The Core Issue in the Chen Guangcheng case

The story has changed in the past twenty-four hours, but it is important to maintain focus on the central problem in all of this: the PRC government has failed to provide a consistent and fair rule of law and Chen has been brutally victimized, and continues to be brutally victimized, as a result. 

We can debate whether the US government has handled this well or not, and whether Chen himself has made tactical errors (and who could blame him if he has, after a year and a half of unremitting pressure and abuse).  But those are secondary issues.  The core of the matter is the continuing inability of central PRC government officials to recognize or rein in the illegal actions of the Linyi thugs.  Either that, or the central Party leadership is in total agreement with the Linyi thugs and supports the use of illegal means to repress citizen activists. They have either failed to provide rule of law or they do not, regardless of their statements to the contrary, really want to provide rule of law.  That is the issue.

Ths US government cannot solve this problem.  It is not a problem of the US government.  Only the political leadership of the PRC government can solve this problem.

Thus far, the US embassy in Beijing has gone above and beyond the call of duty to help Chen.  The story of bringing him into the embassy grounds reads like a tale of Cold War espionage.  And I, for one, believe that while Chen was in the embassy, the US representatives there made plain that he could have asylum if he wanted it but he did not; he wanted to try to stay in China and continue to press for improvment of the legal system.  Perhaps the most reliable source is Jerry Cohen, a man who has worked in and with China for decades on questions of law and the legal system.  Chen, while at the embassy, asked for Cohen to advise him, via telephone, and Cohen did.  And here was Cohen's understanding as Chen left the embassy:

Cohen said that on Monday night, Chen was undecided and fretful for his family. “I’m very, very fearful. I’m very, very insecure. I’m very uncomfortable,” Cohen said Chen told him on Monday. But throughout the talks, Chen maintained that he wanted to remain in China, according to Cohen and U.S. officials, because he didn’t want to live without his family and felt he could achieve more in China. “Chen is brilliant and to accept asylum and fade away, that wasn’t an appealing option,” Cohen said. “He wants this. He told me in the conversations we had in the last couple of days that he wants the rights of any other citizen.” By Tuesday, Chen was feeling better about the arrangement and by the time he left the embassy he was comfortable with it, Cohen said.

Staying in China necessarily reduced the power of the US government to protect him.  The US cannot contravene the sovereignty of the PRC; the US government cannot become an extraterritorial legal guarantor.  The US can monitor and pressure and protest; but it cannot shield a PRC citizen from the legal force of his or her own government.  Everyone knows this.  Thus, the choice to stay in China was a risky one, dependent on how the highest levels of the PRC government would respond.   It would be quite easy for that leadership to make certain promises behind closed doors and then renege on them in practice.  The US would be in a reactive mode, and would have to calculate what it wanted to give up in order to get the outcome it wanted in Chen's case. 

And we know now that Chinese authorities have responded badly.  First of all, someone threatened Chen's family.  Indeed, the family has been used as a bargaining chip.  Initially, Chen was told, while in the embassy, that if he were to seek asylum and leave, he would have to leave his family behind.  That was the position of the PRC government.  Clearly, that weighed heavily on his mind and shaped his decision to stay.  Then, his wife and children were brought to the hospital but were told they could be sent back to Shandong at any time - which in itself is a not-so-veiled threat of physical abuse.  When Chen was reunited with his family at the hospital, and his wife told him how fearful they were of being sent back, that is when he changed his decision and stated that he wanted to leave China with his family - an option which the PRC government had not made available in earlier negotiations.

Once again, Chen shows himself to be more of a Confucian than the PRC government.  When he finally had a chance to reunite with both of his children, he sought to act in their best interest.  It is important to keep in mind that one of the ways the Linyi thugs have pressured him is to break up his family:

"They broke up and hurt Chen Guangcheng's family," Chen's lawyer, Li Jinsong, said Thursday. "It was the local government officials who wouldn't let the son go home because he was getting older and was better able to understand things, and what the local officials most feared was that Chen Guangcheng and his family would be able to communicate with the outside world. So, he was left with his maternal grandmother."

So we should not blame Chen for the rather chaotic change of direction the story has taken.  But that change has put him and the US in a weaker position.  Quite simply, if the PRC leadership sees that the US values a certain outcome in this case, it will demand something in return.  And the fact that this is all happening while high-level negotiations are going on means that the PRC will likely try to link the resolution of the Chen case to other issues.  Will they say that Chen and his family can have passports and leave if the US backs off its plan to sell advanced jet fighters to Taiwan?  Of course, the US will not allow the Chen case to determine national security and other issues.  But the back and forth on this will drag on for a long time. 

The bottom line here is what it has long been.  If the PRC leadership - Wen Jiabao, Hu Jintao and company - want to treat Chen humanely, they can treat Chen humanely.  Up to this point, they have clearly demonstrated that they do not want to treat Chen humanely.  They have chosen inhumanity.  And that choice creates a systemic problem, as Mencius noted:

...only the Humane are fit for high position: when the Inhumane hold high position, evil is sown among the people.  When the Way isn't in a leader's thoughts, officials stop fostering the law.... (4A.1)

是以惟仁者宜在高位。不仁而在高位，是播其惡於眾也。上無道揆也。下無法守也...

That's the core issue of the Chen Guangcheng case...

Comments

[Michael]

"The bottom line here is what it has long been. If the PRC leadership - Wen Jiabao, Hu Jintao and company - want to treat Chen humanely, they can treat Chen humanely."

It seems that there are two associated thoughts to this point. The first is what came out quite early in this whole episode, that of the continuing rift between central/national goals and priorities and local goals and priorities. As with certain issues of legal reform, the text is often less implemented on the ground, and the central leadership has a different set of incentives to work with compared to local officials. When one can be shown to contradict the other, the more powerful set of actors, the central government, will win out. But, this implies the circus surrounding Chen's situation hasn't created a new set of incentives for the central government that did not exist before.

The second issue, which has been mentioned briefly by a few people throughout the day is that of continuing rifts within the central leadership. A kind of who is with Wen and who is against him rumor mill appears to be gathering steam. If this is the case, or even a minor part, how do you see the situation changing? What happens when it isn't as simple as assuming a unified PRC leadership-and who wants to treat/act whom humanely-on an issue that used to be confined to parochial importance, rise to a national and international spotlight, and hinge on separate incentives for various high level factions within the party?

[godfree]

Come, come. "The PRC has failed to provide a consistent and fair rule of law"? Chen has fared much better than Bradyley Manning and countless others who have annoyed our own government.
Also, we have heard only a very Westernized version of Chen's case. For some of its other dimensions, look here: http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2012/04/chen-guangcheng-escapes-waging-pr-campaign-with-western-press/

And that link does not mention the involvement of the illegal and dangerous underground support for Chen from US Christian groups. Alwasy a no-no in a country that has lost millions of its citizens to Christian mayhem.

[R.S.S.]

There is a side to this Chen sage that I find even more appalling than the treatment by the Chinese authorities.

And that is the supposed journalists, mostly British, who used the man to try to tarnish the image of the US among the Chinese and around the world. I knew it would come to this when China Aid put out a statement saying that Chinese dissidents "revere the US" for reasons like this. It was then open season.

Chen has been so skillfully manipulated by the pseudo-tabloid British media to say exactly what they wanted him to say that he might as well have been speaking with a British accent. I know this will never happen - journalists are loathe to questions each other - but the story of how and why he changed his mind so frequently and if journalists influenced him in any way needs to be told. This kind of thing happens all the time but it's rare for it to happen in such a short span of time and with such devastating consequences that it bears investigating.

[Leon]

Too bad we can't have this debate in public in China.

[William Goldman]

godfree: "And that link does not mention the involvement of the illegal and dangerous underground support for Chen from US Christian groups. Alwasy a no-no in a country that has lost millions of its citizens to Christian mayhem."

This country you speak of is China? The reality, of course, is that China lost millions of its citizens to anti-Christian, atheist mayhem, under the direction of Chairman Mao. Mao almost succeeded in wiping out the Christian church in China, but like other enemies of God before him, he failed: it is estimated that there are now 80 million Christians in China, perhaps more.

How is support for Chen from US Christian groups "illegal", by the way? Illegal in the US? Surely not? Illegal in China? How can the actions of groups in the US be illegal in China?

[China Direct]

China Aid put out a statement saying that Chinese dissidents "revere the US" for reasons like this. It was then open season.

[China Direct]

the most reliable source is Jerry Cohen, a man who has worked in and with China for decades on questions of law and the legal system.