WASHINGTON, DC –
This week, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders are meeting in Beijing for a plenary session centered on one topic: the rule of law.
Yet, in recent days, several groups on WeChat (a popular Chinese social
network) have described the arrests of nearly 50 Chinese activists who support
the protests in Hong Kong. Others have reported on an official order to ban the
publication or sale of books by authors who support the Hong Kong protests,
human-rights activism, and the rule of law. This casts serious doubt on the
credibility of the government’s commitment to its stated goal of political
modernization.
Among the banned
authors is the economist Mao Yushi, who received the Milton Friedman Prize for
Advancing Liberty in 2012. This is not the first time that Mao’s books have
been banned. In 2003, his work was proscribed after he signed a petition
appealing to the government to exonerate the student protesters whose
democratic movement ended with the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
China often does
not even issue an official public notice of censorship; an “anonymous” phone
call to a publisher, understood to be from an official agency, will suffice. A
couple of articles in one of my own books were deleted without an official
explanation, and phrases, sentences, and even paragraphs have regularly been
removed from my columns and commentaries in journals and newspapers.
Another respected
author, the 84-year-old Yu Ying-shih, is also under siege for his support of
the Hong Kong protests. Yu, who has taught in the United States at a string of
Ivy League universities, has been a prolific critic of the CCP for more than
five decades.
In his books, Yu
criticizes China’s traditional culture and classical philosophy, and advances
universal values based on Western scholarly tradition. Though the books contain
no direct reference to contemporary political issues, China’s government views
them as critical of CCP rule and thus damaging to social stability.
Then there is
Zhang Qianfan, a cautious and prudent scholar, who serves as Vice President of
the China Constitutional Law Association. Zhang’s moderate approach to
political analysis – during our time as colleagues at Peking University, Zhang
criticized some of my stances as excessively derogatory toward the current
regime – makes him a somewhat surprising target for the government.
Zhang opposes the
decision by many of his contemporaries (including me) to support the protests
in Hong Kong, fearing that the government will resort to violent repression, as
it did in 1989. Given this, the banning of Zhang’s books most likely resulted
not from his views on the protests, but from the implications of his
constitutional research.
Far less
surprising was the recent arrest of the well-known activist and human-rights
advocate Guo Yushan, who has been involved with many so-called “sensitive”
issues over the last decade. In 2012, for example, he played a key role in
helping the world-famous blind activist Chen Guangcheng escape from house
arrest – a major international embarrassment for China. Nonetheless, the timing
of Guo’s arrest, shortly before this month’s plenary session, highlights the CCP’s
lack of sincerity when it comes to the rule of law.
The treatment of
Chinese dissidents, inside and outside the country, is abhorrent. Either they
are jailed for their supposed crimes, or prohibited from visiting their
families in China – sometimes for two or three decades.
This is not the
fate only of vocal anti-CCP figures. Scholars and researchers – from former
Princeton University Professor Perry Link and Columbia University Professor
Andrew Nathan to Li Jianglin, a writer and historian focused on contemporary
Tibetan history – and even businessmen have been prohibited from returning to
China. All it takes to have a visa denied or canceled is to sympathize with
human-rights movements in China or express any view that contradicts the CCP’s
position.
Chinese citizens
should be free to leave and enter their homeland, regardless of their political
beliefs. Taking away this right without legal justification is a clear
violation of modern international norms.
President Xi
Jinping’s unprecedented anti-corruption campaign was supposed to signify a
shift toward a more transparent system, based on the rule of law. But the fact
is that the officials who have been purged so far have been Xi’s political
adversaries, and the entire enterprise has served to consolidate his power.
This duplicity is
also evident in the crackdown on freedom of speech, assembly, association, and
movement now unfolding in China. Xi appears to be pulling China backwards
politically, even as he seeks to drive it forward economically.
Xia Yeliang, a former professor of economics at Peking University, is a visiting fellow at the Cato Institute.
中國的大倒退
華盛頓 --- 本月20日到23日，中國共產黨的高層領導人們在北京出席18屆4中全會，該會議的中心議題是“法治”。然而，近期我所加入的十幾個微信群（一種很流行的社交網絡媒體）已經報道了有接近50位積極活動者因支持發生在香港的抗議活動而被捕的事實。還有其他有關官方下令禁止出版那些支持香港抗議活動、在中國的人權活動以及支持法治制度的作者們所準備出版的著作，已經出版的也必須立即停售和下架，甚至被銷毀。這些行為使得人們對於政府有關它所聲稱的政治現代化目標的承諾之可信度產生嚴重的質疑。
在被禁的作者中有一位是經濟學家茅於軾先生，他在2012年獲得加圖研究所所授予的米爾頓.弗裡德曼推進自由獎。對於茅先生來說，這已經不是第一次禁止他出版著作了。我記得2002年我們曾在一次小型的經濟學家聚會上恭喜他的出版計劃被解禁。可是不久卻又被禁止了。在2003年，他在青島為一個呼籲政府為1989年發生在天安門廣場的學生抗議活動（那次抗議以著名的六四大屠殺而結束）平反的請願書上簽名，隨後他的著作就再次被禁止出版。
在中國，禁止一位作者出版著作甚至常常不需要出具一份正式的書面通知，只須給出版社打個並不公布自己姓名、職位和具體單位名稱的電話就能辦到。我自己與編輯溝通出書時往往發現，若干篇文章被刪除，而編輯也無法從負責出版審查的部門得到官方解釋。而我在國內主要報紙和期刊上的專欄文章，許多措辭、句子甚至段落都被刪除，這是家常便飯了。
另一位值得尊敬的作者是84歲的余英時先生，他也因對香港抗議活動的支持而遭受圍剿。余先生曾在美國長春藤大學（主要是哈佛、耶魯、普林斯頓）長期求學任教，在過去五十年裡也常常批評共產黨的統治。
在他的著作裡，余先生批評中國的傳統文化與古代哲學，在西方學術傳統的基礎上推進普世價值。雖然這些著作並不直接涉及當前政治議題，中國政府卻把它們視為對中共統治的批評，而有害社會穩定。
還有一位張千帆教授，他是我在北大的同校同事（他是北大法學院和政府管理學院的雙料教授），也是中國憲法學會的副會長。張教授把我的某些觀點和立場看作是過於貶斥現政權 --- 令人驚訝使他成為政府查禁的目標。
張教授反對許多知識分子同僚（包括我本人）不斷支持香港抗議活動，擔憂政府會訴於武力鎮壓，如同在1989年那樣。由此可見，對於張教授的查禁很可能並非基於他對抗議活動的觀點和立場，而更有可能是因為他所積極從事的憲政研究而生的寓意。
近期中共政權逮捕了著名維權活動人士和人權倡導者郭玉閃（在過去的十年裡他曾涉及諸多敏感事件和議題）的事件，人們並不感到特別意外。例如在2012年，他在營救從軟禁中逃亡的國際著名盲人律師和維權人士陳光誠的驚險過程中，起到非常關鍵的作用。這一事件使得中國面對國際壓力與尷尬。
然而在恰恰在號稱要追求“依法治國”的18屆4中全會召開前不久逮捕郭玉閃，這突出了中共缺乏走向“法治”的誠意。
對於中國的異議人士來說，無論是身處國內還是國外，都面臨著恐怖的氛圍。不是被羅織罪名投入監獄就是禁止他們回國探訪親友，往往長達二十或三十年之久。
這也並非針對反對中共之各類人士的唯一手段，學者和研究者們，從前普林斯頓大學教授林培瑞、西藏當代史研究學者李江琳，到哥倫比亞大學教授黎安友，甚至一些商界人士都被禁止獲得簽証。即便已經獲得簽証，但卻可能在進入中國口岸時被非法拒絕入境。由於這些人士曾經同情和支持在中國促進和保護人權的各類活動，或者表達過任何不同於中國官方的觀點和立場就會面臨這樣缺乏法理支持的封殺。
中國公民應當擁有自由離開和進入自己國家的權利，無論他們的政治信仰如何。沒有法理和正義基礎地剝奪這樣的權利，就是公然違背和踐踏現代國際通用規則。
習近平主席所領導的前所未有之力度的反腐敗運動被預判為向著以“法治”為基礎的較為透明的制度邁進。但是事實上這種選擇性的反腐，使得許多官員被清洗，使習領導的集團清除了許多權力競爭對手和障礙，這從整體上說是為了鞏固其壟斷權力的措施。
這種雙重性也體現在對言論自由、集會自由、結社自由以及正在中國方興未艾之公民運動的打壓方面。習似乎想在政治層面上把中國向倒退，甚至當他尋求在經濟層面上向前驅動的時段也是如此。
