滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[Leaked Email: ABA Cancels Book for Fear of ‘Upsetting the Chinese Gov]
滕彪文集
·Censorship is closing China's young minds
·江天勇李文足連線台北 感謝關注中國律師處境
·臺律師人權界聲援為法輪功辯護六律師
·「綏靖政策」與「惠台政策」的反思
·第三屆中國人權律師節 唐荊陵獲獎
·第二届中国人权律师奖颁奖辞
·「709事件」四週年 中國法治嚴重滑坡
·709四周年:中国法治恶化 香港反弹
· 709大抓捕对维权律师是一个“清洗”
·"Alle sind vorsichtiger geworden"
·中共用校園“七不講”窒息年輕人
·【30張影像、30個故事 — 六四30週年座談會】
·中共的网络主权论与世界人权宣言
·中共指使黑帮祸害香港
·外國企業在中國助紂為虐應充分重視
·新疆模式扩大 粤公安采集「口水样本」 监控时代 2.0来临
·Guangdong Police Take Saliva Samples Amid Fears of Nationwide DNA Prog
·人权活动家接受自由之家采访 见证法轮功反迫害20年历程
·香港下一步 可能從打人變成打死人
·追寻高智晟
·“The Bravest Lawyer in China” – Gao Zhisheng
·L’AVOCAT LE PLUS COURAGEUX DE CHINE
·人權律師建議 以2022北京冬奧向中共施壓
·反送中與六四
·大陆网军抹黑香港示威者 推特和脸书暂停大量中国帐号
·"Ce totalitarisme high tech est sans précédent"
·Disparitions forcées en Chine : un système rodé et institutionnalis
·Disappearing in China
·中共或採取化整為零的屠殺方式嚇退香港抗爭者
·Cambridge Forum 911
· ‘I thought they might kill me’
·China: Arrests, Disappearances Require International Response/HRW
·报道香港抗议持「中共立场」 中国环球电视网遭英监管机构调查
·"El régimen dictatorial de China no durará mucho más"
·The West needs 'collective action' to push China on human rights: expe
·在茉莉花电视谈 “中国国难与香港抗争”
·禁蒙面法会不会让暴力升级?“一国一制”正在悄然实行?
·香港危局破解 中国高科技极权主义
·Decoding the cracks in the Chinese model
·大陆民族情绪泛滥 《灌篮高手》作者挺港运遭网民封杀/RFA
·中共有关香港抗议的宣传战略及局限
·国庆还是国难
·關於香港事態的緊急聲明
·香港运动延烧 大陆人发声为何那么难?
·Newts World: China's rule
·伊力哈木 - 无法祝贺的生日与萨哈罗夫奖
·Tiananmen Massacre, the China Model and the formation of China’s Hig
·茉莉:专制下的“黑色花卉”
·比利时一孔子学院院长涉间谍行为 被禁进入比利时和申根区
·Broken Harmony: China’s Dissidents
·香港廢青與中國小粉紅
·柏林墙的倒塌与“信息柏林墙”的建立
·Panopticism with Chinese Characteristics
·当今中国禁忌话题:猪瘟、猪头、习近平领导能力/VOA
·哥大取消中国人权研讨会
·FREE SPEECH IN AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES UNDER ATTACK FROM BEIJING
·懼於中國「粉紅軍團」威脅抗議 哥倫比亞大學取消講座
·Columbia U. cancels panel on Communist China’s human rights violation
·Columbia U. Canceled an Event on Chinese Human-Rights Violations. Orga
·人大怒斥香港高院 司法还能独立吗?/VOA
·Why did Columbia cancel Chinese rights violations event?
·The Pros and Cons of US Universities Operating Campuses and Centers in
·中国打组合拳反制美国 美国NGO躺枪
·美国大学生指控「抖音」海外版 窃取用户数据并传回中国
·国际人权日:不放弃的香港青年示威者
· Ilham Tohti's Sakhrov Prize 2019
· 中共为什么要举办世界律师大会
·“世界律师大会”:对法律与人权的嘲讽
·台湾大选是对中国政府的公投?
·瑞典国会议员要求将中国驻瑞典大使桂从友驱逐出境
·A New Online Game Allows Players to Attack Hong Kong’s Protestors
·花千芳为母维权引群嘲 中共养老金无底洞再聚焦
·大陆被指干预「台湾总统大选」 背后支持台商投票「机票补贴」
·桂从友大使又口舌招尤  瑞典再掀驱逐浪潮
·中國海外人士觀選團來台 爆拜訪韓國瑜陣營被拒絕
·民主已深入生活 憂兩岸敵意變深
·中國維權運動這條路 三博士三款命
·“假孔子之名”放映 高市议员正视红色渗透
·消失第七天 习近平去哪儿了?
·35美国议员狙击中共「大外宣」 要求司法部调查《中国日报》
·大数据监控疫情 未来维稳大操练?/VOA
·美国司法部再诉华为及孟晚舟 偷窍技术及协助独裁国家实施监控
·61国际学者致习近平公开信  劝还「言论自由」于民
·中共借抗击疫情强化对社会的全面监控
·疫情過後 中國異議人士處境將更艱難
·China's 10-year sentence for Hong Kong bookseller 'extremely brutal'
·许志永因劝习退位被以“煽颠”罪秘密拘押
·China activist who called Xi clueless on coronavirus faces years in ja
·武汉肺炎与治理失灵
·中国奇迹与治理溃败
·Teng Biao Examines Human Rights In China
·Biao Teng on China Human Rights Movements
·中聯部發言人首條推文宣揚「人類健康共同體」 開局不利成大外宣「翻車現場
·江苏辽宁取缔三百多家三自及家庭教会/RFA
·Uncover Beijing’s Coronavirus Agenda
·World paying heavy price for China’s ‘repressive rule’,
·中國滲透聯合國越來越深,聯合國還有存在價值嗎?
·聲援香港 昆士蘭大學生面臨被開除
·Australian Student Activist Faces Expulsion After Criticism From Chine
·The Journey of Liu Xiaobo reveals how Chinese dissident went from ‘da
·靜靜燃燒的地火(一)/滕彪自述
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Leaked Email: ABA Cancels Book for Fear of ‘Upsetting the Chinese Gov

   
   The American Bar Association insists the move was market-driven, but an employee email says otherwise.
   
   BY ISAAC STONE FISH
   Foreign Policy


   APRIL 15,2016
   
   
   Leaked Email: ABA Cancels Book for Fear of ‘Upsetting the Chinese Government’
   In December 2014, the publishing arm of the American Bar Association (ABA), the preeminent professional organization for U.S. lawyers, commissioned a book by Chinese rights activist Teng Biao. Provisionally entitled Darkness Before Dawn, the book was to paint a picture of China’s politics and society through “the shocking stories” of Chinese human rights lawyers, as well as through personal narrative, according to Teng’s book proposal, which he sent to Foreign Policy. Teng, pictured above, had moved to the United States in September 2014, as the situation for Chinese human rights lawyers was growing steadily worse. He took up a visiting fellowship at Harvard Law School, and began to reflect on his 11 years of experience as a Chinese human rights advocate. The book he planned to write would also have included his experience defending persecuted Chinese minorities; as the lawyer for Chen Guangcheng, the blind advocate who became famousafter taking shelter in the U.S. embassy in Beijing in April 2012; and the “kidnaps [sic] and torture” Teng experienced.
   
   But on January 28, 2015, Teng received an email from an employee of the ABA, a professional organization with nearly 400,000 members, one avowedly committed to “serving the legal profession,” according to its website. “I have some bad news,” wrote the ABA employee, whom Teng wished FP keep anonymous. “My publisher, after receiving some concerns from other staff members here about your proposed book, has asked me to rescind the offer that I had made for DARKNESS BEFORE DAWN on December 9th.” (Emphasis in original.)
   
   “Apparently, there is concern that we run the risk of upsetting the Chinese government by publishing your book,” the employee wrote“Apparently, there is concern that we run the risk of upsetting the Chinese government by publishing your book,” the employee wrote, “and because we have ABA commissions working in China there is fear that we would put them and their work at risk.” In the email, which Teng forwarded to FP, the employee wrote that “this has the potential to be an amazing book,” and offered to help Teng find another publishing house.
   “I was pretty shocked when I got that email. The ABA in the United States is a very influential organization,” Teng said in an April 13 interview. “Surprisingly, an organization this formidable still fears Chinese pressure.”
   
   
   
   Although it did not question the authenticity of the email, the ABA insists that it should not be taken at face value. In a statement, Robert T. Rupp, Associate Executive Director for the Business Services Group of the ABA, which oversees the ABA publishing, claimed that “the decision not to proceed with publication of the book Darkness Before Dawn was made for purely economic reasons, based on market research and sales forecasting conducted by the association’s publishing group.” Rupp, via an ABA spokesperson, declined to share any of the research or forecasting, stating that it was proprietary information. “Unfortunately, the reasons resulting in the decision were miscommunicated to Mr. Teng,” the statement continued. “We regret that Mr. Teng received erroneous information that did not reflect the views of the association or the process followed in evaluating his proposal. We sincerely apologize to Mr. Teng for this situation and are taking steps to ensure that it cannot occur again.”
   
   When presented with the ABA employee’s comments and the ABA statement issued in response, some China experts reacted with cynicism. “Rupp’s words seemed to me ‘weasel words,’ as my Dad used to call them,” said Perry Link, a professor emeritus at Princeton, who writes frequently on issues of Chinese censorship. “That their economic assessment of the market potential of the book did a 180-degree turn in a month or two is a highly implausible and patently ridiculous explanation,” Sharon Hom, the Executive Director of the NGO Human Rights in China, told me. “Who did they think would believe this?”
   
   Examples of self-censorship performed to avoid offending the ruling Chinese Communist Party are fairly common. But chatter about those incidents mostly fizzles out before they become public. “For every one case like this, there are hundreds where the issue doesn’t even come up, because the speaker is not invited, the book is not signed up, the program is not launched, the grant is not made, the visa is not given, you name it,” said Orville Schell, a longtime China journalist and now the Arthur Ross Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society. And seldom is there a paper trail. “It’s rare so far as I know for an institution to acknowledge that it is censoring itself out of fear of offending the Chinese authorities,” said Andrew Nathan, a professor of political science at Columbia University.
   
   The ABA employee’s email to Teng did not specify what “commissions working in China” might have been imperiled by publishing Teng’s book. But they may have included programs in the organization’s Rule of Law Initiative (ROLI), its international development arm, which has an office in Beijing. Since 2004, according to the ABA’s website, ROLI “has supported programs to increase Chinese capacity to advocate for citizens’ rights,” and runs well-respected programs inside China.
   
   This isn’t the first time that the ABA has encountered controversy in connection with its China programs. In summer 2015, after hundreds of lawyers and activists were detained across China, the ABA issued a statementon the crackdown that emphasized areas of cooperation between the ABA and its “Chinese partners.” In late 2015, Jerome Cohen, a prominent scholar on China’s legal system, wrote that the statement was “timid” and did not meet his standard “for what would have been appropriate.” And in a fall 2015 interview, Elisabeth Wickeri, an expert on Chinese human rights law at Fordham Law School in New York, told FP that she was “extremely disappointed” by the ABA statement on the crackdown in China.
   
   It’s unlikely that Teng’s book would have had a materially deleterious effect on ABA’s programs in China, according to the experts interviewed for this story. “I doubt the government would overreact to its publication to the extent of canceling ABA activities in China, which presumably are allowed to exist because the government sees some benefit in them,” said Nathan.
   
   Teng agreed. “China’s government knows that there is a free press in the United States,” he said. Then again, it’s impossible to predict how Beijing will react, which is one of the reasons self-censorship is so pernicious. “Even if there is a little bit of influence on [the ABA’s] programs in China,” Teng said, “sacrificing press freedom for this kind of self-censorship isn’t worth it.”
(2016/04/30 发表)
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