/2011/05/translation-betting-on-u-s-immigration-officials-to-jump-on-this-illegal-jasmine-revolution-political-refugee-business-soon/
pug_ster says
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2018167382_bruce09.html
Holy crap. This man speaks the truth!
mugenaw says
Interesting opinion. Maybe a bit conspiratory but it gives opposite point of view regarding unanimous argument protesting china’s unfair treatment of CGC’s case from western world. Be objective and always prepare to accept different opinion. Don’t let your mind controlled without your own thought. One thing I want to point out is that even though CGC is innocent civil right activist, everyone here criticized the government for kind of self-satisfactory justice push him to become a dissident. There are more people suffered from unfair and illegal treatment in china, such as families victimized from Bo Xilai’s reign. Why don’t American speak for these people and sent someone to help those victims? Because western media told them to do it.
pug_ster says
http://www.cfr.org/china/next-chen-guangcheng/p28406?cid=rss-china-what_s_next_for_chen_guangchen-053112
Chen GuangCheng is really a village idiot wearing a suit. This is an interview with him, in the Council of Foreign Affairs of how of why can’t he even refer something within the Chinese law, constitution or terminology to back up what he says. Instead, he seems to be complaining about his ordeal of being jailed, and having personal vendetta against allegedly people who treated him poorly, Wen Jialbo, and other party secretaries.
Edit: I have to take it back. He did mentions about some article in the constitution. This is what he says: You read it to see if he has alot of knowledge of the Chinese constitution, or is he some kind of village idiot.
CHEN: I think that Article 5 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China says at the beginning that the country should be ruled according to law and to build a country with rule of law. Article 5 is that all political parties, all social organizations should — et cetera — all have to operate within the limits of the constitution. That is to say Article 5 is already clearly telling us that there are legal provisions. So why should these — party — why should the party not observe the law? I still have to study that.
Their monitoring of the party — there’s not enough monitoring by the people. If they break the law, they don’t get into a lot of trouble. They may — they can break the law because they can get away with it. If breaking the law brings you a lot of problems, then they will control themselves.
One of the funny things about this interview is that one of the person was asking Chen about self-immobilations of Tibetans and he totally skirted the questions and complained about his abuses.
tc says
NPR called him a “lawyer”. Can he practice law in China? or anywhere?
Zack says
CGC is a ‘lawyer’, in much the same way that Dr Phil is a ‘doctor’.
We’ll see if CGC is true to his word and is willing to return to China; if not he’s just another traitor who deserves a traitor’s death
383843556 says
Chen, a self-taught lawyer, is familiar with domestic law but not necessarily knowledgeable about international law. No matter how hard the US tries to justify itself, it is an inescapable truth that the US government has made a mistake. It has broken international laws and Chinese laws and interfered in China’s internal affairs. For this, the US owes an apology to China.
383843556 says
Even the Americans know they are crooked and blackmailed by this blindman. But they have to pretend to support him for the purpose of votes in this election year.
383843556 says
He has been admitted into the New York University to study law. But how is he going to do that? He can’t speak any English at all, let alone understand technical books and terms! And how did he get admitted without passing the relative admission exams?
Let me see; he advocates for a more equal and just system……except when it applies to him!
Hong Konger says
Please, even Xinhua has deleted its ridiculous call for an apology. The Chinese press kept tripping over itself trying to sound harsh on the Chen case, then retracting everything.
At the end of the day, China looked terrible here — torturing the young family of an honest self-taught man just because he spoke up against local thugs and cruelty, and doing such a bad job protecting him that a foreign power had the chance to rush in to be the good guy.
I’m glad Chen is at NYU. Not everyone reaches education in the same way.
How cool that someone born poor and disabled in rural China could teach himself to read, and teach himself enough law to actually argue and win cases in Chinese courts? (Which he did, earlier on, against Shandong thugs)
Maybe he never had the chance for formal education. But his personal achievement points to an even higher level of intelligence than some rich kid who had the help of tutors and law school.
Top schools often let in people who have achieved something great without necessarily going through the traditional channels.
Top schools often also let in foreign scholars even if they don’t have the English skills.
Even among normal Chinese students, a large number arrive without fluent English — and U.S. schools give them an extra years of language training before they start regular classes.
Why the bitterness towards Chen? Why does it anger you so that someone poor and uneducated managed to make his way in this world?
If the Chinese government decided they liked him (as they did years earlier, when he was lauded as a hero of the people), would you have a different opinion?
Wahaha says
….I’m glad Chen is at NYU. …
%%%%%%
Hong Konger,
Please stop embarrasing yourself.
Read how AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE THOUGHT OF THIS :
http://news.yahoo.com/chens-brother-flees-east-china-village-beijing-113729737.html
Do you consider their opinions are the opinions of American people? if they are, why didbn’t the fucking self-claimed “free” media let their voices heard, huh?
It is really shameless of you talking about freedom, while it is obvious you agree with whatever the “free” media said without using a single brain cell of yours, or do you have brain cell?
perspectivehere says
@perspectivehere
Will the Blind Lawyer Help the Blind Sheik and His Lawyer?
Here are some interesting questions for the law students at NYU School of Law to discuss this coming fall, with the arrival of CGC, the Blind Lawyer, in their class.
NYU sees itself as a Global Network University, so these questions are especially pertinent.
As a result of the recent presidential election in Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, the president-elect, announced to supporters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square on Saturday that he would work to free Omar Abdel-Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh”, who was convicted in US Federal Court of “seditious conspiracy” in the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, as well as conspiring to assassinate former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Part of Abdel-Rahman’s activities were linked to raising awareness of the human rights violations in Egypt. Abdel-Rahman’s supporters believe that Mubarak had put pressure on the US government to put Rahman behind bars.
Now that Mubarak is no longer in power, will the American government free both Abdel-Rahman and his lawyer, Lynne Stewart, who is serving a ten-year sentence, arising from her alleged crimes committed while representating of Abdel-Rahman?
Abdel-Rahman was not actually found to have directly had anything to do with the bombing of the WTC itself. He was convicted using a rarely-used 19th century statute called “Seditious Conspiracy”, which the NY Times described as an “obscure 19th century law”:
“THE TERROR CONSPIRACY: THE CHARGES; A Gamble Pays Off as the Prosecution Uses an Obscure 19th-Century Law”
“At the outset of its seditious-conspiracy case against a blind Muslim cleric and 11 of his followers, the Government was thought to be taking quite a gamble in pinning its hopes on an obscure 19th-century law that makes it a crime to “conspire to overthrow, or put down, or destroy by force the Government of the United States.”
Before yesterday, Federal prosecutors said, the last time seditious-conspiracy charges had been brought successfully was in 1987, against a group of Puerto Rican nationalists in Chicago. In two seditious-conspiracy cases in the late 1980’s, one in Arkansas and one in Massachusetts, jurors acquitted all the defendants.
A person can be convicted of seditious conspiracy without the Government showing that the defendant committed any specific act to further the conspiracy. This is a departure from other conspiracy laws, like the racketeering statutes that are often used against organized-crime figures.
The law’s broadness can work against the prosecution. It gives the defense room to tell the jury — as it did in this case — that the defendants are being prosecuted for nothing more than their political or religious beliefs, and for offhand statements that reflect no real criminal intent.
But in the case of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and his nine co-defendants (two others pleaded guilty shortly after the trial began), the prosecution may have calculated that it would help to cast their case in political terms, linking the defendants to Middle East terrorism.
The sedition law presented other advantages for the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Mary Jo White, and her aides. It allowed them to charge defendants, like the Sheik, who did little more than talk about the plot with others. According to Federal law enforcement officials, until the defendants’ indictment in August 1993, many prosecutors and F.B.I. officials said that the Sheik could not be charged unless he could be tied to a specific criminal act, but that Ms. White was determined to include him in the case and saw the seditious-conspiracy law as the way to do it.
And with a maximum penalty of 20 years and a $250,000 fine, the law allowed prosecutors to seek much stiffer penalties than were available for most of the crimes, like explosives charges, that were included as pieces of the conspiracy.
The law has historically been used against groups with unpopular views. It was enacted after the Civil War, intended for use against Southerners who rejected the authority of the Federal Government, and amended in 1918, with Socialists and anarchists in mind.
The law has been assailed by defense lawyers as overly broad and an infringement of the right of free speech, an argument that legal experts say can give grounds for appeal after a conviction.”
*****************************
According to Wikipedia, the crime of Seditious Conspiracy consists of this:
“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
“For a seditious conspiracy charge to be effected, a crime need only be planned, it need not be actually attempted. The federal government has never won a sedition case against militia-types, white supremacists, or neo-Nazis. Since World War I, they have won numerous seditious conspiracy cases against Puerto Rican independentistas, communists and others on the left, but no one on the radical right has ever been convicted of plotting to overthrow by force of arms the government of the United State.”
*****************************
The law sounds pretty vague and it’s surprising given U.S. jurisprudence that anyone can be convicted of violation of the statute, which essentially seems to be criminalizing political speech.
Given the “war on terrorism” it seems that anyone can get convicted of just about anything these days.
Frankly I don’t know much about this case, but a few minutes’ search shows that critics of the US government’s case against the Blind Sheik calls the charges under which he was convicted “trumped up” – the same way supporters of CGC refer to the Chinese local government’s case against CGC.
And with the Blind Sheik’s lawyer, Lynne Stewart, behind bars for 10 years, their cases really raise a lot of questions about judicial independence in the US — that the US government’s “War on Terrorism” trumps justice so that both the Blind Sheik and Stewart were put away on “trumped up charges” which ordinarily would not result in a conviction.
The Blind Sheik is imprisoned in North Carolina, while Lynne Stewart is imprisoned in Texas. What if the Blind Sheik or his lawyer Lynne Stewart pulled a CGC and escaped from their captors, and make it to the embassy of a foreign country in Washington DC, like the Egyptian embassy, and the Egyptian ambassador protects them and negotiates for their release.
How would Americans feel about about Americans or foreigners who would assist either of these figures to escape from confinement? How should the US government deal with Americans or foreigners that aid either to escape from confinement and make it to a foreign embassy? Would it be lawful for the foreign embassy, in the name of freedom and justice, to shield them from the US government? Would it be lawful for the Egyptian Ambassador to negotiate for their release?
Doesn’t the case of CGC’s escape in China suggest that supporters of Abdel-Rahman and Lynne Stewart should try to help Rahman and Stewart escape, because they believe that Rahman and Stewart are held unjustly?
That is to say, that as long as supporters of a jailed person believe that he is jailed unjustly, that they would be justified to try to help him escape? So if members of the Islamic Brotherhood went to the US, met Rahman and Stewart outside prison walls, hid them from the police, and drove them to Washington DC, in the name of freedom and justice (as they understand it), then they should not be punished? Would the US Government be justified in stopping them, and punishing those who helped them to escape?
How would the US media react to this?
What would be the difference in these cases and what happened to CGC and the US consulate? I would think these kinds of questions get to the heart of what it means for countries to follow “the rule of law”, and how international relations should be handled.
As for CGC himself, I wonder if he will support the causes of Abdel-Rahman and Stewart, given that, like him, Abdel-Rahman is blind, and Lynne Stewart is a lawyer who takes on unpopular, politically charged defendants. Will the Blind Lawyer support the Blind Sheik and his lawyer? Will he regard them as kindred spirits? Will the Blind Sheik’s supporters seek help from the Blind Lawyer?
Think of the media frenzy that such a story could generate. Imagine a Time Magazine cover with the Blind Lawyer and Blind Sheik in matching Ray Bans?
Priceless.
YinYang says
@perspectivehere
In my view, CGC has thus far in fact tried really hard to not be “anti-China.” Have you had chance to see his Q&A hosted by Cohen? I can see that in the audience, there were so many “human rights” purveyors foaming at their mouths hoping he’d condemn the Chinese government wholesale.
Anyways, after seeing that Q&A, I think he may turn out to be a true Chinese patriot. Will be interesting to see what comes of his positions. For now, I’d bet the Western press will be tired of him soon enough. Like Liu Xiaobo who has already been exploited, such folks are left forgotten. We might see a few Op-Ed’s from CGC in the coming years, and that’d be about it.
YinYang says
Some background on CGC. Actually he was not popular with his villagers.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/708033/Chen-trump-for-US-in-human-rights-game.aspx