[Last updated Feb 10 1:03 AM Beijing time]
Note: You can follow up to the minute tweets on Tan Zuoren’s sentencing here, but most of them are in Chinese.
Tan Zuoren, like Ai Weiwei, was conducting a citizen’s investigation into the deaths of students in the Sichuan earthquake last year. On March 28th, he was arrested, supposedly because of some comments he made via email about the June 4th, 1989 crackdown on protesters in Tiananmen Square, and a long trial followed that Ai Weiwei, among others, went to testify in (this was when Ai was attacked by police and beaten, causing his brain injury).
Today is the day the verdict was announced: Tan Zuoren is now sentenced to five years, according to early tweets from those present in the courtroom. Some reports say that the session lasted as little as five minutes before the verdict was announced, one of Tan’s lawyers wrote in a note to Ai Weiwei that it lasted “no longer than ten minutes.”
According to Tan’s lawyer, the results of this can be appealed, but only within ten days, and since the Spring Festival holiday is fast approaching, Tan Zuoren’s lawyers only have two or three days to prepare. This is clearly no accident. Mr. Xia (one of Tan’s lawyers) called the trial’s planning “Very damaging.”
Mr. Xia also tweeted:
Right now I’m going back to the hotel for a rest, in the afternoon I’ll go to the Wenjiang Prison [to see Tan Zuoren]. I am extremely disappointed and angry.
And then later he described the sentencing in a bit more detail:
Tan Zuoren was wearing a gray fleece, and as the sentence was handed down he wore a tranquil expression. [When] the presiding judge Liu Han [read] his opinion, Tan Zuoren stated in court that he was dissatisfied, and that there was a discrepancy between his understanding of the law and the judge’s, and firmly demanded an appeal. As he was led out of court by the bailiff, he raised his voice and said “Being imprisoned for the sake of my people is my honor.”
Another of Tan Zuoren’s lawyers, Pu Zhiqiang, wrote this note to Ai Weiwei following the trial (Ai Weiwei then tweeted it in pieces, I am translating only part of it now but mouseover for the whole text in Chinese):
Teacher/Brigand Ai: The result of Tan Zuoren’s case has come down. The sentencing process lasted no longer than ten minutes. Tan’s wife, Ai Nanshan, etc. were not allowed into the courtroom [...] On the first count, of inciting to subvert state power, he was found guilty [...] on the first count, he was sentenced to a fixed term of five years imprisonment, and a loss of political rights for three years. When the judge asked him for his opinion, Zuoren mentioned on the spot that he would appeal, saying: ‘My understanding of the law is too different from yours, these things I did do not constitute a crime. Soon afterward, Liu Han shouted an order that the defendant Tan Zuoren be detained and the bench hurriedly left the courtroom. From our perspective, from start to finish the presiding judge and the other two judges didn’t ever appear to have mixed feelings [...] the sentencing was directed against Tan’s speech, and given that [the things he said] aside from those about June 4th were not specified, it shows that the Chengdu court doesn’t want to touch on the earthquake topic. He [Tan Zuoren] is different from Liu Xiaobo, unlike the latter he didn’t take a stand against autocracy or dictatorship and was mostly collecting things about the environment and people’s lives. This is also decided, in the second trial we can only use the topic of June 4th as grounds for our defense.
Ai Weiwei Tweets Before the Verdict Was Announced
Ai Weiwei has been constantly tweeting about Tan Zuoren in the past twenty four hours. Here are some of his posts, in chronological order (newest at the bottom):
Tomorrow morning conscience, courage, and honesty will be teased and put on trial in China.
There’s nothing special about Tan Zuoren, he just doesn’t believe lies, and at the same time, he doesn’t want his descendants to live in darkness.
In Sichuan, saying ‘buildings made of tofu dregs will collapse and students shouldn’t study in buildings that will collapse’ is illegal. In China, saying ‘you shouldn’t put melamine in milk or children will get painful kidneystones’ is illegal.
In four hours, when the clock strikes 9:30, freedom will shed a tear [Tan Zuoren's verdict was announced at 9:30]
In this crowded mass of people, those who don’t tell lies are solitary, Tan Zuoren at least proves that point.
Not clearing Tan Zuoren’s name is an insult to freedom and justice.
Today, someone will suffer for your sake.
Today, Sichuan says the children who have died have no names; they never existed.
The Sichuan government refuses to make sense, refuses the facts, refuses to assume the resposibility for 5000 children who died in tofu-dreg buildings. They thing they can just judge Tan Zuoren and it’s all decided, [they're] dreaming.
What the Sichuan government doesn’t realize is that Tan Zuoren is a part of us; the best part of him is still with us, and we will not surrender him.
In keeping with his tradition, Ai then posted the names and details of the Sichuan students who died that were born on February 9th: Cao Ziwei (girl, 9); Du Yuhan (boy, 7); Huang Shasha (girl, 14); Liu Hengguang (boy, 10); Xia Guiying (girl, 16); Yang Ronghao (boy, 13); Yang Zhonghua (boy, 12); Tan Yong (boy, 17); Chen Yang (boy, 16); Yang Ting (girl, 12). He then continued:
Tan Zuoren, today 5000 wandering souls are all your children, calling out to you together
Tweets About the Verdict and Responses
After that and a few retweets, the news began to come in over twitter in the form of a single message being repeatedly re-tweeted:
News from the scene: five years.
Ai Weiwei himself tweeted this a few minutes later:
Reuters reports: five years.
Then, more tweets from Ai:
Grass mud horse [i.e., "Fuck!"] grass mud horse grass mud horse grass mud horse grass mud horse grass mud horse grass mud horse grass mud horse grass mud horse grass mud horse grass mud horse grass mud horse grass mud horse grass mud horse grass mud horse grass mud horse grass mud horse grass mud horse
Amoiist tweeted:
After sixty years, where are human rights?
Ai Weiwei again:
This country has no hope, it has no past, and today, even moreso it has no future.
Sixty years have gone by, and on ideological issues and freedom of speech there has been no change. Fuck!
Two of Tan Zuoren’s lawyers can be found on Twitter here and here. One has already commented on the verdict, saying he was “extremely disappointed and angry”. Additionally, in light of the verdict, Ai Weiwei has promised to end all of his future tweets with “Grass Mud Horse” [i.e., "Fuck!" or "Fuck your mother!"].
Some images also being passed around on Twitter (via Amoiist):
Your mother is calling you home for dinner...
Many people are also tweeting something Tan Zuoren said:
Wherever there is a mistake, there will be dissenters. If there are no dissenters, then there’s no civil society.
And, of course, just as with Liu Xiaobo a clever pun emerged to show support ["随波逐刘"], so too has a pun emerged for Tan Zuoren. Several people have re-tweeted a message that ends thusly:
Conscience and courage are the soul of civil society, I am not afraid! I don’t want to be a wandering spirit, I don’t want to be a living tombstone, I want to be a person! ["be a person" here is written with the same characters as Tan Zuoren's given name, so it also reads "I want Zuoren"]
Show Your Support
This netizen has promised to post a bank account that can be used to wire transfer donations to Tan Zuoren. People interested in donating to Tan Zuoren can send money via PayPal to pearlher@gmail.com, according to that person’s twitter account. In terms of their connection to Tan Zuoren and guarantees of how the money would be spent, they said this (via Twitter):
I have no relation to Tan Zuoren and cannot guarantee the money will be used for his case. After collecting it, it will be given to his family to use. [I am] announcing every cent that is donated, and on a definite day [or] when the donations reach a set amount I will stop accepting donations. Then I will give all the money to Tan Zuoren’s wife. Then Tan’s wife will have someone she trusts post to Twitter that she received this amount of money from me.
So there you have it.
In case anyone is interested, I have also made some t-shirts expressing covert support for Liu Xiaobo and Tan Zuoren that can be found here. Lest I be accused of attempting to profit off of someone else’s misfortune, please be aware that I have set the markup on all of these items to 0% so that they are cheap, so all of the money you pay goes directly to CafePress, I get nothing. If you are interested, be aware that there are TONS of style and color choices, so browse thoroughly before buying. Note also that the pricing varies by style, the cheapest shirts are the $8.99 value tees. A couple examples are below (again note that I make no profit off this whatsoever, just trying to help people show support if they want):
After Ai Weiwei’s spout on Confucius, I didn’t think something worth while would come our way again. Tan Zuoren and the children in Sichuan NEED our support. This must change! The government must digest criticism!
Thanks for this post, Custer. In a world where words are crimes and commemorating dead children is equivalent to undermining state authority…
What is the common man to do?
我要作人。
Great stuff, Custer.
@ Josh
Indeed.
Great post. Thanks for the translations.
我要作人
Thanks for this post, Custer. In a world where words are crimes and commemorating dead children is equivalent to undermining state authority…
_______________________________________________________
All of them got money from West, right ?
BTW, I dont understand why CCP suddenly starts arresting those people.
@ Wahaha,
If by “they,” you mean the eight in that photo, they most certainly did NOT all get money from “the West.” Tan, for example, was never accused of that. Maybe one or two the eight did, if that. But as a blanket excuse for avoiding a hard reality—that people are being arrested for what they’ve written and at an increasing rate—that excuse doesn’t fly.
Not that that would be the end of the world, either, if each and every one of them received money from abroad… certainly many noble fights in “the West” have gotten moral and financial support from abroad, including from China and the U.S.S.R. (when it existed). For example, the Chinese government was morally supportive of anti-Vietnam War demonstrations in the United States and probably backed financially them via front organizations. So what? If I was alive then, I would still march in the peace marches. And I would willingly accept that Chinese money.
But lest we get into a loop of a re-warmed argument with no end, what I REALLY meant to comment on was your second point. Like you, I really don’t know why these people are being targeted now. Of course, Chen Guangcheng and Shi Tao were arrested a bit back. But the rest?
My guess is that the message being sent is: “We can deal with our own problems; we’ve got more channels in theory for making complaints the right way; we even have freedom of information laws; we’re training our own journalists; we released our own list of dead children, etc. If you want to help us do our job better, that’s fine, at least up to a point. But don’t step out of line and say there is something fundamentally wrong with us. The penalties will be tougher than in the past.” Why send that message now?
I dunno. Maybe the state is uneasy about the long-term prospects for its economic recovery. Maybe it’s NOT uneasy and feeling more confident than in the past. I really don’t know. What do you think?
OTD,
To my knowledge, HuJia, Liu, Xu Zhiyong, Guo feixiong got money from West.
By the way, I dont think any of them could pulish anything, like HanHan, how did they earn a living ?
This doesnt justify arresting them, I think it is very stupid of CCP to arrest them, if there is no other UNKNOWN reason.
Several of them worked for organizations (Hu Jia for an AIDS NGO and Xu Zhiyong for Gongmeng, of course). Like any organizations anywhere in the world, theirs received money from home and abroad. Guo Feixiong was, at least for a while, a lawyer, I believe. Liu Xiaobo was a professor. My guess is that if you’re blacklisted as a professor in China, you still get your pension or whatever. But that’s always something I’ve wondered about. Anyone here know?
Like you, I think that, regardless, it was stupid of the government to arrest them. The constitution says these people have certain rights to freedom of speech, but, of course, you can’t use the constitution in court in China according to a series of SPC interpretations or notices or guidance opinions or whatever they’re called. And the country’s normal laws and regulations give plenty of room for arresting people on stupid charges (such as “subversion of state authority”). So, I can’t say the arrests were illegal, only that they were, as you said, stupid—and cruel. Gao Zhisheng’s disappearance is illegal.
Just to prove that the Chinese government isn’t the only one that can act stupid about dissidents, check out what the government of South Carolina (of all places!) just decreed: that “every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States … shall register with the Secretary of State” of South Carolina—-and pay five dollars! Damn… I think I’ll move down there and pay my five dollars just to get on the list!
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/09/south-carolina-to-root-ou_n_455225.html
The current crackdown may be related to the battle to succeed Hu. There may have been a similar crackdown 10 years ago, before Jiang stepped down.
See this article about an arrest in 2000:
Pretty amazing story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A34768-2004Apr22¬Found=true
A Study Group Crushed
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/world/asia/14beijing.html
Two Dissidents Freed After Years in Prison
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/04/world_pan042304.htm
Discussion with Philip Pan, reporter of the Washington Post story
It really a simple case of free expression, and boundless freedom to say or do whatever? Let me point out freedom has limits, even here in the good’ol USA.
Take Liu Xiaobo. If we can can say citizen’s political asperation isn’t genuine if it’s foreign sponsored (Foreign Agent Registration Act, recent Obama State speech), why can’t the Chinese? It is a fact Liu Xiaobo took over USD$650,000 from Uncle Sam via the NED (China grant info on ned.org is public information) to advocate alteration/aboliton of China’s constitution.
If Liu is American he’d be in violation of FARA. According to the verdict (page 3, prosection evidence part 2), bank recorsd showing foreign remittance contributed to the court’s decision that Liu’s political speech exceeded the limit of free speech.
@ ChasL: First, NED grants are private, not run by the US government. Second, since the average grant is $50,000, I find it a little hard to believe that Liu Xiaobo got $650,000 (how often do you hear about people applying for a public service grant and getting ten times the average awarded grant?). Third, if Liu were American, he would be in violation of FARA only if he willfully failed to disclose his relationship with a foreign government. As long as that’s disclosed and he provides copies of any foreign-funded propaganda to the Attorney General, he can distribute whatever he wants (even if the AG doesn’t like it). Fourth, were he to get caught not disclosing his relationship with a foreign government or distributing propaganda without providing a copy to the US gov’t, he could not receive a sentence longer than five years or a fine of more than $10,000. Fifth, in the US, Liu would also have had the right to a speedy and public trial and to be judged by a jury of his peers. Sixth, Liu was convicted of “inciting to subvert state power”. Regardless of where his funding comes from, Charter 08 is not an attempt to subvert state power, rather, it is a call for discussion and reform.
Other than all that, though, you’re right. Totally the same!
(The relevant section of the US legal code is here, in case anyone’s curious)
As a sidenote, I see you’ve been making this comment in one form or another all over the China blog landscape, and you even wrote a post about it on Fool’s Mountain. You expecting to find something different here or just trolling. Because I should warn you we don’t feed trolls here.
Custer, NED was created by Reagan, funded by congressional madate, to overtly conduct what the CIA used to do coveertly. This fact is well established, check the numerous citations in wikipedia.
And you are wrong about the numbers, Liu received 6-digit grants from the NED for both ICPC and Mingzhu Zongguo magazine in the last 5 years, totalling over 650,000. Believe it or not is up to you, I found the numbers in NED’s own grant publication.
That doesn’t change the fact that NED is a private NGO. Nor does it negate any of what I said.
As for the numbers, I’d love to see some proof. I clicked on a link you left in a post on some other site but all I got was an error page.
Regardless, the charge was not “receiving money from bad guys.” He was charged with something much more vague—and was directly related to Charter 08. No one disputes that.
And… course, Mr. Liu’s case is one thing, Mr. Tan’s is another. All this talk seems to be about muddying the waters.
[...] citizen’s investigation into the deaths of students in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, has been sentenced to five years in [...]
C, I really don’t know why those grant publication suddenly disappeared from ned’s websit, but you can find them on Google cache if you use the defunct URL as search term. Here’s 2007 grants
Look for Democratic China (MinjgZhu Zhongguo) magazine and Independent Chinese PEN Center, both were headed by Liu Xiaobo.
As to NED being private, please don’t insult your reader’s intelligence – the fact NED is almost exclusively funded by congressional mandate, thru the State Department is clear it is part of our foreign policy implement.
OTR, while it is true China has no law sanctioning foreign ageency, it clearly does not allow it, just as we do (let’s face it the “registration” part of FARA is a catch-22.) The foreign remittance Liu received thru his wife’s Bank of China account clearly attributed to the court’s decision on legality of his political speech to abolish China’s constitution:
“A New Constitution. We should recast our present constitution, rescinding its provisions”
Is it any wonder Charter 08 sounds like the declaration of independence? We paid for it.
ChasL: “It really a simple case of free expression, and boundless freedom to say or do whatever? Let me point out freedom has limits, even here in the good’ol USA.”
No one is arguing here that freedom has no limits. There is of course is a wide spectrum of regulations on speech that can be argued to be reasonable. But are you arguing that 11 year prison year for organizing a petition to change the Constitution is reasonable? Because that is what you are implying with your line of argument.
By the way, there is an exemption for “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” in the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). FARA mostly affects the registration of foreign agents lobbying on foreign policy issues.
An American citizen receiving foreign money to advocate matters similar to what Liu Xiaobo advocated would not be in violation of FARA because those matters, such as free speech and separation of powers, serve a domestic interest rather than foreign interest.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc22.wais&start=1850448&SIZE=8947&TYPE=TEXT
TITLE 22–FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE
CHAPTER 11–FOREIGN AGENTS AND PROPAGANDA
SUBCHAPTER II–REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN PROPAGANDISTS
Sec. 613. Exemptions
The requirements of section 612(a) of this title shall not apply to
the following agents of foreign principals:
(d) Private and nonpolitical activities; solicitation of funds
Any person engaging or agreeing to engage only (1) in private and
nonpolitical activities in furtherance of the bona fide trade or
commerce of such foreign principal; or (2) in other activities not
serving predominantly a foreign interest; or (3) in the soliciting or
collecting of funds and contributions within the United States to be
used only for medical aid and assistance, or for food and clothing to
relieve human suffering, if such solicitation or collection of funds and
contributions is in accordance with and subject to
the provisions of subchapter II of chapter 9 of this title, and such
rules and regulations as may be prescribed thereunder;
@ xyz *high five!*
Did you guys read the court verdict?
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_505ece690100ijqy.html
The document seems to single out Tan working with overseas Falun Gong media outlet Sound of Hope (again funded by US government via the NED, and Friends of Falun Gong run by NED veteran Ambassador Mark Palmer, former head of Friends of Taiwan) on their 6/4 propaganda.
His Sichuan quake investigation is not what got him in trouble.
xyz, I wonder if you even read what you cited:
“nonpolitical activities” – this exemption doesn’t apply to Liu or Tan.
“medical aid and assistance, or for food and clothing” – this examption doesn’t apply either.
Which leaves “not serving predominantly a foreign interest”. This is where the court verdict came in; the Chinese court found them guilty of serving foreign interest (foreign remittance from agent of foreign government, illegal organization under Chinese law patroned by foreign government.)
@ChasL
“nonpolitical activity” is the heading for the section. You have to read the text to understand what the exemption is. The heading is merely for convenience and does not necessarily describe the whole of the legal provision, and in this case, the heading actually contradicts the text. Activities “not serving predominantly a foreign interest” is the exemption I referred to.
Do you believe that Liu’s activities serves “predominantly a foreign interest”? Or are you merely re-stating the Chinese government’s position? If the latter, I don’t think anyone here would disagree with that.
I don’t disagree that the Chinese government is arguing that Liu was serving a foreign interest, but do you yourself believe that Liu was “serving predominantly a foreign interest”?
Just want to understand your position and make sure you are not just arguing for arguing’s sake.
By the way, FARA provides an exemption for activities that are not predominantly in service of a foreign interest because requiring someone to register with the government in order to participate in domestic political activity merely because of foreign funding probably is unconstitonal. Any law that burdens one’s First Amendment right to participate in political activity would have to be strictly justified. If the law is overly broad and not necessary to achieve the purported end, it is likely to be struck down.
ChasL’s last link is now blocked, so I won’t be able verify his point about the court verdict (though the blocking of the link shows one shortcoming of speech restrictions in general, namely that even the authorities and their online supporters end up having a hard time making their arguments).
To repeat some of the arguments by Custer and XYZ, the relevant U.S. laws are about lobbyists for foreign governments. And there is no restriction on foreign lobbying per se, just a requirement that it be made openly. When someone receives money from abroad for a principally domestic cause—such as, say, transitioning America to socialism, changing the constitution or, of course, giving the needy blankets and teddy bears—then that is exempted.
That’s not to say that congress or local governments (like South Carolina’s government, as I noted) won’t get up to mischief. And America has a sad history of this mischief, including the Macarthy witch hunt, the FBI’s hounding of Black Panthers and even mainstream civil rights activists like MLK, the shoot-outs with activists on Native American reservations, etc, etc. But no one on the list serve is, I hope, defending these things like ChasL does in China’s case.
More broadly, XYZ hits the heart of all this: what, exactly, do proponents of a government crackdown on dissidents WANT? Are they convinced that these dissidents are the end of the world? If the government were to reverse itself and lay off, would they protest and demand that the government persist in persecuting Liu Xiaobo et al? Or is their whole political philosophy very simple: whatever the government of country X does is right. If it changes, what is right changes with it.
I guess it is always about perception. What is dangerous to the social system? Where ends the freedom of free speech?
Basically every country/state/etc. faces different dimensions of free speech:
First we have the universe dimension, stated by the UN. Then we have the national dimension, I could speak for Germany here, which allows you basically the same right. But third we have the restriction. For Germany would that be, that you have to act within the Law. For example are statements concerning to our sad history is prohibited(and thank you for this prohibition) and you could face several years in prison, depending on what/how you say, publish etc.
From my understanding the situation the situation in China is similar. Chinese constitution allows you free speech on the same level as the universal definition stated by the UN. But of course restriction to this free speech are stronger and much more vague. OK, this comparison might stir some anger and it basically not comparable, because I would never dare to compare Liu/Taos etc. work/thoughts to those stupid people(neo-nazis)[as a matter of fact, I just did. TMD]. But still it is hard to draw a line. That’s the perception of Chinese government. What is evil enough? What is free speech? What “subversion”? What is hatred? Its hard to tell…I cant draw a line, could you?
我要作人。
Please, are you guys playing with words or just in denial ?
Those people got money from West, like Falun in America, an organization that was not even admitted in American society, simply cuz its being against CCP.
That doesnt justify arresting them, but what they are doing IS jeoperdizing the control of CCP. You will argue that it is wrong to arrest them, but again, chinese judge things by outcome, and according to what they did and said during 314, Olympic, and 7.5, a lot of chinese believe that all they care is overthrowing CCP, not the interest of chinese people and the future of China, otherwise they wouldve answered the simple question : what can their idea or theory or fantasy bring to China ?
Now plus they get money from West, it is no wonder they dont enjoy the much trust from Chinese people.
Yes, China does not have a line. The state can decide today that advocating separatism is verboten, then decide that just highlighting the poor construction of schools is beyond the pale, then say that providing outsiders with information on what is beyond the pale is beyond the pale (see the case of Shi Tao). In Germany, in comparison, a clear handful of topics is designated as based: pro-Nazi stuff, holocaust denial and maybe one or two other things.
That said, I think Germany’s laws are stupid. No opinion, however crazy, should be banned. Have Germany’s regulations prevented a strong Neo-Nazi movement from cropping up there? Have Britain’s similar laws on holocaust denial prevented skinheads from rampaging occasionally through immigrant neighborhoods? No. On the contrary, you might argue that hiding stupid ideas from the sunshine—and thereby shielding them from scrutiny by the public—only allows them to grow stronger.
In the U.S.—and I don’t mean that the U.S. is ideal in all things, but I think it is better in this area—you can read Bin Laden’s stuff to your heart’s content. But I would argue that it hasn’t led to a great groundswell of support for his ideology here. In fact, it hasn’t made much of a dent at all.
What DOES work in the U.S. are criticisms of the country’s lousy treatment of poor people. And criticisms of American wars abroad. In other words, real issues get people riled up. And I suspect that’s why Chinese net censors focus their ire on real issues: poorly constructed schools, political reform, workers’ rights. They let a good bit slip by, wisely. But they lock up people who take these issues too far (wrongly and, ultimately, foolishly, I think). And then their online flacks rush out to defend their each and every decision, ducking and weaving with changes in policy.
I would note: I don’t mean that everyone who defends the government on every issue is a stooge. I get that Wahaha and others have core beliefs, ideas about the right development course, etc. But some folks don’t have any belief but that their masters are infallible.
@ Wahaha,
Sorry, my post was going up at the same time as yours, so I didn’t respond to your last point directly. I think there are basically two questions here:
1) Is it right to arrest these people for holding controversial opinions? We both agree that it is not right, regardless of whether it is illegal to arrest them.
2) Are these people popular with all Chinese? No, obviously they are not. Most people have never heard of them. Among those that have, some see the dissidents as sell-outs to the West whose aims are not conducive to China’s development or whatever. Others admire them.
OTR,
No, it is not right, but it doesnt matter in real world , does it ?
like a chinese german who was fired cuz of her pro-china voice, no human right activitists ever spoke for her; like the white house worker who claimed she admired Mao, nobody care her right of expressing her opinions.
So, in china is the same, unless Chinese believe what those dissidents are doing is good for China, most chinese wont care if they are deprived the right of free speech.
OTR, to respond to the points you reiterated:
- Tan’s verdict is not censored by the government. Individual moderator (in this case Sina blog) may choose to do so. This is easily substantiated by the fact baidu turns up the verdict.
- You are indeed mistaken about the US government’s intention re FARA. We do not expect foreign agents to “register”, as it is a catch-22. Once an agent turns itself in, their activity will be monitored and their speech, movement restricted.
Section d)1) is very clear, no [domestic] political activity is allowed. Even the title is clear political activity in any predominance is not allowed. Even the language on serving foreign interest is vague, rendering the state, American or Chinese, the power to reason citizen’s poloitical asperation may not be genuine if it’s foreign sponsoed.
And very recent example on this side of the pond would a a naturalized US citizen, Chi Mak, receiving 25 years under FARA prosecution.
And XYZ, would you like to comment on the fact Tan was caught working with Falun Gong, an illegal organziation under Chinese law, with demonstrated patronage from the US government?
Actually would anyone like to comment about the repated refernce to “Sound of Hope”, known Falun Gong propaganda outlet, in the Tan verdict?
Wahaha, the Falun Gong has openly stated its intention to overthrow the CCP.
And from reading the verdict Tan’s work with Falun Gong at the behest of Wang Dan, was the chief argument against him.
@wahaha A german-chinese who was fired?
I havent read about that…Could a post a link for your source? Or do you mean the Journalist from the Deutsche Welle? Zhang Danhong?
I just read some articles about that and it is a good example of German medias “double moral standards”. This narrow-minded view on China in some German newspaper is really sad. But Deutsche Welle is generally one of the few, who has a broader view on China-related Topics and Ms. Zhang didn’t got fired in the End…. Also it is a good example for Chinese media, how obscure they use this kind of things “to strike back”(I mean the Nazi-comparison etc.) instead of laughing about this stupid people. But I guess it is another topic.
We will have a translation of the official verdict up sometime in the next day or two. But from looking at it right now — I don’t want to post any text because it isn’t finished — it appears Tan Zuoren’s crimes, according to the official verdict were three:
-He “cooked up” an article about June 4th that doesn’t match with the government’s version of events.
-He “colluded with others to donate blood” on June 4th to commemorate the event.
-He gave an interview to Sound of Hope
The real question — and the one you keep avoiding, ChasL — is whether you actually think any of that is something someone should be locked up for.
@ Wahaha: I wonder if Chinese people all really hate Liu Xiaobo, Ai Weiwei, Tan Zuoren, etc., as much as you keep saying. Most of what I read online from Chinese people indicates they admire those guys, although obviously I read a self-selecting group, but in my conversations with a lot of Chinese friends I’ve actually been very shocked that (1) they’re willing to talk about these issues with me at all and that (2) they seem to support these guys, especially the sichuan earthquake names project folks. You paint yourself as the spokesperson for Chinese people sometimes, but is there any evidence that most Chinese people actually have the same perception of these guys that you do?
C, it is a fact Sound of Hope is a Falun Gong propaganda outlet. It is also a fact Falun Gong is illegal in China. It is also a fact Falun Gong has stated goal to overthrow the Chinese government.
If I hook up with Al Qaeda and work with them to publish article that doesn’t match US government’s account, what do you think it’ll happen to me?
BTW, I don’t pretend to speak for a billion people. To be honest I ain’t even from China, so I really have no dog in this fight. My objection is, as it seems, the “official narrative” out there in media and blog sphere seems to be he got locked up for his quake investigation, yet nobody is talking about the facts of the case, such as his involvment with Falun Gong, an illegal organization under Chinese law.
Knowing how Falun Gong operates, I bet you Tan didn’t even know Sound of Hope is a Falun Gong group. These FLG front gorups seems to go out of their ways to hide their affiliation.
C, if I am not clear, then one more time – yes, it is something people should get locked up over, if it is within Chinese law that colluding with illegal groups gets one jail time.
Under US law it is illegal for me to work Al Qaeda, for example. If you want to change the subject and argue the merit of outlawing FLG, fine. But the fact remains under Chinese law it is an illegal group.
You paint yourself as the spokesperson for Chinese people sometimes, but is there any evidence that most Chinese people actually have the same perception of these guys that you do?
__________________________________________________
Check the UNpopularity of those people in America. I wouldnt have had the confidence making some claim if their popularity can be described as ok.
I will answer others later.
ChasL: How is giving an interview considered to work with someone?
@ ChasL: Tan Zuoren did not “work with Sound of Hope to create an article”. He gave them an interview, which just means he answered some questions and they broadcast what he said. Is speaking to someone associated with Falun Gong illegal?
In fact, it’s wholly possible, given that Tan had organized a whole event, that he was giving an interview to multiple media sources at once, not just Sound of Hope. I’m imagining something like a press conference, if there are fifteen different mics stuck in his face, is he really expected to do a background check on all of them before answering any questions or making a statement? Obviously I don’t know the details of the situation and — suspiciously — they don’t seem to be in the verdict.
And if Tan didn’t even know they were a Falun Gong group, isn’t that even worse? How can you possibly say that he deserves to serve five years in jail for talking to someone he didn’t even know represented an “illegal group”. (In my opinion, the whole idea of a group being by definition illegal is idiotic anyway…)
As for Al Qaeda, I’m not an expert on the subject, but my guess is that you gave an interview in a publication that was linked to Al Qaeda, pretty much nothing would happen to you. Being involved with their terrorist operations is one thing; giving an interview in a publication associated with them quite another. I can’t imagine what law they could even accuse you of breaking…
C, you forgot to mention Wang Dan (let’s not pretend we don’t know who he is wrt Falun Gong and the Taiwan Lobby, okay?) Here’s an exerpt from the verdict docuemnt:
其間還接受了境外敵對媒體「希望之聲」的電話採訪。2008年11月後，王丹多次向譚作人投發紀念「六四」二十周年活動相關資料。2009年2月10日，譚作人向王丹發出一份《六四20周年紀念活動建議》的電子郵件，建議在2009年「六四」期間實施所謂的「六四全球華人義務獻血活動」以紀念「六四」二十年
[Tan] also accepted telephone interview from enemy media “Sound of Hope”. Since 11/2008, Wang Dan repeatedly sent Tan zuoren information relating to [Falun Gong's] “64″ twenty year anniversay activity. On 2/10/2009, Tan sent an email titled “recommendation for 64 20th anniversary activity”, recommending commenorating “64″ 20th anniversary with a “global Chinese volunteer blood drive”.
I believe this establishes what we Amercans call “material support”. BTW Chi Mak got 25 years under FARA for much less.
forgive me, the second sentence should be:
…Tan sent Wang an email titled “recommendation…
Why are you assuming it was Falun Gong’s 6-4 activity? You can’t just put things like that in brackets without evidence. There is nothing about FLG anywhere in the Chinese text you quoted. (I wonder, too, why you keep posting traditional characters when you know that makes it harder for many people to read, it seems intentionally designed to obfuscate your “evidence” a bit)
And what connection does Wang Dan have with FLG? I just searched for “Wang Dan Falun Gong” on google and found nothing, except for one short article about a girl from Liaoning named Wang Dan who gave up FLG and joined the CPC in 2001.
Chi Mak gave sensitive military technology to the PRC, including information on nuclear submarine design, radar technology, stealth technology, and space/aviation technology. He was briefed EVERY YEAR on FOUO documents and how it was illegal to export them.
In what crazy-ass universe is knowingly giving military technology to a foreign country “much less” than doing an interview with a vaguely FLG-associated radio network and sending an email about organizing a blood drive?
C, here’s the “sensitive military technology” Chi Mak supposedly exported to China – public domain IEEE document everyone in China can download:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10252/32672/01531392.pdf?arnumber=1531392
BTW, so easy for you to accuse Chi Mak based on what US prosecution and court, wao wait, Chi Mak was not even charged with espionage:
http://www.4law.co.il/fbicn5.pdf
Yet, you are here not defending Chi Mak as a victim of wrongful FARA prosecution.
Here’s the “sensitive military technology” Chi Mak supposedly gave China – public domain IEEE documnt everyone in China can download with a credit card:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10252/32672/01531392.pdf?arnumber=1531392
Yet, you are so ready to not defend his mistreatment, but reiterate US government persecution of him. But when China does the same thing it’s human right this and that.
@ ChasL,
I don’t know about Chi Mak. Certainly, prominent cases like this in the past have been tainted by anti-China fear-mongering, so I’m ready to give him the benefit of doubt.
But blood drives and planning 6/4 events are not the same thing as working on behalf of a foreign government as its paid lobbyist (the subject of the law you’ve referred to), let alone working as a spy (the accusation against Chi Mak who, to my knowledge, was not organizing human rights events in the States). They just aren’t the same category.
If I have an event for human rights organization here in the United States and criticize Guantanamo or commemorate the Seattle protests of 1999 or Kent State and I receive money from foreign-based organizations or foundations… there is no problem. I’ve done that sort of thing, in fact. No one called me a spy or said I was giving “material support” to this or that enemy.
What’s a good analogy for Wang Dan? Maybe Angela Davis, exiled American activist, now living in Cuba. Would me talking with her on the phone about something I’m organizing in the States get me in trouble? No. It most definitely would not.
Would the FBI pay attention to me? Probably. But they couldn’t put me in jail for “subversion of state authority,” they’d just try to get a warrant for wiretapping my phone (which is depressingly easy now for them to do).
You’re blurring completely different things. And you know it. Who knows what your purpose is, beyond supporting government X and not government Y, but as you won’t talk about broader ideals, I’ll leave that alone.
OTR said it already, no need for me to repeat him, except to say that yes, the documents were public domain, but he was briefed yearly that it was still illegal to provide them to foreign governments.
That said, I’m not trying to defend the US government. The fact that the US government is ALSO guilty of something doesn’t make it OK for China to do it.
My guess is Tan Zuoren didn’t get a yearly briefing on how it’s illegal to talk to Wang Dan (apparently).
Not at all, C. Chi Mak was not involved in any politic, only his own academic work. There was no money involved, Mak wasn’t even charged with espionage, and he got 25 years.
Compare this with the 5 and 11 years you guys are complaining about. They involve politics even under US law is not allowed. If you are ignorant of Wang Dan’s connection with Taiwan, look up how he is connected to the Chen Suibian slush fund case that supplied funding to anti-China democracy activist in US via the Taiwan Lobby.
Still think 5 and 11 years is unjustified, from China’s POV?
OTR, I think you are making claims that seems to contradict with facts on the ground. Foreigners (or foreign money safe for you to take) are not allowed to meddle in our domestic politics. Anti-war activists from aboad are routinely arrested and deported.
You can question my motives all you want, but please try to come up with something more than a mere 50 cent okay? My motive is simple, I’m tired these ideological indoctrination by our supposed independent media, and I’m tired of my tax dollars go to support nut jobs in the street of America showing gory medical photos and claim of none existent atrocity in China.
[...] citizen’s investigation into the deaths of students in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, has been sentenced to five years in [...]
“Still think 5 and 11 years is unjustified, from China’s POV?”
It’s not about “China’s POV”. From the gov’t POV, killing all those people in Tiananmen was justified, too. What it’s about is whether or not it is right, and yes, I still think 5 or 11 years is extremely unjustified, regardless of what has happened in the US. The US has done many bad things, and I don’t approve of them, but this is a blog about China.
I’m not sure why this point is so hard for you 五毛党 to understand. BLOG ABOUT CHINA. Just because we criticize China’s human rights record (or whatever) doesn’t mean we think the US is better. BUT THIS IS A BLOG ABOUT CHINA.
One more time: BLOG ABOUT CHINA.
Ah, there’s that “50 cent party” McCarthyist accusation. Do you have any proof? I’m in Seattle come get me. Just an FYI I drive a German sports car that sucks down premium gas @ $4 a gallon, so there better be a “5000 dollar party” otherwise it’s not worth it.
The point of compare and contrast is never about exhonorating China’s action, but to understand rationally why countries protect their domestic affairs from foreign influence. China’s action is in light of pressure exerted by the most powerful hegemony in the world (yes that’s how I see my own country).
The NED is throwing out millions to buy this “string of pearl” to contain China, not only in terms of geopolitics (China had to respond by expanding it’s military), but also ideological struggle in sponsoring these “human rights heros”, “Tibet independent activists” (while forgetting where we got our land).
And China is responding by enforcing it’s law on preserving sovereign independence, quite naturally. Because from my vantage point we’d do the same thing as the Chinese.
Oh BTW, no one died in TAM that night. You can start by reading “The Myth of Tiananmen And the Price of a Passive Press from Columbia Journal Review.
This article was written in 1998, yet a decade later the “official narrative” continues in the Western hemisphere. It’s a sad commentary on how little we, and how unwilling we are, to understand China.
Oh one more – it’s a blog about China, but China’s POV is rejected wholesale.
“China” doesn’t have a POV. It is a nation, filled with many different people and different points of view. You mean the CCP’s POV (although even within the CCP, not everyone agrees with what happened to TZR and LXB), and in this case, yes, I do reject their perspective. Not wholesale though. I agree with the CCP on some, perhaps many issues. But Tan Zuoren isn’t one of them.
@ ChasL: That article is about how no one died on the Square itself. Even that says that hundreds were killed, just in other places like sidestreets around the Square. We use “Tiananmen” as shorthand because “Beijing massacre” makes it sound like the CCP killed a whole city (obviously not true) and “streets in the general vicinity of tiananmen massacre” is awkward.
Also, I find it amusing that me calling you a 50 cent party member is McCarthyist, when you did the exact same thing the post before it. Hypocritical much?
C, OTR questioned my motives and I said ” please try to come up with something more than a mere 50 cent okay?”. Well, did you?
The people died violating curfew and killing the troops DESERVED IT. What country doesn’t have right to impose domestic order? Have you heard of this thing called “Bonus Army Massacre” in US history? Probably not because we don’t refere to the suppression of the Bonus Army protesters in DC as “massacre”.
So, if we do the same thing, why can’t the Chinese? Again, the comparison and contrast is in the hope to rationally understand China’s action, beyond some veceral, simplistic slogan fabricated to indoctrinate our “official narrative” of TAM.
Trust me. I spent months studying Tiananmen and the protests that led up to it. I have read internal Chinese govt documents, tons and tons of interviews, more than you would probably think even exists. I understand the government’s motivation in intervening militarily, and how the student leaders sort of forced them into that situation by making vague demands that would have been impossible for the gov’t to comply with even if they wanted to. But NOTHING excuses the killing of unarmed civilians. Not in the US, not in China, not anywhere.
That said, the Bonus Army comparison is ridiculous. For one, the number of casualties is not comparable. Two, that happened in the 1930s, whereas people involved in Tiananmen 1989 are still in the CCP leadership. Three, most of the killing and wounding occurred when General MacArthur took matters into his own hands and invaded the bonus army camps even though the President had ordered him not to, so he was acting illegally and his army’s actions, while reprehensible, were not ordered by the US government. In fact, the President expressly ordered him not to invade the camp.
People deserved to be killed for violating curfew? Jesus, you aren’t 五毛党，you’re not even human. Do you have no ability whatsoever for empathy? I agree that if you attack soldiers, you’re asking for trouble, but we both know that plenty of people died that night who didn’t attack anyone violently. Even if you think their cause was totally unjustified, you think it’s right for them to be killed? No charges, no trial, no chance to explain, just summarily executed in the street? It doesn’t just affect them, you know. It affects their families, their friends…so because of one night’s mistake, if you believe it was that, one night choosing to go outside instead of staying in doors, these mothers deserved to lose their sons and daughters?
If you truly believe that, there is no point in you replying to this comment, as I will never agree with that, no matter how you justify it.
Just to remind you, Custer, GW Bush sent Blackwater mercenaries to New Orleans with shoot to kill order, to maintain order and enforce curfew.
Those Bejing rioters threw molotov cocktail at unarmed riot police on initial attempt to maintain order. AFAIK under the circumstance use of lethal weapon would be allowed even under our own laws.
As to the “collateral damage” of the riot, it is unfortunate. However given the circumstance (curfew, unarmed troops killed by the mob, approaching armed troops blasting megaphones) is it not fathomable that those who didn’t mean to be there, are simply caught in the cross-fire, and did not die from mallicious murder our “official narrative” seems to suggest?
Yes, and again, no one is saying that the US is somehow better than China. THIS IS A BLOG ABOUT CHINA. That said, even though they did a terrible job of maintaining order, I don’t recall hearing of any major massacres.
And how many troops were killed by the mob, exactly? Even if you believe the CCPs official narrative word for word, it isn’t many.
Also, your last sentence doesn’t make sense. I mean grammatically, not logically (though it might also not make logical sense, I have no way of knowing).
Custer, do you really believe the “thousands killed” propaganda? The Chinese government released casualty figure of 243 after their investigation, which is in-line with our own NSA estimate of 180-500, including soldiers.
Again, not justifying China’s action, just trying to call to attention the rationality and standards of “reasonable use of force”, via compare and contrast.
It was basically a mini civil war that night. In Iraq we’ve pulled trigger on less.
Obviously, there’s no way to prove it, but my guess is that the truth lies somewhere between the official CCP estimate and the crazy estimates made by some left-wing groups who weren’t even there. (Or the Soviet Union, whose estimate is also pretty damn crazy.)
If pressed, I’d probably go along with the NYT’s rough estimate of about 50 soldiers and police, 400-800 civilians (this estimate was based mostly on reports from Beijing hospitals and interviews with doctors at various hospitals). But there’s really no way of knowing at this point. (As a sidenote, I would say that’s precisely why Ai Weiwei and Tan Zuoren were so invested in collecting the names and information of the students who died in the Beichuan quake).
Which night? In either case (Bonus Army or TAM), it was no “civil war”. War is what they call it when both sides have guns.
Ok, C, that’s your opinion, I can accept that. Now compare your opinion with the “official narrative” we are exposed to – tanks rolling over students, indiscriminate slaughtering of citizens without justification. I for one can not reconcile the gap between facts and truth we’re told by our free media.
Now, take a look at the Tan Zuoren case. Not one media report bothered to mentioned Tan’s association with Falun Gong, only he’s framed for trying to expose some state-sponsored consipracy in the quake.
And there’s not one blog about this either. Can you find one? Your translation of the verdict document even left out “hostile foreign media”, did not link to SoH website, seemingly an attempt to downplay the Falun Gong angle.
ChasL,
You forgot a few more massacres by the U.S. and close allies of the U.S. in the past century: Bloody Mingo County (West Virginia), Kent State (Ohio), El Mozote (El Salvador), Mai Lai (Vietnam), etc. Plus, you alluded earlier to the genocide of Native Americans… if we went back to the 1800s we’d find even more atrocities. Governments have rationales for doing things, even crimes against humanity. Duh. Is your whole point that governments aren’t idiots?
We can get WHY states do stuff. But our purpose is to keep them in check, not rush to their defence. Surely, they don’t need it!
P.S. He had no “association” with FLG. He accepted an interview. If I am interviewed by Xinhua, do I become an employee of the Chinese govt?
Some Beijing rioters wrestled guns from soldiers. Here’s an article written by Gregory Clark on why it’s wrong to call the riot a deliberate massacre:
Birth of a massacre myth
OTR, Xinhua is not an illegal organization under US law. Go ahead give phone interview to Al Qaeda, sent them suggestions on how to politicize 9/11, let’s see how well you do.
Al Qaeda is a news outlet?
My apologies, I do not know the name of Al Qaeda’s proaganda outlet. But go ahead, contact them, give them interviews, email them suggestion on coordinating some 9/11 demonstration, let’s see how well you do.
Oh, I see, “Al Qaeda” is a news outlet funded by exiled U.S. dissidents or a religious cult overseas. Then the analogy is perfect! All this time I thought it was a terrorist group that flew planes into buildings and blew up subways…
My bad!
not at all. besides ur absurd super-strict semantics, there’s also the parallel AQ is illegal under US law, and association with groups like AQ is sanctioned under US law.
ChasL: Given that even THE GOVERNMENT’S OFFICIAL VERDICT didn’t mention “Tan Zuoren’s connection with FLG”, can you really blame the media for not mentioning it? Call me crazy, but I suspect they left it out because IT ISN’T THERE.
Also, I’m not sure what you’re smoking, but our translation DOES link to Sound of Hope. The translator left out the “敌” bit, by accident I assume, and I have already fixed that, but the Sound of Hope link has been there since the post originally went up.
It is not semantics. Wang Dan and FLG may be objectionable to many in the CCP, as well as the Party’s supporters at home and abroad… and these dissidents may be considered enemies of the state in some formal, “legal” way, but they are NOT terrorists. It’s a stupid analogy.
I suppose your response might be: but it is still “rational” for the CCP to wet it’s collective pants about them and do mean things to them, just like [insert country] has done to it citizens. Maybe, maybe not.
But, again, the fact that states have their reasons for doing things is not a revelation. I ASSUME states have reasons for doing things. The question is: is what they do morally right? My answer to the TAM massacre, the bonus marchers massacre, El Mozote and all the rest is: no.
My apology, the link to SoH was on the 2nd reference to SoH in the document, not the 1st.
As I’ve stated OTR, the parallel is they are illegal with respect to local laws. Wang Dan is wanted in China, and his assoication with Taiwanese intelligence agency is not a secret.
OTR, do you think it is morally right to suspend the legality and standard for use of deadly force, when it comes to evaluating Chinese government’s handling of the riot, in order to force the “massacre” claim?
So, you don’t care about right or wrong? You’re essentially apolitical and amoral? Or you actively support each and every massacre or arrest carried out by each and every government anywhere in the world? What is your point?
In answer to your question: yes. A massacre is bigger than the excuses governments make for themselves.
[...] PS. 我要作人 [...]