[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND HISTORY OF THE CHEN GUANGCHENG CASE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 3, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.cecc.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-808 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
House Senate
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, SHERROD BROWN, Ohio, Cochairman
Chairman MAX BAUCUS, Montana
FRANK WOLF, Virginia CARL LEVIN, Michigan
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
TIM WALZ, Minnesota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JAMES RISCH, Idaho
MICHAEL HONDA, California
EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
SETH D. HARRIS, Department of Labor
MARIA OTERO, Department of State
FRANCISCO J. SANCHEZ, Department of Commerce
KURT M. CAMPBELL, Department of State
NISHA DESAI BISWAL, U.S. Agency for International Development
Paul B. Protic, Staff Director
Lawrence T. Liu, Deputy Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Opening statement of Hon. Chris Smith, a U.S. Representative from
New Jersey; Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on
China.......................................................... 1
Wolf, Hon. Frank, a U.S. Representative from Virginia; Member,
Congressional-Executive Commission on China.................... 4
Fu, Bob, Founder and President, ChinaAid Association............. 8
Richardson, Sophie, China Director, Human Rights Watch........... 11
Kumar, T., Director for International Advocacy, Amnesty
International USA.............................................. 13
Littlejohn, Reggie, President, Women's Rights Without Borders.... 14
Horowitz, Michael, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute............... 16
Cao, Yaxue, Human Rights Advocate, Blogger....................... 20
Wang, Xuezhen, Human Rights Advocate............................. 23
APPENDIX
Submissions for the Record
Paper entitled ``After Leaving the U.S. Embassy, Chen Guangcheng
Says He Wants to Leave China with His Family,'' dated May 3,
2012, submitted by Bob Fu...................................... 40
Letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk (and high-ranking
State and Commerce Department officials), dated January 23,
2012, submitted by Rep. Frank Wolf............................. 45
Written statement submitted by Chai Ling, President and Founder,
All Girls Allowed, dated May 3, 2012........................... 47
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND HISTORY OF THE CHEN GUANGCHENG CASE
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2012
Congressional-Executive
Commission on China,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m.,
in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Representative
Christopher Smith, Chairman, presiding.
Also present: Representative Frank Wolf.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
FROM NEW JERSEY; CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION
ON CHINA
Chairman Smith. The Commission will come to order. Good
afternoon.
The daring escape of Chinese legal advocate Chen Guangcheng
from illegal home confinement was nothing short of a miracle,
and it has taken the world, not to mention the Chinese
officials and Chen's guards themselves, by complete surprise.
It was a great relief that I, and millions around the
world, learned of his escape and his reaching safety at the
American Embassy in Beijing on Friday morning. Yet, it is with
equally great concern that I convene this hearing of the China
Commission today.
Having been handed over to the Chinese officials by
American diplomats yesterday, Chen, his wife Yuan, and the rest
of his family and friends appear to be in significant danger.
Notwithstanding vague and potentially empty safety assurances
from the Chinese side, Chen has, since leaving the American
Embassy in Beijing, expressed an earnest desire to gain asylum
for himself and for his family.
Questions indeed arise as to whether or not Chen was
pressured to leave the U.S. compound.
A CNN interview, reported by the Atlantic, says, ``Chen's
comments portray the United States as manipulating him, cutting
him off from outside communication, and encouraging him to
leave the Embassy rather than seek asylum. He says he was
denied his request to call friends. He said he felt the Embassy
officials had lied to him,'' says the report.
`` `The Embassy kept lobbying me,' '' it goes on to say, ``
`to leave and promised to have people stay with me in the
hospital. But this afternoon, as soon as I checked into the
hospital room, I noticed they were all gone. I'm very
disappointed at the U.S. Government. I don't think U.S.
officials protected human rights in this case.' ''
``When asked why he had left the Embassy rather than
staying and perhaps seeking asylum,'' the article goes on,
``Chen seems to blame the Embassy officials. `At the time I
didn't have a lot of information. I wasn't allowed to call my
friends from inside the Embassy. I couldn't keep up with the
news so I didn't know a lot of things that were happening.' ''
``Chen agreed when Jiang,''--the CNN reporter--``asked him,
`If you stay in China, is there no future? ' He also said that
he had tried calling two U.S. Embassy officials `numerous
times' but that no one had answered.'' `` `I told the Embassy I
would like to talk to Representative Chris Smith, but they
somehow never managed to arrange it. I felt, and feel, a little
puzzled.' ''
For the record, I placed a call to Chen on May 1 at 9 p.m.
Eastern Standard time, after being informed by one of Chen's
American friends that he wanted to speak with me. I waited all
night, until 4 a.m., for a call back from the high U.S.
official I was told could arrange that and the call never came.
There are many questions, and there are even more concerns.
How will the United States-China agreement on Chen and his
family's safety be enforced? What happens if Chen, or any
member of his family, suffers retaliation? Where is Chen's
nephew, Chen Kegui? What happens now to He Peirong, the
courageous young woman who drove Chen to safety? Like I said,
there are many questions.
Next week, I hope to convene another hearing of this
Commission on Chen in order to take testimony from the Obama
administration witnesses and to get some answers.
Our purpose today is to examine his case and discern the
likelihood that his family, and Chen, and supporters have any
opportunity of true freedom and safety going forward and
whether asylum remains a viable option.
The story of Chen Guangcheng has been extraordinary and
inspirational from the beginning. Blinded by a childhood
illness, Chen pushed past profound barriers to school himself
in Chinese law and became an advocate for the rights of the
vulnerable, including disabled persons and rural farmers.
Years later when local villagers told him of their stories
of forced abortions and forced sterilizations, Chen and his
wife Yuan Weixing documented these stories, later building
briefs for a class action lawsuit against the officials
involved.
Their efforts gained international news media attention in
2005, and their challenge to China's draconian population
control policies spurred harsh and extended official
retaliation, including torture and beatings.
The Commission and other committees of the Congress have
examined China's population control policies many times. As a
matter of fact, from this podium itself I have heard from
victims and had victims give testimony about that brutal one-
child-per-couple policy.
We even heard from a woman who ran the program, Mrs. Gao
from Fujian Province, who said, self-described, ``By day I was
a monster, by night a wife and mother,'' and told how the full
weight of the dictatorship was behind her efforts to ensure
that children were not born.
China sometimes paints a false picture for gullible
foreigners that the policy is somehow being eased or mitigated,
but the few exceptions they permit do not fundamentally modify
its rough, harsh, brutal, and ugly character. Chen Guangcheng
and his wife knew it, and they faced huge retaliation for
speaking out against it.
For the record, family planning officials down to the
village and local level maintain extreme vigilance on out-of-
plan children. The English phrase they use is ``family
planning,'' but the plan is not the family's plan, but the
State's. They use the word ``measures'' to mask what they do.
What they do is forced abortions and involuntarily
sterilizations.
When an out-of-plan birth does take place, they impose
crushing fines on the couple. All unwed mothers are compelled
by the State to abort. Among China's many coercions and
tyrannies, this is the one that touches virtually every
Chinese, especially women and children, and we now know that
there are missing girls by the tens of millions, the lost
daughters of China.
It was Chen Guangcheng who challenged these horrific
violations of women's rights, and that is when the hammer fell.
Chen Guangcheng has faced enormous government opposition for
his efforts, but he has refused to back down. He and his family
have paid a dear price. Chen, his wife, mother, and children,
have separately and repeatedly been harassed and denied their
basic freedoms now for seven years.
After serving more than four years in prison on trumped up
charges, Chen was released in 2010, only to be locked up with
his family in their home under 24-hour surveillance, with all
forms of communications with the outside world severed. On more
than one occasion, Chen and his wife were severely beaten and
then denied medical treatment for their injuries.
Their six-year-old daughter, Chen Kesi, was prevented from
attending school. This was in violation of the child's right to
an education and more payback for her parents' actions. In the
past few months, this little girl has been permitted to attend
school, but only with three guards with her everywhere she
goes.
In all of this and more, Chen Guangcheng and his family
have endured this as so-called ``free citizens'' under Chinese
law. It is no wonder then that when Chen felt it worth risking
his life to escape this hellish condition, last week he sought
our help, the U.S. Government. His three demands to Premier Wen
laid out in an online video he posted are incredibly cogent,
and urged the Chinese Government to address them fully and
immediately.
In a background briefing, a senior U.S. official in Beijing
explained that Chen consistently expressed his wish that he and
his family stay in China, and that they be ensured the lives of
normal citizens. It is unclear whether the path to political
asylum was discussed seriously, or whether it was done so in a
hurry, or whether he was pressured in any way and at any time
in the process to remain in China, especially with the Summit
that began today.
He is now away from the Embassy in a local hospital, asking
for the right to leave. He said, ``I think we'd like to rest in
a place outside of China. Help my family and I leave safely,''
he told the Associated Press. The eyes of the world are
watching to see that his wishes are honored by the Chinese
Government.
I, and everyone on our Commission and in Congress, are
gravely concerned for the safety, well-being, and whereabouts
of Chen's supporters, including He Peirong, who drove him from
his village to Beijing on the night of his escape, and now
remains incommunicado. We are also concerned about the other
members of the family, and that is why we are convening this
important hearing today.
I would like to now yield to my good friend and colleague,
the Chairman of the Lantos Human Rights Commission, Congressman
Frank Wolf.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK WOLF, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
VIRGINIA; MEMBER, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA
Representative Wolf. Thank you, Chris.
I want to begin by thanking the Chair, Congressman Chris
Smith, who has championed Chen's case in Congress. Today's
hearing is just the latest chapter in what is a long history of
Congressman Smith's dogged human rights advocacy.
It is fitting that Chen reportedly requested to speak to
Congressman Smith when he was at the U.S. Embassy, although one
of the many questions surrounding Chen's case is why that phone
call was never facilitated. As the news cycle unfolded
yesterday, what began as a purported diplomatic triumph evolved
into a diplomatic fiasco, and now the fate of this man and his
family hangs in the balance.
While details are still emerging, it appears that the most
generous read of the administration's handling of this case is
that it was naive in accepting assurances from a government
that has a well-known and documented history of brutally
repressing its own people.
Consider some of the following, and if you think about
these things: in the last year alone more than 30 Tibetan monks
and nuns, including several who were very young, have set
themselves aflame in desperation at the abuses endured by their
people. Every one of the approximately 25 underground Catholic
bishops is either in jail or under house arrest, under strict
surveillance, or in hiding.
Protestant house church leaders are routinely imprisoned
and harassed. The lawyers that defend them are often given the
same fate. In fact, when I traveled to China with Congressman
Smith in 2008 before the Beijing Olympics, every single one of
the dissidents and lawyers that we were to have dinner with one
night were either detained or warned not to attend, with one
exception. That person who made it was subsequently placed
under house arrest.
China presently spends more on public security in an
attempt to control its population than it does on its own
defense. Our own State Department's Annual Human Rights Report
found that China is ``an authoritarian state'' where the
government continues to muzzle freedom of speech and press and
reign in civil society.
This February, the Chinese Government went so far as to
deny a visa to Suzan Johnson Cook, the U.S. Ambassador for
International Religious Freedom. At the very time the Vice
President of China was meeting with the President of the United
States, President Obama, the President's Ambassador for
Religious Freedom, Suzan Johnson Cook, couldn't even get a visa
to go to China. Of course, China has the barbaric practice of
forced abortions and sterilization and it was this very abuse,
which Chen has sought to shine a bright light on.
The list goes on. In short, Chen's case is not an anomaly,
but symptomatic of pervasive human rights abuses committed by
the Chinese Government against its own people.
As recently as today, the Washington Post reported that
China ``continues its crackdown on people who are believed to
have helped Chen.'' Chen's heroism in escaping house arrest has
been matched only by that of the brave individuals who, at
great personal risk to themselves, assisted him in breaking
free from the captors who had tormented, isolated, and
mistreated him for more than 18 months. Several have
subsequently been detained, arrested, or placed under house
arrest.
In light of the realities and the newly emerging accounts
of how Chen's wife was treated in the days following his
escape, notably that Chinese officials detained her, and
threatened to beat her to death if Chen did not leave the U.S.
Embassy, it is hard to comprehend why the administration would
accept at face value assurances that Chen would be safe upon
exiting U.S. protection.
You wonder if there were other forces at work. Had word
come down from on high to resolve the Chen situation no matter
what prior to the arrivals of Secretaries Clinton and Geithner
who were headed to Beijing this week for high-level economic
and foreign policy talks?
Was there even a hint of coercion? Was there any coercion,
subtle coercion, forced coercion, or pressure involved? What
were the internal State Department and White House
deliberations? When the dust settles, I intend to formally
request to review all cable traffic, classified or otherwise,
that surrounded these negotiations.
Further, the administration has an obligation to release
the details of the deal that was struck with the Chinese
Government, especially given how quickly it appears to have
unraveled. It has been reported that Chen was told that a U.S.
Government official would stay with him at the hospital, and
yet, according to one news account, Chen said, ``Many Americans
were with me while I checked into the hospital and doctors
examined me, lots of them, but when I was brought to the
hospital room they all left. I don't know where they went.''
Was Chen deceived? Was that part of the arrangement? If not,
why not? If so, why did Chen find himself alone, isolated and
fearful, just hours after he left U.S. protection?
There are more questions than answers at this juncture. I
hope today's witnesses will shed some light on the matter,
especially Bob Fu, Chen's friend and a man who is personally
connected to some of China's most courageous dissidents and
advocates.
Even though there is much we do not know, this much is
certain: The administration, the Obama administration, has a
high moral obligation to protect Chen and his family. To do
anything less would be scandalous. President Ronald Reagan
famously said that ``the U.S. Constitution is a covenant that
we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of
mankind.''
Some in Washington may forget that the document forged in
those hot Philadelphia summer days of 1787 transcends history,
but dissidents and freedom-loving people the world over know
this intuitively to be true.
There is a reason the student protesters in Tiananmen
Square read Chinese translations of the American Declaration of
Independence and carried papier mache models of what looked to
be the Statute of Liberty.
America missed an opportunity. When history looks at it,
America missed an opportunity in Tiananmen. Will this
administration, too, fail to seize a historic moment? The
reverberations of such a failure are nearly impossible to
calculate. The world is watching, both dictators and
dissidents. The administration must be bold. The administration
must ensure Chen's safety and that of his family. If news
reports are to be believed about Chen's wishes, the
administration must--must--grant him and his family asylum and
refuse--refuse, refuse--to apologize, despite a Chinese
Government demand.
Throughout history, America's embassies have been islands
of freedom. Recall the group of Pentecostals known as the
Siberian Seven, who, seeking religious freedom and the right to
emigrate, lived in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow for five years
beginning 1978. No one in the Carter administration, no one in
the Reagan administration said they had to leave. No one
negotiated and said, go out and be on your own in Moscow. They
allowed them to stay five years.
Or consider Joseph Cardinal Mozinski, a stalwart opponent
of Communism and defender of religious freedom who took refuge
in a U.S. Embassy in Budapest for 15 years. Chen initially
found safety in the Embassy and now that guarantee is
jeopardized.
I am confident there will come a day when the Communist
Party's brutal reign will end, when the Chinese people will
experience a new birth of freedom. Men like Chen and women like
fellow dissident Pearl who helped facilitate Chen's escape
represent China's future. Their oppressors and the One Party
structure that sustained them will be on the trash heap of
history. The same way that President Reagan said ``tear down
the wall and the evil empire, and they will fall,'' the same
thing will happen to the Chinese Government. Until that day
comes, America should always stand with the Chens of the world.
Again, I thank the Chairman for having this hearing and
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you very much, Chairman Wolf.
I'd like to now introduce our very distinguished--we have
six outstanding human rights advocates who are testifying
today, and I will begin, first, with Pastor Bob Fu, who was a
leader in the 1989 student democracy movement in Tiananmen
Square, and later became a house church pastor and founder,
along with his wife.
In 1996, authorities arrested and imprisoned them for their
work. After their release, they escaped to the United States in
2002 and founded ChinaAid Association. ChinaAid monitors and
reports on religious freedom in China and provides a forum for
discussion among experts on religion, law, and human rights in
China.
Pastor Fu is frequently interviewed by media outlets around
the world and has testified at U.S. congressional hearings. I
will note parenthetically that when Chairman Wolf and I were in
China on one of our many trips we contacted Bob Fu, who helped
arrange for us to meet with house church leaders.
We, in a very kidding way, said that we were heading to
Tiananmen Square to unfurl a banner that said ``Human Rights,''
and within an hour, our Embassy--because I'm sure Bob Fu's
phone is tapped--was contacted to say Wolf and Smith will be
deported immediately if that happens. So here's a man who is
being watched, and yet speaks out and has incredible contacts
inside of China.
Dr. Sophie Richardson is the China Director at Human Rights
Watch. A graduate of the University of Virginia, the Johns
Hopkins Nanjing Program, and Oberlin College, Dr. Richardson is
the author of numerous articles on domestic Chinese political
reform, democratization, and human rights in Cambodia, China,
Hong Kong, and the Philippines.
She has testified before the European Parliament and the
U.S. Senate and the House. She has provided commentary with the
BBC, CNN, Far Eastern Economic Review, Foreign Policy National
Public Radio, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and
the Washington Post.
Dr. Richardson authored ``China and Cambodia: Five
Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence'' in December 2009, an in-
depth examination of China's foreign policy since 1954's Geneva
Conference, including rare interviews with policymakers.
We will then hear from T. Kumar, who is Amnesty
International's Director for International Advocacy. He has
testified before our Subcommittee on Human Rights--my
subcommittee--many times, and before other House and Senate
forums.
He has served as a human rights monitor in many Asian
countries, as well as in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Sudan,
and South Africa. He has also served as director of several
refugee ships and camps.
Kumar holds an advanced degree in law from the University
of Pennsylvania Law School, and taught at American University's
Academy on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law.
Mr. Kumar was himself a political prisoner for over five
years in Sri Lanka for his peaceful human rights activities.
Amnesty International adopted him as a prisoner of conscience.
He started his legal studies in prison and eventually became an
attorney and devoted his entire practice to defending political
prisoners, which is what he does now with Amnesty.
We will then hear from Wang Xuezhen, who is a human rights
advocate and purchasing agent for a furniture business from
Shandong Province who recently fled to the U.S. to escape
constant monitoring and harassment from Chinese authorities
following her ongoing advocacy on behalf of Chen Guangcheng.
Along with other human rights advocates including He
Peirong, Wang attempted to visit Chen Guangcheng on several
occasions during his 19-month home confinement and participated
in numerous advocacy activities to free Chen. Authorities'
treatment of Wang includes beatings, constant monitoring, and
detentions. Authorities detained her and her husband for two
weeks in December 2011 as they were preparing to travel to
Jinyin City to participate in a Free Chen Guangcheng activity.
We will then hear from Cao Yaxue, who is an independent
writer, translator, and blogger about China. She grew up in
China, attended Peking University and studied literature in the
United States. Her writings and translations explore aspects of
China's past and present, with a heavy emphasis on human rights
and the rule of law, including multiple pieces on Chen
Guangcheng.
Her posts have been frequently quoted at length by
mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times. She had
phone contact with at least one member of Chen's extended
family after Chen's escape and has been reporting on the
family's situation.
We will then hear from Michael Horowitz, senior fellow at
the Hudson Institute in Washington. He is also director of the
Hudson Institute's Project for Civil Justice Reform and Project
for International Religious Liberty. He served as general
counsel for the Office of Management and Budget under the
Reagan administration and taught law at the University of
Mississippi and Georgetown.
He has also practiced private law as a partner at national
law firms. He has written frequently on Internet issues and
human rights topics and he holds a B.A. from City College of
New York and got his LL.B from Yale Law School.
I would also note parenthetically that Michael Horowitz, as
my good friend and colleague Mr. Wolf will attest, has been the
genius behind many human rights initiatives that have found
their way into law in the United States on religious freedom,
the North Korea Human Rights Act, and other initiatives.
We will then hear from Reggie Littlejohn, who is President
of Women's Rights Without Frontiers, a nonpartisan
international coalition to oppose forced abortion and sexual
slavery in China, as well as an expert on China's one-child
policy. She has testified before the European and British
Parliaments and the U.S. Congress.
She has also briefed officials at the White House, the U.S.
Department of State, and the Vatican. She has also been
interviewed on dozens of TV and radio programs and has spoken
at Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School, George Washington
University, and The Heritage Foundation.
She has issued several incisive reports that are included
in the congressional record. A graduate of Yale Law School, Ms.
Littlejohn has represented Chinese refugees and their political
asylum cases in the United States.
I would like to now ask Pastor Fu if you would proceed.
STATEMENT OF BOB FU, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, CHINAAID
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Fu. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Congressman Wolf,
other Members of Congress, and your excellent staff at the
CECC.
I want to maybe just ask to submit my written version.
Chairman Smith. Sure. Without objection, your full
statement, and any items you would like to affix to it, will be
made a part of the record.
Mr. Fu. As the President of ChinaAid Association, I am
familiar with the details of Chen Guangcheng's escape and was
in contact with the team of people who helped Chen flee to
Beijing. I actually learned Chen left his house on April 23.
After Chen left the U.S. Embassy, I stayed in close contact
with both the relevant U.S. Government officials and people who
are intimates of Chen who have been in telephone communication
with him. From them all, I have amassed a great deal of first-
hand information on the developments that have led to the
current situation, which is rather shocking, regrettable,
heart-rending, and disappointing.
There are some important episodes that are confusing and I
think need immediate clarification. First, according to the
U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the
official Chinese announcement, Chen Guangcheng left the Embassy
of his own volition.
However, according to my conversation last night with Mr.
Chen and several media reports, including the Associate Press,
and the first-hand information from Chen's friend and fellow
lawyer, Teng Biao and from Zeng Jinyan, the wife of dissident
Hu Jia, the U.S. officials relayed to Chen the threat made by
the Chinese side to threaten his wife, Yuan Weijing. It was
after learning of this threat that Chen was left with no choice
but to reluctantly leave the U.S. Embassy.
Much of the dispute between the accounts of the State
Department and the U.S. negotiators and Chen's recount with the
media, I think, was around how to characterize that
conversation on May 2 before Chen walked out of the U.S.
Embassy, relayed by the U.S. official.
The message seems to suggest--well, let me put it this way.
Chen was talked to by a U.S. Government official before he
stepped out of the Embassy and he was told it was a Chinese
Government message, that the Chinese Government wanted to
convey that message through the U.S. Government official, that
if he chose not to walk out of the Embassy on May 2 he would
not be able to see his wife and his children again. His wife
and children will be returned to the Dongshigu village, the
Shuanghou town, Linyi city, which has been hell for this
family.
According to my conversation last night as I tried to
verify the nature of that conversation, what really happened,
Chen said after hearing that message from the Chinese
Government, conveyed by a U.S. official, his heart was heavy
and he felt he had no other choice but to walk out of the U.S.
Embassy.
It sounded to him like it was a one-way street, either/or.
Either he stays in the U.S. Embassy but faces the reality that
his wife and children would be gone, maybe for their whole
life, and he would not be able to see his wife and two
children. Of course he did not know at the time how his wife
had already been treated after April 27 when the Chinese guards
found Chen was missing.
Chen's wife was immediately taken to ``xingjingdui
shenxunshi,'' a criminal interrogation center, where she was
tied and beaten and was threatened with her life. Basically,
the interrogator told her that if her husband did not walk out
of the U.S. Embassy, they would kill her. Chen, of course,
learned about that after he had a reunion with his wife in
Chaoyang Hospital. That was the second phase.
I think that was clear to anyone with reasonable logic that
that should constitute a threat. If that conversation occurred
anywhere here, I think that would demand a 911 call. What
happened to his wife and to their children? His eight-year-old
son was not even able to be seen by this couple for two years.
What happened to them in the past seven years with this
enormous torture and harassment and constant threat to this
family.
Their six-year-old daughter, as Chen recounted at the
interview--his 80-year-old mother was beaten up, wounded, and
the government would not even allow her, on her birthday, to
receive medical treatment, in front of this six-year-old girl.
I don't know if that is a threat or not, but to me, after
hearing what Chen has told me yesterday, I verified over the
phone and I actually videotaped my conversation with him.
I think I have a few questions I want to ask the U.S. chief
negotiator, or whoever led that: Who is the one that relayed
that information to Chen? What exactly was the wording from the
Chinese Government? What was the U.S. response initially to
that message by the Chinese Government? Why does he have to
walk, on May 2? Why that date? Why was there no other option on
the table offered to Chen?
For instance, why would the U.S. Embassy not tell Chen that
you have a choice, you can stay and we can continue to
negotiate with the Chinese Government to allow your wife and
two children to come to the U.S. Embassy so that you can have a
safe environment to discuss your future? Why does that have to
be a one-way street?
I think these questions need to be answered. I certainly
appreciate Ambassador Gary Locke and the administration
officials who made the right decision on April 26 to allow Chen
at least to have the six days without pressures and time of
freedom for the first time in seven years. But I do want to ask
these questions.
I certainly think that some conversations I had yesterday
about Chen, how Chen felt he was treated, or at least how much
pressure he has received, I think I would reserve a later time
to share. But the bottom line is, Chen told me yesterday,
``Both my wife and I feel endangered. We are left alone. We do
not have anybody present with us. Even as late as 9 o'clock,
our six-year-old baby girl was crying for food.'' They were
suffering starvation the first night after their so-called
guaranteed freedom.
After somebody called the U.S. Embassy apparently and the
somebody intervened with the hospital, and they were given some
food. You can read that account and a very detailed description
written by Dr. Teng Biao, one of Chen's close friends, from his
conversation over the phone about what had really happened
during that night about their starvation.
Second, I want to emphasize that Chen told me last night
very clearly that he does not feel safe over there. He wants
the United States to help him and his family to come out of
China. Of course he did not use the exact words, but in Chinese
it's called seeking asylum or something like that in that
nature.
Remember, he is still in China and his wife was not even
allowed to walk out of the hospital. None of Chen's friends,
human rights lawyers, human rights defenders, have been allowed
so far to visit Chen. Some of them even showed up at the
hospital and they were not even allowed to come close. So the
hospital room that Chen and his family members were staying in
became essentially another Dongshigu village, just in a
different forum this time, in the capital city of China.
So I would call upon the U.S. Government, especially, I
think, Chen specifically requested me again--you talk about his
request to have a phone conversation with you. Last night, he
specifically requested again and said he wanted to talk with
Congressman Chris Smith. Unfortunately, this morning, a moment
ago when we tried, the phone was powered off. So we don't know
what happened. He at least promised me he would keep it on if
possible for a conversation with you today.
I think, Secretary Clinton, this is the moment, I think, to
deliver what you have promised, what you have repeatedly said
in the past two years. She wants to see Chen and his family
with freedom and safety. As you are visiting and dialoguing
with your counterparts in China, this is the moment to deliver.
I think Chen specifically made that appeal to Secretary Clinton
to help negotiate, I think to reengage with the Chinese
Government, to allow them to have a safe existence. So that's
his appeal.
I want to leave the rest of the time for questions. Thank
you very much.
Chairman Smith. Pastor Fu, thank you very much for that
incredibly enlightening and passionate testimony.
I'd like to now ask Dr. Richardson for her comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fu appears in the appendix.]
STATEMENT OF SOPHIE RICHARDSON, CHINA DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS
WATCH
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Smith, Mr. Wolf, thank you very much
for having this hearing this afternoon and for your
extraordinary, tenacious leadership on these issues. I think
it's not an accident that Chen wanted to speak to you in
particular.
I want to start with one premise, which is that if the
Chinese Government was really serious about its commitments to
human rights and the rule of law we wouldn't be having these
conversations again, and again, and again, which is not to
suggest that we aren't all happy to have this discussion with
you.
But I think the fact that 30 years into reform and opening
up and 20 years after Tiananmen, that we are still discussing
these issues, is a powerful statement about the choices the
Chinese leadership has made with respect to political reform
and the rule of law.
Just to paint a broad picture, year in and year out we
continue to document gross abuses: Use of the death penalty,
forced disappearances, abuses of ethnic minorities,
restrictions on the freedoms of religion, association, and
assembly.
I think Chen's case, in particular, highlights some of the
worst abuses that we have seen in recent years. Those include a
naked disregard for the law, both with respect to Chen's
efforts to challenge illegal practices and to hold people to
account, but also with respect to the treatment of him.
There certainly are gross problems with respect to
arbitrary detention, which, as we've discussed, often extends
to family members, including very young children. I find this
aspect of the story in particular outrageous, that children
should be subject to this kind of treatment.
Torture and mistreatment in detention. We have heard
credible evidence of physical violence against Chen, his wife,
other family members, other associates, and restrictions on the
freedom of expression, ranging from his ability to communicate
with other people, people's ability to go and see him or report
on what's happening to him.
And let's bear in mind that all of this has been in
retaliation for work and activities that were entirely
consistent with domestic and international law. I think that's
a very important point to remember, that Chen had done nothing
illegal. I think the bottom line is that all activists in
China, regardless of the issue that they're working on, remain
at extraordinary risks at all times.
With respect to Chen in particular, I think obviously much
depends on clarity about what he and his family want. If indeed
they do want to leave, which seems to be the view now, I think
it is incumbent on the U.S. Government to insist on access to
him. We are very disturbed by the reports in the Washington
Post today that U.S. officials have not been able to have any
access to him for about 24 hours now.
I don't see any particular reason why Secretary Clinton,
Secretary Geithner, Ambassador Locke, and other senior U.S.
Government officials who are in Beijing at the moment can't get
in the car and go to the hospital and insist on access to him.
If he does opt to stay, I think there is an obligation on
the U.S. Government to mount a monitoring effort with respect
to Chen's treatment and his family members' treatment of a kind
that they've never imagined before. There will have to be a new
Chen Guangcheng detail at the U.S. Embassy.
But in the broader picture with respect to other activists
and activism in general in China, I think there is an enormous
responsibility on the U.S. Government, on activists, on other
like-minded governments to watch incredibly closely--not just
over the next few days but over weeks and months and years--to
monitor what happens to other activists who will suffer from
further retribution by virtue of this incident in particular.
We know that the machine has already swung into action to
place restrictions on people, some who are involved in this
case, some who have nothing to do with this case. I think it
would be a tremendous tragedy if the heightened awareness of
human rights abuses in China were to fade when the spotlight
shifts elsewhere after Secretary Clinton leaves town. That is,
I think, all of our collective responsibility in the near and
the longer term future.
Thanks.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Richardson, thank you very much.
I would like to now call on Mr. Kumar.
STATEMENT OF T. KUMAR, DIRECTOR FOR INTERNATIONAL ADVOCACY,
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA
Mr. Kumar. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith and
Congressman Wolf. Amnesty International is pleased to testify
at this important and timely hearing. We also want to recognize
both your leadership in promoting and protecting human rights
not only in China, but around the world. Thank you for your
job, for both of you.
Today, what is happening in China is not about this
particular individual, Chen Guangcheng. This is about a system
in China which is geared toward abusing its own citizens with
total impunity.
We started working on Chen's case when he was initially
arrested years ago for documenting abuses in the context of the
one-child policy. We adopted him as a prisoner of conscience.
The reason was because our research showed that he did not use
violence or advocate violence, he was just documenting abuses
and trying to publicize these abuses.
So he was imprisoned for more than four years. During this
time he was tortured and abused. When he was released, everyone
thought that the saga was going to come to an end. But that is
not the case. Like many other cases in China he was illegally
detained in his house and also again abused, not only him but
his family as well.
So what happened about two weeks ago, less than two weeks
ago, was that he escaped from the illegal detention and he
ended up coming to the U.S. Embassy. Now the situation is not
clear, but one thing we know from the U.S. administration
officials who made public statements is that China gave certain
commitments and there was an agreement between China and the
United States about the treatment of Mr. Chen.
I don't know the full context of that agreement. It is time
that the U.S. administration make it public, whether there were
any signatures involved by the Chinese authorities; the real
official document should be brought in. I urge the Commission
to request that official agreement between the U.S. Government
and China on Chen's treatment.
In the context of the strength of the agreement, Chen
agreed, even though there were reports that there were some
other issues involved which Amnesty International had
difficulty confirming, and then he went to the hospital for
treatment.
Suddenly, what we are hearing is that the same agreement
that the United States and China agreed upon has been violated.
Now he is asking, at least according to the media reports, that
he wants asylum for him, as well as his family, to the United
States.
The opportunity that is there for his case is rare for
political prisoners. Secretary Clinton is there. Senior
government officials, U.S. Government officials, are there. So
if senior U.S. Government officials cannot solve this issue,
the United States is having a direct relevance because of the
agreement that was signed.
We have to ask the question, what leverage can the United
States exert or what interest can they do to get improvement in
human rights issues in China. That brought up a bigger question
about human rights in China and the U.S. engagement in
policing.
Amnesty International is concerned that even though there
are some meaningful improvements that were taken by different
administrations, the current dialogue that is taking place,
that is Security and Economic Dialogue, is not taking human
rights as a serious and equal partner to the dialogue.
Even the basic things, like renaming the Security and
Economic Dialogue into Security, Economic, and Human Rights
Dialogue, there is resistance. We don't know where the
resistance comes from, the administration here or from the
Chinese.
So if they can't even rename the Security and Economic
Dialogue as the Security, Economic, and Human Rights Dialogue,
there are serious questions.
If there is an agreement to bring him to asylum, what
steps? Our fear is that when Secretary Clinton leaves, the
interest will wane down, which we were told by the senior
administration officials that that's not the case.
But to make it clear, let Secretary Clinton take a firm
stand and make a statement about this case. Not only is this a
human rights case, but this case is also directly involving the
United States in a political case where we had an agreement.
So let the United States stand up. Let Secretary Clinton,
while she's in China, stand up and make a clear statement. This
will set the tone for future U.S.-China agreements, or even
China policy on promoting and protecting human rights in China.
Thank you again for inviting Amnesty International.
Chairman Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Kumar.
I would like to now, if I could go from left to right--your
right to left--Reggie Littlejohn.
STATEMENT OF REGGIE LITTLEJOHN, PRESIDENT, WOMEN'S RIGHTS
WITHOUT FRONTIERS
Ms. Littlejohn. Thank you so much, Congressman Smith,
Congressman Wolf, for inviting me to this. I have been asked to
testify as to two things. One, is what is the underlying issue
that got Chen Guangcheng detained, and the other one is, what
about those who helped him, in particular Pearl, also known as
He Peirong.
Something that has been left out of the discussion in a lot
of mainstream media is, why is it that Chen Guangcheng has been
the subject of such intense persecution? What is it that set
off the Chinese Communist Party against him? It's the fact that
he was the one person in China who dared to stand up against
the one-child policy.
He and his wife exposed the fact that there were an
estimated 130,000 forced abortions and forced sterilizations in
Linyi City in one year, in 2005, and it was that act that got
him detained. He spent four years and three months in jail,
during which time he was tortured, denied medical treatment,
and now has been under house arrest.
So Women's Rights Without Frontiers obtained the field
notes of Chen Guangcheng. We have the cases that he was working
on when he was detained in 2006. We released those at a
congressional hearing right here on December 6, 2011. It is
called the Chen Guangcheng Report. It is 35 pages of case after
case of the most horrific human rights abuses that you can
imagine.
For example, a woman who was forcibly aborted and
sterilized at seven months, villagers that sleep in fields to
evade family planning officials, family planning officials who
broke a broom--three brooms--over the head of a man whose
children were suspected of having violated family planning law.
Family planning officials forced a grandmother and her
brother to beat each other because someone in their family had
violated the family planning birth limit, and then finally the
use of quota systems and the practice of implication, the
detention of family members, in which if one person in a family
is suspected of having violated the one-child policy either by
being pregnant or missing their cervical check-up--women are
required to have cervical check-ups between every two and every
six months, depending on where they live in China--their entire
family can get dragged in.
There is one account in the Chen Guangcheng Report of a
person's extended family--their parents, their grandparents,
their aunts, their uncles, their cousins--all being dragged in
and tortured and fined 100 yuan a day for what they call family
planning learning class tuition.
So it's clear from the Chen Guangcheng Report that the
spirit of the Red Guard is living on in the family planning
police today, and this is the issue for which he gave his life
to China. He gave his life to protect the women of China from
forced abortion, forced sterilization, and infanticide.
And then the other implications that come out of the one-
child policy are gendercide, the sex selective abortion of baby
girls. Because of this, there's an estimated 37 million more
men than women living in China today, and that in turn is
driving human trafficking and sexual slavery not only within
China, but the surrounding countries as well.
Then, in addition, China has the highest female suicide
rate of any country in the world. Approximately 500 women a day
kill themselves in China. There is untold suffering in China
because of the one-child policy, and this is the issue that
Chen had the courage to confront. This is also, I think, the
central policy of the Chinese Communist Party, which is why
they have targeted him so fiercely.
Now, some people might ask whether Chen Guangcheng's report
on Linyi in 2005--whether these things are still happening, and
they are still happening. Just about three weeks ago there was
a report, a photograph that came across on Weibo, the Chinese
equivalent of Twitter, where a woman in Linyi had been forcibly
aborted of a baby at the ninth month.
The baby was born alive, was crying, and the family
planning officials took that baby and dumped it in a bucket and
drowned it. There was a picture of the drowned baby in a bucket
and that was circulated on Weibo and created outrage.
I would also like to say, something that people don't
realize is that the coercive birth limit is not only violent
against women, but men as well. There are many instances in the
Chen Guangcheng Report where men were also detained and
tortured. In one instance there was a farmer who had committed
suicide because of the intense oppression.
In another report that I have submitted in Congress there's
this man named Xin Liu, who in 2008, his wife did have a second
child. So the family planning police came to get the fine from
them. He said, please, just take the fine, don't be violent
about it, be peaceful about it. They refused to do that. They
instead started a fight and they broke a bottle over his head.
So here's a picture of him with his temple that was crushed
when the bottle was broken over his head, and he is now
permanently disabled.
The second issue I was asked to address was the persecution
of He Peirong, whose pen name is Pearl. She reached out to me
about six months ago. She was running a Free Chen Guangcheng
campaign, a sunglasses campaign, and wanted me to do it outside
of China. She was doing it inside of China. She and I started
emailing each other. We felt sort of that we were sisters in
this cause of freeing Chen Guangcheng.
She is the one who, when Chen Guangcheng made his great
escape, drove him from Dongshigu village to Beijing.
So the plan for his escape worked so well that he was not
discovered to have been missing for four days. Then on the day
that he was discovered missing, she and I Skyped on and off all
night long. She was alone, she was afraid. She was afraid for
Chen, she was afraid for his family. She was also afraid for
herself. Then at around 5 o'clock in the morning when I tried
to Skype her one last time, there was silence. She didn't
answer. I found out later that she had been detained.
I am very concerned about Pearl. I am concerned that she
may be tortured because she was the head of this whole network
that was to free Chen. We know many instances in which key
activists have been tortured in order for the Chinese Communist
Party to try to extract from them who the other people were in
their network.
So I would urge that, in these discussions about Chen
Guangcheng, that they include Pearl at all times. I really
appreciate the way that Congressman Smith and Congressman Wolf
have been including her in the discussions, and so Chen
Guangcheng, I'm sure, will not feel free until his main
supporter from the outside, He Peirong, is also free.
Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Ms. Littlejohn, thank you so very much for
that testimony and for bringing attention to the underlying
cause of why the full weight of the Chinese Government came
down upon Chen and his wife, and that is the forced abortion
issue, and for reminding the world about He Peirong and the
concern that we have to have for her well-being.
I'd like to now yield to Mr. Horowitz.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HOROWITZ, SENIOR FELLOW, HUDSON INSTITUTE
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last month I was arrested in a respectful, non-disruptive
demonstration on behalf of what Bob Fu and I called the ``China
Six,'' and of course Chen Guangcheng was one of them. When the
first news came out I sent an email to Bob and said, ``We're
down to the China Five.'' He then sent back an email to me
saying, ``Soon we'll be at the China Zero.''
Mr. Chairman, we're back at the China Six, and worse than
we were a few days ago. Part of it was the failure, as Mr. Wolf
indicated at the hearing of the Commission when the incoming
President of China was here, to send a clear signal that the
rights of these heroic dissidents represent priority interests
of American human rights and American foreign policy. So part
of what we're witnessing are the fruits of the Xi visit to the
United States.
The real question is, how could this have happened? I have
often thought and said to you, Mr. Chairman, that one of the
great things we could do in the pursuit of American interests
would be to replace the State Department with the AFL-CIO
because there is an issue here of bargaining skill. Anybody at
the Teamsters Union would understand, would have flunked every
one of these people who were bargaining for the life and
freedom of world hero Chen Guangcheng.
Let me just give, very quickly, three indications of what I
mean. The first thing a skilled bargainer would do is welcome
this man to the Embassy and tell him he can stay as long as he
wants, and would do so to take care of one's client, but much
more importantly to send a signal to China that time is on our
side.
Mr. Chairman, when I was bargaining for the Fire Officers
Union of New York City I always understood one thing: If the
other guy needed to sign the deal before I did he was in my
pocket, and the Chinese understood that as clearly as possible.
We seemed rushed to close a deal and the Chinese took advantage
of that. So, an ``F'' in Bargaining 101 for the State
Department on that score.
Second, you don't accept verbal promises. You get some
action, some good-faith action, before you close a deal and
turn over your house or whatever it is you are bargaining
about, or cut the deal. So the first principle that anybody,
any union leader would say to the Chinese would be: ``Okay, you
want to do a deal? The first thing is, bring Chen's wife and
child here to the Embassy. We don't even talk until she is
there with him.'' That could have been done.
Then the final and I think the most critical thing, Mr.
Chairman, was not only to understand the risks that you and
your client run, but to put yourself in the mind of the other
side to understand the risks that they run. Anybody from any
labor union would have said to the Chinese: ``Listen, we've got
all the time in the world. The world is watching what's going
on. Chen Guangcheng has become the face of China to the people
of the United States and the rest of the world. You spend all
this money building goodwill in the West and building goodwill
in the United States. Every minute that this man, his family,
and the people who rescued him are at risk is destroying
whatever it is that you've built. The leverage you have from
the American business community will be trumped if you continue
to let this case fester. So, hey, as long as it takes, it
takes, but he's here, he's comfortable.''
That's what happened with the Pentecostals in the U.S.
Embassy during the Reagan administration. Instead, the Chen
negotiators were so focused on our needs, our risks, rather
than the needs and risks and problems of the Chinese, that they
just rushed the negotiation.
Mr. Chairman, even if I didn't care one iota for human
rights in China or for Chen, and all I cared about was the
agenda that Secretary Geithner was to pursue during his visit,
I would be emphasizing the Chen Guangcheng case because it put
China and not the United States on the defensive. It's not our
weakness, it's their weakness that the Chen case created.
Ronald Reagan understood that when he dealt with the
Pentecostals in the U.S. Embassy. As George Schultz had said,
every time the Russians wanted to negotiate nuclear weapons
policies Reagan would say, well, what are you doing about this
dissident and that dissident, and when are they getting out?
They began to understand that these dissidents were not in
the way of American foreign policy but that they were America's
foreign policy. Guess what? Ronald Reagan was able to negotiate
a better deal on weapons, on ruble-dollar relations, and so
forth--and able to ensure the freedom of Jewish refuseniks and
Pentecostal victims of the former Soviet Union.
Again, if you focus on your weaknesses and don't understand
the vulnerability of the other side--you'd get fired in your
first week at the Teamsters Union. Yet such people who had been
negotiating hold the life and the safety and the security of
heroes like Chen in their hands. How sad it makes me at the
sheer, utter incompetence of the people at the State Department
who purported to bargain on Chen's behalf.
Now, what do we do to protect him now? Mr. Chairman, you
have that chart up there, and it's an extraordinary chart. As
soon as Chen's escape happened, the Chinese created blocks on
the Internet, the great highway of freedom; the Chinese
Government understands the importance of Internet freedom and I
wish we did much better than we do.
Today, if you type in the word ``Chen'' on an Internet
search in China, it gets blocked. If you type in the word
``blind man'' in China, you get blocked. The problem with the
stories about this matter, and this was in yesterday's Wall
Street Journal that listed the words blocked on the Internet in
China, is that they convey a premise and a take-away message to
the American people that China has the capacity to control what
people in China get to see on the Internet.
Mr. Chairman, as you know and as Mr. Wolf more than perhaps
any Member of Congress knows, that is true only because of our
horrible, misguided policies--because the State Department has
failed to honor congressional intent in giving appropriated
funds to groups with a field-tested capacity to bypass the
Internet firewall systems of China, of Iran, of all the world's
dictatorships.
There is $30 million now sitting in State Department
accounts that was appropriated years ago to tear down Internet
firewalls that they haven't spent. There's a Board of
Broadcasting Governors that's sitting there with $700, $800
million that has not sought to reprogram, as they easily could
and should have done, just 10 percent of their appropriation
for R&D into firewall circumvention and for giving money to
successful, field-tested programs so that they don't crash when
2 million users a day access their system, and so they could
allow 50 million users a day to access the system.
We have it in our capacity, Mr. Chairman, to allow 50
million Chinese at any given second to search the word ``blind
man'' anytime they want no matter what China's Internet Golden
Shield bureaucracy says, and we haven't done it. We haven't
done it in violation of clear congressional intent and we
haven't done it because we have not pushed the bureaucracy at
the State Department, pushed the Board of Broadcasting
Governors, to do it.
There is one possible clue for this. When asked why one of
the most successful Internet firewall circumvention programs
has not received significant support by the Washington Post,
the response, Mr. Chairman--and Mr. Wolf knows this--the reason
given to the Post was because if we did so China would ``go
ballistic.'' So said a senior administration official to the
Washington Post.
So, Mr. Chairman, the way to achieve the protection of Chen
Guangcheng and all of the others, is sunlight, information. All
the verbal promises in the world given by China are meaningless
as long as Chen and others like him can be isolated so that
nobody knows what happens to him. As long as nobody knows, as
long as the word ``Chen'' and ``blind man'' can't be searched
by people in China, he and others like him will be persecuted
as he had before. He will be isolated. His spirit will be
taken.
But let's create a world in which one microsecond after
Chen Guangcheng's wife is beaten up, the word goes out on the
Internet and everybody in China knows it. We can make this
happen, Mr. Chairman, with appropriated funds sitting in State
Department accounts and we can make this happen in two to three
months.
So I hope that Internet freedom in China will be one of the
things that comes out of this case, and if it does I think Chen
will regard what he's going through as worth every second and
every pain he endures. Let's have come out of his case a
determination on the part of Congress to get this
administration to tear down the Internet firewalls which are
the real source of power and protection of the regime and the
real sources of the regime's ability to isolate, control, and
persecute its people.
I close by saying what Hu Jintao said, and I think we ought
to take a clue from him. He said the stability of the Socialist
State is dependent on our ability to ``purify the Internet.''
We have it within our means, so that this cannot be done by the
Chinese Government. We have it within our ability so that
YouTube can broadcast to 50 million people in China and the
rest of the world within 10 minutes of the time persecution
happens, with the information received in China and elsewhere
on cell phones as well as computers. We can make the Internet
``impute'' by making it a source of immediate information when
further torture or isolation of Chen Guangcheng or others like
him takes place.
So, let's honor this man and protect this man by tearing
down the Internet firewalls with priority determination. If we
do that, all of his suffering will not have been in vain no
matter how his case turns out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Horowitz, thank you very much for your
testimony and your work. It is extraordinary.
I'd like to now introduce our next panelist, Cao Yaxue. If
you could proceed. Thank you again for being here.
STATEMENT OF CAO YAXUE, HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATE; BLOGGER
Ms. Cao. Thank you, Representative Smith, and thank you
Representative Wolf, for having this hearing and for giving me
this opportunity to speak on what I know about Chen
Guangcheng's case.
I am the person, on last Friday afternoon around 1:30, who
was on Twitter and I had been following--I've been active on
Twitter because I work at home. I saw a Tweet. Somebody Tweeted
from China. Somebody Tweeted something they found on the
Chinese Weibo, the Chinese microblog, that Chen Guangcheng's
nephew slashed local officials and thugs with two knives, and
now he's on the run in the field. That Tweet had a number with
it.
So without hesitation, I grabbed the phone and I called.
When I did that, I really didn't expect to reach him because I
thought, well, I have lived here long enough, I thought, well,
the police would have taken him already by now or he won't
answer without knowing the source of the caller.
But I found him. I found an agitated, scared young man.
Well, he's in his early 30s, a young father. So I talked to
him. He told me what happened on that day. In China time, that
was the night of the day when the guards and the local
authorities found Chen Guangcheng missing, last Thursday.
So he told me everything. I said, hold on. Let me get my
recorder. I want you to speak on record and I want to get your
words, with your permission, as quickly as possible online and
that's what I did. I did just that. I recorded his message. He
told me the entire story, what he knew about that day. Within
hours, I put it on the Web site called the Free Chen Guangcheng
Web site, which I maintain with a group of friends, volunteers.
We are all doing this on our own.
I put the recording there. Within 15 hours, I put a Chinese
and English transcription of the conversation and I forwarded
it to all the media outlets I could find. So that's why the
nephew's story is so quickly on the pages of the international
news, otherwise it would still be hearsay.
That said, I want to tell the hearing what happened after
the conversation. Now, after the conversation, the next day,
also from Twitter, I found out that the lawyer, through his
wife, was able to find him. He was still on the run. That night
when I talked to him he was already--he called immediately two
police bureaus and no police were coming. He was surrendering
himself but no authorities came to take him. Then he was still
at large.
So through his wife, his lawyer--six lawyers quickly formed
a team. One of the lawyers in the province contacted him and
was able to speak to him. He said, ``I was scared.'' At the
time he was away from the immediate area. At this point he was
on the run. So right now we don't have any words from the
Chinese authorities as to where this young man is, what
happened to him, is he in police custody?
Isn't it the government's responsibility to know that, to
find him? For crying out loud, he surrendered himself. He's
innocent, but he did call. So what happened to this young man?
He feared for his life. He told his lawyer, a black car has
been following him all around. He said he is less fearful to be
in police custody than being caught by a bunch of thugs,
because he witnessed how his uncle and his uncle's family were
beaten before. Also, from the Chinese authorities there is a
statement, there is a response.
The second day after Chen Guangcheng disappeared, the Yinan
county, that is one of the nine counties of Linyi city, the
Yinan county's Web site--official Web site--posted a statement,
two sentences, two or three sentences, saying that Chen Kegui,
so and so, Chen Kegui, slashed our officials with knives and is
on the run for fearing his crimes. That's the entirety of the
statement, and we are trying to apprehend him.
Now, that statement made no mention of Chen Guangcheng and
it made no mention of why this man, a good man so far, innocent
man so far, slashed a whole bunch of authorities, Party cadets.
No. That's the Chinese Government. That's the statement.
So from a reliable source that I think is based in the
United States, the father--oh--the young man told me that his
father, who is the eldest brother of Chen Guangcheng, the thugs
took him away that night. The knife slashing happened after his
father--in other words, the brother of Chen Guangcheng--was
taken away.
So, so far what we know is at least Chen Guangcheng's
eldest brother, Chen Guangcheng's sister-in-law, Chen
Guangcheng's cousin, and the son of this cousin are in the
hands of the authorities. Okay. That is, so far, what we know.
Now, I want to quickly talk about the state that I found
this young man was in. Eleven times--I personally counted--he
mentioned the word ``law.'' In turn, he was appealing to the
law to defend him. Another moment, he was desperate. He was
sobbing, he was shaking, that he did not for a moment believe
the law would defend him. That was the thing.
The conversation is long. If anybody is interested, they
can go to my Web site, which is www.seeingredinchina.com, to
read the complete transcription. But there is one point I want
to emphasize. He said, ``I love my motherland, but look at what
she gives me.'' He also said, at the very end of our
conversation, ``At the bottom of the society, all is so
tragic.''
Now, I also want to quickly give you my impression, because
after I talked to him for several days I couldn't shake off his
image and the conversation we had. Now, on the one hand he's
just a villager. He is what the Chinese official propaganda
would like to call ``low quality people, not suitable for
democracy.'' But I find this young man to be reasonable, good-
hearted, and absolutely intelligent, speaking coherently under
such a difficult situation.
In other words, he represented the goodness of China just
like his uncle. So on the one hand you have these good people
as represented by Chen Guangcheng, by the nephew. On the other
hand, you have the thuggish government. Where are we? I am an
American. When I say ``we,'' I mean the United States. Where
are we? Who are we standing with?
Now, if you allow me, I am not listed to speak about this,
but I want to pick up on what Dr. Richardson and Mr. Horowitz
said, because I have been following Twitter's Chinese
community. These are people who are living in China but have
the technical savvyness to climb the wall and are very active
on Twitter.
I want to give the hearing a little bit of an idea--I want
you to know because it's of the utmost importance to know what
the reactions are after Chen Guangcheng left the Embassy:
Overwhelming disbelief at how this could have happened;
overwhelming anger, and a sense of betrayal.
Now, for six days, ``mei guo da shi guan,'' five characters
in Chinese meaning U.S. Embassy. Those five characters, for six
days, were magic words for many Chinese. China is a big country
and there is one island, one safe haven called the U.S.
Embassy, we are so overjoyed that he got there, it was a
miracle, miraculous. Yet, we dropped the ball so terribly. We
allowed this to happen. I'm not going to comment on how it
happened because others already spoke very eloquently.
Now, we also have to remember and have to understand that
what Chen Guangcheng represents for so many Chinese, strangers,
Chinese netizens who went to the village, got beaten, got
robbed, lost their jobs, lost their houses afterward, braving
such harsh punishment for doing nothing wrong. Why? Because
they love Chen Guangcheng. Why do they love Chen Guangcheng?
Because Chen Guangcheng, as a blind man, is a source of light.
There are no poetic words, but literally, he is a source of
light. He represents the goodness and the bravery that are both
in short supply in China. He lives in the poorest village. He
didn't go to school until he was 18. He is blind. Where on
earth did you find such a man? Where? Tell me. And he is this
symbol.
Now we must understand the larger picture. Now, I am an
ordinary citizen. My larger picture might not be the same as
the larger picture of our State Department officials. But the
one piece I saw in this larger picture may very well be the
most significant piece, which is that China's pro-democracy
citizens, whether they are outspoken or not, look upon the
United States for support.
If we failed Chen Guangcheng, it deals a horrible blow for
this population that is braving persecution for change in China
for the better, and that we will suffer the pain for years and
years to come. We will lose all credibility.
I mean, may I read a few quotes I took from Twitter? Number
one, very straightforward: ``The U.S. betrayed us.'' Number
two: ``Obama has no teeth.'' Number three: ``This is so
recklessly cynical.'' Number four: ``Now that we can't even
trust the U.S. Embassy, I can't tell you how angry I am.''
Number five: ``In 2012, the entire human race is unable to
rescue a blind man.'' Number six: ``After I read the report by
CNN that the whole world is talking about this man, only the
Chinese themselves don't know what's going on. I am so saddened
by this fact.''
The last quote is by the very well-known Canadian activist
Sheng Xue. You might know the name. She said, ``The Chen
Guangcheng case is a challenge to the U.S. ideals, also a test
of American strength. If the United States gives up on
protecting Chen Guangcheng, it amounts to giving up its
leadership role in the world. Down the road, in the face of
terrorism and a dictatorship, the U.S. will never be able to
stand straight up again.'' This is by Sheng Xue. She is based
in Canada. She is an activist and also a journalist.
That's what I'm here to say and I'm happy to have said it.
Thank you very much for this opportunity. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Ms. Cao, thank you very much for your
testimony. It is almost numbing to hear you say what other
Chinese individuals are saying online. So, that should be a
wake-up call in and of itself to the U.S. Government, and
especially to this administration.
I'd like to now yield, to such time as she will consume,
Wang Xuezhen.
STATEMENT OF WANG XUEZHEN, HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATE
Ms. Wang. I'm very sorry, but I can't speak English so I'll
be speaking Chinese through an interpreter.
Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I myself am here as a
supporter of Chen Guangcheng and I hope I have helped him and
his family, and I hope through telling you all a little bit
about what has happened to me myself in the process you will be
able to get a real feeling for what he has been through in the
past, as well as an accurate as possible a picture of what's in
store for him in the future.
On August 26, 2011, I went to Linyi to help Chen
Guangcheng's daughter, Chen Kesi, be able to attend the school
that she should have been attending. I went with some other
people. This trip was very much in goodwill and we wanted to
show the local government that we were coming in peace and
goodwill.
For that reason we decided to stay at a local spa which was
open and not secret, and also it was far from Yinan county so
they could see us. They were even able to watch us while we
were sleeping. We wanted them to be very clear that the only
reason we were there this time, the sole goal and purpose of
our mission, was to let Chen Kesi, his daughter, be able to
attend this school.
We didn't really get any good results. The only thing that
happened is, even while we were asleep, there were seven to
eight big, strong guys that were watching us all the time, and
there were several cars parked outside watching us all the
time. We didn't make any progress in getting her to attend the
school that she was supposed to be attending. As a matter of
fact, when we went to try to visit the family we were met with
violence and they pulled us out of the car.
That same year, September 19, I went with an Israeli
journalist to complain. We were going to Jinan, the provincial
capital, to complain about the brutal treatment that we'd
received in Yinan. Actually, also, the night before that there
were two women who also tried to go and visit and they were
robbed and beaten, their heads were bagged, they were thrown in
cars, taken to another place outside of that city, thrown in
the woods. Other than the government giving a warning regarding
this, there was no explanation at all for what they did.
On September 20, we went to the house of the fourth son in
Chen Guangcheng's family, so the brother that was just older
than him in the pecking order. We went there to ask whether or
not Chen Guangcheng's daughter had successfully been able to go
to the school that she was supposed to be attending.
As soon as we arrived, six people rushed in. We were not
able to carry out the conversation at all. Instead, what we had
to do was leave the school supplies, which we were bringing
there. We left and we were followed by their car.
On September 21, we decided that one person should remain
in the motel that we were staying at and the rest of us would
go to the school to see if there was any progress, but our car
was stopped. There were three men on motorcycles who were
waiting for us, so we left. We didn't go into the school. We
hadn't left for very long.
We had just left the school when we were pulled out of our
car. As we were beaten the reporter that was with us was with
us was ordered away and escorted away, but the rest of us were
taken to an old empty house on the outskirts of the village. We
were bagged, we were body searched in a very insulting and
terrible way. We were beaten and we were taken to an old
abandoned house.
Then at night we were taken to the police station and
interrogated for stealing a cow. I refused to sign the
statement that they prepared for me and I was sent back to
Laiyang. At 2 a.m., I was in the Laiyang police station being
interrogated, and at 5 a.m. I was home. Then on the 21st as
well, the person who had remained at the motel was also ordered
away, taken back to that person's home. The political police
stole a lot of stuff, a lot of possessions from us. I myself
went to Linyi to report these crimes and I was there by about
noon that day. I called some reporters. As soon as I pulled out
the phone to call the reporters there were eight political
police that appeared and sent me home to Laiyang.
On October 20, a McClatchy journalist asked me to come
there for an interview. I went to complain about the treatment
that I'd received previously when I'd been beaten and harassed.
When I told them all about it, the only thing was, they handed
me a form and told me to fill out a form.
But the whole time there were seven or eight big, strong
guys watching me, listening to everything I was saying. Then
after we got in the car and we hadn't even stopped--the car was
still moving, it hadn't even stopped--in Dongshigu village, the
reporter's assistant, the journalist's assistant, was almost
pulled out of the car before the car had even stopped.
On October 26, I myself and several volunteers, along with
a British Telegraph reporter, were heading to Yinan county to
bring the school supplies--once again, more school supplies. We
were going to bring them to Chen Guangcheng's brother's house.
We were followed the entire way from start to finish. Then the
Linyi county government answered our request. They said, yes,
you can go see him.
So since they said we could go see him we were trying to
get police protection and an escort for us to go, to go with
us. They said we couldn't take our cameras and they also said
that they wouldn't escort, and that we were crazy, and then
they slapped me very hard in the face.
Of course, there was no protection to speak of. We were
kicked out of the police station. The next day, we met a
Japanese reporter. The political police appeared once again and
jailed us, took our clothes off, took our shoes off. They gave
us full body searches after we were completely naked.
I was working with a Finnish TV station, helping them to
try to cover the situation, on November 5. That was the
smoothest time I had ever had, trying to go and see Chen
Guangcheng. I didn't encounter too many problems, most likely
because we were staying in the big city of Qingdao, which is
very far from Linyi. Also, we had taken out our cell phone
batteries. We had taken precautions. Even though we did that,
the Qingdao police worked through the Laiyang police to
investigate and interrogate me.
Then on December 2, I had arranged, with several other
volunteers, to give out gift bags and balloons with Chen
Guangcheng's picture on them in several major cities in the
province of Shandong. We were in contact with each other to
arrange this.
Our contact itself wasn't detected, but as soon as we began
printing the materials we were detected by technical means, by
the technology of the police, and there was no due process
accorded to us. They searched my house, they beat my husband.
He and I were both detained illegally for 14 days.
For about 10 of those days, we were in our hometown,
Laiyang's 6-10 office, which is part of the Party Cadre School
of the Provincial Party Commission, which is often used to put
away Falun Gong political prisoners, and it was very dirty.
There were four volunteers, though, who kept their
activities up as we had planned, even after my husband and I
had been arrested. They were also detained illegally just
because they insisted on the balloons and the gift bags and
doing it. Their detention also was not one that was done with
any warrant, it was completely illegal.
There were hundreds and hundreds of people who have been to
see Chen Guangcheng and to show their concern for him. I myself
should be considered one of the lucky ones. Everything that
I've encountered is not nearly as violent I'm sure as what a
lot of other people have encountered. What they've encountered
is much more violent than what I've encountered. They've been
beaten terribly, brutally. Their bones have been broken, their
skulls have been broken.
I've even heard the story of a 16-year-old high school kid
who was beaten in his genitals. I myself really just have a lot
of contact with reporters, and I am also a Catholic, so I maybe
am not considered quite as egregious so I'm not subject to
quite as terrible treatment as some of the others.
So you see what happens here when you have a brutal, rogue
regime, these brutal powers that they have and they have no
respect for the law and they're basically stomping on people's
rights and stomping on the laws themselves. Chen Guangcheng and
his family, he and his wife, have suffered much, much, much
more than I have. He himself is known all over the world for
doing what he did, standing up to protect other people's human
rights. Here is this father of two, right now here today, who
is now trying very hard to protect his family. The question is,
what should be done? How should we treat him? What should we
do? We need to show him concrete actions.
Thank you.
Representative Wolf [presiding]. Well, I want to thank the
panel. Congressman Smith just got a call and he'll be back in.
But I want to thank the panel. I wish every Member of Congress
could have been here to hear it.
I have a number of questions, which I will wait to see if
Mr. Smith comes back in. But I have a number of observations
that I wanted to make based on the testimony. One, I personally
want to thank the media. It's very easy, in a political
business, to criticize the media. But if it were not for the
media covering this story, and as the young witness was just
referencing, every time she attempted to visit Chen there was
somebody from the media from some country that was with her. I
just want to thank the media.
Also, I want to make it clear that we appreciate very much
the bravery of the Chinese people. I would hope that they would
know, particularly as a result of this hearing, that the
representatives of the State Department in Beijing do not
represent the viewpoint of the American people. There is a
distinct difference.
The third question I wrote down here: Is there a
representative of the State Department here today? Is there a
representative here? You do not have to identify yourselves.
Will you be getting this information to Secretary Clinton as
soon as you go back? I understand she's in China today and also
tomorrow, is that correct? You will be doing it right after?
Well, I appreciate that very much.
The other thing I would say, as I was sitting there
listening, when I think of the words of Ronald Reagan where he
said the words in the Constitution were a covenant with the
entire world, Congressman Smith and I were in Beijing Prison #1
where a number of the Tiananmen Square demonstrators were. I
think if President Reagan were the President now, what a
difference that would be. I mean, can you imagine what would be
said by President Reagan versus this administration?
Last, then I will have some questions if Mr. Smith doesn't
come back in, I have been here since 1981. I see a direct
parallel with what is taking place today in China and the
unraveling of the Romanian Government, the activities of the
Chinese Government are literally parallel with Ceausescu.
It is like they found Ceausescu's playbook, and they didn't
realize what happened to Ceausescu and they're following his
playbook. It's somewhat similar to what took place with regard
to Russia before it fell.
I wanted to ask Bob Fu the question, or if anyone here can
sort of explain it, can anyone explain the difference between
the comment that I heard on the news yesterday that Chen wanted
to kiss Secretary Clinton if he could versus what he said in
reality? Yes, ma'am. Would you--was that a translation problem
or was that a----
Ms. Cao. I was on Twitter, and Chen Guangcheng had a phone
conversation with one of his closest friends. Her name is Zeng
Jinyan. She is the wife of Hu Jia. Hu Jia is one of the most
prominent dissidents living in Beijing. So, Chen Guangcheng and
the wife of Hu Jia had a conversation, had a call.
Over the phone call, when Zeng Jinyan told Chen Guangcheng
that, ``Oh, we heard in the news that you said you wanted to
kiss Secretary Clinton,'' Chen Guangcheng said, ``No, that's
not what I said. I said I want to meet her.'' So now, in light
of the past event--at the time I just thought, oh, how funny,
how convenient, to make this mistake. I just thought, it's not
something significant.
Now, I also don't want to over-interpret things, but over
the last two days this has run over in my head: kiss and see,
how close the pronunciation is. Did they pretend not to hear
it? I mean, I'm just asking. The Congress can ask the same
question, but Chen Guangcheng told his friend that he didn't
say he wants to kiss Clinton, he wanted to meet Clinton. So
that's what she, this friend, Tweeted on Twitter.
Representative Wolf. Now, was that comment then put out by
Chen or was it put out by the State Department?
Ms. Cao. No. It's--no.
Representative Wolf. The first comment about, he would like
to kiss the Secretary, was that put out by Chen or was that put
out by the State Department?
Ms. Cao. No, that's put out by the State Department and the
media.
Representative Wolf. By the State Department?
Ms. Cao. Yes.
Representative Wolf. Okay.
Ms. Cao. And the Tweets. I can send you the very Tweet that
clarified this confusion.
Representative Wolf. Now, Assistant Secretary Posner called
me yesterday morning and gave me a briefing which sounded so
upbeat and positive and said that he was going to meet with--
that he had gone to the hospital with Chen and he was going to
be with Chen on Thursday and on Friday. Today is Thursday. Does
anyone know if he was with him today? Have you spoken?
Ms. Cao. Who? Who?
Representative Wolf. Assistant Secretary Posner.
Ms. Cao. Oh, Assistant? I have no idea.
Representative Wolf. He said I was with him. Went to the
hospital with him and I would be with him on Thursday and with
him on Friday. Nobody knows?
Ms. Cao. No.
Representative Wolf. Can you help me? Do you think the
environment changed? Apparently I've heard some very positive
things about Ambassador Locke. I was one who opposed Ambassador
Locke's confirmation to the Ambassadorship, and I told him so
and he knew it. But he came up to me later and said, ``I think
you'll be proud of my activity.'' I've heard very positive
things about Ambassador Locke.
Do you think this went south after people came from
Washington, that Ambassador Locke was basically trying to do
the right thing and then when Campbell, who is a member of this
Commission, interestingly enough, and others came out from
Washington it began to go south and go bad?
Does anyone have any feeling about it? Was Locke trying to
do--and Bob Fu might have a better idea. But was Locke trying
to do basically the right thing, and when Washington intervened
it went poorly? Does anybody have any comment about that? Mr.
Horowitz?
Mr. Horowitz. I think that it was just written in the cards
to end the way it did. I want to come back to at least my
judgment, Congressman Wolf, that this end was predictable based
on the sacrifice of bargaining leverage and the absolutely,
inexcusably poor bargaining that took place on Chen
Guangcheng's alleged behalf.
If it turned out that some of the people in the State
Department were pleased at the seeming outcome of their
bargaining efforts--Michael Posner, Ambassador Locke, others--
when at the end of the bargaining all we got was a verbal
agreement and if we indicated to China that we needed to get
the deal wrapped up quickly and sent every signal we did have
such a need, so much more is the pity, so much more must be the
criticism.
There may be cables that indicate whether there was
goodwill, malice, or whatnot on their part, but I come back to
the notion that anybody skilled in serious bargaining could
have predicted the terrible outcome of a negotiation that took
place in the way that it did.
Representative Wolf. Ms. Richardson, you mentioned, and I
thought it was a very positive idea--could you go into a little
more detail about, since Secretaries Clinton and Geithner--
although personally I don't think Geithner is that interested
in human rights and religious freedom--but can you talk about
the merit of both Secretary Clinton and Secretary Geithner
going directly and involving themselves personally, and even
going to the hospital to visit Chen? Can you tell us why you
think that would be important and how that would be helpful? I
think it would be very helpful.
Dr. Richardson. I think it's mostly the immediate
circumstances and the longer term game, so to speak, in the
sense that I think with every hour that goes by when American
officials don't have access to Chen the stakes go up. On your
earlier question, the Washington Post has been reporting for
several hours that American officials haven't had access to him
since they left the hospital.
So I think it's a moment that requires some fairly dramatic
action on the part of the United States to demonstrate the
gravity of the situation and the lengths to which it's willing
to go to try to rectify it.
We and many others have made the point for a long time that
unless and until a much broader spectrum of U.S. Government
officials, even if they don't necessarily ostensibly have a
stake in the human rights fight--and in my world that's a very
short list of people or agencies--that the United States looks
stronger and more coordinated if the broader the group of
diplomats raised these issues. So I think in this particular
moment, when a very visible gesture is likely necessary to get
things back on the rails so to speak, that to have not just
Secretary Clinton and not just Ambassador Locke, who obviously
have been deeply involved in all of this, but to have a broader
cross-section of U.S. Government officials to demonstrate the
depth and the breadth of concern about human rights issues
across the government. It's one way of really making that
point.
We've asked for years that all of the agencies that
participate in the Strategic and Economic Dialogue [S&ED] be
tasked with at least one human rights talking point, partly
because you never know who's sitting on the other side of the
table and might be slightly more receptive to that issue.
But I also think that kind of coordination across the
United States really registers with the Chinese side. It was
not my sense going into this S&ED before the Chen incident
arose--it was once again my sense, I should say, that going
into the fourth S&ED that the United States was any more poised
to demonstrate a broader commitment to human rights than it has
been in the past. So I think this is a great moment to set a
new precedent and have kind of a broader cross-section of
diplomats turn up.
Representative Wolf. So this is a real test for the Obama
administration.
Dr. Richardson. Well, I think a lot depends on what happens
in the next 48 hours or so.
Representative Wolf. I have written every official in the
Obama administration--the State Department--the Trade
Representative comes before and is funded by my subcommittee. I
have asked them to go visit--not to worship, but to visit--a
house church, an underground church, a Catholic church, a
Protestant church, with the Buddhist monks, to visit.
Not one person in the administration, not one person, has
responded and agreed. Ambassador Kirk, who we fund in my
committee, has refused--has refused--to go to any house church
or to visit.
Now, in all fairness, the Bush administration did not visit
either. I wrote all the officials in the Bush administration
and they did not visit. But this administration has failed and
we will furnish for the record the letter that we have sent.
When I get back to my office, we will call the State
Department and ask for Secretary Clinton to go and try to see
Chen directly.
Has the President or the Vice President of the United
States, President Obama or Vice President Biden, who I believe
is trying to develop a special relationship with the Chinese,
have they spoken out? Would it be helpful to have the President
go to the Rose Garden and go to the press office and speak out
forcefully with regard to this issue within the next several
hours? Could anyone tell me? Mr. Horowitz?
[The letter appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Horowitz. I think talk is not going to work anymore.
Yes, I think it would be marginally useful, but I think the
Chinese would interpret that being as for domestic political
consumption only. I think action is very important. I think
there are two things in that regard. One, what Yaxue said about
the Tweets coming out of China saying that our handling of the
Chen case created a sign of U.S. weakness, sent a signal that
the U.S. Embassy was no longer a bastion of hope, a symbol of
resistance.
The ironic part is, and I think you've made the point
Congressman, that that will translate negatively in the
negotiations that Secretary Geithner wants to do. It's all
seamless, as Sophie Richardson has just made clear. If we
project weakness and surrender on human rights, China will
exploit that in every matter with which they deal with us. So I
think that's the problem.
I think the only response--I come back to what I said and
it's something you have labored on, Mr. Wolf, more than any
Member of Congress, but action counts. I think that there may
be other actions, but one that I think is very clear and very
directly related to the protection of all of the people caught
up in this tragedy, is for the United States to openly and
robustly mount a commitment to tear down China's Internet
firewalls so that the kind of censorship that now takes place
where not more than a handful of Chinese, can even type in and
search the word ``Chen.''
Let 20 million, 30 million Chinese type in the word
``Chen'' and get it on their cell phones, and let's make this
happen as we now can do it in a matter of two to three months.
As you well know, Mr. Wolf, that's the response we should make
to the Chen case. It will protect Chen Guangcheng and his
family but it will also send a signal to China that we are not
a weak country and we are not a surrendering country. Just a
speech by the Vice President, that's politics. The Chinese will
understand that and it will not affect them, in my judgment, at
all.
Representative Wolf. In the interest of Mr. Smith, I think
what I'm going to do is to recess the hearing briefly so he can
come back in. Let's just recess for five minutes, if we can.
[Whereupon, at 4:01 p.m.the hearing was briefly recessed.]
after recess [4:06 p.m.]
Chairman Smith [presiding]. The Commission will resume its
sitting.
I just want to apprise everyone that Bob Fu has made
contact with Chen Guangcheng in his hospital room. We just had
an interesting and, I think, enlightening conversation. But
we're going to put him on the speaker.
[Whereupon, Chen Guangcheng joined the hearing via
teleconference and translation was provided by Bob Fu.]
Mr. Chen. I want to make the request to have my freedom of
travel guaranteed. I want to come to the United States for some
time of rest. I have not had any rest in the past 10 years
already. I want to meet with Secretary Clinton and I hope I can
get more help from her. I also want to thank her face to face.
I really fear for my other family members' lives and they
have installed seven video cameras and even an electric fence.
Those security officers in my house basically said they want to
see what else Chen Guangcheng can do. So the thing that I am
most concerned with right now is the safety of my mother, my
brothers, and I really want to know what's going on with them.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Smith. Chen, thank you very much. As I indicated a
moment ago, you have a panel of people who have just testified
on your behalf, all of whom deeply care about you, your family,
as well as those who helped you, including He Peirong, who are
all desperately concerned about her whereabouts and her well-
being, your nephew, and others.
Again, one person who just spoke, Mrs. Wang, spoke about
her efforts to see you and how she was mistreated repeatedly,
including strip searches. I think the word is getting out, and
there are a number of the members of the national and
international press here, that your case is the test, the test
of the Chinese commitment to protect you, which they've given.
We're very dubious about those assurances, but it's also
the test of the United States as to whether or not human rights
really do matter. So your plea that the Secretary of State, who
did not meet with you in the Embassy, go to your hospital room
and meet with you, and you, your family, and your supporters
need to be on a plane coming to the United States for, as you
put it, that rest that you so richly deserve.
And Chen, very quickly before you answer, Christian Bale,
the great actor, called one hour before this hearing to convey
his solidarity and concern for your well-being and that of the
rest of your family.
Mr. Chen. I thank him very much for trying to get to
Shandong to try to visit me. I want to also emphasize that
after I was found missing from Shandong from my home,
immediately my daughter's education opportunity was terminated.
She was not allowed to go to school anymore. So, I do thank all
the villagers who were helping me but who are also receiving
retribution.
I want to thank all of you for your care and for your love.
Chairman Smith. Chen, we are all praying for you and we
will be unceasing in our efforts to secure your freedom.
Mr. Chen. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Fu. Do you have any further questions?
Chairman Smith. No. Thank you.
I want to thank Bob Fu for setting up that phone call. That
just absolutely underscores why we're here and why we will be
unceasing.
If I could go to some final questions. Mr. Wolf, did you
ask your questions?
Representative Wolf. Yes.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Horowitz, if I could begin with you, I
think you made an excellent point about the willingness to
negotiate and to be the last person standing, to so speak. Your
AFL-CIO, I think, analogy was a great one. I actually met with
the Pentecostal Seven in 1982, when they were holed up in the
Russian U.S. Embassy to the Soviet Union in Moscow, and we did
stand steadfastly by them and time was not the issue. So I
thought your point was extraordinarily well taken, if you
wanted to elaborate on that.
My hope is, and I know the press have all left, but I think
it's very important that the President of the United States--I
would appreciate your views on this--speak out from the perch
of the White House, obviously as the leader of the free world.
You know, it's amazing to me that, when asked about Chen
Guangcheng, he said he had no comment.
At the time during the horrible days of apartheid when Lech
Walesa and Nelson Mandela, Vaklav Havel, Aung San Suu Kyi,
Natan Sharansky, if any President, Reagan, Bush, were to be
asked about those tremendous individuals they would launch into
a defense of those brave men--and women, Aung San Suu Kyi--and
yet, no comment from the President. Your thoughts on that, if
you could.
The concern that we all have about the ``hurry up''
offense, ``time,'' as you said, quoting, I think, Mick Jagger,
``is on our side.'' We could have worked this painstakingly
before allowing Chen, whom we just heard from, to leave the
Embassy.
Finally, let me just say when Wei Jingsheng was in Moscow,
another great political leader, father of the democracy wall of
movement in China, I met with him in the early 1990s when the
Chinese wanted Olympics 2000, and he was such a high-value
political prisoner they thought if they just gave him up they
would get the Olympics. When that didn't happen, they re-
arrested him.
But while he was out, I happened to have been in Beijing
and had dinner with him. He made a statement that he repeated
here when he was finally given freedom under a humanitarian
parole scheme that ``you Americans don't understand this, that
when you are weak, vacillating, and kowtowing, they beat us
more in the laogai and in the Gulags. When you are tough, fair,
transparent, you say what you mean and mean what you say, they
beat us less.''
He said right here--he said it to me over dinner in
Beijing, and then he went back to further beatings, sadly, but
then was finally let out. But right here in this very room he
said, ``Why don't you get that? Why don't you understand that
you need to be tough--not unreasonable, but tough? '' He said,
``That message gets right down to the jailers' level and they
beat us,'' because he was beaten for 15 years, as T. Kumar
knows, having been a political prisoner for over 5 years. They
beat for 15 years this man to the point where he almost lost
his life just like Chen Guangcheng.
Your thoughts on that, if you would?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, if I can take--one, you gave the
example of President Bush and President Reagan. I think Mr.
Wolf's point at a prior hearing is very well taken. I would add
Presidents Carter and Clinton. As Mr. Wolf said when the Xi
visit took place, all four of those Presidents would have met
with the wives of some of the political prisoners while this
President, in the name of ``realism,'' has not done so. I think
he doesn't understand the point that Presidents Carter, Reagan,
Clinton, and Bush did.
I think the greatest witness who could be here is George
Schultz, because he constantly tells the story of how the
Russian Ambassador came to him and said, ``You know, I can't do
business with this Reagan. Every time I try and talk about
serious matters he's always talking about Pentecostals and
Refuseniks.'' Schultz then said to the Soviet Ambassador,
``Hey, I have the same problem. He really takes this seriously.
This is what he thinks he's supposed to be doing as President
of the United States.''
To make the point I've always thought critical, Ronald
Reagan was President of the Screen Actors Guild before he
became President. He was President of a union. He really
understood the extraordinary power of human rights issues to
deliver not only on human rights issues, but on every other
issue on the table between the Soviet Union and the United
States. I think that's a critical point.
The second thing is, during the break, Mr. Chairman,
somebody told me what I had not known about what you've called
the so-called ``hurry-up offense'' that took place during the
Chen bargaining. Someone told me that General Counsel, or
Solicitor--I forget the formal title now of the chief lawyer at
the State Department, Harold Koe--was quoted by the Washington
Post when asked, why was this agreement not put in writing
before Chen was released. He said, ``We didn't have time.''
Now, Mr. Chairman, I hope that he will be called as a
witness. This is a man who was dean of the Yale Law School, a
pretty smart lawyer. That is the shallowest justification and
rationalization for throwing Chen to the wolves that I have
ever heard, and it is either malevolent on his part or a sign
of incompetence. If this is true, in my judgment a respectful
request for his immediate resignation is in order. This man, if
this statement is true--and I do not know if it is--but if it
is he has forfeited his right to be the chief lawyer of the
U.S. State Department. Imagine a lawyer making that excuse when
representing an ordinary client. My goodness, he'd get
disbarred for not putting agreements in writing for the routine
sale of goods and services.
Here, Mr. Koe had the well-being of the United States, the
reputation of the United States, and the life and the safety of
this great hero, and did he really say ``we didn't have time''
to reduce the agreement to writing. That is the most rank, if
true, act of malpractice in public life--and I've been general
counsel of a government agency--I believe I have ever
experienced.
So I want to ask you, Mr. Wolf, and you, Mr. Chairman, to
find out whether this is true, whether that quote is true. Get
the Washington Post reporter to find out if it's true, because
if it is, Mr. Koe has, as I say, forfeited his right absolutely
to serve as chief lawyer for the U.S. State Department.
Chairman Smith. Would anybody else like to comment on that?
Ms. Littlejohn. Then the other issue that that raises is,
what was this hard time deadline? What was driving this time
guillotine if it wasn't Secretary Clinton's talks with the
Chinese concerning trade? That raises the further issue of, was
Chen a bargaining chip in all of this?
Mr. Horowitz. I just have to say again, they did it
backward. The fact that the Chinese were on the defensive,
acutely, in advance of this high-level meeting is the reason
why time was on our side, as any bargainer would know, and
throwing away that leverage to ``help'' the Geithner agenda is
itself inexcusably incompetent.
So, I mean, to risk this man's life and future over the
issue of a timetable that was actually working for us and
against the Chinese is just so hard to live with and understand
and accept. Especially when we now hear this man speaking from
his hospital room, all alone, not knowing the fate of his wife,
and with television monitors all over his room.
Chairman Smith. You know, one point Mr. Chen made just a
moment ago in the earlier conversation before we broadcast it,
one of the points he made was that he was so grateful that the
U.S. diplomats were working around the clock and without sleep,
to which I said that can be seen another way. It can be seen
also as, they wanted to get this done, off the table.
As a matter of fact, in her testimony--without objection I
would ask it be made a part of the record--Chai Ling, who is
the head of a group called All Girls Allowed, a Tiananmen
Square hero who was among the most wanted, makes the point
that, ``last week, I and other advocates of freedom in China
watched with joy as Chen Guangcheng made his bid for freedom.''
Then she goes on and says that, ``Now do I want to believe
that they willfully misled Chen into thinking that this was a
possibility,'' talking about his freedom? Then she goes on to
talk about how ``he was a fly to be swatted away before
diplomatic talks ensued.'' Here is someone who, again, has paid
with her freedom and has endured great risks, being very
concerned about this ``hurry-up offense,'' this timetable
issue.
Yes, Mr. Horowitz?
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chai appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Horowitz. Can I make one other point, Mr. Chairman,
about the treatment of Chen Guangcheng? One of the things you
learn as a lawyer dealing with clients--and we're talking about
clients here--I've dealt with clients, Mr. Chairman, who were
facing a criminal charge. They're vulnerable people. They don't
know what's going on. Understanding that is part of your
responsibility to your client.
If you're representing somebody you've got to account for
the fact that their judgment is impaired, that there is terror
here about one's family, about one's self. One doesn't know
what's going on. Again, from all appearances, this time factor,
this hurry-up business, only contributed to the ill-at-ease,
the sense of isolation, the sense of vulnerability of Chen
Guangcheng.
So the first thing you do with a client who is out there,
just terrified that the world's coming to an end and not
knowing what's going on, is tell them, sit down, take it easy,
have a cup of coffee, have a good night's sleep, come back,
talk to me. That, too, is Representation 101 when you're
dealing with someone like Chen and they've gone exactly the
opposite, in the wrong direction in dealing with this man.
Chairman Smith. I understand, Mr. Wolf, you wanted me to
yield?
Representative Wolf. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
let the Commission know that I just spoke to the Secretary's
office. I spoke to a Dan Fogerty and told them that you had
been in conversation with Chen, and that he had made an
official request that the Secretary visit him in the hospital.
I asked Mr. Fogerty, if he would get that word to the Secretary
immediately and he said he would.
Chairman Smith. I thank you, Mr. Wolf.
Let me ask, Ms. Wang, you've only been here in the United
States for about a month. I think we need to underscore, you
personally--I am not sure how many times, but several times--
undertook trips to visit with Chen Guangcheng. You talked about
the body searches and the degrading treatment that you endured.
I think the American public and the world, the Western
world, frankly, and all people, need to be fully aware of just
how vulnerable everybody else is who have aided and assisted
Chen, which is all the more reason why, as Reggie Littlejohn
underscored with exclamation points, He Peirong, why her
particular case is so important. If you could just elaborate on
what others might face, because we're very worried about you.
Yes? Before you go, Mr. Horowitz.
Mr. Horowitz. Just one thing. Somebody just passed this to
me, Mr. Chairman, and I feel like I ought to read it. Again, I
am told that there is a news story in the Washington Post or in
one of the major papers quoting a U.S. official as explaining
that U.S. officials ``had to leave Chen alone and leave the
hospital because hospital officials told them that visiting
hours were over.''
Now, once again, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wolf, in your
examination of State Department officials, I hope that that,
too, will be high up on the list--and that that official who
said it, and any official who justified it, should have to sit
here at this witness table and justify conduct of that kind and
talk about leaving a man alone and vulnerable, and being
certain that that would be the outcome, because some guy tells
them the visiting hours are over and you've got to go, and they
leave Chen alone in the hands of the security police with all
of the TV camera monitors that have been installed.
Excuse me for intervening, but I just got this message. If
this is true, it's something that I hope this commission will
investigate and just put any official responsible for it, if it
is true--on the witness stand.
Chairman Smith. Well, the concern too, Mr. Horowitz, that
the visiting hours, at least now, seem to be permanently over.
Chen indicated to us that the Embassy has been unable to get
back in to his room to visit with him, to ascertain his well-
being. So, the talk of a durable solution is that he would be
safe in China, there is no safety for any dissident in China.
It just doesn't exist, especially with a man that----
Mr. Horowitz. But the point is, they were there. It's a lot
harder to get into a room after you've been kicked out of the
room, but it's pretty darned hard for the Chinese to forcibly
eject an American official who firmly says, this man is my
responsibility. We gave the honor and the full faith and credit
of the United States to see that he would be and feel
protected, and I'm not leaving this room. Why didn't they say
that, Mr. Chairman, is the relevant question.
Chairman Smith. I appreciate that, Mr. Horowitz. You know,
hospital or police station, it seems to me it's a distinction
without a difference because the hospital is crawling with
police.
Ms. Wang, did you want to answer that question? Again, I
think it's under-appreciated, perhaps by some, the risks that
you personally undertook, coupled with the risks that you carry
today.
Ms. Wang. As a supporter of Chen Guangcheng, I can tell you
that there are people from all walks of life, from all
industries and professions that support him. A lot of people
actually have faced greater risks and have faced greater danger
in doing this than I have myself, for instance, government
workers, people who work for government enterprises or other
types of companies. Some of them, as a result, their families
have been talked to, their families have been harassed, and
also the government comes and checks their books and gets them
on economic crimes, financial crimes.
Then you get some teenagers, 16- and 17-year-olds who were
curious and went to see Chen Guangcheng for that very reason.
As a result, the authorities went and tried to talk a lot to
their parents and harassed their parents. The kids were beaten.
The parents couldn't understand what was possibly going on, but
there was a lot of emotional damage done to the kids as a
result of that.
I myself am married, so my personal life hasn't been dealt
with in such an exaggerated manner as others. For instance, you
mentioned He Peirong. She is not married. If she had
boyfriends, let's say, there would be a lot of personal attacks
on her personal life. That has also been taking quite an
emotional toll on her.
And then there are a lot of supporters who have various
types of, let's say, equipment or things that they use in the
process of trying to show their support for Chen Guangcheng,
like any equipment involved or any money that they spent in
their efforts, the authorities basically just confiscate them.
They take them. They've taken their assets. I haven't gone to
verify, but I do know of cases where, for instance, cameras and
other equipment that would have been used to document it have
been taken away or confiscated.
A lot of us have tried so hard and put so much effort into
all of this, so if what we are looking at today is what it has
all come to, I think I am not resigned to this. It's something
that I can't accept. I really hope that the media from all over
the world will stand up and rise and be tough in the face of
what they're facing.
I think he needs his freedom and we owe him this. We've
done so much. If we've done all of this for nothing it would be
as if we had done it in vain. What we want to know is that it
wasn't in vain, it wasn't for nothing, it was worth it. We want
him to be doing much better.
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Are there any comments that our
distinguished witnesses would like to make? Yes, please.
Ms. Cao. One of the good things the supporters have done,
the supporters inside China who visited or did something
concrete, is that they quickly write accounts of their
experiences and post them online, although very quickly, just
as quickly, it would be deleted. But still, there have been
dedicated groups who pass on the messages as quickly as
possible, and then within minutes it will be re-posted
thousands of times, that sort of thing.
So from that, I particularly want to point out two
occasions that left a deep impression on me, is that of two
reporters who were employed by the Chinese state-owned media
until they tried to visit Chen Guangcheng, or did something.
One of the people's name was Shi Yu. He was a Xinhua News
Agency's regional reporter based in Hunan province in the
midland of China.
He went to visit Chen Guangcheng as a private person, of
course not representing his organization, and he was, just like
many others, robbed, his money taken away, his cell phone taken
away, he was beaten badly. He had a detailed account of how he
was sacked with a black cloth and pulled into a van, and
several people beat his head, his body, all over. Then they
threw him out in the open and he managed to come back and write
this. As soon as he returned, his organization fired him.
There is another reporter. Now it just occurred to me it
didn't happen because of Chen Guangcheng, it happened because
of Ai Weiwei. Let me just quickly recount it. He is a reporter
with the Global Times, English version. His name is Wen Tao,
Tommy Wen. He had the guts to run a report in Global Times, a
very tough paper, on Ai Weiwei's disappearance and then he,
himself, was disappeared. This reporter was disappeared for 80-
plus days. Eighty-plus days without his family knowing where he
was, those sorts of things.
Chairman Smith. Thank you.
Would any of you like to conclude with any final comment?
[No response].
Chairman Smith. Okay. Mr. Wolf?
Representative Wolf. No.
Chairman Smith. I want to thank you again for sharing your
extensive expertise, passion for human rights, and deep concern
for Chen Guangcheng and his wife Yuan, and family at today's
hearing.
We will continue this effort. I am going to reapply for
another visa, which has been turned down since October. I would
love to meet with him and his family, but most importantly to
hold the administration to account for what they may or may not
have done. I think some of the questions posed by all of you
and by Bob Fu need to be answered, and I think we need to
take--and I say this to the press--with a grain of salt when he
gushes with gratitude for efforts made on his behalf, I believe
we have dropped the ball significantly.
I've been in this business of human rights work for 32
years. I broke my eye teeth on the Soviet Jewry issue. My first
trip was to Moscow and Leningrad in 1982. As I mentioned
earlier to Mr. Horowitz, in response to his mentioning of the
Siberian Seven, the Pentecostal Christians, we met with them
and we stood firmly, clearly, unambiguously with those who were
espousing freedom and democracy and said we are in solidarity
with you.
In the case of Soviet Jewry, we risked super-power
confrontation by linking most-favored-nation status, the
Jackson-Vanik amendment, with the release and freedom of Soviet
Jews who were being horribly treated by Moscow. We need that
same kind of fire in the belly for human rights at the White
House. I still find it appalling that President Obama had no
comment when speaking about Chen Guangcheng.
He should have gushed about this brave leader's, and
equally his wife's, commitment to combating the most horrific
crime on the face of the Earth, forced abortion and forced
sterilization, carried out routinely by China. We should stand
with Chen and not look to facilitate his loss of freedom, which
it appears to be.
Here are good people who have tried within the
administration, I am sure, to find a way out, but the time line
issue remains a very troubling issue. This should have been the
topic--not even a topic, but the topic--at the dialogue.
What's the use of having a dialogue on strategic and
economic issues if you're not going to link human rights with
it and say, why should we trust you in intellectual property
rights, copyright infringement and the like, if you so maltreat
your own people? Chen is a hero. This Commission will stay
focused on him and we will not rest until he and his family and
great friends like He Peirong are free.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon at 4:40 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Submissions for the Record
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Written Statement of Chai Ling, President & Founder of All Girls
Allowed
In Jesus' Name, Simply Love Her
may 3, 2012
Chairman Smith and Ranking Members of Congress, I thank you for
granting me the opportunity to share my written testimony on the
subject of Chen Guangcheng's escape to and departure from the US
Embassy in Beijing. I also thank Chairman Smith and Paul Protic for
bravely trying to go to China to help Chen.
I have long admired Secretary Hilary Clinton as a female world
leader. She inspired a whole generation--myself included--at the UN
Women's Conference in 1995 when she declared that ``women's rights are
human rights.'' She spoke those oft-quoted words in Beijing years ago,
but what happened to Chen Guangcheng under her watch in Beijing
yesterday was a betrayal of these very same rights she vowed to uphold.
This is because Chen Guangcheng is not just a ``dissident.'' In
fact, he did not even advocate against the central government. He is a
folk hero in China, a defender of women, children, and the poor. Chen
has worked tirelessly on behalf of women who face forced abortion and
sterilization at the hands of the officials who should be protecting
their citizens' rights.
Words simply cannot express Chen's value as a human rights
advocate. He is fighting one of the most brutal state-sanctioned human
rights abuses in the world.
As a self-taught lawyer, he became troubled at the plight of young
women in his province of Shandong. Under the One-Child Policy, women
are regularly subjected to invasive ``pregnancy checks,'' and officials
brutalize them if they try to refuse. If they become pregnant, they are
forced to undergo abortions, even very late in their terms--and many
are sterilized under threat. The numbers are sobering:
400 million babies have been forcibly aborted or
killed after birth.
Because of the One-Child Policy and a cultural
preference for males, one out of every six girls is aborted,
killed, or abandoned.
There are now nearly 40 million ``missing'' women.
Sex trafficking and crime are skyrocketing in China in
conjunction with the bachelor boom. Women are increasingly
commoditized, with traffickers selling girls to families as
child brides.
These social trends impact women in alarming ways:
suicide is the leading cause of death for young women in China,
and China is the only country in the world where female suicide
rates outstrip those of males. 500 women kill themselves every
day--that's one every three seconds.
This is the evil that Chen was fighting. Please pause and think
about that for a moment. Pray for this incredibly brave man.
In 2005, Chen investigated the methods of the One-Child Policy
enforcers in his region, and he found that 7,000 women had undergone
forced abortion is his area alone. He filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of 130,000 women who suffered forced abortions and
sterilizations. Retaliation came swiftly: the government imprisoned
Chen for four years for ``obstructing traffic,'' and kept him under
lockdown in his own home since his 2010 release. There, a pack of
guards continually harassed Chen and his wife along with their six-
year-old daughter.
Last week, I and other advocates of freedom in China watched with
joy as Chen Guangcheng made his bid for freedom. Truth mirrored art in
his escape, which played out like The Shawshank Redemption. (Chinese
web censors even placed ``Shawshank'' on their list of banned search
terms.) The blind lawyer scaled a wall, crossed a river, and evaded
eight rings of vigilant guards to break free. He then traveled on foot
through fields for twenty hours before meeting activist He Peirong at a
pre-arranged location. She and others risked their lives to take him to
the US Embassy in Beijing, where they knew he would find freedom.
But we let them down. Shamefully, US officials encouraged Chen to
leave the Embassy and stay in China, in accordance with the Chinese
government's request. He left the Embassy yesterday morning under
duress after being told that the Chinese authorities were going to take
his wife and children back to Shandong and remove the possibility of
reunification. The US denied that any coercion took place--but if this
is not coercion, then what is? What has become of the American
Government? Is it a mere enabler of the Chinese officials' brutal
treatment of Chen, plus the millions of women and children he defended?
US Embassy staff assured Chen they would stay with him at the
hospital to ensure his safety, but left him without protest after the
Chinese told them ``visiting hours'' had ended. They also failed to get
a written version of the agreement they reached with the Chinese
negotiators, an elementary error that could have disastrous
consequences. They should have known better, having been given the
authority to represent America. How could anyone not see the necessity
of a written statement? And how could they ignore the fate of the
activists who helped Chen escape? Many of them have been jailed since
Friday.
Now Chen's wife is reporting that the family is in grave danger. He
is under surveillance and American officials have reportedly been
barred from visiting him.
I do not believe that Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Locke were
simply naive, that they thought China would honor its word and allow
Chen to live in freedom and safety. Nor do I want to believe that they
willfully misled Chen into thinking this was a possibility. Freedom for
human rights activists within China is not a reality, and I can only
conclude that the current administration viewed Chen Guangcheng as a
distraction that needed to be dealt with quickly--he was just a fly to
be swatted away before diplomatic talks began. But this ``fly'' they
swatted is a hero to everyone in China who values freedom and admires
the United States' commitment to humanity. With sadness, I can tell you
that the network of activists that watched this week with baited breath
is now demoralized and hopeless.
I will not mince my words: this was an unqualified disaster. It was
a disaster for the Obama administration, for the America we love, and
for those in China who pray for freedom. If there is any way to turn
this around, we must. And I call upon you, Honorable Members of
Congress, to try.
I still pray. I have hope. Please join me in praying for Chen, his
family, and the courageous people who brought him to the US Embassy.
For while I am disappointed with the administration, my hope lies in
the faithful and loving God:
He upholds the cause of the oppressed
and gives food to the hungry.
The LORD sets prisoners free,
the LORD gives sight to the blind,
the LORD lifts up those who bowed down,
the LORD loves the righteous.
The LORD watches over the alien
and sustains the fatherless and the widow.
--Psalm 146: 7-9 NIV
Please join me in prayer, for I believe God will bring Chen and his
friends and family to freedom. And He is patient with all of us. He
gives us the chance to be modern Esthers and Mordecais, bravely
confronting oppression to join in His glory. Let us not miss this
opportunity again!
In Jesus' name, I pray. Amen.
Chai Ling is the founder of All Girls Allowed, a humanitarian
organization inspired by the love of Jesus to restore life, value and
dignity to girls and mothers in China and to reveal the injustice of
the One-Child Policy.