|
EDITORIAL: Diplomacy
no match for thuggery
Whatever the outcome of Chen Guangcheng’s (陳光誠) ordeal in Beijing, it will not
be a “win-win” situation, just losses all round. The entire episode is a harsh
reminder that in China, the constitution and law are easily ignored and
agreements are often not worth the paper they are written on.
Wednesday’s deal between the US embassy and the Chinese Ministry of Foreign
Affairs over Chen began unraveling within hours of being reached. It involved
relocating Chen and his family to Tianjin, away from the clutches of the Linyi
County and Shangdong Province officials who have illegally kept him under house
arrest since his release from prison in 2010 (where he was sent on trumped-up
charges after his lawyers were barred from the court proceedings). US officials
said Chen’s treatment by local officials would be investigated.
By Wednesday evening, Beijing activist Zeng Jinyan (曾金燕) was being quoted as
saying Chen only agreed to stay in China to protect his family including his
wife, Yuan Weijing (袁偉靜), who was threatened with being beaten to death if he
left the country. The threats were credible. Yuan has been beaten on several
occasions, as has Chen’s 80-year-old mother, while the couple’s son has not been
allowed to live with them for two years and their six-year-old daughter has
thugs rifling through her bookbag when she goes to school, apparently in search
of messages to and from the outside world.
Last Thursday, Chen said he was afraid Tianjin would not be far away enough from
their Dongshigu Village persecutors to guarantee their safety and that he was
afraid the authorities would think of an excuse to send him back to Shandong.
After all, his elder brother, Chen Guangfu (陳光福), was detained after Chen’s
escape and his nephew Chen Kegui (陳可貴) is on the run after defending himself
from local officials who raided his house in the middle of the night. Other
relatives have been rounded up as well.
The authorities in Dongshigu and Linyi have spent a lot of money trying to keep
Chen caged and the village locked down — all because he embarrassed them by
exposing that up to 7,000 women in the county had been forced to undergo
late-term abortions or involuntary sterilizations to meet the quotas of China’s
one-child policy, an expose that led to several officials being punished and won
Chen the 2007 Magsaysay Award. Even though their actions have been illegal,
their continued ability to act with impunity proves once again that the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) operates above the law.
What are the options facing Chen, China and the US now? Will he be allowed to
leave the country for temporary studies or will he be forced to stay? If he
leaves — he has made it clear he is not seeking political asylum abroad — will
he be allowed to return? If he leaves (or even if he stays), what happens to his
relatives and friends? Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) has frequently defended
China’s political reforms and admonished the West to keep out of China’s
affairs, but the Chen imbroglio has made a mockery of Wen’s claims that China’s
system protects its people and that their rights are enshrined in law. Once
again, the People’s Republic of China has been revealed as a massive Potemkin
village, with one facade for overseas investors and foreign visitors and a much
darker, nastier reality for those living behind the walls.
For US President Barack Obama’s administration, the dilemma it faces is: Live up
to its commitment to human rights and get Chen out, thereby angering the Chinese
officialdom it needs in dealing with North Korea, Iran and Syria; or leave him
there, giving the Republicans a weapon to bash Obama with ahead of the November
elections. In a rush to reach a deal, US diplomats failed to win iron-clad
guarantees.
No one is going to come out of this unscathed. The important facts to remember,
especially for those in Taiwan, are that the law is not the law in China, that
Beijing’s foreign ministry has little real power and that regardless of the
truth, for the CCP, might makes right.
|
