Teng Biao on human rights in China: ‘I cannot be silent, and I cannot give up’

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This article is part of an ongoing series created in partnership with Scholars at Risk, an international network of institutions and individuals whose mission it is to protect scholars, promote academic freedom, and defend everyone’s right to think, question, and share ideas freely and safely.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”107359″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]

“I realised that I had been cheated by the Chinese government,” legal scholar Teng Biao said describing his drive to pursue a career in human rights law.

Teng said that he was motivated by the Tiananmen Square movement, the student-led protests that bloomed after the death of pro-reform communist leader Hu Yaobang in April 1989. An officially-sanctioned mourning period provided an opening for Chinese to express their anxieties about the direction of the country. Officials reacted with a mixture of conciliatory and hardline tactics that revealed a split with the communist party leadership. Ultimately, the hardliners won out, with the country’s paramount leader at the time, Deng Xiaoping, and his allies resolving to use force to suppress the movement. Up to 300,000 troops mobilised under a martial law order implemented on 20 May. On 4 June 1989, the troops were ordered into central Beijing, killing both demonstrators and bystanders in the process. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to thousands.

“So many people have sacrificed their lives to fight for democracy and freedom, so I cannot be silent, and I cannot give up,” Teng said.

For his efforts to defend human rights in China by taking on politically sensitive cases, Teng, who has been abducted three times, moved to the USA in 2014. He continues to pursue human rights law and activism as a visiting scholar at Princeton, Harvard, and New York University.

As the Chinese regime continues its crackdown on scholars, intellectuals, journalists and human rights lawyers, Teng analyzes the way in which the Chinese regime under Xi Jinping has used high-technology totalitarianism to successfully target and suppress dissidents.

Although Teng now lives in the United States, he still feels the weight of censorship and pressure from the Chinese regime. In 2016, the American Bar Association abruptly cancelled the publication of his book, “Darkness Before Dawn”, which details his 11-year career as a rights defender in China.

Despite his setbacks, Teng has co-founded Beijing’s China Against the Death Penalty, and the Open Constitution Initiative, an organisation of lawyers and academics that advocates for the rule of law in China. He also co-founded the China Human Rights Accountability Center from the United States.

Summer Dosch interviewed Teng for Index on Censorship.

Index: What motivated you to specialise in human rights law?

Teng Biao: Before I went to the university, I was a brainwashed high school student, and I didn’t know the meaning of law, human rights, or politics. After a few years of studying in law school at Peking University, I realised that I had been cheated by the Chinese government. I gradually had to develop independent thinking. Once I knew more about the human rights situation in China, I decided to become a scholar. Before I got my PhD, my idea was to focus on academic and intellectual work so that I could use it to promote human rights law in China. Soon after I began to teach at a university in Beijing, I participated in a very influential case, and then I founded a human rights entity. After that, I became a human rights lawyer and dedicated my work to the human rights cause in China.

Index: When did you start receiving threats from the Chinese regime for your work?

Teng: When I started my human rights work, my first case was quite influential, so I was prepared to receive harassment from the government; however I didn’t. Shortly after continuing my human rights work, I received harassment and warnings from the university and the government.

Index: What motivated you to keep teaching, and pursuing human rights law despite the limitations you faced and the threats you received from the Chinese regime?

Teng: I feel as though I have a special responsibility to promote human rights in China as a lawyer and an intellectual. In the early 2000’s, I felt that China was in the process of democratisation, and that there was still so much human rights work to do. It is dangerous, but I thought that I needed to take more risks as an intellectual. Two years after the Tiananmen massacre, I went to the university and I started learning the truth behind it, and I saw myself as survivor of the massacre. So many people have sacrificed their lives to fight for democracy and freedom, so I cannot be silent, and I cannot give up. The feeling of being a survivor of the Tiananmen massacre motivated me to keep going.

Index: What do you think of the current situation in China today?

Teng:  After the Tiananmen massacre in 1989, the Chinese Communist Party instituted some economic reforms. In terms of the political system, the reform never happened; therefore it remains a one party system. The fundamental freedoms and human rights of the Chinese people remain very limited. In terms of human rights and press freedom, China has always been one of the worst countries in the world. Before Xi Jinping came to power in late 2012, the crackdown on Chinese society was severe. Although censorship and persecution were there, they were not like what Jinping has been doing for the past six years. After 2013, the human rights situation deteriorated even more. Jinping has turned China’s collective dictatorship into a personal dictatorship.

The Communist party is also establishing what I call high-technology totalitarianism. This kind of high-tech totalitarianism has never happened in human history. It includes DNA collection, facial recognition, artificial intelligence, big data, and a sociocratic system, which have all been used by the Chinese government to strengthen its control over society. Jinping and the Chinese government started a comprehensive crackdown that targeted all the forces that had been fighting for freedom and human rights law, including human rights lawyers, bloggers, scholars, underground churches, and the internet. This crackdown is getting worse, and will continue to get worse in the years to come.

Index: What do you think of Chinese-American relations today? How do they continue to threaten international freedom and intellectual freedom?

Teng: I am quite critical of the American policy towards China. American and other western democracies have adopted an engagement policy. They think that if they permit China to be a part of WTO and international human rights treaties, China will start to move towards democracy, and promote more of an open society; however this has not happened. Human rights activists and dissidents have always called for policy change, and for a link between human rights and business; however the United States has not listened until just recently. Within the last two to three years, I sense that the United States is thinking about a policy change. They have seen more and more evidence that China has become a threat to international free order. Then we also see the trade war between the United States and China, which indicates that there will be more tension between the two countries. The Chinese government has violated human rights and freedom in China, and in doing so has become a threat to global human rights and freedom. So I believe that the threat is from the Chinese government, not from China-United States relations.

Index: How do current Chinese-American relations affect your work as a human rights lawyer today?

Teng: Before 2014, I was in Taicheng publishing my articles and books, and I was also traveling internationally. Because of my human rights activities, I was put under house arrest, kidnapped by the secret police, and tortured. During this time, I wasn’t able to continue my human rights work. Even in the United States, I still feel pressure and interference from the Chinese government. A publishing unit refused to publish my book after I had signed the agreement because they were afraid of the Chinese government. They told me that my book would endanger their programs in China. My graduate talk was also canceled by an ivy league university in the United States.

After I came to the United States, my wife and my children were prevented from leaving China, and were held by the Chinese government as hostages. I also received death threats from anonymous Twitter users, who were obviously working for a Chinese agent. There are many more examples similar to these. Again the threat to my work comes from the Chinese government, not from China-United States relations.

Index: How have intellectuals in China responded to the decline of intellectual freedom in China?

Teng: Most intellectuals, writers, scholars, and journalists are controlled by the Chinese government. No matter what kind of belief or ideology they have, they don’t criticise the Chinese government publically. Only a few intellectuals are brave enough to share their independent thoughts that criticise the current government system. Some of these intellectuals would be seen as dissidents if they went any further. For the past five to six years, intellectual and academic freedom has been decreasing very rapidly. The information control of districts, universities, and publishers became severe. More intellectuals are afraid of being outspoken, so they stay silent, delete their social media, and don’t write critical articles. Only a few dozen intellectuals are still active and courageous enough to be critical.

Index: Do you think there has been a significant emigration of scholars and intellectuals from China?

Teng: I have seen some intellectuals go to the United States in exile, and there will be more. The problem is that it is not easy to live in the United States in exile. Some scholars and human rights activists are in great danger if they continue to live in China. Some of them have been fired, imprisoned, or tortured and therefore have to leave China to apply for political asylum. Most scholars who feel unhappy and pressure from the government, but are not facing immediate danger do not think that it is easy to live in a foreign country. So we haven’t seen hundreds and thousands of Chinese scholars and intellectuals moving outside of the country.

Index: Why did you decide to flee to the United States and what has life been like for you and your family since moving there?

Teng: When I was in China, I was detained and tortured a few times, and my family was targeted. Even after my abduction, disappearance, and torture, I continued my work. In late 2013, many activists of the New Citizens Movement were arrested, and I am one of the initiators of the New Citizens Movement. At that time I was also a visiting scholar at a Chinese university in Hong Kong, so it was quite clear that if I went back to China from Hong Kong, I would be arrested and no longer able to continue my work. I then accepted an invitation from Harvard Law School.

Index: How has your family adapted to life in the United States?

Teng: They are accustomed to American life, but it is always a challenge for foreigners to live in a new country. The language barrier, and the culture difference make life especially difficult. Because of the pressure from the Chinese government, my wife was fired from the company that she had been working for for 17 years. It is not easy for me to get a job because my degree is from China, so I have had to start from zero in the United States; however at least my wife and children are not living in fear. I appreciate the free and safe environment in the United States where I can continue to pursue my human rights activism.

Index: What were you teaching or working on when you were abducted by the secret police?

Teng: The first time I was abducted was in 2008, and the second time was in 2011. I was a lecturer at the China University of Political Science and Law. I was teaching jury’s prudence and constitutional law, but the main reason I was abducted was because of my involvement in several human rights cases, which related to Tibetans, underground churches, and unlawful convictions. I have been involved in many politically sensitive cases. The third time I was abducted was in 2012, and I was only held hostage for one night. I was released before my friends, family, and the media knew about my abduction.

Index: Do you have plans to go back to China in the near future?

Teng: As a human rights lawyer, I really want to work in China. I enjoyed the time I was fighting for human rights law and democracy with my Chinese colleagues. But now, I am unable to return to China without being blocked or arrested by the Chinese government. I predict that government control will only tighten in the coming years, and because of this I will not be able to go back to China. But I really hope that I can go back to either a free China, or as a human rights lawyer to continue my human rights work without being imprisoned for the long-term.

Index: What are your thoughts about the protests against the extradition law being proposed in Hong Kong?

Teng: On June 10 2014, by issuing a ‘white paper’, Beijing had destroyed ‘one country two systems’ which is not only a promise to Hong Kong and UK, but also a part of international commitment. Hong Kong has been an impressive example that a dictatorial regime will not tolerate a special region which has political freedom. The Umbrella Movement was a failed fight for universal suffrage, but the protest against the extradition law seems to be the ‘last fight’, because if this extradition bill is passed, a free Hong Kong will be over soon. It is the shame of the WHOLE WORLD to helplessly see how a free and prosperous city was occupied and killed by a dictatorial regime, and by the appeasement policy adopted by the democracies.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content”][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Scholars at Risk” full_width_heading=”true” category_id=”31940″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Jodie Ginsberg: Chinese artist Badiucao is an inspiration to cartoonists and campaigners all over the world

Badiucao, one of China’s leading dissident cartoonists, has revealed his identity after years of anonymity. In November 2018 following his campaign that saw thousands of people around the world recreate the image of Tank Man, an unidentified Chinese man who stood in front of a column of tanks in Tiananmen Square in June 1989, Badiucao was forced to close his debut solo exhibition in Hong Kong after Chinese authorities threatened his family.

Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship, said “Badiucao’s courage and commitment is an inspiration to cartoonists and campaigners all over the world. The risks inherent in revealing his identity is a stark reminder of how censorship and suppression of dissent continue in China — even though it is 30 years since the Tiananmen Square massacre. Many governments fear the power of cartoonists, but cartoonists should be celebrated as invaluable contributors to democracy.”

“Badiucao has displayed exemplary courage in the face of palpable threats from the Chinese state,” Terry Anderson, deputy executive director of Cartoonists Rights Network International said. “Over the past decade his artwork has served to remind the wider world and in particular the Chinese diaspora as well as the increasing numbers of international students and tourists from the county of unpalatable truths the CCP seeks to suppress. Like so many dissidents Badiucao is forced into exile, its own form of violence against a person. On the 30th anniversary of the horror at Tiananmen Square it is incumbent on each of us to reflect upon what has changed since and more importantly what has not. Badiucao, the other free-speech advocates featured in Danny Ben-Moshe’s truly remarkable film and all those seeking reform in China deserve our support.”

CRNI is the winner of the Index Freedom of Expression Award 2019 in the campaigning category.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

China and Tiananmen: Dangerous truth

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”106836″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]“The truth is so dangerous,” Tania Branigan said.

Branigan, foreign leader writer for the Guardian and its former China correspondent, was speaking about the endemic self-censorship prevalent in China, where even parents who were involved in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests won’t tell their own children about their experiences.

The silence, the lack of a reckoning around the events of 1989 has become even more absolute with the repackaging of communist party rule, added Jeff Wasserstrom, a professor of history at the University of California, who specialises in China.

The student-led protests bloomed after the death of pro-reform communist leader Hu Yaobang in April 1989. The officially-sanctioned mourning period provided an opening for people to express their anxieties about the direction of the country, Wasserstrom said. Officials reacted with a mixture of conciliatory and hardline tactics that revealed a split with the communist party leadership. Ultimately, the hardliners won out, with the country’s paramount leader at the time, Deng Xiaoping, and his allies resolving to use force to suppress the movement. Up to 300,000 troops mobilised under a martial law order implemented on 20 May.

On 4 June, the troops were ordered into central Beijing, killing both demonstrators and bystanders in the process. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to thousands.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”106837″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]“We all cried when the first news came in,” said Chinese author Xinran, who was working at a radio station at the time. In the months after the massacre, she said, there were secret police everywhere and the threat that even the smallest comment about the suppression would be investigated.

Today, Branigan said, under the country’s president, Xi Jingping, the past has become even more sensitive. “Eye-watering amounts are spent not on addressing grievances, although the party does do that to some extent, but simply on policing the expression of them.”

She outlined how she thought the Chinese government has enforced self-censorship on its own citizens and the wider world. First China has forced social media platforms to hire and pay for huge numbers of staffers. Secondly automatic monitoring mechanisms like its new system of social credit enforces silence for fear that people will not be able to fully participate economically because of something they or their family have said on social media. Thirdly, China is also exporting its censorship by threatening to cut off large corporations, Hollywood studios and academic journals from its vast markets.

Wasserstrom agreed, saying that, there had been a “tipping point” at which it became dangerous to even mark the anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre in private, which hadn’t been the case before.

“Around the world in 1989, people wanted more choices in their life,” Wasserstrom said. In China, young people wanted to listen to the music that their peers in other countries were listening to; people in eastern Europe wanted to be able to buy things in stores that they knew people in western Europe could. But what’s happened since then, he added, is that people have gained material choices but not political ones.

“Control is hard. It’s expensive. It takes a lot of work. Liberty isn’t the only thing that requires eternal vigilance it turns out,” Branigan said.

Additional reporting by Summer Dosch.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”106838″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Thank you to King’s College London for hosting the Index on Censorship magazine panel.

 

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

天安门广场 绝食宣言,1989年六月2日

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”我们绝食!我们抗议!我们呼吁!我们忏悔!”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”106533″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]

 

我们不是寻找死亡。我们寻找真的生命。

在李鹏政府非理性的军事暴力高压之下,中国知识界必须结束几千年遗传下来的只动口而不动手的软骨症,以行动抗议军管:以行动呼吁一种新的政治文化的诞生;以行动忏悔由于我们长期的软弱所犯下的过失。对于中华民族的落伍,我们人人都负有一份责任。

 

对于中华民族的落伍,我们人人都负有一份责任。

绝食的目的

此次在中国历史上空前的民主运动,一直採取合法的、非暴力的、理性的和平方式来争取自由、民主和人权,但是,李鹏政府居然以几十万军队来压制手无寸铁的大学生和各界民众。为此,我们绝食,不再是为了请愿,而是为了抗议戒严和军管!我们主张以和平的方式推进中国的民主化进程,反对任何形式的暴力。但是,我们不畏强暴,我们要以和平的方式来显示民间的民主力量的坚韧,以粉碎靠刺刀和谎言来维繫的不民主的秩序!这种对和平请愿的学生和各界民众实行戒严和军管的极端荒谬悖理的蠢举在中华人民共和国的历史上开了一个极为恶劣的先例,使共产党、政府和军队蒙受了巨大的耻辱,将十年改革、开放的成果毁于一旦!

 

中国几千年的历史,充满了以暴易暴和相互仇恨。及至近代,敌人意识成为中国人的遗传;一九四九年以后的「以阶级斗争为纲」的口号,更把传统的仇恨心理、敌人意识和以暴易暴推向了极端。

 

此次军管也是「阶级斗争」式的政治文化的体现。为此,我们绝食,呼吁中国人从现在开始逐渐废弃和消除敌人意识和仇恨心理,彻底放弃「阶级斗争」式的政治文化。

 

因为仇恨只能产生暴力和专制。我们必须以一种民主式的。宽容精神和协作意识来开始中国的民主建设。民主政治是没有敌人和仇恨的政治,只有在相互尊重、相互宽容、相互妥协基础上的协商、讨论和表决。

 

李鹏作为总理犯有重大失误,应该按照民主程序引咎辞职。但是,李鹏不是我们的敌人,即使他下台,仍然具有一个公民应享有的权利,甚至可以拥有坚持错误主张的权利。我们呼吁,从政府到每一位普通公民,放弃旧的政治文化,开始新政治文化。我们要求政府立即结束军管,并呼吁学生和政府双方重新以和平谈判、协商对话的方式来解决双方的对立。

 

此次学生运动,获得了空前的全社会各阶层的同情、理解和支持,军管的实施,已把这次学生运动转变为全民的民主运动。但无法否认的是,有很多人对学生的支持是出于人道主义的同情心和对政府的不满,而缺乏一种具有政治责任感的公民意识。为此,我们呼吁,全社会应该逐步地放弃旁观者和单纯的同情态度,建立公民意识。公民意识首先是政治权利平等的意识,每个公民都应该有自信:自己的政治权利与总理是平等的。

 

其次,公民意识不只是正义感和同情心,更是理性化的参与意识,也就是政治责任感。每个人不只是同情与支持,而且要直接参与民主建设。最后,公民意识是承担责任和义务的自觉性。社会政治合理合法,有每个人的功劳:而社会政治不合理不合法。也有每个人的责任。自觉地参与社会政治和自觉地承担责任,是每个公民的天职。中国人必须明确:在民主化的政治中,每个人首先是公民,其次才是学生、教授、工人、干部、军人等。

 

几千年来,中国社会是在打倒一个旧皇帝而树立一个新皇帝的恶性循环中度过的。历史证明:某位失去民心的领导人的下台和某位深得民心的领导人的上台并不能解决中国政治的实质性问题。我们需要的不是完美的救世主而是完善的民主制度。

 

为此,我的呼吁:第一,全社会应该通过各种方式建立起合法的民间自治组织,逐渐形成民间的政治力量对政府决策的制衡。因为民主的精髓是制衡。我们宁要十个相互制衡的魔鬼,也不要一个拥有绝对权力的天使。第二,通过罢免犯有严重失误的领导人,逐步建立起一套完善的罢免制度。谁上台和谁下台并不重要,重要的是怎样上台和怎样下台。非民主程序的任免只能导致独裁。

 

在此次运动中,政府和学生都有失误。政府的失误主要是在旧的「阶级斗争」式政治思维的支配下,站在广大学生和市民的对立面,致使冲突不断加剧;

 

学生的失误主要是自身组织的建设太不完善,在争取民主的过程中,出现了大量非民主的因素。因此,我们呼吁,政府和学生双方都要进行冷静的自我反省。我们认为,就整体而言,此次运动中的错误主要在政府方面。游行、绝食等行动是人民表达自己意愿的民主方式,是完全合法合理的,根本就不是动乱。

 

而政府方面无视宪法赋予每个公民的基本权利,以一种专制政治的思维把此次运动定名为动乱,从而又引出了一连串的错误决策,致使运动一次次升级,对抗愈演愈烈。因而,真正制造动乱的是政府的错误决策,其严重程度不下于“文革”。只是由于学生和市民的克制,社会各界包括党、政、军有识之士的强烈呼吁,才没有出现大规模的流血事件。鉴于此,政府必须承认和反省这些错误,我们认为现在改正还不算太晚。

 

政府应当从这次大规模的民主运动当中汲取沉痛的教训,学会习惯于倾听人民的声音,习惯于人民用宪法赋予的权利来表达自己的意愿,学会民主地治理国家。全民的民主运动正在教会政府怎样地以民主和法制来治理社会。学生方面的失误主要表现在内部组织的溷乱、缺乏效率和民主程序。诸如,目标是民主的而手段、过程是非民主的;理论是民主的而处理具体问题是非民主的;缺乏合作精神,权力相互抵销,造成决策的零乱状态;财务上的溷乱,物质上的浪费;情感有馀而理性不足;特权意识有馀而平等意识不足;等等。近百年来,中国人民争取民主的斗争,大都停留在意识形态化和口号化的水平上。只讲思想启蒙,不讲实际操作;只讲目标,而不讲手段、过程、程序。我们认为:民主政治的真正实现,是操作的过程、手段和程序的民主化。为此,我们呼吁,中国人应该放弃传统的单纯意识形态化、口号化、目标化的空洞民主,而开始操作的过程、手段和程序的民主建设,把以思想启蒙为中心的民主运动转化为实际操作的民主运动,从每一件具体的事情做起。我们呼吁:学生方面要以整顿天安门广场的学生队伍为中心进行自我反省。

 

政府在决策方面的重大失误还表现在所谓的「一小撮」的提法上。通过绝食,我们要告诉国内外舆论界,所谓的「一小撮」是这样一类人:他们不是学生,但是他们作为有政治责任感的公民主动地参与了这次以学生为主体的全民民主运动。我们所做的一切都是合理合法的,他们想用自己的智慧和行动让政府从政治文化、人格修养、道义力量等方面知所愧悔,公开承认并改正错误,并使学生的自治组织按照民主和法制程序日益完善。

必须承认,民主地治理国家,对每个中国公民来说都是陌生的,全体中国公民都必须从头学起。包括党和国家的最高领导人。在这个过程中,政府和民众两方面的失误都是不可避免的。关键在于知错必认、知错必改,从错误中学习,把错误转化为积极的财富,在不断地改正错误中逐步地学会民主地治理我们的国家。

 

二、我们的基本口号

 

1.我们没有敌人!不要让仇恨和暴力毒化了我们的智慧和中国的民主化进程!

2.我们都需要反省!中国的落伍人人有责!

3.我们首先是公民!

4.我们不是寻找死亡!我们寻找真的生命!

 

三、绝食的地点、时间、规则

 

  1. 地点:天安门广场人民纪念碑下
  2. 时间:72小时,6月2日16时—6月5日16时。
  3. 规则:只喝白开水,不得进食、不得饮用含营养物质(糖、淀粉、脂肪、蛋白质)的饮料。

刘晓波  周舵  侯德健  高新

[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1556703802152-2a735b4e-99ef-10″ taxonomies=”29029″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.

Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.

Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.

SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Listen”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship magazine produces regular podcasts in which we speak to some of the most interesting writers, thinkers and activists around the globe.

Click here to see what’s in our archive.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Read”][vc_column_text]Through a range of in-depth reporting, interviews and illustrations, Index on Censorship magazine explores the free speech issues from around the world today.

Explore recent issues here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]