All posts by LLD - 210. page

The 17th anniversary of the 1989 Pro-Democracy Demonstration and the June 4th Tiananmen Massacre in China is drawing near and for 17 years, I have been looking forward to the day of truth in China. Today, those of us who lived through the dreams and tears as protesters striving for a free China, and those who survived the massacre, prison, and exile are still fighting to have China acknowledge what really happened during that tragic time.

It was a life-defining moment for myself and for the people of my generation. It was my first realization that Chinese all over the world, whether they are from Beijing or Shanghai, Hong Kong, or Taipei, all share the dream for a free and democratic China and it was the first time for the world to learn of this dream. It was this dream that scared the communist regime to such a depth that it would use extreme violence to maintain power with utter contempt toward human life. The Chinese communist regime attacked its own capital with brute force, senselessly killing an uncounted number of peaceful demonstrators. Tens of thousands were subsequently put into prison for expressing their own opinion in the following persecution and for 17 years, anyone who dared to talk about the June 4th Massacre in public or on the Internet, faces years in prison. Why is such a powerful regime so afraid of what happened 17 years ago? Only because such a regime lives in the shadow of bloody murder and lies.

I was fortunate to be a part of this Demonstration. Throughout the whole event, I was inspired by the peacefulness and discipline of the protesters, in spite of the strong oppression from the communist government. On the morning of April 22, tens of thousands of students waited on Tiananmen Square for the memorial service of Hu Yaobang, the former leader who had a reputation for political openness. In front of the Big Hall, the students proposed seven requests calling for more political and economic freedom. We asked for a direct dialogue on issues such as corruption and press freedom. That was the time when I first realized that all of us on Tiananmen Square want a better China with freedom and democracy, and believed that our collective voice would be heard. Within the Big Hall, all the ranking leaders of the communist regime were present. Yet, besides a failed attempt from the police to charge the crowds, there was no answer to the protesters who had been on Tiananmen Square since the previous evening. The protesters decided to go back to school and continue protesting. So overwhelming was our common belief that tens of thousands of students, without a formal organization, acting as if we were one person, could overcome the threat of oppression. It was such a powerful surprise to the ruling old men—including the mastermind of the Tiananmen Massacre, Deng Xiaoping, who was seen visibly shaken on TV inside the Big Hall while attending Hu’s memorial service. This contrast remained throughout the whole protest until the bloody massacre: new against old, peace against violence, hope against desperation, love for freedom against fear of losing power.
{mospagebreak}
On May 17, the day of the "Million People Demonstration" in Beijing, the majority of Beijing residents became involved in the student-led protest. I was a member of the Beijing Alliance of Independent Student Unions, the leading body of the protest. We built an efficient broadcasting station covering the whole Tiananmen Square. People from all walks of society came to show their support. Journalists from the official media carried the slogan, "No more lies, we want to tell the truth." Government officials came to our station to urge the ruling old men to talk to the students. Judges chanted, "Rule by law, end corruption." Even monks came to plea for the regime to show their humanity. Later, famous rock star Cui Jian wanted to sing with the students. Protesters poured from all corners of Beijing into Tiananmen Square. At the same time, over 1,000 students were on a hunger strike, and we set up traffic control maintained by volunteers. Almost every minute there was an ambulance going through this huge crowd, carrying the students (including myself at one time) to emergency care. It was a miraculous feat that all of the hunger strikers were taken care of by volunteers during these activities. The state media reported that even the crime rate in Beijing dropped to a record low. This fact was a testimony to the peacefulness and devotion of the protesters. A postal worker delivered hundreds of telegraphs of sympathy from all over the country to us many times during the day. One day he asked me, "You have been here on Tiananmen Square for days. Do you have a word for your family?" So I wrote, "I am on Tiananmen Square, together with a million common Chinese like me, I have no fear of the tyranny."

My family was worried, so were all the families with college kids in Beijing. As early as April 25, without any due process, Deng Xiaoping declared that he would crush the protesters with armed troops. By May 20, 1989, the day Li Peng declared martial law in Beijing, 14 army groups encircled Beijing. The total number of troops deployed to attack the civilians of Beijing was more than that of all the U.S. army in Operation Desert Storm. In the morning of the 4th of June, I was among the last group of students who were driven out of Tiananmen Square by tanks and guns. I saw guns firing and heard gunshots all night long. Beijing was on fire and smothered in smoke. Fuxing Hospital near Muxidi, was filled with civilians who were killed or wounded. I saw another 40 or so bodies left in the garage area. One of them was Zhong Qing, a student at Tsinghua, the same university that I was from. The exact number of deaths could never be confirmed. I was put on the "most wanted" list and arrested on June 13, 1989.

Today the victims of the Tiananmen Massacre still face persecution by the communist regime. During all these years, Professor Ding Zilin and the Tiananmen Mothers have been calling for an investigation of the Massacre. At the same time, the regime still uses all its force to purge people’s memory of 1989 and instead, the Chinese have been forced to accept only the official statement. Fang Zheng, who lost both legs to the tanks near Tiananmen Square, was not allowed to participate in the Special Olympics.{mospagebreak}

Outside of China, we will carry on this fight for truth and justice. Each year, people around the world gather in memorial. Feng Congde, one of my fellow student leaders, set up the website, 64memo.com to collect photos, tapes, and articles about the Demonstration. In the year 2000, I was one of the plaintiffs who sued Li Peng in the United States for his actions against humanity during 1989. The other plaintiffs are Zhang Liming, whose sister was killed in the Tiananmen Massacre, Liu Gang, Wang Dan, and Xiong Yan, former student leaders on Tiananmen Square. I hope that one day we can do the same in China. It is a long journey, but truth and justice will always overcome lies and violence.

Zhou Fengsuo, the fifth most wanted student after the June 4th Tiananmen Massacre, was imprisoned but never tried or sentenced. At the time, Zhou was physics major at Tsinghua University and a member of the Standing Committee of the Beijing Students Autonomous Union. He was finally released after a year in prison. Today, Zhou resides in California.

[Editor’s note: Chinese leader Hu Jintao’s visit to the United States in mid-April has drawn widespread attention. Many listeners in China called Voice of America and expressed their views. Here are some of their comments from a translation of the VOA transcript on April 28.]

Chinese Leaders Say One Thing and Do Another

Mr. Ye, Jiangsu Province: "President Bush is open and straightforward, but the Chinese authorities have always been inconsistent and play games with ulterior motives. They give empty promises and have done all evil things possible."

Mr. Xue, Chongqing City: "I think what China cares about the most is its image this time. As a matter of fact, the incident at the welcoming ceremony was not a bad thing. A country with such a large population has always carried one voice and one standard media report. Don’t you think that something is unusual? Hu has proposed the "Eight Honors and Eight Disgraces" with the emphasis on honesty. I hope he will take serious action in political reform. [I hope] he will not simply stage a show for the Americans or the whole world while still imposing strict control and dictating to his own people back home."

Mr. Zhang, Hebei Province: "I think it is good that President Hu Jintao talks to President Bush. I wish that Chinese leaders would not talk back when they are criticized. Take the human rights issue as an example. They should give honest answers, not pick on the minor errors and reject the criticism. Some Chinese officials always say, ‘The United States has many human rights issues. What right do they have to criticize China?’ They think they are being smart, but they act foolish."

The Protest by a Falun Gong Practitioner

Mr. Qiao, Shanxi Province: "I don’t think there will be much accomplished from Hu’s visit. The Chinese people don’t care much about his visit. He seems to be friendly with the United States, but he still jams VOA’s signal. He did not learn much from the advanced political structure of the United States on his visit. There will not be improvement to the political system at all after he returns. As to the protest staged by the Falun Gong practitioner, I felt this was not a bad thing. What’s wrong with having a different voice?"

Mr. Xiao, Fujian Province: "When President Hu Jintao was speaking, there was one Falun Gong [practitioner] protesting. I think the United States was behind this. Otherwise, how could a Falun Gong practitioner get in under such tight security? The United States must be driving it."{mospagebreak}

Hu Jintao Does Not Represent The Chinese People

Mr. Wang, Shanghai: "Frankly speaking, Chinese people are not too excited about Hu’s visit. Hu is not the leader we elected, so why do we care? The Chinese authorities continue to jam VOA’s signal. Is this a friendly gesture?"

Ms. Wei, Yunan Province: "In the welcome ceremony, Hu Jintao claimed that he represents 1.3 billion Chinese people. Mr. Hu, let me ask you, what makes you think that you can represent us? Which one of us voted for you to represent us in the United States?"

Will Hu Give in on Fundamental Issues?

Mr. Yang, Jiangxi Province: "It is necessary for our leader to visit the United States and exchange ideas with the U.S. leader. It is beneficial for maintaining the world’s stability."

Mr. Hu, Shandong Province: "Don’t think that the disagreement between the United States and China will disappear. It is obvious that China positions itself against the United States in all international affairs. I hope the United States does not "warm a snake at one’s bosom."

Mr. Li, Liaoning Province: "When China is seeking economic development and calling for human rights and democracy, [we are waiting to see] whether Hu as the leader from the new generation, can make wise decisions and completely change the dictatorship that has existed for several thousand years and advance China to a democratic society like Taiwan. If Hu has the ambition and courage, he may become a prominent leader in Chinese history."

Mr. Liu, Shanghai: "Hu is no doubt the leader of communist China. We saw him signing purchase orders for airplanes, but we also know he carries with him not only the carrots but also a baseball bat. He will not give in on certain issues."

Translated by CHINASCOPE 

On March 20, 2006, Gao Zhisheng[1], China’s renowned human rights lawyer, left his Beijing home after more than five months of constant surveillance by the Chinese secret police.

Gao told a reporter from The Epoch Times: "I am really driven beyond the limits of tolerance. If I stayed home, they would be there disturbing me endlessly and there would be no life for my family."

Gao stayed at a friend’s house for a few days before driving back to his hometown in Shaanbei, Shaanxi Province. He planned to stay there for 10 days to pay respect to his ancestors, including his mother. Instead of returning home directly, Gao stopped at towns and villages along the way to talk with the local people. In his daily diary published on The Epoch Times website, Gao recorded his encounters with the people he met in the countryside.

Widespread Discontent

Everywhere Gao went, people came to speak with him about their inability to find justice through the legal system. When Gao was in Dingzhou City, a man from Yangquan City, Shanxi Province, came to see him about the injustice he had suffered. Gao said, "When Yu Zhonghua came to see me today, his left hand had been cut off with only a piece of flesh sewn on his arm. Yu spent over 30,000 yuan (US$3,742) in medical expenses out of his own pocket. He is now disabled. However, his offender, who has influence and connection with the police department, did not receive any punishment."

Ms. Zhang, a 28-year-old school teacher, has been appealing for her father over an unpaid debt for seven years. Her father was in the building construction business for more than 20 years. In 1998, Zhang’s father finished a building project for a private art school in Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province, but never received the payment due—400,000 yuan (US$48,800). The case went to court, and Zhang’s father won. The court ordered the school to pay all the money plus applicable interest and also put a lien against the school by holding a school vehicle. However, the vehicle was soon returned to the school upon a release order signed by the judge.

The school principal told Zhang’s father: "We paid the court officials over 300,000 yuan (US$36,600) in monetary gifts. Why don’t you do the same?" When the construction workers Zhang’s father had hired lined up outside his house to demand their wages, Zhang’s father had no means of paying them. A year later, he was still afraid to return home and suffered a heart attack and brain infarction.

In 2004, Zhang learned from a televised news report that Gao had offered free service to defend a boy who broke his leg in a car accident. That prompted Zhang to begin searching for Gao to help her father. She was happy that they were finally able to meet.{mospagebreak}

Qin Yingquan, of Shanxi Province, learned that Gao would pass by Lishi City around 11 p.m. At 9 p.m., Qin was waiting by the roadside. The next day, they had lunch together. Qin told Gao that the police are afraid to come to his village. If they enter the village, the farmers will beat them up. Villagers do not allow police vehicles to enter the village. They set the vehicles on fire if they enter. A few days ago, villagers used stones to drive away the police from the neighboring village.

Qin told Gao a story about officials from the Village Chinese Communist Party Political and Legal Committee bringing a group of people to the village to carry out their so-called "duty of visiting the poor to obtain an understanding of the situation." More than 100 villagers covered their heads with plastic bags with holes for their eyes and nose. They tied white towels on their left arms and greeted the officials with sticks and stones.

"How could they still pretend to care for the poor? No one believes them," Qin said. Finally the Party Committee had to call over 100 anti-riot police to help them flee from the village at midnight.

Talking With People in the Countryside

On March 31, Gao left Taiyuan City for his hometown in Shaanbei. The trip usually takes four hours by car, but it took 10 hours this time because Gao stopped wherever he saw a large group of people gathering. He stopped in Ling County, the last county in Shanxi Province, and talked to a group of people there.

Gao asked them what they worried about the most, what was on their minds, their views of the village officials and Communist Party. People gathered around him, and Gao distributed his articles, including his open letters to the Chinese leaders about the persecution of Falun Gong. He told them to read the articles after they went back home and to pass them on to their friends and relatives. Gao told the crowd that they would find three things in his articles—the truth about Falun Gong, the communist regime, and the reality of China—the true stories that are different from what they have been told. Dozens of people eagerly asked to have a copy of his articles.

Gao told The Epoch Times reporter that some of the people had heard of him. Petitioners know him, as do those who listen to radio stations such as Sound of Hope or Radio France International. Many had heard about the police harassment and surveillance Gao was experiencing and were surprised to see him. People held his hands and wouldn’t let him leave.{mospagebreak}

People Ready to Resort to Violence

While chatting with the local people, Gao heard about an incident that had happened last year in the Luliang area of Shanxi Province. Farmers had planted tons of explosives under a hotel where local Party leaders were planning to hold a meeting. The plot was discovered and many people were arrested. However, the incident was never reported.

Many people told Gao that the situation in their areas had already reached a critical point several years ago and could ignite into violent revolution.

"This worries us the most because China has large rural areas and large numbers of farmers, nearly 900 million now, with a common wish to overthrow the communist regime, and they are asking how this should be done," Gao said. "We see a danger, and I worry about it all the time. I keep telling them not to resort to violence. In all the places I have visited, the people are mentally prepared to use violence to bury the communist regime.

"I met many people in Lishi City. When I told them this regime must end, immediately their eyes brightened up. All of them told me that they could mobilize many people to fight. One could see that the only thing on their minds is violence. They are waiting for the opportunity. They told me that none of them believe in any words from the communist regime. I tried my best to tell them that violence creates violence. Once you start using violence, it will hurt you because the process of violence is a double-edged sword. Right now, wherever I go, I call for the adoption of non-violence, no bloodshed, and no enemies. Many people wept after hearing my words. They asked who could lead them. When could they be part of this non-violent protest?"

Gao illustrated the fact that the farmers are prepared to abandon the communist regime. He said outbreaks of fire were abnormally high in Shanxi Province this year because people were using fire as a way to release their anger.

Falling Moral Values

Other incidents during Gao’s trip caused him to be concerned over the low level of social and moral values. When Gao took a taxi to Dingzhou, the driver told him all the hotels were far away, yet there was one nearby. In Dingzhou, he paid a heavy fine for a car accident he was in even though he was not at fault. The auto body shop where he took his car for repair cheated him.{mospagebreak}

"Honesty, responsibility, and sympathy for other people are the soul of a society. It should be the fundamental base of human beings. There is no such a thing in China now. Without it, China is like a person without a soul," Gao said.

When Gao arrived in his hometown, he did not get any relief from the constant harassment by secret police stationed outside his house. A week later, he was forced to go back to Beijing because all his family members, including a 30-day-old grandniece, were constantly beng harassed. Their everyday life was being seriously disturbed.

Gao is currently home and remains connected with the outside world through cell phone. He still posts his diary and articles on The Epoch Times website every day.

On April 26, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a resolution that urged China to lift the suspension of Gao’s law license and allow him to reopen his law firm:

"Be it resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That- (1) Congress-urges the Government of the People’s Republic of China, at all levels, to cease its harassment of Mr. Gao Zhisheng, overturn the suspension of his license to practice law, and restore his legal right to represent the clients of his choosing as protected by China’s own Constitution, its Criminal Procedure Law, and its Lawyers Law."

Gao urged the United States to do more. He said that the injustices that he and others like him are suffering are not only a tragedy for the Chinese people but also a shame for humankind. He asked that Western countries not repeat the mistake of being bystanders as they did at the outset of World War II. He called on democratic countries to pay attention to the fundamental cause that is driving the tragedy that he and other Chinese citizens are suffering today.

Lukun Yu is a writer based in New York.

References:

[1] Since October 2005, Gao Zhisheng, the eminent lawyer and human rights defender in China, has been under the surveillance of the Chinese secret police 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Beijing Judicial Bureau shut down his law firm and suspended his license. In 2001, China’s Ministry of Justice named Gao one of the top 10 lawyers. However, his fate took a sharp turn following his three open letters to China’s top leaders in which he deplored the wrongful persecution of Falun Gong. One April 26, 2006, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a resolution urging China to lift the suspension of Gao’s law practice. Chinascope provided full coverage of Gao Zhisheng in the February issue. This Article is a follow-up on Gao’s trip back to his hometown in Shaanxi Province at the end of March.

Kangxi was one of the longest-reigning emperors during China’s Qing dynasty. He came to the throne at the age of 8, was in charge of all affairs by the age of 14 and passed away at the age of 69. He reigned for 61 years.

Kangxi became emperor under peculiar circumstances. One year while China was still under his father’s rule (Emperor Shunzhi), a smallpox epidemic ravaged the palace and the emperor’s beloved concubine died. It caused him immense pain and he decided to become a monk. Amid the ensuing chaos, the grandmother decided to put the recovering eight-year-old Kangxi on the throne. China became a prosperous, strong nation under his reign.

Emperor Kangxi in the Eyes of Westerners

Jesuit Joachim Bouvet was born in France in 1656 and was sent to China by Louis XIV. Bouvet became Kangxi’s tutor for a period of time, teaching him Western subjects like the Julian calendar and calculations, chemistry, anatomy, and medicine.

On July 4, 1693, Kangxi contracted malaria. He recovered after taking the medicine prescribed by two Catholic priests, Bouvet and Jean-Francois Gerbillon. To reward them for their efforts, Kangxi granted them land in the west of the imperial city to build missionary dormitories. Bouvet was appointed Imperial Envoy to France the same day. Bouvet accepted with pleasure and soon set sail. When he returned to France, he presented his writing, Biography of Emperor Kangxi, to Louis XIV.

The following was part of his introduction of Kangxi to Louis XIV:

"Your Majesty had sent me to this emperor as a missionary a few years ago. I had the great fortune of meeting such a great figure we had never thought existed outside of France. Like you, my Majesty, he possesses the same noble character, remarkable wisdom and magnanimous mind that befit a king. He treats himself and the country in the same conscientious and careful manner. He is well respected by his people and neighboring countries. With what he has achieved, he is not only someone with an awe-inspiring reputation, but a real sage with solid strength. It is amazing to be able to see such a brilliant king as a neighbor.

He is a genius with unbelievable memory, knowledge, wisdom and observation. He manages the daily chaotic routine with stamina. He establishes, directs and carries out his plans with a will of steel. His habits and hobbies are elegant and in good taste, as a king’s should be. He has the qualities of submitting to the truth and exercising absolute restraint of his own emotions and desire. His good qualities are endless.{mospagebreak}

Kangxi is a fair person who proceeds impartially according to the law and appoints whosoever is able. These are the moral maxims of his rule. In addition, wherever a serious disaster arises, his exceptional apprehension tells of his strong sense of responsibility as the father and ruler of the country.

Kangxi takes time to travel around different provinces and inspect people’s living conditions and the administrative skills of his officials. While on these tours, he allows humble artisans and farmers to be around him and he treats them with friendship and kindliness. He asks people all sorts of questions, particularly about their satisfaction with the local government. When people complain about a certain official, that official will lose his job. But on the other hand, when a certain official is being praised, he does not necessarily get a raise.

Kangxi leads a simple life. His clothing is far from luxurious. This is not because he is stingy or mean. His personal frugality is subordinate to a generosity for the well-being of the people and his subordinates. He makes immense investments for the development of trade, canal and river conservation work and in businesses like bridge and ship building. It is not difficult to see that his simple life is a reflection of his true understanding of the meaning of thrift, as well as his will to be a well-loved ruler and father of the nation."

Bouvet looks back on his close contact with Kangxi in his book. He says:

"The Emperor personally asked us questions on Western science, stories and customs and many other things. He was so earnest that he asked us to sit on the floor next to his Emperor’s chair. Such extraordinary treatment is usually only granted to the prince!"

When Kangxi Consulted a Doctor

Kangxi contracted some strange disease. The imperial doctors used all the expensive, rare medicines at their disposal, but to no avail. He was so angry that he stopped taking them.

One night he dressed up as a commoner and went out of the palace for a walk alone. He came to a street and saw a small herb shop. It was late in the night but the shop was still lit and sounds of chanting were in the air. He thought, "None of the imperial doctors’ abilities were prudent. Well, as the ancient saying goes, ‘Ginseng is found in small herb shops.’ Why don’t I take a look?" Then he knocked on the door.

When he entered the structure he saw a middle-aged man reading by candle light. He guessed the man must be the herb doctor.{mospagebreak}

The doctor asked, "What can I do for such a late night visitor?" Kangxi replied, "Sorry to bother you so late. But I have a strange disease, which makes me itch all over and my body is covered in red spots. I have consulted many doctors, but to no avail. Can you check me out?" The doctor said, "Please take off your top to let me have a look." He did as he was told. The doctor took just one look and said, "You don’t have to worry. It’s nothing. It’s just that you have been eating too many delicacies and the chronic consumption of ginseng is like ‘oil to the fire,’ which causes the red spots and the itchiness." Kangxi asked, "Can it be cured?" The doctor replied with certainty, "Yes, the right medicine will do it." He then got a jar from a wooden shelf, put a piece of cloth on the table and emptied the contents of the jar onto the cloth. It was a heavy bundle weighing eight catties. (One catty equals approximately 16 ounces.)

Kangxi was surprised, "Doctor, how much should I use for one dose?" The doctor laughed, "This is not an oral medicine. After you get home, put this eight catties of herbs into 100 catties of water and bring it to the boil. Pour all of it into a tub, then bathe in it when the temperature is right. You will be cured after taking 3 to 5 baths."

Kangxi then thought, "None of the imperial doctors can cure me with their various prescriptions but your worthless looking herb can?" The doctor saw his doubts and smiled, "Don’t you worry. I am not after your money. You can take it home and give it a try. I won’t charge you if you can’t be cured."

Kangxi said, "All right. I will reward you greatly if I am really cured." He did as he was instructed after returning to the palace. Just as expected, once he was in the tub, he immediately felt relieved and refreshed beyond words. After three baths he no longer itched and the red spots disappeared.

He was thrilled and returned to the herb shop in layman’s clothes again on the fourth day.

When the doctor saw the smiling Kangxi, he knew he had recovered. He said on purpose, "Are you here to pay me for the medicine?" Kangxi replied, "Yes, sir. How much is it?" The doctor broke into laughter, "Please forgive me. Your doubtful look the other night prompted me to deliberately say that I would not charge you if you were not cured. Well, now that you are cured I am still charging you nothing; I am impressed by your airs and graces! And may I ask if we can be friends? Can you tell me your name please?"

Kangxi smiled, "My name is Huang Tianxing. I am a scholar." The doctor was happy hearing his reply and said, "I am Zhao Gueitang. I am also a penniless scholar. My father wished my name to be on the royal list of successful candidates of the civil service examination. He hoped I could honor our ancestors but I failed with my few attempts. Now I can only run this small herb shop here in the capital, seeing patients and studying at the same time and wishing that I could make the list one day."{mospagebreak}

Kangxi replied, "My friend, as people say, ‘There’s a way for everyone.’ With your expertise, I can recommend you to be an imperial doctor. Isn’t it as good as being on the royal list?" Zhao smiled and said, "You are wrong. A doctor should think on behalf of the common people and serve their needs. Although I may enjoy the fame and fortune as an imperial doctor, it’s my wish to serve the people. If I cannot do that, what good am I as a doctor?"

Kangxi was moved to reply, "I really admire your virtue and goals. But please excuse me for saying this, my dear friend. Since you have failed to become a select scholar, why don’t you settle on the medical path where you can excel?" Zhao said, "That’s what I thought too. But this path isn’t easy, either. Although I have the will, I don’t have the money to support myself. My friend, if you get wealthy one day, maybe you can help me build a big medicinal hall. See it as a repayment for your cure!"

Without hesitation Kangxi asked, "What should we name it if we are to build the hall? Ah, let us call it ‘Ton Ren Tan.’ What do you think?" Zhao smiled and said when he realized that Kangxi had taken his joke seriously, "I am just kidding. I don’t mean it. Anyway, to build a medicinal hall takes a lot of money. God knows when you will get it?" Kangxi said, "Let’s give it a try." He then walked over to the desk, picked up the pen, wrote a note and put his chop on it. He instructed Zhao, "My friend, take it to the internal affairs bureau tomorrow. I have a friend there who may be able to help you." With these words he left.

Looking at the hurried departure of his new acquaintance, Zhao Gueitang thought how strange this man was. The next day he took the note to the internal affairs bureau. He handed it over and after a while a eunuch arrived and led him inside. They went through a yard and came to a big house. The eunuch opened the door, pointed inside and asked, "Is this enough for your medicine, Mr. Zhao?" Zhao looked inside and was shocked. The house was full of money. He was stunned. The eunuch then said, "Mr. Zhao, his majesty has instructed us to give you a medicinal hall since you cured his illness and didn’t charge him anything. Isn’t it what you wished for?"

Zhao awakened: The man he did not mind befriending was actually the emperor. He regretted his ridiculous request.

A few days later, a big medicinal hall, Ton Ren Tan, was built. Zhao moved in and on the day of the opening ceremony he was surprised by Kangxi’s unexpected appearance. Kangxi smiled, "Don’t get all flustered! I have paid your fee. You will charge me nothing for the next consultation!"

From then on, Ton Ren Tan became a famous medicinal hall in Beijing to this day.

Whenever I discuss the "Rule of Law in China," I am reminded of the little third grade boy who was asked on an English examination to define "leprechaun." He wrote that "leprechauns are similar to fairies, elves, virgins, and other mythical creatures."

Similarly, the "Rule of Law" in China is also the stuff of mythology. It exists only in the minds of Paul Martin and assorted other Western politicians laboring under the delusion that if they wish it so, and say it is so, then it will become so.

More on the general topic of "Rule of Law" in China, in another article. But for our purposes, the point to be made here is that any foreign investor contemplating direct investment in China on the assumption that there is a functioning legal system in place to protect his/her investment acts at his peril, influenced by a serious misconception.

Arbitration Clauses: Avoiding the Disaster of Appearing in a Chinese "Court"

A foreign player entering the Chinese market on a contractual basis for the first time has two choices, insofar as disputes arising under his contract are concerned. When it comes to the dispute resolution clause in the contract, there is absolutely no rational choice whatever, as between allowing the matter to go before a Chinese "court" on the one hand, or opting for arbitration on the other hand. Without exception, every foreign joint venturer who has obtained competent legal advice will insist on the insertion of an arbitration clause in the contract. On no account will the "savvy" foreign player ever voluntarily come within a thousand miles of a Chinese "court."

The two choices for dispute resolution are: arbitration by a Chinese arbitration body, or arbitration abroad. In my view (and this is the advice I gave all my foreign investor clients over a period of 14 years of practice in China), this choice should always be exercised in favor of a foreign arbitration clause. I personally favored the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, though the ICC, AAA, or any of several other popular alternatives would be acceptable. I have always advised that insistence by the Chinese party on arbitration in China should be treated as a "dealbreaker." The reasons for this, however, are somewhat ironic and take most clients by surprise. It is not because "everything in China is corrupt" and the Chinese arbitrators are as corrupt as are the Chinese "courts." In fact, they are not. Although some foreign lawyers specializing in Chinese legal matters have somewhat soured on practices of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC),* in recent years, the overall record of arbitrations before this body is quite good. The competence of CIETAC’s panel of arbitrators is very high and their awards have generally commanded respect. Moreover, if a foreign party is nervous about impartiality, he/she may choose a foreign arbitrator from among those on the CIETAC panel.{mospagebreak}

Quite aside from the pros or cons of resolving disputes in "courts" or before a panel of arbitrators, the fact is that no client really wants to do either, if there is any way the process can be avoided. Every business person prefers to settle disputes amicably through negotiation, if this is an option.

The first irony is found in the fact that I have more faith in the genuine impartiality of Chinese arbitrators than do most of the Chinese parties with whom I negotiated over the years on behalf of foreign investors. The Chinese parties typically assumed, incorrectly, that a Chinese arbitral body would perforce be as venal as are the Chinese "courts." Hence their faith in receiving a "home town decision" if the arbitration were to be heard in China. They could not conceive of the notion that a foreign party could win an award against them in "their own back yard." In reality, arbitration awards in China are often fair and impartial. But the contrary perception on the part of Chinese partners typically causes them to adopt a totally rigid stance, telling the foreign party to "take it or leave it," if the contract calls for Chinese arbitration. Hence, the chances of a friendly and reasonable compromise, obviating the need for arbitration, are greatly diminished.

The second irony is that it is easier to enforce a foreign arbitration award in China than it is to enforce a Chinese award. This appears incomprehensible on its face, but it is nevertheless true. (Enforcement of all arbitration awards in China is difficult, but it is much more so with domestic awards.) This seemingly astounding reality arises from the fact that China is a signatory to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "New York Convention").

Any arbitration award, whether domestic or foreign, must be enforced by a Chinese "court" of competent jurisdiction in the locality in which the defendant is resident. One of the primary functions of Chinese "courts" is the practice of what is known as "local protectionism." Courts will characteristically safeguard the interests of powerful local economic entities, whether the opposite party be foreign or simply from another part of China. Consequently, the local "court" will simply "stonewall" any outside party seeking to enforce a Chinese arbitration award and the matter will languish there for years, or even decades, with no resolution. As a general rule, Chinese arbitration awards, though usually fair and impartial, are simply useless because no Chinese "court" will enforce them except in extraordinary circumstances.

The Chinese "courts" will of course attempt the same approach when confronted with a foreign arbitration award. And they do often delay execution for years. Because China is a signatory to the New York Convention, however, the applicant may be able to bring its own government on board for purposes of pressuring the Chinese government to ensure that Chinese "courts," at least in these narrow circumstances, act in accordance with law.{mospagebreak}

In the context of contractual disputes, therefore, the foreign joint venture partner has a modicum of control over the inherent and blatant unfairness and inequality he faces in any dispute with his Chinese partner. And if the foreign investor has opted to go the route of the Wholly Foreign Owned Enterprise (WFOE), then of course the problem of contractual disputes with Chinese partners does not arise.

But what is the situation in the event that the dispute arises in tort? Or under contracts for services or supplies?

This is one of the most timely and acutely important questions that foreign investors in China need to address at the present time. Yet it is a question that has never been addressed to date, to the best of my knowledge. Why should this be? The answer would appear to be two-fold.

First, the Canadian business community is continuously assured by Paul Martin that the Chinese Government is seriously committed to implementing the "Rule of Law," that tremendous progress has been made on that front, and that the Chinese "Judicial" system is making progress.

Second, very few foreign investors have yet had the unfortunate experience of appearing as defendants in a Chinese "court." Probably fewer yet have chosen to enter a Chinese "court" as a plaintiff seeking redress against a Chinese entity. Let us address each of these factors in sequence.

PM Paul Martin’s China Fantasy

With respect to the first point, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin is doing his business constituents a serious disservice by perpetuating a picture that has no basis whatsoever in fact. (To be fair, many other leaders of Western democracies are guilty of doing the same thing.) Far from being committed to implementation of the "Rule of Law," the Chinese Government is in reality fundamentally, absolutely, and irrevocably committed to preventing the Rule of Law at whatever cost necessary. Their rationale is not difficult to fathom. China now is governed by the Communist Party’s absolute and untrammeled monopoly of power at all levels. This includes the "judicial system." It is totally impossible for any Chinese "court" to override any act or policy of the Party. Party and Government leaders regularly and routinely instruct judges at the Supreme Court level on the judgment they shall give in any case affecting the Party or Government. "Courts" are simply very low-level administrative organs of the Chinese Communist Party.{mospagebreak}

The Rule of Law, if ever implemented in China, would quite simply end the total dictatorship of the Party and destroy its monopoly of power. Many aspects of contemporary China are complex and difficult to analyze or understand; this is not one of those aspects. The Chinese Government/Party has made it abundantly clear in a myriad ways that it will brook no threat to or limitation on its power and it ruthlessly crushes any person or organization that publicly questions the legitimacy of the government or even the legitimacy of a particular law or policy. Neither in law, nor in practice, is there a shred of independence in the Chinese "judiciary." That issue will be explained elsewhere.

Turning to the second point, why is it that foreign investors have to this point almost never found themselves before a Chinese "court" and why is that situation likely to change markedly in the near future?

Extortion of Foreigners by Chinese Maritime "Courts"

At least 95 percent (and possibly 99 percent) of all Chinese litigation involving a foreign party has up to now taken place in the Chinese Maritime "Courts." The reason for this is that foreign shipowners do not have the luxury of relying on foreign jurisdiction clauses, as do foreign investors. The mechanism through which a foreign shipowner finds itself in the grasp of the Chinese Maritime "Court" is that of an arrest by a Chinese cargo owner. The Chinese party arrests the vessel, then files a claim with the local "court" and demands a substantial bank guarantee, usually naming the "court" as beneficiary, as a condition precedent for lifting the arrest order and allowing the vessel to sail. The shipowner is in no position to politely decline the jurisdiction of the Chinese "court" in favor of foreign arbitration.

Theoretically, the position of the shipowner should not differ in any respect from that of the foreign investor negotiating a joint venture contract. Of course, if the claim arises in tort as a result of a collision, allision, grounding, oil spill, etc., then there is no relevant contract and jurisdiction clauses do not arise. But the overwhelming majority of Chinese claims against the owners of foreign vessels in fact are cargo claims arising under a contract for the carriage of goods by sea. Such contracts are evidenced in bills of lading which in the overwhelming majority of cases contain foreign jurisdiction clauses. The majority of those clauses call for arbitration in foreign countries, though some specify the jurisdiction of a foreign court.

Chinese black letter law specifically requires the "courts" to recognize and give effect to foreign jurisdiction clauses in bills of lading. Moreover, there are several publicized directives from the Supreme Court of China to all the Maritime "Courts" throughout the country, emphasizing that unless there is a lack of reciprocity in a specific case (i.e., the country specified in the bill of lading would not recognize a Chinese jurisdiction clause in a Chinese bill of lading), the Maritime "Courts" should always give effect to a foreign jurisdiction clause which is included on the face of the bill, is clearly drafted, and which names a specific arbitration body or court. So there should be no problem.{mospagebreak}

There is a problem. The problem is that Chinese "courts" and "judges" for the most part pay no attention to the law and often do not even consult it in the course of the judgment process. Nowhere is this more patent that in the Maritime "Courts’" treatment of foreign jurisdiction clauses. The law, and the directives of the Supreme Court, dictate that such clauses should almost always be honored; the Maritime "Courts" never honor foreign jurisdiction clauses and they assume jurisdiction in all cases. In a subsequent Practice Note, I shall examine the creative, bizarre, and totally dishonest rationales usually put forward by the Maritime "Courts" as reasons for their routine dismissal of any foreign defendant’s application for a stay of proceedings on the basis of a foreign jurisdiction clause.

Having assumed jurisdiction for bogus reasons, and contrary to Chinese law, the Maritime "Courts" proceed inexorably in virtually 100 percent of cases to judgment in favor of the Chinese plaintiff, irrespective of what expert evidence and argument may be adduced on behalf of the foreign defendant. In a huge percentage of these cases, the claims are completely fraudulent and constitute an organized mechanism, with the collusion of the "courts," for extorting huge sums from the foreign shipping community in order to recover trading losses incurred on the world commodity market. I shall provide examples of this at a later point. Those claims which are not totally devoid of legitimacy are almost always grossly inflated. Yet the "courts" usually give judgment in the full amount of the plaintiffs claim.

Risk of Chinese "Courts" Imminent Reality for Foreign Investors

Why have foreign investors fared so much better than foreign shipowners? And why is the situation likely to change, with foreign investors experiencing the same "judicial" outrages so familiar for so long to the foreign shipping community? It is Chinese policy to treat Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) with "kid gloves." China is totally unconcerned and uninfluenced by foreign attempts to force reforms, (whether in the area of human rights or legal reform or other areas), with only one exception. China’s Achilles Heel is any threat to the continuous flow of FDI. Any bad press which could turn foreign investors away from China as a target jurisdiction for FDI causes great concern within the Beijing leadership.

Foreign ships will continue to carry the world’s produce to China regardless of how regularly they are fleeced by Chinese "courts"; at least for the foreseeable future, the losses will be reflected only in ever increasing insurance premiums borne by the international shipping community. Foreign investors are completely unaware of what happens to foreign shipowners in China, and if they were aware it is doubtful that they would care. If foreign arbitration clauses in SinoForeign joint venture contracts were to be routinely over-ridden by Chinese "courts" and the foreign parties then routinely separated from their cash and equipment, for the benefit of their Chinese partners, that would be a different matter. It would not take long for the flow of FDI to dry up.{mospagebreak}

However, many foreign joint venturers and WFOEs have been established in China now for twenty or more years. All these companies are Chinese corporate citizens and they cannot opt for foreign jurisdiction when their Chinese company enters into a contract with another Chinese company, for supplies and services, for marketing of products, for distribution, etc. Any dispute under such contracts will ultimately and inevitably be subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese "courts."

Moreover, it will be increasingly common for foreign parties to be hauled into "court" to face actions in tort, rather than contract. Truck drivers employed by foreign corporations will inevitably be involved in accidents resulting in property damage to third parties or in personal injury and even death. Exploding or otherwise defective products will bring similar claims, on the basis of product liability. The Chinese Government will likely calculate, probably correctly, that victimization on the basis of such claims, which are extrinsic to the investments themselves, are unlikely to discourage the flow of FDI.

As foreign manufacturers operate in China for longer periods of time, that time period alone will inevitably result in an ever increasing flow of litigation against them. Moreover, Chinese society is rapidly becoming litigious. And a wide range of dishonest claimants will become increasingly aware of the huge largesse that cargo owners have amassed in partnership with the Maritime "Courts" through the extortion of the foreign shipping community.

Legal Extortion on a Grand Scale: The Great Soybean Scam by the Chinese "Judiciary"

Perhaps the most massive illustration of the "Rule of Law" as administered by Chinese "courts" is that of the "Soybean Cases," a long line of cases that wound their way through the Chinese Maritime "Courts" from the end of 1997 until 2003, and perhaps later. All these cases, numbering in the hundreds, stemmed from a single international event.

At the end of 1997, the bottom dropped out of the world price of soybean meal. Within a matter of days, the international price of this commodity dropped by between 16 percent and 25 percent, depending upon the country of origin, the color, and the type of soybean. At that time, a number of large Chinese import/export companies had purchased huge quantities of soybean meal internationally and their purchases were now in transit to China as bulk cargoes being carried by many foreign vessels. The cargoes were shipped from the Unites States, from South America, from India, and from several countries in Southeast Asia. They were all in transit at the time the market fell.{mospagebreak}

Hundreds of ships carrying soybean meal arrived at Chinese ports in December 1997 and January of 1998. Virtually all were arrested immediately upon arrival, by the Chinese cargo owners. The latter filed claims alleging "wet damage," damage from improper ventilation, and contamination of cargo. Frequently, allegations were also made that moisture content, fat content, ash content, and silica content exceeded contractual limits. All cargoes were surveyed by the China Commodities Inspection Bureau (CCIB), and this notoriously corrupt body uniformly produced survey reports upholding the claims of the Chinese cargo owners.

In the innumerable trials that followed, incontrovertible evidence of the top Chinese and foreign authorities in the relevant disciplines, was repeatedly introduced, proving conclusively that the CCIB reports were not only fraudulent, but in many cases their conclusions were actually scientifically impossible. However, Chinese Maritime "Courts" uniformly take the position that Chinese law requires them to accept the reports of CCIB. Foreign survey reports, or reports paid for by foreign defendants but carried out by other Chinese licensed surveyors are often put in evidence, but the "court" invariably says that it is bound by Chinese law to treat the CCIB report as conclusive. This is completely untrue and there is nothing in any Chinese statute to support the statement, but it is the position adopted by every Maritime "Court" in China.

In the end, every single one of these several hundred cases ended in a judgment for the Chinese claimant and in all cases the damages assessed ranged from 16 percent to 25 percent of the value of the cargo. Each judgment constituted a windfall for the Chinese claimant ranging from one to several million U.S. dollars.

The large Chinese import/export corporations which had purchased the commodity on the world market and then incurred instant and substantial losses all had downstream sales contracts with end users of the soybean meal. When the world market price went south, the end users all walked away from their contracts with the importers, pointing out that they could now purchase the product at a substantially reduced price. But the Chinese Government, "courts," and importers realized that there was no reason why Chinese corporations should have to suffer losses while trading in the international market place, when there was an endless queue of foreign vessels just waiting to be arrested and turned into "cash cows" which could be squeezed to make up for the losses.

We handled many of these cases on behalf of foreign insurers. In my next Practice Notes, I shall provide a number of actual experiences with Chinese "courts" while litigating not only the "soybean cases," but a wide variety of others as well. For now, I shall end with vignettes from my first soybean case and my last.{mospagebreak}

Comments on Two Soybean Cases

In the first case, which is well worth examining in its entirety later on, we had a rare experience right after the vessel had been arrested. We heard a conversation between the Chinese claimants and their lawyer, which took place in their hotel room. (I shall not take time here to explain, but we did not commit an ethical breach by listening). The representatives of the China National Foods, Cereals, and Oils Import Export Corporation were addressing the problem of "financing the case." Said one of them to their lawyer, "OK, 20,000 for the judge, 20,000 for the CCIB surveyor, and 20,000 for the stevedores who select the cargo samples for CCIB to survey." The irony is that the presiding judge whom they were preparing to pay need not have been bought. He was indeed one of the most corrupt judges in the Shanghai Maritime "Court," but in a case such as this he could not decide the outcome in any event. It would have to go to the invisible "Judicial Committee" in the back room and the party representative would decide how much the Chinese importer would receive. So, ironically, they were preparing to bribe the judge for something which he actually did not have the power to deliver!

The last case I handled before I left China at the end of May 2003 was a classic. China has learned that the appearance and trappings of judicial process are more important than the substance, for most foreign observers. Gone are the days when "judges" wore blue military uniforms and when the" court" was a dingy apartment in a tenement building. Now the "court" looks to all outward appearances just like a real court. "Judges" sit on a raised bench at the front and wear black robes, just like real judges. There are lawyers for each party; witnesses are called and cross-examined. And for the most part, the "trial" is solemnly conducted and an observer may be forgiven for thinking that the ‘judges" are actually absorbing the evidence. But in this last case of mine, in the Guangzhou Maritime "Court," no one even bothered with a pretense of due process.

This is the only case I have experienced, even in China, which opened with the defense. There were two claimants and each had a lawyer. Asked by the presiding "judge" if they would like to call evidence, each declined, stating that they were content to rely on the Statement of Claim they had filed to initiate the lawsuit. We then presented evidence from four experts over a period of two days. Two of these were the two most qualified men in their fields in all of China, one was from Hong Kong, and the fourth had been brought from Holland.

Not one of the three "judges" took a single note while the expert evidence was being tendered over two days. One judge spent the first day turned sideways in his chair, looking out the window and constantly craning his neck in an apparent attempt to take in some occurrence unfolding in the window of an adjacent building. On the second day, he faced forward and read newspapers throughout the proceedings. Meanwhile, the presiding judge alternately tilted far back in his reclining chair with his mouth wide open in a perpetual yawn, and leaned forward to play with his cell phone. The third judge actually showed some interest in the proceedings from time to time and asked a few questions. But, as noted, even he took no notes.{mospagebreak}

When we later asked the lawyer for one of the plaintiffs (an insurance company) to produce documentary evidence that the company had ever paid out under the policy, the lawyer was astounded. He could not produce a canceled check or documentary evidence of any kind proving any bank transaction involving payment. The claimant never did produce this evidence, but within three or four weeks the "court," to the surprise of no one, handed down "judgment" for the claimants in the full amount of their claim.

It was time for me to leave China.

* Still commonly know by this mane, but also know now as the foreign Economic and Trade arbitration Committee (FETAC).

References:

[1] Clive M. Ansley, LL.B., 1980 (0. Windsor), LL.M., 1981 (University College London), was Bull, Housser & Tupper’s long-time Resident Partner in Shanghai until joining the London firm of Holman Fenwick & Willan in May of 2001. He practiced for a total of 14 years in Shanghai, and five years in Taibei.

Mr. Ansley has been actively involved with China and Sino-Canadian relations for more than 40 years. He speaks and reads Chinese and holds both undergraduate and graduate degrees in Chinese Studies from Canadian universities, as well as a graduate degree in Chinese Law from the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

A former Canadian professor of Chinese History, Civilization, and Law, Mr. Ansley taught Chinese Law for six years at the University of Windsor and the University of British Columbia. He also taught in the Law Faculty of Shanghai’s Fudan University in 1984 and still holds the title of Advising Professor at that institution. More recently, he taught International Economic Law at Shanghai’s Jiaotong University. Mr. Ansley has studied the new Chinese legal system since its inception in 1979, has published and lectured extensively on Chinese law, and has appeared in a number of foreign court and tribunal proceedings as a recognized expert on Chinese law.

Mr. Ansley established the first foreign law office in Shanghai in 1985 and ran that office until 1989 when he was reassigned first to Bull, Housser’s Hong Kong office, and then to its Taibei office. He returned to represent the firm in Shanghai once more in the summer of 1994 and practiced in Shanghai from that time until the end of May 2003. He is fully familiar with a wide range of Chinese law relating to the establishment of Sino-Foreign joint ventures and wholly owned subsidiaries in China.{mospagebreak}

Over the years, in addition to representing corporate and commercial clients, he has litigated more than 300 cases in China. His clients have come not only from Canada and the United States, but also from Britain, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

In April of 2003, Mr. Ansley joined Arvay Finlay, a prominent Canadian litigation firm renowned for its landmark victories in a number of human rights cases, but now practices as Ansley & Company. E-mail: cmansley@island.net

[2] The article was first published in Volume 6 Issue 3 of the Canadian International Lawyer (CIL), a law journal co-sponsored by the Canadian Bar Association and Ontario Bar Association. The article is reprinted with permission of CIL.

If a Chinese policeman sees a BMW racing wildly down a street, ignoring all traffic laws, he will definitely be furious—but may let it go. The policeman knows very well that the driver must have enough "official connections" to be so brash. In China, political connections override any law and any law enforcement.

When President Bush was preparing the diplomatic rituals for the upcoming visit of communist leader Hu Jintao, he must have had similar feelings toward China with its rising economic and military strength compounded by its brazen domestic and international record. Yet, Bush would not let it go so easily.

Hu Jintao may have had a different perspective. Hu was determined to make his first presidential visit a success. Hu needed to bolster his "international leader" status in order to strengthen his domestic politics. However, Hu’s preoccupation with his public relations achievement was not based on any substantial concessions, but depended more heavily on political formalities as well as rhetoric of how much he would win Bush over at their summit meeting.

Thus, the success of his visit was questionable from the very beginning by the ironic fact that neither side expected any meaningful results from the summit even though both sides were willing to attempt to miraculously gain something from nothing.

Issues and Goals

Hu’s calculation was not very different from the street-smart BMW driver in China. Money, plus political connections, will work everything out. It was Hu’s hope that a US$16 billion procurement check would pave a smooth path from Seattle to Washington. This humble hubris comprised a few objectives: 1) allow him to save face from his canceled trip last year; 2) alleviate American complaints about trade, currency rate, and other economic issues; 3) encourage Bush to make an anti-independence statement on Taiwan; 4) use the ceremonial aura as a symbolic endorsement by America to relax an ever-growing domestic crisis.

The fourth objective on the list, although unspoken, was really Hu’s bottom-line objective. This is very apparent when you look at the current trend of millions of Communist Party members quitting the Party, a continuing nationwide relay hunger strike, and 87,000 grassroots disturbances that occurred in the last year alone. Last, but not least, Hu needed to consolidate his political power base.

With unyielding positions on economic issues, human rights, and security, Hu’s last bet was to show the Chinese TV audience the "warm welcome" he received from the White House.{mospagebreak}

A Marginalized Visit

Hu’s visit was marginalized even before he embarked on his trip to U.S. soil. Hu was told beforehand that he would not receive the formal designated "state visit" status including a state dinner, but he would get a 21-gun salute on the White House lawn. Without the "state visit" status that he had strongly requested, Hu seemed to have already lost credibility and dignity. Bush was the first post-war president not to hold a state dinner for a visiting Chinese leader. By denying Hu that diplomatic protocol, Bush sent a clear message that Hu was neither a personal friend nor a "strategic partner."

In sharp contrast to the warm treatment he received from corporate giants Microsoft and Boeing on the West Coast, Hu received a tepid, yet ritually correct, reception at the nation’s capital. The chill in the East and the warmth in the West produced nothing in the Oval Office but formality. Hu’s formal lunch talk with President Bush truly, yet ironically, demonstrated a "matured" relationship that dared to list "open differences" but rather chose to announce steps to resolve difficult issues. What was spoken had already been said over the past years. The luncheon summit turned out to be one of the most monotonous occasions that reaffirmed each other’s positions.

If the payment of US$16 billion could have bought Hu a state dinner, it would not have been a cheap and easy price for China’s foreign trade sweatshops to pay. When it comes to a loss and gain analysis, Hu must have been even more upset to learn that the $16 billion deal failed, not only because it was viewed as being too cheap compared to America’s US$202 billion trade deficit to China, but also because it was viewed by many not as a gift but rather as China having to pay a "traffic violation" fine because of its hazardous domestic and international behaviors.

In fact, the value of the check was even further devaluated by Hu’s inability to provide even a basic explanation about trade surplus-related issues. What made matters worse was Hu’s unyielding position on the political and religious freedoms in China that Bush and the U.S. Congress have deemed so important and have been waiting for. Hu’s street-smart strategy might have inadvertently secured his role as an "irresponsible stakeholder" in the international community.

Yet Hu’s biggest disappointment came in the area in which he was most confident: to be welcomed as an honorary state guest. To the entire world audience, except for those in China who were unable to view it live due to censorship, the White House welcoming ceremony seemed to have paved the way for a Falun Gong protester. As Dr. Wenyi Wang began to utter her call to both presidents to stop the persecution, all media cameras turned away from Hu and onto her as if she was the main character on stage that day. The world halted and listened to Dr. Wang and not to Hu Jintao. From that point on, mainstream media has been focusing on Dr. Wang’s call to stop the ongoing slaughter and organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners, while Hu Jintao’s tour to the Middle East and Africa appears to have fallen into oblivion.{mospagebreak}

Why Hu’s Visit Turned Marginal

A series of seemingly random "disharmonious" incidents occurred causing Hu’s trip to become marginal. Was the United States intentionally not hospitable? This could hardly be the case as Hu received a warm welcome during his first U.S. visit in 2002 as vice president. What were the real reasons?

First, Hu has lost much of his mystery and appeal over the past three years. The current Pennsylvania Avenue whisper, "Hu is not coming to dinner," was not so much a sweet joke as a sour satire. The indication was self-evident: The Communist Party General Secretary turned out to be no more than a dry, conservative revolutionary.

What has Hu done since he has become president? He has stated that China should learn from and emulate North Korea and Cuba. He has continued the brutal persecution of political individuals, religious groups, and open-minded intellectuals. He has allowed the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to build up at a tremendously fast pace. He has allowed his general, Zhu Chenghu, to threaten the U.S. with nuclear weapons if it protects Taiwan, and he has encouraged irresponsible international behavior. How could Hu expect the U.S. to pay any respect to him?

Furthermore, money does not buy trust. In the short run, Hu’s failure was due to his lack of sincerity and good will, which was evident by his unwillingness to yield on any major issues. Hu failed to effectively communicate to President Bush and the American public about their main concerns. Hu acted just as he would have before his own domestic subjects. Americans simply won’t accept that.

In the long run, this distrust is deeply rooted within the fundamental differences of principles that make up these two nations. The U.S. government is elected by the people and must be accountable to the people, while the communist Chinese regime seized power by force and it has been using force to suppress its people and thus maintain its power. In the United States, people are born with inalienable human rights and the government was created only to protect those rights. In China, the communist regime has trodden upon human rights and has treated human rights as concessions.

When China exported its totalitarian behaviors outside of China, the two countries were bound to run into conflicts. The bumpy relationship between the two countries over the past seven administrations and 30-plus years, with issues emerging, festering, and later reemerging, has already demonstrated a profound distrust on both sides.
{mospagebreak}
Economically speaking, the two economies are mutually beneficial and interdependent, so there have been and will be agreements now and then. However, politically, there have been and always will be difficulties-big and small-as long as the Communist Party remains in power and the political system continues to be repressive. Militarily, a communist China rise would be more of a threat than an opportunity, and a Red China would hardly be a "responsible stakeholder" in the international community.

Finally, the fact that George W. Bush is a devout Christian and Hu Jintao is an atheist already pre-determines difficulties at the top level. Bush, unlike Clinton, has paid special attention to religious beliefs, as evidenced in his selection of cabinet members and his mission statement. Belief in God sets Bush apart from Hu fundamentally. How could one imagine a communist and Christian becoming close friends? Aside from geopolitics, economic interests, and strategic balance, Bush and Hu have been total strangers.

If Hu were a reformer or had been cooperative, the personal division may have been narrowed and they may have had cozier talks at Bush’s ranch. However, Hu has been obstinately uncooperative with Bush on the Iranian nuclear program and bilateral trade issues. Moreover, China’s dragging its feet on resolving the Korean nuclear crisis through its six-party talks was another factor that annoyed Bush. Why has China been only half-heartedly working on the North Korean nuclear issue? Bush surely knows that China and North Korea have had a solid military alliance by treaty since 1961, which exclusively targets the United States as their common enemy.

Conclusion

Hu Jintao really needs to think twice before he extends his "harmonious society" to the "harmonious world." If he insists on doing so and would like to have it done effectively, as his U.S. visit has indicated, he must first internally turn the Chinese society from disharmony to harmony by letting people enjoy basic human rights and abolishing the repressive communist rule. The days for Hu to make a correct choice and a difference are certainly numbered, as Dr. Wang warned during the historic White House ceremony.

Dong Li, a Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University, is a China specialist and news analyzer for New Tang Dynasty TV.

"We are set to tear down the Great Firewall of China. Our goal is to restore to Chinese Internet users their freedom in cyberspace," said Bill Xia, President of Dynamic Internet Technology, Inc. (DIT), a small Internet technology company in North Carolina.

When the U.S. Congress granted Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to China, Western mainstream thinking was confident that free trade and new information technology would, on their own, bring change to China. The computer and the Internet, so the reasoning went, would bring free information and free thinking to China, and the communist regime would eventually lose control.

In actuality, however, the development of the Chinese Internet followed a different path. The Chinese communist regime has launched a multimillion-dollar Golden Shield project and turned the Chinese Internet into Big Brother-net. (See "Business, Values, and Moral Traps: The Paradox of the Chinese Internet," Chinascope, March/April 2006) Instead of a versatile communications tool providing people with great freedom, the Chinese Internet is now locked inside the Great Firewall of China and has become a new tool the regime can use to exercise deceit and control. Western companies have provided most of the technology that enables the Golden Shield.

Experts like Ethan Gutmann have conceded that the West has lost a great opportunity, losing the Chinese Internet to the communist regime.[1] As China quickly gains economic power, the West has fewer and fewer means for containing the technologically modernized Chinese communist regime.

Bill Xia’s idea to restore freedom on the Chinese Internet is exciting and can have historical impact. But, given the strong political and economic muscle that the Chinese communist regime exercises over the Chinese Internet, can his efforts succeed?

A Small Company Battles with a Powerful Regime

The major battles in cyberspace have been fought with Internet anti-jamming technology.

One of the pioneers in the field, Bill Xia launched his company, DIT, in 2002. DIT uses a proxy network called DynaWeb to enable users to circumvent the Internet censorship in China and gain secure and full access to the Internet. Through FreeGate, DIT’s proxy network software, Internet users in China can even access forbidden websites. As of this year, 300,000 unique users have gained regular, unblocked access to the Internet through FreeGate.{mospagebreak}

Generally there are two ways to access a website through an Internet browser. One is to type in the domain name, for example, www.google.com. The other way is to type in the 10-digit IP address for the same website. Typing a domain name is more popular since it is user friendly. After a user types in a name, a Web browser converts the domain name into an IP address and fetches the right information for the user. In China, the communist regime has installed filters on the national Internet gateways that can block access to any IP address the Communist Party dislikes. Bill and his team have created a variety of techniques to help Chinese users evade the regime’s firewall, and their battles in cyberspace have been fought round after round.

Round 1: Beginning in March 2002, DIT sent unblocked IP address updates to subscribers through its mass mailing technologies, which obviously included Chinese government censors. Within two weeks of the release of these IP addresses, the valid time window for a DynaWeb IP address was reduced to a range of between a few days to a couple of hours. DIT’s strategy needed to evolve.

Round 2: In April 2002, DIT expanded to domain names with dynamic IP addresses. However, China’s censors countered with an automated process to detect the IP addresses that pointed to the domain name. DIT adopted a new strategy that forced China’s censors to manually verify the IP addresses before blocking them. China’s automatic IP blockade disappeared.

Round 3: In August 2002, users started to have difficulty accessing DynaWeb through https even though the IP was not blocked. DIT later discovered that the certificate it used for secured access from the Internet browser was filtered. In response, DIT changed its certificate daily. No certificate blocking has since been reported. Again, censors were frustrated by the requirement of daily updates of all related content for the filtering engine and quit.

Round 4: At the end of September 2002, users in China who typed in the browser DynaWeb domain names and many other forbidden websites like www.voa.gov were redirected to a fixed IP 64.33.88.161 in China.[2] DynaWeb upgraded its FreeGate software to get around such redirection.

Since early 2003, DIT has had the upper hand in the anti-jamming race with the Chinese regime. In 2003, DIT took some time to develop accompanying technologies to make its service more user friendly, and it saw a corresponding increase in users. In 2004 and 2005, DIT was limited by resources and saw a slow growth of users. As of 2006, DIT has about 300,000 regular users from China.

DIT would not be able to stay a step ahead of the communist regime without support and cooperation from the end users inside China.{mospagebreak}

Connecting with the Chinese People

From behind the Great Firewall, people are seeking the truth.

In 2005, from behind China’s Great Firewall, a policewoman sent an email to Bill Xia’s DynaWeb, the proxy network in the United States that provides uncensored information in the Chinese language. Let’s call her "Lingling."

"Hi, I am a policewoman working in a prison. In the past 11 years, I have seen so much darkness and filth in this profession. Our souls yearn for truth and compassion but twisted notions have tarnished our hearts. What is justice? What is conscience?"

Lingling went to state that everyone working around her was subject to monitoring. "Spies and agents are everywhere," she continued. "I am saddened by all I see. One day I got your website link. Given what I know about the Communist Party, I believe what I see on your website. I sincerely want to work with you to build a better China, a China that is fair, democratic, and free. Here is my telephone number [omitted]. What I am doing now is not betraying China, instead it is patriotism."

"Since a friend sent me your website link at QQ[3] I feel I have found a friend that shares my life mission. I have learned so many truths and firmly believe them. When I did population census work, I saw people struggling under the poverty line, such as families of coal miners. They live in shabby shelters and eat whatever vegetables they can find on the ground along the street. I have also seen how the Communist Party officials squander resources. How can we expect them to serve the ordinary people? Please contact me. I want to work with you and be an example to awaken the numb Chinese. I do not know how to contact you. When I was young, I admired the police. I became a police officer only to find out the truth behind the title. How I long to get rid of the police uniform! To survive, I am still among them. The most disheartening is the plight of those who are imprisoned. Police who are supposed to uphold justice are actually committing crimes against them. There are no laws or principles—it is all up to the discretion of the Communist Party leaders. This is the Communist Party. It is not ‘One mouse spoils one pot of porridge’—everything is totally spoiled."

Lingling is not alone. Hits at the DynaWeb site have reached 30 million a day. Some of those hits came from a young man working in an intermediate court. "Thank you, Webmaster. I have downloaded the video version of the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party. If every Chinese including CCP members could read it just once, the CCP would soon fall. Since I graduated from college six years ago, I have worked at an intermediate court. I have no interest in communism. After I subscribed to Internet services, I happened to visit the UltraReach website using UltraSurf software, and I saw a free and true world. I am so fortunate! I have downloaded a lot of information from UltraReach and DynaWeb sites, including those about June 4th Tiananmen, the Nine Commentaries, and Falun Gong. I am going to bring my computer back to my hometown during the Chinese New Year so that my folks and friends all know the truth. Happy Chinese New Year."{mospagebreak}

A man named Yue Shao found a home in DynaWeb. He wrote, "On this new and great website I finally found hope and motivation for my life. China will soon abandon communism. I will do my utmost to spread DynaWeb information."

Another user suggested DynaWeb upgrade its software. "Today UltraSurf is not working. It used to be very fast. Suddenly, today I cannot connect. The CCP must have taken action. Please send me the latest software. I have successfully passed your software and the Nine Commentaries to over 100 people. What a victory. We also need better protection. Suggest you update security information for the users. Thanks."

Young people appear to be the majority of those who have successfully broken through the Great Firewall. How their thinking has changed as a result is quite obvious.

"I used to devoutly support communism because I knew ‘without the Communist Party, there is no China.’ I loved New China so much because I believed what I was taught about the ‘evil old society.’ My grandpa was a guerrilla leader and fought even harder than the communist troops, but he quit the Communist Party in the 1950s. He said, ‘I do not know how to bribe. I do not know how to corrupt. So I am no longer qualified to be a Communist Party member.’ After several years of investigation and verification, I am shocked. What I devoutly admired in the past is just a bunch of evils!!!"

"Dear Webmaster, How are you? I am 26 years old. I visit DynaWeb every day. I see information that I cannot see in the Chinese domestic media. Your information is like fresh air to me. I am a fan of DynaWeb. You allow me to see China and the world with a clear mind. Think about it. My previous twenty-some years were spent under the lies of the Communist Party. My family is in the old industrial region of Jilin Province. I have witnessed how laid-off workers desperately try to support their families. I was sad and lost. Here is my QQ number [omitted]. I hope to get to know people who share the same mission to revive our nation."

Figure 1. Daily Internet Traffic from China Categorized by Services Used to Evade Communist Censorship, in 2006

{mospagebreak}

A Variety of Approaches from a Diverse Pool of Players

Besides DIT, there are several other players who have developed different technologies to ensure freedom in Chinese cyberspace.

UltraReach Internet Corp. is a California company founded by Falun Gong practitioners. Sherry Zhang and her fellow practitioners developed a software called UltraSurf that enables users in China to access forbidden websites outside China via Internet Explorer without being detected.

Freenet, developed via a collaborative, open source methodology, is a peer-to-peer-distributed data store that allows members to send or retrieve information anonymously. Freenet is based on a system described by Ian Clarke in his July 1999 paper "A Distributed Decentralized Information Storage and Retrieval System," written while he was a student at the University of Edinburgh. Shortly after the publication of this paper, Clarke and a small number of volunteers began work on what became Freenet.

TriangleBoy, a proxy tool that enables a user to remain anonymous, was designed to allow users to get around firewalls and censorship and visit websites anonymously. It was developed by SafeWeb, a computer software company founded by Stephen Hsu in northern California. TriangleBoy was supported in part by Voice of America (VOA) as a way for Chinese readers to be able to bypass China’s Great Firewall and reach the VOA website. Symantec acquired SafeWeb in 2003 and no longer supports this software.

Anonymizer® Inc., a company engaged in online identity protection software and services, announced in March 2006 the launch of Operation Anti-Censorship. This new privacy software, created specifically for Chinese citizens, is said to enable safe access to the Internet by circumventing the Chinese authorities’ Web filters. The software aims to shield Chinese Internet users’ personal identities and related information that the Chinese authorities are currently able to monitor.

Tor, not for the computer novice, is a software program that enables its users to communicate anonymously over the Internet. Originally sponsored by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Tor became a project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in late 2004. Chinese authorities routinely conduct traffic analyses-intercepting and examining messages to deduce information from patterns in communication, which can be performed even when the messages are encrypted and cannot be decrypted. Tor aims to protect its users against traffic analysis attacks. Tor offers its users anonymous outgoing connections and anonymous hidden services.

DynaWeb (FreeGate) from DIT and UltraSurf from UltraReach Internet Corp., are clearly leaders in the anti-jamming field, as shown by the Internet trafficking data in Figure 1.{mospagebreak}

DIT and UltraReach Internet Corp., together with other companies, have recently formed the Global Internet Freedom Consortium. The member organizations of the consortium have developed highly successful anti-jamming technologies and a suite of secure Internet tools for users inside China. These tools allow Internet users in China to access uncensored information and blocked websites at will.

Bill Xia told Chinascope that the consortium members have achieved the following milestones:

• In 2005, online hits by mainland Chinese Internet users at forbidden sites provided by the members of the consortium averaged 30 million a day. A vast majority are repeated users.

• Essentially, every single website normally blocked from Internet use in China is still accessible because of the efforts of these consortium members. Such is the case for the websites of Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, for which the consortium members have provided services over the past four years.

• The technologies developed by consortium members have drawn much attention from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). As the CCP focuses more resources on these specific technologies, it is now easier for other new and smaller anti-jamming efforts to penetrate China’s Firewall using less sophisticated methods that focus on lightly blocked and lightly used proxy links and websites.

• The technologies developed by consortium members can make the uncensored search engines of Google and Yahoo! available to Chinese Internet users.

In fact, the consortium has experienced the full cycle of anti-jamming technology development, including design, scalability, promotion, deployment, maintenance, support, and product improvement and is ready for substantial scale-up. Moreover, it has accumulated successful end-to-end service experiences with users in China. The ability to directly connect to the end users in China is a unique strength of the consortium.

A Deep China Connection

It was his passion for freedom in his home country that led Bill Xia to pursue his current career.

Bill went to China for graduate study in the 1990s. Comparing America and China, he started to appreciate the severity of media control in China. With his skills in computer technology, he used the power of the Internet to get around the media controls in China. After he obtained an advanced degree in computer science, he founded the North Carolina-based Internet service company in 2001.{mospagebreak}

The main business of his company is to develop, launch, and host websites, with a specialty in Internet security and anti-jamming technology. Voice of America and Radio Free Asia are listed as DIT’s prominent clients on its website. According to Bill, he and his team need to work very hard to ensure that his clients’ websites are always accessible to Chinese Internet users. Bill regularly works from early morning until well into the night on the computer to monitor the traffic flow from China to his company’s websites and to exploit openings in the formidable Great Firewall of China. It is crucial for DIT to keep technologically ahead of the communist regime. "I am really happy when I receive feedback from my fellow Chinese users in China. They are grateful for our efforts, and they encourage us to continue the work," Bill said. "Our hard work has provided people with tools to access information otherwise off-limits to Chinese people. Our company is making a long-term impact on China."

Many others on the front of Internet anti-jamming are like Bill Xia—they share Chinese roots and a passion for the importance of what they are doing.

California chemist and software developer Sherry Zhang, a Falun Gong practitioner, is helping UltraReach attack China’s Great Firewall. She related what happened to an American friend of hers in China: "He went to an Internet cafe and just typed in two words, ‘Falun Gong.’ Instantly, the sirens went off and the police appeared in front of him within a minute. So that’s how bad it is, because they have ways to monitor what people are doing on the Internet, especially in Internet cafes." Sherry Zhang thinks UltraReach can help her fellow Chinese break through the Chinese Firewall.

Outlook is Upbeat, Despite Major Obstacles

The battle for Chinese cyberspace is being fought on uneven ground.

The Chinese communist regime is desperately afraid of the truth, and it has spent over $800 million on its Golden Shield project, dubbed the "Great Firewall of China." As concluded by OpenNet Initiative, this Internet filtering system is the most sophisticated effort of its kind in the world. It comprises multiple levels of legal regulation and technical control. It involves numerous state agencies and thousands of public and private personnel. It censors transmitted content through multiple methods, including Web pages, Web logs, online discussion forums, university bulletin board systems, and email messages. Besides the Golden Shield’s project cost of over $800 million, there is a special task force of some 30,000 "cybercops" that patrol the Internet.

The freedom fighters are mainly a few small American companies like DIT and UltraReach, which are supported by volunteer networks. Amazingly, they have successfully and continuously poked holes in the formidable Great Firewall of China. DIT and other members in the newly formed consortium have made it possible for, in total, about one million Chinese users to have free access to the uncensored Internet.{mospagebreak}

When discussing these achievements, Bill Xia is upbeat: "We have successfully provided our users in China with effective tools that defeat the China Great Firewall and censorship for more than four years. Right now we can support about one million Chinese end users. Our aim is to significantly increase that number. Think about that. What if we could support 10 or 20 million users? That’s about 10 or 20 percent of all Chinese Internet users. If that many people in China can freely access information on the Internet, the Chinese communist regime’s censorship would be all but defeated."

Whether the newly formed Global Internet Freedom Consortium can reach that exciting goal or not remains to be seen. Bill Xia listed three major hurdles:

The first is the fear in the minds of Chinese end users. If the end users are too afraid of the communist regime, they may not dare to access free information. Ideally, the international community should keep up the pressure on the communist regime’s human rights violations so that the Chinese people are encouraged to seek freedom.

The second hurdle is the exportation of advanced technology to China. In the past, several Western companies such as Cisco have sold China specially designed equipment for building the Great Firewall. If these large, profit-seeking companies keep supplying the communist regime with advanced technology, the freedom fighters and their small companies stand little chance of winning the battle.

The third is funding and resources. The new consortium needs to find sufficient funding and resources to scale up its existing operations. The U.S. government and major foundations may not have fully recognized the importance of this battle for freedom in Chinese cyberspace. Funding these companies would be an intelligent move to help ensure Internet freedom for an enormous number of people currently under the thumb of an oppressive regime.

While Bill Xia and his friends have yet to overcome these hurdles, they will continue no matter what because they know that hundreds of thousands of Chinese Internet users like Lingling have put their hopes in them.

Xiao Tian is a correspondent for Chinascope.

Sporadic, accidental events sometimes can change the course of the history. On April 20, 2006, a petite female journalist shouted out loudly on the White House lawn during Hu Jintao’s speech at the welcoming ceremony. This surprising incident turned the world’s attention from Hu Jintao’s lip-service remarks to the atrocities taking place in China today.

That petite lady was Wenyi Wang, a 47-year-old pathologist based in New York, a Falun Gong practitioner, and a volunteer photographer for The Epoch Times newspaper. On that day at the White House, standing on the reporters’ platform facing the Chinese communist leader, Dr. Wang called out in English, "President Bush, stop him from killing! Stop persecuting the Falun Gong!" Shifting to Chinese, she shouted, "Hu Jintao, your time is limited. No more time for the Chinese Communist Party."

Major television news channels quickly turned their cameras to Dr. Wang. CNN’s live broadcast used split screens to simultaneously show Hu’s speech and Dr. Wang’s protest. For about three minutes, the attention of the world’s people was shifted from the leader of China to a woman crying out for human rights in China.

Unused to facing protesters, Hu paused for a second, and then continued his speech after President Bush murmured to him, "You are OK."

To Hu’s regime, the outcry was not OK. The CNN signal was blacked out in China until Dr. Wang was taken away. The communist regime did not want the Chinese people to see or hear Dr. Wang’s protest—it would be too damaging to the Party’s image.

Still, Hu’s regime could not block CNN outside of China. Dr. Wang’s outburst reminded the American people that Hu represents the largest dictatorship in the world. In a phone call the next day to C-SPAN, an American woman said that she could see the agony in Dr. Wang’s eyes even though she could not hear clearly what Dr. Wang was saying.

Soon after she was released the next day, Dr. Wang had a chance to explain herself on CNN. In that brief interview, Dr. Wang said that, as a physician, her responsibility was to "save people," and she had to do what she did because of the killing going on in China. Dr. Wang said that she did not regret what she did because "humanity surpasses everything." Dr. Wang further explained in a press conference on April 26 what she meant by "humanity surpasses everything." She said, "On March 8, The Epoch Times disclosed the harvesting of organs from live Falun Gong practitioners and the subsequent mass killings in Sujiatun City’s concentration camp. Later it was revealed that such atrocities had been going on in all labor camps in China since the persecution of Falun Gong started in July 1999. Huge numbers of corneas, livers, and kidneys have been removed from live Falun Gong practitioners and sold to transplantation centers."{mospagebreak}

Dr. Wang drew attention to this horrific ongoing atrocity in China. On April 22, 2006, C-SPAN invited a Falun Gong spokesperson to be a guest on its live call-in program to discuss the issues that Dr. Wang wanted to expose. Time magazine published an article on April 23 in its Asia Edition, titled "The Cold Harvest in China." The Weekly Standard in early May published an article "Why Wang Wenyi Was Shouting." The article reported eyewitness accounts and included available evidence regarding the alleged live organ harvesting from detained Falun Gong practitioners.

If Dr. Wang only wanted people to pay attention to the atrocities in China, she has partly succeeded. But her original plea—"President Bush, stop him from killing"—has not been acknowledged. In fact, the government has charged her with "coercing, intimidating, threatening, and harassing" a foreign official, a crime that could put her in prison for six months and cost her a fine of US$5,000.

Almost at the same time Dr. Wang was shouting in front of the White House, the two Chinese witnesses (Peter and Annie) who initially exposed the organ harvesting crimes from live Falun Gong practitioners in China made a public appearance, further calling for the international community to help stop the atrocities that are still occurring. Both of them also toured around the country with Dr. Wang to address the media after the White House incident.

On April 22, The Washington Post published an editorial titled "Overreacting to Protest, Wenyi Wang Doesn’t Belong in Jail." It said, "Does Ms. Wang deserve to go to prison for six months? That might be the response to embarrassing and rude speech in Beijing. It shouldn’t be in Washington."

The Washington Times said that Dr. Wang "welcomed" the Chinese leader in a democratic way, and named her as the "noble" person of the week.

Many individuals and organizations have also expressed their support for Dr. Wang. On April 26, the Christian Defense Coalition and National Clergy Council held a press conference in Red Square at Georgetown University, asking the Bush Administration to drop the charges against Dr. Wang.

The reaction from Chinese pro-democracy and human rights activists has been even stronger. One prominent pro-democracy dissident, Mr. Xu Wenli, who himself spent a total of 16 years in Chinese prisons before the Bush Administration helped him come to America, wrote an open letter to President Bush. Mr. Xu asked President Bush to urge the Justice Department to drop the charge against Dr. Wang. He further wrote in his letter, "In the early morning of April 23rd, I solemnly pledged to Dr. Wenyi Wang: ‘If the Washington D.C. District Court sentences you to prison, I am willing to go to prison and serve the sentence with you or stand outside the prison gate while you are incarcerated.’"{mospagebreak}

Professor Sun Wenguang of Shandong University in China stated, "Believing that humanity surpasses everything is the manifestation of Ms. Wang’s noble character."

Several prominent human rights lawyers in China, including Gao Zhisheng, have accepted the invitation to join the legal team for Dr. Wang and defend her. Gao wrote in an open letter to the (potential) jury, "Ms. Wang’s courage and ethics provides a shining light on humanity."