Yang Jianli spent five years in a Chinese prison on political charges. He tells FP why he believes some American policymakers are hypocrites when it comes to China and what he hopes President Bush will say at the Beijing Games.
 | | | | |
 | | |||
| | |||
 |  | | ||
 | | |||
Foreign Policy: How has U.S. policy toward China over the past decade been inconsistent, as you argue in your article?
Yang Jianli: I’ll give you two examples: Bill Clinton, in his 1992 campaign, criticized the [George H.W.] Bush administration for its soft stance against the Chinese communist regime right after the [Tiananmen] massacre. [Clinton] vowed to stand firmly on human rights issues when dealing with China. But he didn’t stick to what he promised, which was a surprise and dismay to my colleagues in the dissident community. In 1994, he suddenly delinked human rights issues from trade, a stand that turned out to be even softer than the Bush administration’s. And in 2001, again, the United States allowed China’s accession to the WTO [World Trade Organization] without almost any human rights conditions. That’s what I mean by inconsistent. It’s about credibility. If you always change whatever position you take, whether wrong to right or right to wrong, then the other party knows that you are changeable. Whenever it comes to a serious issue, they will press you to change, not themselves.
FP: You also argue that some academics are hypocrites in their stance toward China. In what sense?
YJ: They have a self-imposed censorship and fear because they try very hard to compete with one another for access to the top Chinese leaders. They are afraid that if they are outspoken and criticize the regime, opportunities to go to China will disappear. But there are very clear scholarly principles and standards: to be impartial, to be objective. And they have given them up for these opportunities.
China cannot go backward to the old days, the dark days with the door closed to the outside world. They cannot do it. The Chinese regime, like its predecessors, is increasingly worried about its international image. They will still allow [these academics] to enter China to do their studies because they need them for their image. So, why the self-censorship?
YJ: I think so. Who has leverage: the lender, or the borrower? If you have $100 million dollars, everybody will beg you to do something. The creditors won’t want to ruin the relationship with you. I think that over the years the United States has lost some leverage, but there’s new leverage that appears. For example, the democratic forces within China have been growing rapidly in the past few years. They will exert tremendous pressure on the Chinese regime from the inside. That’s the leverage. China’s people are leverage.
China needs the United States in many ways. They’ve lent so much money to the United States that they don’t want to see the U.S. economy collapse. If they want economic development in China, they cannot cut off all communication, all the flows of capital to China. They just can’t close the door. Whatever happens, they have to listen, to a certain degree, to the voice of the international community, and the United States in particular.
FP: You recommend that the next U.S. president press China to hold local elections. How realistic is that possibility? What are the obstacles?
YJ: It is realistic because the central government may not be against it. The central government has taken pains to control governmental corruption, and it has already shown that it has no ability to do that. They need other forces to control the corruption. If the central government staged a serious campaign against corruption, so many officials—maybe 90 percent of party officials—[would be implicated] that the central government would collapse. They need some forces outside of the party system to help them deal with rampant local corruption. Local elections would help them in this endeavor.
FP: Do you think the world is giving China a free pass for the 2008 Beijing Games?
YJ: I think the international community has some regret in granting the opportunity to Beijing to host the 2008 Summer Olympics. In 2001, when China wanted the opportunity, it promised to improve the human rights situation in China, and many people believed them. Now, they’ve learned the lesson. I see the regret. But I still see the Olympics as an opportunity for us to do something, though it is difficult. I still want to urge people to take this opportunity to do something.
FP: Does it mean a boycott?
YJ: Not really. A boycott cannot be successful. No matter what you do, the Olympics are going to take place anyway. So my proposal is conditional participation. The idea is that when the Chinese authorities extend the invitation to you to go there, you bring up human rights. Then press the Chinese authorities to do something to facilitate your participation. For example, when President Bush accepted [President] Hu Jintao’s invitation, he said, “I will go to Beijing as a sports fan. I will not make any political statements.”
He accepted the invitation too easily, but I don’t think it’s too late. There is still time for him to say something like, “I would love to go to China to participate at the Olympic Games, but I want to see the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” or “I won’t go unless a dozen political prisoners directly related to the [Tiananmen] massacre are released.”
[The party leaders] want President Bush to be there. They want all the renowned athletes to be there to the help them showcase their achievements. They need them to be there. So, why don’t we do something?
FP: You yourself were held as a political prisoner for five years. What were the circumstances under which you were detained and the conditions in prison, and how did you hear you were going to be released?
YJ: I was blacklisted from entering China for my involvement in the 1989 student movement. I continued to work to advance democracy in China from the United States. In 2002, I entered China with another person’s passport—I tried to renew my own passport, but I was denied many times. At last I decided to go into China whatever way I could. I entered to observe labor unrest in northeast China. After two weeks, I was arrested at Kunming Airport while trying to leave the country. They sentenced me to five years on two charges: illegal entry and espionage.
The first half of my imprisonment was harsh. I was held for nearly 15 months in solitary confinement, in which I was denied any reading material, cut off from any meaningful human contact, and constantly subjected to both physical and psychological torture. A lot of that goes on. I did not know what was going on outside until my lawyer’s visit. I was greatly encouraged, though, to learn of the outpouring of support for me from outside China. After that, there were persecutions of different degrees, but gradually my situation improved because of the pressure of the international community. The U.S. Congress passed two resolutions on my behalf. The U.N. Human Rights Commission passed a resolution requesting my release, and many professors at Harvard and U.C. [the University of California], Berkeley, [where I received doctorates] wrote letters and petitions to Chinese authorities.
I was eventually transferred to another prison where I had greater freedom to interact with other inmates and the guards. I voluntarily taught my inmates English, economics, mathematics, logic. I actually wrote a textbook for logic in Chinese calligraphy and coached the basketball team for more than two years. Almost all the inmates called me “teacher,” and many guards became my friends. Thanks to their sympathy and protection, I was able to organize a Bible study group and helped baptize three inmates.
I was sentenced to five years, but everyone believed I would be released early because of the high-profile nature of my case. Late in the summer of 2006, the Chinese authorities offered me an early release. But they put on a condition that I had to leave China right away. They wouldn’t guarantee that I had a right to return in the future. My father died while I was in prison, and they would not allow me to return to my hometown to visit my father’s grave. So I didn’t accept the offer. They put me back in prison, and I actually served my full sentence.
FP: What are your plans going forward?
YJ: I’m going to open an office in Washington, D.C. [for the Foundation for China in the 21st Century] that will serve as a communications link between Chinese democracy forces and the outside world. We will provide a platform for dissidents and political activists back in China. They cannot communicate easily in China, and the Chinese authorities are very suspicious of organization of any kind. We will continue to advocate our cause internationally and also help the democratic forces in China do their work.
Yang Jianli is president of the U.S.-based Foundation for China in the 21st Century. In April 2007, he was released from prison in China after serving five years on political charges.
（http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4121）
没有评论:
发表评论