滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[the Comfort of Self-Censorship ]
滕彪文集
·Striking a blow for freedom
·滕彪:维权、微博与围观:维权运动的线上与线下(上)
·滕彪:维权、微博与围观:维权运动的线上与线下(下)
·达赖喇嘛与中国国内人士视频会面问答全文
·台灣法庭初體驗-專訪滕彪
·滕彪:中国政治需要死刑作伴
·一个反动分子的自白
·强烈要求释放丁红芬等公民、立即取缔黑监狱的呼吁书
·The Confessions of a Reactionary
·浦志强 滕彪: 王天成诉周叶中案代理词
·选择维权是一种必然/德国之声
·A courageous Chinese lawyer urges his country to follow its own laws
·警方建议起诉许志永,意见书似“公民范本”
·对《集会游行示威法》提起违宪审查的公开建议书
·对《集会游行示威法》提起违宪审查的公开建议书
·滕彪访谈录:在“反动”的道路上越走越远
·因家暴杀夫被核准死刑 学界联名呼吁“刀下留人”
·川妇因反抗家暴面临死刑 各界紧急呼吁刀下留人
·Activist’s Death Questioned as U.N. Considers Chinese Rights Report
·Tales of an unjust justice
·打虎不是反腐
·What Is a “Legal Education Center” in China
·曹雅学:谁是许志永—— 与滕彪博士的访谈
·高层有人倒行逆施 民间却在不断成长
·让我们记住作恶的法官
·China’s growing human rights movement can claim many accomplishments
·總有一種花將會開遍中華大地/郭宏治
·不要忘记为争取​自由而失去自由的人们
·Testimony at CECC Hearing on China’s Crackdown on Rights Advocates
·Tiananmen at 25: China's next revolution may already be underway
·宗教自由普度共识
·"Purdue Consensus on Religious Freedom"
·Beijing urged to respect religious freedom amid ‘anti-church’ crackd
·“中共难容宗教对意识形态的消解”
·非常规威慑
·许志永自由中国公民梦不碎
·滕彪维园演讲
·Speech during the June 4th Vigil in Victoria Park in Hong Kong
·坦克辗压下的中国
·呂秉權﹕滕彪赤子心「死諫」香港
·【林忌评论】大陆没民主 香港没普选?
·曾志豪:滕彪都站出來,你呢?
·June 2014: Remembering Tiananmen: The View from Hong Kong
·The Strength to Save Oneself
·讓北京知道 要甚麼樣的未來/苹果日报
·否認屠殺的言論自由?
·Beyond Stability Maintenance-From Surveillance to Elimination/Teng bia
·从稳控模式到扫荡模式
·為自由,免於恐懼越絕壑——記滕彪談中國維權路
·就律协点名维权律师“无照”执业 滕彪答德国之声记者问
·法官如何爱国?
·滕彪给全国律协的公开信
·郑州十君子公民声援团募款倡议书
·Politics of the Death Penalty in China
·What sustains Chinese truth-tellers
·在人权灾难面前不应沉默
·From Stability Maintenance to Wiping Out/Teng biao
·自由不是一個禮物,而是一個任務
·抱薪救火的严打政策
·习近平要回到文革吗?
·中国宪法的结构性缺陷
·25 years later, Tiananmen cause is still costly
·A Chinese activist: Out of prison but not free
·中国人权有进步吗?
·Activist lawyer vows to keep fighting for human rights
·高智晟:走出监狱却没有自由
·VOA时事大家谈:维权/维稳
·和平香港行動呼籲
·沉默的吶喊
·Head Off a Tiananmen Massacre in Hong Kong/Yang jianli,Teng Biao,Hu ji
·滕彪被中国政法大学除名 因参与新公民运动
· Ilham Tohti should get the Nobel peace prize, not life in prison
·受难的伊力哈木
·香港人不会接受一个假选举
· Chinese activist scholar Teng Biao on how Occupy Central affects main
·大陆法律人关于支持港人真普选和释放大陆声援公民的声明
·« Révolution des parapluies » contre Pékin / Teng biao
·We Stand With You
·从占领中环到伞花革命
·不可承受的革命之重
·中国维权运动的历史和现状
·Don’t Get Too Excited About the Investigation of Zhou Yongkang
·Sensing subversion, China throws the book at kids' libraries
·China’s Unstoppable Lawyers: An Interview With Teng Biao
·专访滕彪:中国那些百折不回的律师们/纽约书评
·法治還是匪治
·努力实现匪治
·Hongkong: the Unbearable Weight of the Revolution
·Courts are told what decision to make in important cases
·RISKY BUSINESS fighting for Human Rights in China
·藏族、維吾爾族、南(内)蒙古族以及漢族活動人士的聯合聲明
·A STATEMENT OF SOLIDARITY FROM A TIBETAN, UYGHUR, SOUTHERN MONGOLIAN,
·The Supremacy of the Constitution, and Freedom of Religion
·如果有人倾听你对 昨夜梦境的复述(诗四首)
·China’s Empty Promise of Rule by Law
·Sensing subversion, China throws the book at kids' libraries
·VOA时事大家谈:中国司法不独立,如何进行司法改革?
·VOA时事大家谈:通奸女官员被“游街”:罪有应得还是侵犯人权?
·滕彪:中共“依法治国”的画皮
·What will this crackdown on activists do to China’s nascent civil soc
·浦志强、滕彪:李保华诉周国平名誉权纠纷案代理词
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
the Comfort of Self-Censorship


   By Teng Biao
   
   In December 2014 I was invited by the American Bar Association (ABA) to write a manuscript for a book to be titled “Darkness Before Dawn.” In it, I would describe the decade I spent engaged in human rights work in China, and what those experiences illustrate about the country’s politics, judicial system, society, and future.
   

   But the formal contract with the ABA was soon rescinded. The reason, I was told by the employee in charge of commissioning it, was because they were afraid to anger the Chinese government.
   
   When “Chinese politics” is mentioned, most think of the factional struggles forever roiling Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of the Communist Party. But this is only part of the picture. The stories I’ve long sought to tell are otherwise: about the activists given heavy prison sentences for forming opposition political parties; about the human rights lawyers who’ve represented persecuted Christians, Falun Gong practitioners, Tibetans, and Uyghurs; about the rights defenders whose dogged activism helped to abolish the labor camp system. And then there are those who’ve worked against the one child birth control policy, forced demolitions, judicial misconduct, and environmental pollution, as well as the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who’ve promoted democratic ideals, defended free speech, and pushed for greater gender equality.
   
   I’m one of their number: for my activism I’ve had my studies interrupted, been forced out of a job, had my passport confiscated, been disbarred from practicing law, and have even been jailed and tortured. All of us engaged in this work have paid an enormous price—but we’ve made progress. No understanding of contemporary China is complete without a thorough grasp of this community of Chinese activists. They’re the country’s hope for the future.
   
   These were the ideas animating the manuscript proposal that was at first enthusiastically received by the ABA. It promised to be “an important and groundbreaking book,” my correspondent said. But the formal publishing contract we signed was soon reneged upon, with this explanation: “There is concern that we run the risk of upsetting the Chinese government by publishing your book, and because we have ABA commissions working in China there is fear that we would put them and their work at risk.”
   
   I don’t want to single out the ABA. This is simply the latest example of the corrosive influence of the Chinese Communist Party on the West. It’s a crowded field: There are the Confucius Institutes and the Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars, both under the control of the Chinese government as they erode academic freedom on campuses in the United States. There’s Yahoo, who provided China’s public security forces with the personal information of Chinese political dissidents so authorities could arrest, jail and torture them. Facebook is flirting with the China market. And Twitter just hired a former Chinese military and security apparatchik to head their operations in China. “Red capital” has flooded the media markets in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and some Western journalists have been forced out of China or denied visas. Books have had key passages deemed sensitive deleted. And many Western scholars of China practice self-censorship—for perfectly understandable reasons: if their conclusions on a “sensitive” political topic anger the regime, they won’t get a visa, and their prestige, position, and funding will be jeopardized.
   
   The ABA is just one of the many major Western institutions attempting to promote change in China—on the Communist Party’s terms. Alongside the ABA’s Rule of Law Initiative, there’s the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue, the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue, training programs for Chinese judges, prosecutors, and police, and exchange programs with universities and the official lawyers’ associations. These organizations want their programs to be effective—and so they carefully avoid a great many issues that might endanger their success. The list is long: the persecution of Falun Gong, the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, the Party’s policies in Tibet and Xinjiang, dissidents, “radical” human rights lawyers, and street activists. There is a constant guessing game about which way the political winds in Beijing are blowing. And so without realizing it, Western institutions end up helping the Chinese government to silence the individuals and groups it finds the most troublesome. Self-censorship has become instinctive, and now characterizes the very basis of their interactions with the regime.
   
   This has resulted in an unintended, and bitterly ironic consequence. Nearly all the major program funding has ended up in the pockets of government departments, Government-Organized Nongovernmental Organizations (GONGOs), and scholars with state ties. Resources meant to support the rule of law and human rights have made their way into the hands of those whose job it is trample upon human rights: courts, Procuratorates, public security departments, the official lawyers association, and Party-affiliated mass organizations like the All-China Women’s Federation.
   
   Americans here are guilty of the classic error of mirror-imaging: projecting onto China what is familiar to them. The American Bar Association might imagine, for instance, that the All China Lawyers Association is their professional counterpart. This would be a deep misunderstanding. My book discusses the extensive efforts by rights defense lawyers in Beijing to lobby for free elections for key positions in the All China Lawyers Association, and how the attempts were shut down and those engaged in them punished. The Association, and all law societies in China, are simply part of the government’s apparatus of control: it has disbarred numerous rights lawyers on the orders of the Party, and has been a proactive accomplice in drafting policies that prevent lawyers from taking on political cases. Helping these GONGOs is worse than doing nothing.
   
   The same can be said for the training programs directed at police, judges, and prosecutors: Western organizations are inclined to think that miscarriages of justice must simply be a matter of insufficient professional training. Wrong again. The primary reason for abuses of justice in China is because the judicial system is an instrument of Party control, where political cadres directly and arbitrarily interfere in legal cases.
   
   Foreign organizations are thus limited to working in the apolitical safe zones the regime tacitly permits. These include, for instance, environmental protection, better treatment for handicapped people, women’s rights, HIV/AIDS, and education. Even in these sectors though, they’re still treated as “hostile foreign forces.” In the past few years, in particular, the regime’s realm of permissiveness has rapidly constricted. And so we see that attempts to please the Communist Party with mild-mannered human rights promotion haven’t brought about any concessions on the part of the authorities. The soon-to-be-passed Foreign NGO Management Law will further narrow the space in which these organizations can operate.
   
   Rule of law and human rights dialogues, meanwhile, have mostly become a means for the Party to deflect substantive demands to change its human rights practices. Dialogues end with vague remarks about the importance of dialogue and understanding and the ongoing nature of the reform process. Yet rights defenders and journalists are arrested in still greater numbers. Torture, forced disappearances, detention in black jails, and religious persecution haven’t decreased. When the Chinese activist Cao Shunli attempted to participate in the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review, she was tortured to death. Other recent prominent cases include that of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, a Tibetan monk, who died in jail in July 2015, and Ilham Tohti, a moderate Uyghur scholar, who was sentenced to life imprisonment last year. Both were peaceful activists. And then there is Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo, who is still serving his 11 year sentence in prison.

[下一页]
blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场