Free Border Crossing as a Condition for Boycotting
Yang, Jianli Opening Statement Panel Discussion, Amnesty International Northeast Regional Conference, Oct.27, 2007 Five and a half years ago, after being blacklisted from entering China for 13 years, I stormed across the border into China to support the rights defense efforts of some unemployed workers. My reason for entering China in this way was none other than to proclaim to the Chinese government and the international community that I was a Chinese citizen, and that I had the right to return to my own country. I was certain to achieve this goal, because whether I was barred from entering, or was arrested, or actually succeeded in entering, I would draw the world’s attention to the fact that I and many of my colleagues who were in exile promoting China’s human rights and democracy had been deprived of the right to return home. I was arrested 10 days later, and eventually sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. I once stated at the court that no matter how heavy a sentence the Chinese authorities imposed on me, I was determined to remain in prison until I was released, and then move through China as a free man. It was for this purpose that last September when the authorities took me to Beijing International Airport from prison, I refused to accept an offer to release me eight months early on the condition that I leave China immediately thereafter. My persistence enabled me to accomplish my goal. In April this year, after I completed my five-year prison sentence, even though the government denied me a Chinese identification card, I was able to travel around China as a free man for nearly four months. In this way, I actually broke the vicious circle imposed on overseas activists, who return home only to be met with imprisonment, and who can attain their freedom only by leaving their homeland. When I left China in August, the Chinese government issued me a passport valid for 10 years. This was another hard-won victory. After I returned to the United States, many people began to wonder whether letting me move freely in China and issuing me a passport might be a reconciliatory signal to the dissidents in the run-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics. I must state that the handling of my case was unusual, and, as one of many human rights violations, cannot be viewed as typical example of the government’s routine policies, nor can it be regarded as a typical case of how the Chinese government is likely to handle the return of exiled dissidents before the Olympics. The majority of exiled democracy activists such as myself, including a large number of those involved in the 1989 Democracy Movement, are still, in accordance with the Chinese government’s wishes, unable to return to their native country. In other words, these exiled Chinese are still deprived of the right to return home. The basic reason that the Chinese government acceded to issue a passport to me was that from the outset they did not want me to remain in China, and they knew from the incident last September that if they did not give me an actual Chinese passport, I would continue to refuse to leave China, even though in giving me a passport they also expressed the worry that I might insist on remaining. One might deduce from this that the Chinese government will be more than willing to issue passports to activists inside China and let them to leave. No, that is not the case. Jiang Weiping, an investigative journalist whose exposes of official corruption resulted in a five-year stay in prison, was told upon his release in 2006 not even to bother applying for a passport to visit his wife and daughter in Canada until the three year deprivation period was up in January 2009. Yuan Weijing, the wife of the blind rights defense lawyer Chen Guangcheng had her passport confiscated at Beijing International Airport while seeking to fly to Manila to accept a human rights award on behalf of her imprisoned husband. She was then forced to return to her home village, and remains under house arrest to the present. The lawyer Zheng Enchong, who was imprisoned for three years after he defended the rights of householders displaced in urban redevelopment schemes in Shanghai, was notified upon his release in 2006 that he could not apply for a passport, because he remained a subject of a criminal investigation. Rights defender Hu Jia’s wife Zeng Jinyan had her passport confiscated. As far as I know, other activists who have been denied a passport include Liu Xiaobo, Bao Zunxin (who is now critically ill), Chen Ziming, Jiang Qisheng, Liao Yiwu and Woeser. In other words, all of these people have been deprived of the right to leave China. I must stress here, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other relevant international human rights treaties, and China’s own domestic law all provide for the right of citizens to leave and return to their countries. UDHR article 13, 2 says “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own country, and to return to his country.” The International Covenant On Civil and Political Rights stipulates in Article 12 Item 2 :“ Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.” and Item 4 “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country”. China has no domestic law that deprives Chinese citizens of their right to return to China under any condition. So the Chinese government, by limiting the right to enter and leave the country, is completely arbitrary. It determines who should be allowed to return or leave according to its own convenience and without regard to the UN Charter, the relevant international human rights treaties, or its own domestic laws. The Chinese government’s arbitrariness runs through all spheres of its control. For example, the government can determine, according to its whim and the circumstances, whether the Olympics are political or apolitical. Within China, the Olympics serve a primary political purpose in advancing national mobilization. Any perceptive person understands that the 2008 Beijing Olympics will be the Olympics that are politicized on the grandest scale in the history of the Games. At the same time, if other people refer to the spirit of the Olympics Charter in requesting that the Chinese government improve the human rights situation, it responds that sports are sports and politics is politics, and the Olympics should not be politicized. After I returned to the United States, at every event there were people who would ask me what my views are of the 2008 Beijing Olympics and what we can do to bring about some positive change in China’s human rights situation before the Olympics. The Olympics are indeed a major event. Clearly the international community in general feels disappointed and even angry that the Chinese government has failed to fulfill its promises to the International Olympics Committee and the international community with regard to the improvement of China’s human rights situation. Of course there are also regrets, otherwise why is the IOC still not willing to make public, as in past cases, the agreement it signed with the Chinese government in 2001? Last month, when Burma’s military junta ruthlessly suppressed peaceful protests by Buddhist monks and other citizens, I heard many people expressing regrets that if the international community had insisted on its principles back in 1988 and 1989, when the governments in both Rangoon and Beijing carried out large-scale killings of peaceful protesters, and had pressured the Chinese government to compromise on political reform and human rights, both China and Burma would be different places today. How many more regrets must we leave for ourselves? The Chinese government values very highly this opportunity to showcase its achievements as the ruler in a one-party system. They are extremely nervous about any mistake or imperfection over this matter. It just cannot afford to ignore the pressure from the international community all together. Thus it is a good window of opportunity for us to make them improve human rights conditions. I have been asked, should the international community boycott the Olympics? I think the Olympics will happen no matter what we do, so our effort should be spent on how to use it as an opportunity to bring about a positive change. I believe, however, it would be better that different tunes be sung over this issue. In fact, the very existence of the boycott forces should help us achieve our goals more easily. The key is that we should all cooperate with each other. It is my belief that conditional boycott would be the most effective. Suppose we could find world renowned athletes or sport teams who would threaten that they would refuse to participate in the games if certain conditions are not met. If any of you know such athletes, please let me know. Also, I hereby appeal to well-known politicians, scholars and entrepreneurs, if you receive invitations to attend the Olympics, please specify to the Chinese government conditions under which you would go. When President Bush accepted President Hu Jintao’s invitation, his press secretary said he was going to the games as “a sports fan, not to make any political statement.” No body would believe President Bush would be a pure sports fan being there. A political statement is surely to be made one way or another. So I urge President Bush to put forth to his Chinese counterpart his conditions under which he would go. Then, what conditions should we raise to the Chinese government? What are the things that we could achieve and that would have long-term effects? I think we can focus on the following issues. 1. Ratify in the People’s Congress next March the United Nations’ “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” which the Chinese government signed in October of 1998. 2. Extend the rights to report granted to foreign journalists in January of this year to China’s domestic journalists; and let both domestic and foreign journalist retain these rights after the Olympics. 3. Release all those imprisoned related to the June 4th massacre. 4. Abolish the border crossing black lists, so that exile pro-democracy activists can return to China, and pro-democracy activists in China can go abroad. Give all people the freedom of movement. What I want to emphasize today is the fourth condition, which is related to my case. Please do not overlook this one. Just as the free flow of domestic and international capitals has propelled the development of market economy in China, the free boarder crossing of the pro-democracy activists will propel the development of democratic politics in China. And this is relatively easily operable by those of us who are abroad. Here I would like to ask for help for assisting the pro-democracy activists in exile to go home, as well as inviting pro-democracy people in China to visit abroad, in whatever form and for however long. At the same time, we should pay close attention to how things develop. As soon as we notice any resistance, or any harassment or increased suppression, we should bring it to the attention of the international community and take measures to come to their rescue. Those who are willing to help please get in touch with me, especially those who want to use this as a condition for boycotting the games. To wrap up, I want to address the question as to why the Chinese government has given me a special treatment in the latter days after my release. This is because of the effectiveness of the pressure from the international rescuing network which includes the parliament and executive branches of various democracies, especially the US, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, free media, people in business or academia who are concerned with human rights progress in China. When there is suspicion over whether the international community can exert influence on the Chinese government, or how to exert influence, my case can provide an effective guidance. Any change starts from special cases. When the special cases accumulate, the change will become a reality. -------------------------- ---Distributed by Chinaeweekly.com |