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
·我们不能坐等美好的社会到来
·律师:维权人士胡佳将受到起诉
·胡佳被捕 顯示中國要在奧運之前大清場
·人权的价值与正义的利益
·抓捕胡佳意味着什么?
·关于《奥运前的中国真相》一文的说明——声援胡佳之一
·邮箱作废声明
·关于审查和改变《互联网视听节目服务管理规定》部分不适当条款的建议
·胡佳的大爱与大勇
·后极权时代的公民美德与公民责任
·狱中致爱人
·奥运和乞丐不能并存?
·滕彪李苏滨关于青岛于建利涉嫌诽谤罪案的辩护意见
·纽约时报社评:中国的爱国小将们
·回网友四书
·我们都来关注滕彪博士/王天成
·暴力带不来和平,恐怖建不成和谐——就滕彪、李和平事件感言/王德邦
·让滕彪回家、追究国保撞车肇事的法律责任、还被监控公民自由/维权网
·刘晓波:黑暗权力的颠狂——有感于滕彪被绑架
·Article 37 of the PRC Law on Lawyers: A New Trap Set for Lawyers
·Chinese lawyer missing after criticising human rights record
·Chinese Lawyer Says He Was Detained and Warned on Activism
·For Chinese activists, stakes are raised ahead of the Olympics
·To my wife, from jail/Teng Biao
·Beijing Suspends Licenses of 2 Lawyers Who Offered to Defend Tibetans in Court
·National Endowment for Democracy 2008 Democracy Awards
·获奖感言
·司法与民意——镜城突围
·Rewards and risks of a career in the legal system
·太离谱的现实感
·35个网评员对“这鸡蛋真难吃”的不同回答(转载加编辑加原创)
·Dissonance Strikes A Chord
·顺应历史潮流 实现律协直选——致全体北京律师、市司法局、市律协的呼吁
·但愿程序正义从杨佳案开始/滕彪 许志永
·维权的计算及其他
·我们对北京律协“严正声明”的回应
·网络言论自由讨论会会议纪要(上)
·网络言论自由讨论会会议纪要(下)
·Well-Known Human Rights Advocate Teng Biao Is Not Afraid
·法眼冷对三鹿门
·北京律师为自己维权风暴/亚洲周刊
·胡佳若获诺贝尔奖将推动中国人权/voa
·奥运后的中国人权
·Chinese Activist Wins Rights Prize
·我无法放弃——记一次“绑架”
·认真对待出国权
·毒奶粉:谁的危机?
·不要制造聂树斌——甘锦华抢劫案的当庭辩护词
·“独立知识分子”滕彪/刘溜
·经济观察报专访/滕彪:让我们不再恐惧
·人权:从理念到制度——纪念《世界人权宣言》60周年
·公民月刊:每一个人都可能是历史的转折点
·抵制央视、拒绝洗脑
·公民在行动
·Charter of Democracy
·阳光茅老
·中国“黑监狱”情况让人担忧/路透社
·《关于取缔黑监狱的建议》
·用法律武器保护家园——青岛市河西村民拆迁诉讼代理词
·关于改革看守所体制及审前羁押制度的公民建议书
·仅仅因为他们说了真话
·再审甘锦华 生死仍成谜
·邓玉娇是不是“女杨佳”?
·星星——为六四而作
·I Cannot Give Up: Record of a "Kidnapping"
·Political Legitimacy and Charter 08
·六四短信
·倡议“5•10”作为“公民正当防卫日”
·谁是敌人——回"新浪网友"
·为逯军喝彩
·赠晓波
·正义的运动场——邓玉娇案二人谈
·这六年,公盟做了什么?
·公盟不死
·我们不怕/Elena Milashina
·The Law On Trial In China
·自由有多重要,翻墙就有多重要
·你也会被警察带走吗
·Lawyer’s Detention Shakes China’s Rights Movement
·我来推推推
·许志永年表
·庄璐小妹妹快回家吧
·开江县法院随意剥夺公民的辩护权
·Summary Biography of Xu Zhiyong
·三著名行政法学家关于“公盟取缔事件”法律意见书
·公益诉讼“抑郁症”/《中国新闻周刊》
·在中石化上访
·《零八宪章》与政治正当性问题
·我来推推推(之二)
·我来推推推(之三)
·國慶有感
·我来推推推(之四)
·国庆的故事(系列之一)
·国庆的故事(系列之二)
·
·我来推推推(之五)
·我来推推推(之六)
·净空(小说)
·作为反抗的记忆——《不虚此行——北京劳教调遣处纪实》序
·twitter直播-承德冤案申诉行动
·我来推推推(之七)
[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