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
·暴行,以法律的名义
·人道中国十周年纪录短片
·“中华维权律师协会”评出十佳维权律师
·中国妇权成立十周年纪念
·武统狂言背后的恐懼
·以法律名義被消失,中華失踪人民共和國
·川普公布首批人权恶棍 滕彪:震慑中共
·「蚂蚁金服」在美并购遭拒 中国官媒指不排除反制措施
·CCP is taking China towards more and more Owellian state
·中国公民社会前景:乐观还是堪忧?
·中共渗透遭美欧澳等国谴责 专家析世界格局
·Laogai, le goulag chinois
·不反思計劃生育 中國就沒有未來
·中国:溃败与希望
·Conversation on China’s human right
·Draconic Restrictions on Uyghur Cultural And Religious Freedoms
·寧添十座墳,不添一個人
· the only way seems to become more dictatorial and oppressiv
·不管藍營綠營,面對的都是「集中營
·惠台政策还是经济统战?
·专访:用李明哲案件恐吓整个台湾
·習近平進一步向毛澤
·中共專制政權威脅全世界
·新戊戌变法的变与不变
·【Documentary】China: Spies, Lies and Blackmail
·No escape: The fearful life of China's exiled dissidents
·中国异议人士逃抵西方仍难脱离中共监控威胁
·The State of Human Rights Lawyers in China
·权益组织:电视认罪—一场中国官方导演的大戏
·温良学者 正义卫士(一)
·Has Xi Jinping Changed China? Not Really
·訪滕彪律師談中共政權對於全世界民主自由人權發展的負面影響
·中共绑架中国
·美国务院发布人权报告 点名批评中国等八国
·滕彪,温良学者 正义卫士(二)——发出不同的声音
·鸿茅药酒:中共制度之毒
·on televised confessions
·滕彪,温良学者 正义卫士(三)——挑战恶法 虽败犹荣
·温良学者 正义卫士(四)——铁骨也柔情
·温良学者 正义卫士(五)——黑暗中的闪电
·美两党议员推法案 要求调查中共渗透/NTD
·Video【Teng Biao: From 1989 to 1984】
·第二届藏港台圆桌会 中国律师表态支持自决权
·自由民主與自決權:第二屆藏港台圓桌會議
·Exiled in the U.S., a Lawyer Warns of ‘China’s Long Arm’
·端传媒滕彪专访:一个曾经的依法维权者,怎么看今日中国?
·VOA:川金会上 人权问题真的被忽略了吗?
·“中国的长臂”:滕彪审视西方机构对华自我审查
·中国长臂迫使西方机构公司自我审查/RFA
·美退出人权理事会 滕彪呼吁应将人权与经贸利益挂钩
·“中国政治转变的可能前景”研讨会纪要
·滕彪:川普退出人权理事会是为人权?西藏、新疆民族自决
· The Second China human rights lawyers day
·第二届“中国人权律师节”将于7月8日在纽约举行
·【video】A message from a Chinese human rights lawyer
·【RFA中国热评】美中贸易战、 “七五”、“709案”
·回顾709案:中国迫害律师的第三波高潮
·中国人权律师节力赞人权律师的意义
·高智晟、王全璋获颁首届中国人权律师奖
·Chinese rights lawyers and international support
·高智晟王全璋纽约获人权律师奖 亲友代领
·709大抓捕三周年 境内外纷有声援行动/RFA
·Forced disappearances
·光荣的荆棘路——第二届中国人权律师节开幕短片(Openning film on the Sec
·用法律抗争与对法律宣战
·「709大抓捕」並非偶然…
·An Editor Speaks Out: Teng Biao, Darkness Before Dawn, and ABA
·中國假疫苗事件能夠杜絕?
·当局不解决人们提出的问题,而是〝解决〞提出问题的人们
·疫苗之殇还是贼喊捉贼/RFA
·The legal system is a battleground, and there’s no turning back
·A Call for a UN Investigation, and US Sanctions, on the Human Rights D
·关注新疆维吾尔自治区人权灾难的呼吁书
·警察街头扫描手机内容 新疆式维稳监控扩散
·The banned religious group that has China worried
·人间蒸发 强制失踪受害者日 家属焦急寻人
·中国留学生都是“007”?
·忧末日恐慌蔓延,中国围剿全能神教
·An Open Letter on Ilham Tohti’s Life
·关于伊力哈木生命致多国政府和欧盟理事会的公开信
·918 RESIST Xi Jinping
·公安部拟新规“维护”警察权威
·The United Nations, China, and Human Rights
·司法部整顿律师业:统统姓党
·美中媒体战?中国在美两大官媒被要求登记为外国代理
· Alphabet City Q&A with Teng Biao
·The Xinjiang Initiative
·无权者也是有力量的/RFA
·欧洲议会通过议案 促中共关闭新疆「集中营」
·China’s global challenge to democratic freedom
·彭斯講話揭新篇 預示對華政策大轉變
·彭斯講話揭新篇 預示對華政策大轉變
·欧洲议会通过议案 促中共关闭新疆「集中营」
·失踪的范冰冰与高智晟
·Chinese clients of New York ‘asylum mill’ lawyers face deportation t
·「千人计划」再受挫折 美籍华人学者涉儿童色情罪案及间谍活动
·"Vous pouvez facilement devenir fou"
·【纪录片】赫索格的日子
·【纪录片】:退无可退
·你很容易就發瘋了/眾新聞
·“合法化”集中营(滕彪)
[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