U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–804 PDF 2016

THE LONG ARM OF CHINA: GLOBAL 

EFFORTS TO SILENCE CRITICS FROM 

TIANANMEN TO TODAY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE 

COMMISSION ON CHINA 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 24, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.cecc.gov 

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

House Senate 

CHRIS SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TIM WALZ, Minnesota 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

TED LIEU, California 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Cochairman 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

CHRISTOPHER P. LU, Department of Labor 

SARAH SEWALL, Department of State 

STEFAN M. SELIG, Department of Commerce 

DANIEL R. RUSSEL, Department of State 

TOM MALINOWSKI, Department of State 

PAUL B. PROTIC, Staff Director 

ELYSE B. ANDERSON, Deputy Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

CO N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS

Page 

Opening Statement of Hon. Christopher Smith, a U.S. Representative From 

New Jersey; Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China ....... 1 

Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator From Florida; Cochairman, CongressionalExecutive Commission on China ........................................................................ 4 

Hultgren, Hon. Randy, a U.S. Representative From Illinois ............................... 6 

Teng Biao, Chinese Human Rights Lawyer; Visiting Fellow, Harvard Kennedy 

School and the U.S.-Asia Institute, NYU Law School; and Co-founder, Open 

Constitution Initiative ......................................................................................... 7 

Gui, Angela, Student and Daughter of Disappeared Hong Kong Bookseller 

Gui Minhai ............................................................................................................ 8 

Hassan, Ilshat, President, Uyghur American Association ................................... 10 

Su Yutong, Journalist, Internet Activist, and Former News Broadcaster for 

the Chinese Service of Deutsche Welle .............................................................. 12 

Franks, Hon. Trent, a U.S. Representative From Arizona .................................. 12 

Teng Biao (continued) ............................................................................................. 16 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Teng Biao ................................................................................................................. 26 

Gui, Angela ............................................................................................................... 28 

Hassan, Ilshat .......................................................................................................... 29 

Su Yutong ................................................................................................................. 30 

Smith, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Representative From New Jersey; Chairman, 

Congressional-Executive Commission on China ................................................ 32 

Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator From Florida; Cochairman, CongressionalExecutive Commission on China ........................................................................ 34 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Written Statement Submitted for the Record by Wen Yunchao, May 24, 

2016 ....................................................................................................................... 36 

Transcription of Video: Words From Wives of Human Rights Lawyers in 

China ..................................................................................................................... 37 

Letter From the Congressional-Executive Commission on China Submitted 

to the American Bar Association, April 19, 2016 .............................................. 39 

Letter From the American Bar Association in Response to Letter From the 

Congressional-Executive Commission on China, April 25, 2016 ...................... 41 

Witness Biographies ................................................................................................ 44 

(1) 

THE LONG ARM OF CHINA: GLOBAL EFFORTS 

TO SILENCE CRITICS FROM TIANANMEN TO 

TODAY 

TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2016 

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE

COMMISSION ON CHINA, 

Washington, DC. 

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 12:05 p.m., in 

Room HVC–210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Christopher Smith, 

Chairman, presiding. 

Also Present: Senator Rubio, Representatives Pittenger, 

Hultgren, and Lieu. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY; CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL–EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

Chairman SMITH. The Commission will come to order. Good 

afternoon to everyone. 

One year ago, U.S. Army Major Xiong Yan was barred from visiting his dying mother in China. Major Yan is blacklisted, denied 

access to China because he was a student leader of the democracy 

protests in 1989. Major Yan’s mother passed away last year. Her 

son never had the chance to say goodbye. 

The Communist leaders in Beijing use the blacklist along with 

intimidation, repression, and the lure of the Chinese market to stifle the discussion of the violence and oppression of the Tiananmen 

protests and their violent suppression that followed. 

Academics such as Perry Link and Andrew Nathan are also 

blacklisted for writing about Tiananmen. U.S. corporations, eager 

to gain access to Chinese markets, also engaged in censorship 

about Tiananmen. Last year, the California-based LinkedIn began 

blocking Tiananmen-related articles posted inside China or by 

members hosted on its Chinese site. 

Almost 10 years ago, I chaired a series of hearings on how 

Google and other Internet search engines had completely joined in 

with the repression and with the censorship. I will never forget we 

had Google CN, which was the Chinese version. We posted it and 

showed in the Foreign Affairs Committee Room what the average 

person would see in mainland China when they did a search on 

Tiananmen Square and even the massacre in 1989. Nothing but 

pretty pictures of folks, as compared to the hundreds of millions of 

hits you would get using Google in the United States or anywhere 

else. 

2 

The methods used by Beijing to enforce a code of silence have 

gone global. The heavy hand of the Chinese Government has expanded beyond its borders to intimidate and stifle critical discussion of the Chinese Government’s human rights record and repressive policies. 

Before I talk more broadly about our hearing today, let me first 

say a few words about the Tiananmen massacre. 

The Commission has solemnly commemorated the Tiananmen 

massacre on and around June 4 each year. The Congress does this 

because of the lives that were lost and persons permanently injured 

in the massacre. We do so because of the profound impact the 

event had on U.S.-China relations and because so many former student leaders have made important contributions to the global understanding of China. We mark June 4th each year because the 

Chinese people are unable to mark this event themselves. 

This year, the Congress is not in session on June 4th, but Senator Rubio and I will be sending a letter to President Xi Jinping 

asking him to allow uncensored, public discussion of the democracy 

protests of 1989—to end retaliation efforts against those who participated in the protests and to release all of those still detained 

for holding commemorations about the Tiananmen protests and 

their violent suppression. 

We will urge President Xi to allow discussion of China’s past history. We believe transparency is in the best interest of the U.S.- 

China relations and will improve global perceptions of China. 

President Xi Jinping, however, seems to have a different conception of what is in China’s interest. As is well-documented already 

in this Commission, his government is engaged in an extraordinary 

assault on civil society and advocates for human rights. China is 

not only interested in containing the spread of ‘‘Western values and 

ideas’’ within China, but is actively engaged in trying to roll back 

democracy and human rights norms globally. 

In fact, it would be fitting to have an empty chair at the witness 

table today representing every dissident fearful of sharing their 

story, every writer whose work has been censored or edited by Chinese authorities without their knowledge, and every journalist 

whose critical reporting has been blocked or tempered—not just in 

China, but in the West. 

China’s recent efforts to blunt scrutiny of its rights record and 

criticism of government policies include pushing Thailand and 

Cambodia to forcibly repatriate Uyghur refugees and Chinese asylum seekers; disappearing and allegedly abducting five Hong Kong 

booksellers, including the father of one of our witnesses today; supporting clandestine efforts to discredit the Dalai Lama through a 

Communist Party-supported rival Buddhist sect; harassing and detaining the family members of foreign journalists and human rights 

advocates—two of our witnesses today will attest to such harassment; threatening the operations of non-governmental organizations engaged in work in China through the newly passed Overseas 

NGO Management Law and through other means. 

Dr. Teng will talk about the cancellation of his book project by 

the American Bar Association [ABA]. We asked—Senator Rubio 

and I—the ABA to testify today, but the ABA President Paulette 

Brown and the ABA’s CEO Jack Rives were not available to testify 

3 

on this day. We will open the possibility to any day that they would 

like to come and speak to our Commission in an open hearing. 

The ABA sent a letter to the Commission last month, however, 

responding to an inquiry by the Commission about the details surrounding their rescinding of the Teng book project. They want that 

letter to serve as their testimony. I would hope that they would go 

beyond it, and come here and face us and answer legitimate questions posed by Members of the Commission. 

A copy of the Commission’s letter to the ABA and the ABA response will be added to the record without objection. 

The long reach of China extends beyond its borders to Thailand, 

South Korea, Malaysia, India, Kenya, at the United Nations, and 

in the United States. 

These efforts present real strategic implications for the United 

States and the international community. The abductions of the 

booksellers challenge the ‘‘one country, two systems’’ model in Hong 

Kong. China’s efforts to bend international human rights norms 

present a clear challenge to the United Nations and the Human 

Rights Council’s efforts to hold China accountable. China’s efforts 

to enforce a code of silence, globally, through its economic and diplomatic clout directly challenge the Obama Administration’s ‘‘Asia 

Pivot’’ and U.S. human rights diplomacy. 

The President and his Administration have only a few more 

chances to seriously raise human rights concerns with China: the 

Strategic and Economic Dialogue in two weeks and the G–20 meeting in September. 

Congress and this Commission will press the Administration to 

do more to advance human rights in China. President Obama must 

‘‘shine a light’’ on human rights problems in China because nothing 

good happens in the dark. And glib talk and pious platitudes simply do not cut it. 

But we must also look ahead, use our Commission hearings, our 

Annual Report, and other publications to make a compelling case 

for the next Administration about the centrality of human rights 

to U.S. interests in Asia. 

It is increasingly clear that there is a direct link between China’s 

domestic human rights problems and the security and prosperity of 

the United States. The health of the U.S. economy and environment, the safety of our food and drug supplies, the security of our 

investments and personal information in cyberspace, and the stability of the Pacific region will depend on China’s complying with 

international law, allowing the free flow of news and information, 

complying with its WTO obligations, and protecting the basic rights 

of Chinese citizens, including the fundamental freedoms of religion, 

expression, assembly, and association. 

Losing sight of these facts leads to bad policy, bad diplomacy, 

and the needless juxtapositioning of values and interests. It also 

sends the wrong message to those in China standing courageously 

for greater freedoms, human rights, and the rule of law. The 

human rights lawyers, the free press advocates, and those fighting 

for labor rights, religious freedom, and democracy are the best hope 

for China’s future. And, they are the best hope for a more stable 

and prosperous U.S.-China relationship. 

4 

I would like to now yield to our distinguished Cochair, Senator 

Marco Rubio. 

[The letters appear in the appendix.] 

[The prepared statement of Representative Smith appears in the 

appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

FLORIDA; COCHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL–EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you very much, and thank all of you for 

being here today. 

Next week marks the 27th anniversary of the student-led popular protests in Tiananmen Square. It was spurred by the death 

of a prominent reformer. Thousands gathered in April 1989 seeking 

greater political freedom 

Their numbers swelled as the days passed, not only in Beijing 

but in cities and universities across the nation. Eventually, more 

than a million people, including journalists, workers, government 

employees, and police, joined their ranks—making it the largest political protest in the history of communist China. 

And then late in the evening of June 3, the Army opened fire on 

peaceful protesters. The bloodshed continued until the next day. To 

this day, the precise number of resulting casualties is unknown 

and more than a quarter of a century later, there has been no 

progress toward a public accounting of the events of that fateful 

week. 

Instead, 27 years later, the Chinese Government is increasingly 

brazen in its repression—no longer limiting its reach to China’s 

territorial boundaries but instead seeking to stifle discussion of its 

deplorable human rights record, both at home and abroad. In that 

context, consider the following: Dissidents regularly report that 

their family members who remain in China are harassed, and detained, and even imprisoned in retaliation for their truth-telling 

about the regime’s abuses. News reports abound of Uyghur Muslim 

and Chinese asylum-seekers being forcibly repatriated from neighboring Southeast Asian countries under pressure from the Chinese 

Government. 

Journalists and academics alike are threatened with visa revocations, thereby allowing self-censorship to take root in what should 

be the very bastions of free expression and inquiry. Even educational institutions based here in the United States are not immune as more have welcomed the establishment of Confucius Institutes. 

While seemingly benign at face value, the financial support that 

accompanies these centers for Chinese language and cultural education come with definite strings attached. Sensitive topics, including Taiwan and Tibet, are excluded from the curriculum, and invitations for the Dalai Lama to speak at prominent universities are 

mysteriously withdrawn. 

In 2014, the American Association of University Professors 

issued a statement calling on colleagues across the United States 

and Canada to reconsider their partnerships with these centers, 

stating that, ‘‘The Confucius Institutes function as an arm of the 

Chinese state and are allowed to ignore academic freedom.’’ 

5 

In April 2016, the Indian government blocked several rights advocates and activists from attending an Interfaith/Interethnic Conference in Dharamsala, India reportedly due to Chinese Government pressures to rescind their visas. 

Last month, a news story broke alleging that the American Bar 

Association had canceled a proposed book project with prominent 

Chinese human rights lawyer Teng Biao, who we will hear from 

today. Multiple news sources reported that the project was canceled 

because of fears that the initiative would offend the Chinese Government. The ABA has denied these reports, claiming that the staff 

person in question who had interfaced with Teng Biao had been 

misinformed. Yet questions remain not only about the specifics of 

the book project but more broadly about the ability of groups like 

the ABA to continue working in China without compromising its 

principles. 

And, of course, any discussion of the long arm of Beijing must 

include recent troubling developments in Hong Kong, specifically 

the disappearance and alleged abductions of five Hong Kong booksellers, which have rightly raised alarm bells among Hong Kong activists, human rights organizations, and foreign governments. The 

Commission will have the distinct privilege today to hear from Angela Gui, the daughter of missing bookseller Gui Minhai, a naturalized Swedish citizen who disappeared in October 2015 from 

Pattaya, Thailand. 

In the recent State Department Hong Kong Policy Act report to 

Congress, the Department rightly noted that, ‘‘These cases have 

raised serious concerns in Hong Kong and represent what appears 

to be the most significant breach of the ‘one country, two systems’ 

policy since 1997.’’ 

In a sad testament to the timeliness and importance of today’s 

hearing topic, some of the witnesses the Commission approached 

with an invitation to testify declined based on very legitimate fears 

about what would happen to members of their family who remain 

in China. This is an inexcusable reality. 

For too long, China has gotten a free pass. The Obama Administration’s final U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue is just 

days away in Beijing. Will these issues be prioritized? Will every 

participating U.S. government agency be charged with bringing 

human rights to the forefront with their Chinese counterparts? 

Will there be consequences for China’s bold and aggressive disregard for human rights and extraterritorial reach? 

In March, the United States spearheaded a collective statement 

at the U.N. Human Rights Council voicing serious concern about 

a number of issues to include the unexplained recent disappearances and apparent coerced returns of Chinese citizens and foreigners to China. The upcoming S&ED will be a litmus test for this 

Administration. The statement was commendable, but will words 

translate into action? 

Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Rubio. 

Commissioner Randy Hultgren? 

[The prepared statement of Senator Rubio appears in the appendix.] 

6 

STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY HULTGREN, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS 

Representative HULTGREN. Well, thank you. I will be very brief. 

I want to get to our witnesses as quickly as possible. 

I do want to thank Chairman Rubio. I appreciate your work on 

this, and Chairman Smith as well. This is so important, and I am 

grateful for this hearing today. I really want to echo what our Cochairman has said, that this is our responsibility to continue to 

talk about the abuses that have happened, and continue to happen 

in China. 

When things are swept under the rug, hidden, that we are lied 

to, frustration that we face when our own people here, Administration or others, might say, ‘‘Well, we do not want to rock the boat.’’ 

Well, you know what? Lives are at stake and we need to do everything that we can to speak up for those who cannot speak up for 

themselves. 

So that is why this hearing is so important, why we must never 

forget what happened 27 years ago on June 4, and continue to do 

everything we possibly can for every person and for every life to 

have the value that it deserves. 

So thank you, witnesses, for being here. We want to work with 

you. We know your families, your own future is often in danger, 

and we want to work with you, fight for you, and fight for freedom 

for every single person. 

So with that, Chairman Smith, Chairman Rubio, I yield back. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Randy. I would like to now begin 

with our witnesses, first with Dr. Teng Biao, a well-known human 

rights lawyer; Visiting Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and 

the U.S.-Asia Institute, NYU Law School; and the Co-founder of 

the Open Constitution Initiative. 

Dr. Teng holds a Ph.D. from Peking University Law School and 

has been a visiting scholar at Yale Law School. He is interested in 

the research on human rights, judicial systems, constitutionalism, 

and social movements. 

As a human rights lawyer, Dr. Teng is a promoter of the Rights 

Defense Movement and co-initiator of the New Citizens’ Movement 

in China. In 2003, he was one of the ‘‘Three Doctors of Law’’ who 

complained to the National People’s Congress about unconstitutional detentions of internal migrants. 

Since then, Dr. Teng has provided counsel in numerous other 

human rights cases, including those of Chen Guangcheng, and 

rights defender Hu Jia, and many other religious freedom and 

death penalty cases. 

We will then hear from Angela Gui, who is a 22-year-old finalyear undergraduate sociology student at the University of Warwick 

in the United Kingdom. As the daughter of disappeared Hong Kong 

bookseller, Gui Minhai, she has followed and worked actively on 

his case with governments, police, and various human rights 

groups since his disappearance in October of 2015. 

She also did a brief internship with his and Lee Bo’s company, 

Mighty Current Distributions, in the summer of 2014. Aside from 

her studies and work on her father’s case, Ms. Gui is also editor 

and creative director of Warwick Sociology Journal, an academic 

7 

journal showcasing undergraduate and graduate students’ work from 

universities worldwide. 

After graduation, Ms. Gui plans on continuing on to a master’s 

degree in the history of medicine. 

We will then hear from Ilshat Hassan, who is the President of 

the Uyghur American Association. Born in Ghulja, in Xinjiang, he 

taught at a college in Shihezi in Xinjiang for 15 years. 

In November 2003, his teaching career abruptly ended due to his 

political activities. He fled to Malaysia, leaving behind parents, a 

wife, and a teenage son. Mr. Hassan came to the United States as 

a refugee in July 2006. He soon after joined the Uyghur American 

Association where he became a very active Uyghur human rights 

campaigner. 

He writes in blogs, frequently in Chinese, and is well-known in 

the overseas Chinese democracy community. 

Finally, we will hear, then, from Su Yutong who is a Chinese 

journalist and human rights defender. Because of her involvement 

in commemoration of the events linked to the Tiananmen massacre, 

she was invited for tea and for chats by the Chinese authorities 

and kept under surveillance, and periodically placed under house 

arrest. 

In 2010, after she distributed Li Peng’s diary, her home in China 

was raided, and documents were confiscated by the police. After 

leaving China in 2010, she started working in Bonn with Deutsche 

Welle, the German international broadcaster. 

On July 4, 2014, however, a Beijing-based media consultant 

claimed in Deutsche Welle that some Western media were unfairly 

critical of the Chinese Government’s crushing of the Tiananmen 

Square demonstrations. Ms. Su then became one of the most outstanding voices against this whitewashing of the 1989 events. In 

August of 2014, Deutsche Welle ended their employment relationship with her, sadly. 

I would like to now go to Dr. Teng who is coming to us via 

Skype. [Pause.] 

Dr. Teng, if you could begin your testimony. And if the camera 

man could move it a little to your right because you are way off 

on our left, your right. 

STATEMENT OF TENG BIAO, CHINESE HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER; VISITING FELLOW, HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL AND 

THE U.S.-ASIA INSTITUTE, NYU LAW SCHOOL; AND CO– 

FOUNDER, OPEN CONSTITUTION INITIATIVE 

Mr. TENG. Can you hear me now? 

Chairman SMITH. Better. A little bit more. We are seeing your 

chin and not your full face. 

Mr. TENG. Can you hear me? Should I start? 

Chairman SMITH. Yes, please start. But if you could move to your 

left if you would. 

Mr. TENG. Okay. Thank you very much for your promoting 

human rights in China. 

In 2014, the American Bar Association [ABA] invited me to write 

a book in which I would describe the decade I spent engaged in 

human rights work in China, my experience of disbarment, being 

kidnapped, being tortured, and my views on China’s politics, judiVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:24 Nov 09, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\20804.TXT DEIDRE
8 

cial system, society, and future. But the formal offer of the ABA 

was soon rescinded. The Executive Director of ABA publishing 

wrote to me: ‘‘There is a concern that we run the risk of upsetting 

the Chinese Government by publishing your book. And because we 

have ABA commissions working in China, there is a fear that we 

would put their work at risk.’’ 

So this is a typical case of censorship, but I do not want to single 

out ABA. It is simply an example of the corrosive effect of the Communist party on the West. I had the experience of my scheduled 

speech being canceled by a university in the United States. The 

reason given to me was exactly the same as the ABA’s. 

The Confucius Institutes erode Western academic freedom. The 

‘‘red capital’’ investment in Hong Kong and Taiwan media erode 

press freedom. Another example is cyberattacks on websites of foreign governments or institutions. [Internet connection lost.] 

[Pause.] 

Chairman SMITH. While we wait to get Dr. Teng back, I would 

like to go to Angela Gui. When we get Dr. Teng back, we will put 

him on after your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ANGELA GUI, STUDENT AND DAUGHTER OF 

DISAPPEARED HONG KONG BOOKSELLER GUI MINHAI 

Ms. GUI. Mr. Chairman Smith, Mr. Cochairman Rubio, Members 

of the CECC, thank you for inviting me to testify at this very important hearing, and thank you for the concern this Commission 

has shown for people like my father who are being persecuted by 

the Chinese Government in China, and now, increasingly, abroad. 

As a university student, I never would have thought I would find 

myself testifying in front of the U.S. Congress, and certainly not 

under circumstances like these. 

However, on October 13, 2015, I had my last Skype conversation 

with my father. Living in different places, we used to call each 

other on Skype regularly. I would tell him about how my studies 

were going, and he would tell me about work and how he was trying to get back into shape. 

Our last Skype call was not very different. He had been renovating his kitchen in Hong Kong and sent me pictures of what it 

looked like, saying he would show me in person when it was finished. 

We made plans to speak again in a few days, but then he 

stopped replying to my messages and emails, would not pick up 

when I called, and, about 3 weeks later, I received an email from 

his colleague, Lee Bo, saying my father had been missing for over 

20 days and that he feared my father had been taken by Chinese 

agents for political reasons relating to his publishing business and 

bookstore. 

I was later told that my father was last seen leaving his holiday 

apartment in Thailand with a man who had been loitering there, 

waiting for my father to return. I was also told that three of his 

colleagues at the bookstore had gone missing around the same 

time. We did not know that Lee Bo, himself, would be next. 

Since then, the Chinese have detained my father without trial or 

charges. In November and in January, he sent me two messages 

9 

on Skype, telling me to keep quiet. As his daughter, I could tell 

that he sent these under duress. 

I did not hear or see anything of my father until a clearly staged 

and badly put together confession video of him was aired on Chinese state TV in January, three months after he was last seen. It 

failed to explain why they had held him without charge for three 

months and looked to me like they felt they needed to fabricate a 

justification in face of increasing media pressure. 

Mr. Chairman, it has now been eight months since my father 

and his colleagues were taken into custody. I still have not been 

told where he is, how he is being treated, or what his legal status 

is, which is especially shocking in light of the fact that my father 

holds Swedish, and only Swedish, citizenship. In the so-called confession, my father says he travelled to China voluntarily, but if this 

is true, then we might ask why there is no record of him having 

left Thailand. 

Only a state agency, acting coercively and against both International and China’s own law, could achieve such a disappearance. 

By acting against my father and his colleagues, the Chinese are 

undermining their commitment to the ‘‘One Country, Two Systems’’ 

principle. 

I want my testimony today to be a reminder to governments that 

despite the media having gone eerily quiet, my father, a Swedish 

citizen who was abducted by Chinese state agents from a third sovereign country, is still in unofficial and illegal detention somewhere 

in China, without access to consular visits or legal representation. 

Despite having been told to stay quiet, I believe speaking up is 

the only option I have. Past cases clearly show that public criticism 

has had positive effects, and I am convinced my father would have 

done this for me, were I the one abducted and illegitimately detained without any indication of timeframe. 

Therefore I am also here to ask for the Committee’s help and 

support in working with the Swedish and other governments to demand my father’s immediate release. Alternatively, if he is suspected of an actual crime, we ought to be given official details of 

his detention and proof that his case is handled according to established legal procedure. 

I also want to ask the United States to take every opportunity 

to ask China for information on my father’s status, as well as urge 

that he be freed immediately. 

Finally, the United States, Sweden, and other countries concerned about these developments need to work to make sure that 

Chinese authorities are not allowed to carry out illegal operations 

on foreign soil. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you so very much for your testimony, 

Angela. 

I would like to now—is Dr. Teng ready to come back? We will 

give it a shot, and if not, we will go to Mr. Hassan. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gui appears in the appendix.] 

10 

STATEMENT OF ILSHAT HASSAN, PRESIDENT, UYGHUR 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HASSAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith; thank you, Mr. Rubio; 

thanks everyone. I would like to first thank, also, the CECC for 

holding this important hearing today and for inviting me to participate. I am a victim of the Chinese Government’s constant political 

persecution and a human rights activist living in the United 

States. 

Personally, I hope the U.S. Government and U.S. Congress can 

understand the Chinese Government’s long arm, which stretches 

beyond China’s borders to overseas, to threaten and harass overseas human rights activists. I hope the U.S. Government and Congress will act to hold the Chinese Government accountable for its 

vicious actions. 

My name is Ilshat Hassan Kokbore, also known as Ilshat Hassan. I was born in Ghulja, East Turkistan. The Chinese call it 

Xinjiang. 

I have been politically active against communist Chinese rule in 

East Turkistan since studying at university in the 1980s. Constantly, I was under harassment, threats, and persecution from the 

regional government and secret agents, and police. I was, in university, beaten by police. And the police station also used an electric club to shock me. During work hours, I was frequently visited 

by the police, secret service, and I was also detained and beaten 

in the police station detention center, and my tooth was broken 

when they used the electric club to beat me. 

Eventually, I was forced to leave East Turkistan in November 

2003, leaving behind parents, sisters, a brother, wife, and an 11- 

year-old son. After I left China, when I was in Malaysia, my only 

brother—the youngest—was killed by a Chinese mob one year 

later, on November 27, 2004. I got the news a few months later in 

Malaysia, while waiting for the refugee resettlement through the 

UNHCR [UN High Commissioner for Refugees]. In July 2006, I 

came to the United States. 

After coming to the United States, I joined the Uyghur community, joined the Uyghur American Association, and became active. 

I actively participated in all political campaigns organized by the 

Uyghur community, organizing demonstrations against the Chinese 

Government’s occupation of East Turkistan, attending and holding 

conferences to expose the Chinese Government’s cruel policy 

against the Uyghur people, and writing articles in Chinese to rebuke their claim over East Turkistan. 

My political activities greatly agitated the Chinese Government. 

In the beginning, the Chinese Government held my family members hostage, denying my ex-wife and son passports; inhumanely 

causing the forced separation of my family. I was only able to meet 

with my son after 10 years of long-suffering separation. In 2014, 

I went to Malaysia and picked up my son—after 10 years. 

After losing the hope of getting a passport for my ex-wife, and 

also to protect her from constant harassment from the Chinese 

Government, I had to make the painful decision to get a divorce. 

But that did not stop the Chinese Government from continuing to 

harass and threaten my ex-wife. 

11 

Recently, my son called me from Istanbul, Turkey and told me 

his mom—again—was visited by the Chinese police. My son sometimes asked me, ‘‘Can you be a little bit low profile, Dad, because 

mom is still there, under the Communist regime.’’ 

In order to pressure me to stop my political activities, on August 

17, 2014, at midnight, Chinese regional authorities burst into my 

elder sister’s house around 1:30 a.m. After searching her house and 

taking her son’s computer, she was detained in an undisclosed 

place for around 8 to 10 months. I do not know when she was released. I know after eight months, she was not out. 

Recently, my dad passed away. On the phone—I got my sister to 

pick up the phone, but she was not there to speak to me, just 

passed the phone to my mom. So I know she was released. 

She was held without any charge, and she was a retired nurse, 

single mother with two kids. Her daughter graduated from university six years ago, and until now cannot get a job. Her son, in 2014, 

was accepted by a college. 

When I called my home after my dad passed away, that is the 

only time since August 2014 I have been able to call my family; I 

had some—a little— conversation with my mom. She was telling 

me my sister’s son could not go to university and is still staying 

at home with no job. 

On the same day, August 17, 2014, RFA journalist Shohret 

Hoshur’s two brothers were also detained, and were later sentenced. This was obvious retaliation against Mr. Hoshur, who revealed a great deal about Chinese police brutality against Uyghurs. 

As we all know, prominent Uyghur leader, human rights champion, and World Uyghur Congress President Mrs. Rebiya Kadeer 

has constantly been accused by the Chinese Government of being 

an evil separatist, and her two sons were sentenced to jail as retaliation from the Chinese Government. The Chinese Government 

pressured one of Mrs. Kadeer’s imprisoned sons to condemn his 

mother and to accuse Mrs. Kadeer of being an evil criminal. As 

normal, civilized human beings, we cannot imagine under what circumstances and under what kind of pressure a son was forced to 

condemn his dearest mother, accusing his own mother publicly of 

being a criminal. 

Dolkun Isa, another prominent Uyghur human rights activist, 

and Chair of the World Uyghur Congress Executive Committee, 

was recently preparing to attend a meeting in Dharamsala, India. 

The Indian Government, after issuing a visa to Mr. Isa, and under 

the Chinese Government’s pressure, cancelled the visa, denying 

Mr. Isa entry into India. 

In late 2009, Mr. Isa, as a German citizen, was in immediate 

danger of being repatriated back to China when he tried to enter 

South Korea to attend a human rights conference. He was put in 

solitary confinement for more than three days in the airport before 

the United States and European Union intervened. 

The Chinese Government has constantly tried to block all of 

Dolkun Isa’s political activities by claiming he is a wanted terrorist 

according to an Interpol red notice, baselessly accusing him of supporting and funding terrorists. 

Recently, another friend of mine, a Uyghur who is a Norwegian 

citizen, called me and told me that his family members living in 

12 

East Turkistan were being harassed by the Chinese Government. 

Some of his family members were brought to the police station and 

interrogated for several hours, and they were told to tell him to 

stop any activities supporting Uyghurs. 

Of course, we all know about the Uyghur refugees who managed 

to get out of China. But unfortunately, they were sent back to 

China by some irresponsible countries when they were in the process of applying for UNHCR refugee status. Some of them were directly interrogated by Chinese police in other countries, in Malaysia, in Thailand, and in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc., and their 

family members were threatened. After they were repatriated, 

most of them disappeared, and some of them were given harsh sentences. 

The story of Uyghurs facing the Chinese Government’s constant 

persecution, harassment, and threats goes on and on. Even 

Uyghurs who live overseas cannot be spared from the inhuman political persecution of the Chinese Government. The Chinese Government’s long arm keeps stretching longer and longer. It is obvious that if China is not pressured to stop this kind of harassment, 

no one will be safe, regardless of where we live. 

Thank you all. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Hassan. 

Ms. Su? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hassan appears in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF SU YUTONG, JOURNALIST, INTERNET ACTIVIST, AND FORMER NEWS BROADCASTER FOR THE CHINESE 

SERVICE OF DEUTSCHE WELLE 

Ms. SU. My name is Su Yutong. I am a journalist and activist 

based in Germany. In June 2010, after I made public the personal 

diary of former Chinese Premier Li Peng, my house was ransacked 

by the police and I was forced to leave China. 

In August that year, I became a journalist with the Chinese section of Deutsche Welle, where I wrote and published nearly 1,500 

articles, most of which were about human rights and political affairs in China. The human rights lawyers and activists I reported 

on included Chen Guangcheng, Ilham Tohti, Gao Zhisheng, and 

Gao Yu. All of this work annoyed the Chinese Communist Party. 

Its state-owned newspaper Global Times attacked me in an article 

in August 2014, for ‘‘constantly criticizing and vilifying China.’’ 

Before I came to the United States to participate in this hearing, 

I was in contact with Chinese journalist Gao Yu and the family 

members of detained human rights lawyers. Gao, aged 72, had already been jailed twice. She was arrested and sentenced to prison 

in April 2014, for a third time, on charges evidently fabricated by 

the Chinese Communist Party. 

The real reason for her imprisonment was retaliation for an article she published in her Deutsche Welle column, Beijing Observation, which criticized Xi Jinping. I was her executive director at the 

time. Last November, after Gao Yu was released on medical parole, 

the University of Bonn hospital was preparing to provide comprehensive treatment for her. And the German Ambassador to 

China issued her a visa to Germany. But the CCP authorities preVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:24 Nov 09, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\20804.TXT DEIDRE
13 

vented Gao from leaving China for her medical treatment and ordered that she remain silent. 

Since July 9, 2015, the Chinese Government has been conducting 

a sweeping crackdown on human rights lawyers and activists. The 

wives of several detained lawyers asked me to bring two videos to 

this hearing. To this day, these women have been unable to visit 

their husbands in custody. No one knows what abuses these jailed 

lawyers and activists have been suffering. 

These women are appealing, again, to the media and the international community for assistance. I would like to request to show 

these two video clips at this hearing. 

At this hearing today, there is not enough time to tell the stories 

of all the human rights activists in China. [Showing of a video clip.] 

All three lawyers featured in this video clip, I know them well. 

I have met them when I was working in China. Later on, I interviewed them. I was in touch with them when I was working for 

Deutsche Welle in Germany. 

Since Xi Jinping took power, China’s human rights conditions 

have worsened constantly. The most courageous and outstanding 

people in China today are in prison or on the way to prison. 

I am hoping such a human rights disaster in China will receive 

more international media coverage and more attention from the 

international community. But there is one dangerous trend—that 

is how the Chinese Communist Party has reached its arms of news 

control overseas, as part of its ‘‘Great Overseas Propaganda Strategy.’’ Such strategies include cross-border censorship and infiltration, attempting to muzzle international media in their coverage of 

China’s worsening human rights conditions. As a journalist, I urge 

the Congress to pay more attention to this reality. 

In 2011, Li Congjun, the head of Xinhua News Agency, described 

in an article in the Wall Street Journal the ‘‘new global media 

order.’’ Hundreds of Confucius Institutes proliferate around the 

world as an important part of China’s overseas propaganda campaign. The Chinese Government has been pouring large sums of 

money in buying up overseas newspapers and radio networks. 

Benjamin Ismail, Asia Director of Reporters Without Borders 

(RSF) says RSF found a number of digital radio stations in Paris 

that had been secretly run by proxy companies operated by the 

Chinese Government. In November 2015, Reuters also reported 

that WCRW, a radio station based in Washington, DC, has China 

International Radio, a Communist Party mouthpiece, as its hidden 

major shareholder. 

According to an investigation by Reuters, there are already 33 

radio stations around the world that are affiliated with China 

International Radio. Numerous media outlets with the Chinese 

Government as the controlling shareholder are scattered around 

the world. And they hire local workers. At the press conferences 

during the annual sessions of National People’s Congress and the 

Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference in Beijing, CCP 

officials invited reporters from fake overseas media to ask pre-arranged, non-sensitive questions. 

Buying off and cracking down. Those are the two tactics being 

adopted in Hong Kong—once a paradise for books banned in China. 

Hong Kong publisher Yao Wentian was sentenced to 10 years’ imVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:24 Nov 09, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\20804.TXT DEIDRE
14 

prisonment in China for publishing the book ‘‘Xi Jinping, The Godfather of China.’’ French journalist Ursula Gauthier was expelled 

by Beijing in late 2015 for her reporting and commentaries on 

Xinjiang. In March of this year, relatives of New York-based activist Wen Yunchao—also known as Bei Feng—and German-based political commentator Chang Ping were detained and interrogated in 

relation to an open letter calling on Xi Jinping to resign. 

Under the CCP’s media control, a number of overseas and online 

Chinese language media outlets have been serving as platforms to 

learn about a real China. When I was young, I secretly listened to 

Voice of America, which was and is still banned in China. These 

media outlets have now become targets of the Chinese Communist 

Party’s incessant efforts at control. Chinese embassies and consulates around the world have started to play the role of Ministry 

of Propaganda. 

In 2013, my former employer Deutsche Welle hired Peter 

Limbourg as its new director. Soon after he assumed the post, Mr. 

Limbourg paid a visit to the Chinese division of Deutsche Welle 

and told the staff that he had met with Shi Mingde, China’s Ambassador to Germany. Mr. Limbourg demanded that the Chinese 

division not always criticize the Chinese authorities and should 

‘‘appropriately encourage’’ them instead. 

In 2014, Mr. Limbourg hired Frank Sieren, a German businessman who is a long-term resident of Beijing, and who has businesses with Chinese Communist Party mouthpieces, such as the 

Global Times. Mr. Sieren has had numerous business corporations 

with other Chinese Communist Party outlets such as China Central TV. 

In September 2014, German newspaper Su ̈ddeutsche Zeitung reported the minutes of an April meeting between Deutsche Welle 

and China’s Ambassador to Germany, which clearly revealed that 

the Chinese Embassy demanded that Deutsche Welle change. 

On June 4, 2014, Frank Sieren published an article in Deutsche 

Welle, in German and Chinese languages, describing Tiananmen 

Massacre as ‘‘a slip-up by the Chinese Communist Party.’’ The 

piece sparked a public outcry from a number of pro-democracy activists and massacre survivors, including Mr. Fang Zheng, who had 

both legs crushed by a tank during the massacre. 

I was a signatory to an open letter protesting this article. I spoke 

up against the article on Twitter. Soon afterward, the deputy director and the director of Deutsche Welle Chinese division, both of 

whom were highly critical of Mr. Sieren’s article, were shifted to 

other positions. Meanwhile, I was fired by Deutsche Welle. 

In late August 2014, Mr. Limbourg traveled to Beijing to attend 

a Chinese-German media symposium hosted by the Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece Global Times. At the same time, I published an open letter to him in the New York Times saying that 

‘‘the voice of China’’ is currently attempting to use economic seduction and coercion to expand its ‘‘great overseas propaganda’’ campaigns around the world. 

My wishful thinking was that Mr. Limbourg, under the warm reception of Global Times, would not be drowned in Chinese wine 

and succumb to becoming a tool in the Chinese Communist Party’s 

‘‘overseas propaganda campaigns.’’ But much to my regret, Mr. 

15 

Limbourg met with Wang Gengnian, the head of China Radio 

International, in Beijing on August 28, 2014. Mr. Limbourg said 

that Deutsche Welle’s coverage would fit into the guidance and direction set by China. Soon afterward, he announced a cooperative 

framework between Deutsche Welle and China Central Television. 

In early 2015, Germany’s Bundestag took note of this cooperation 

program and conducted a hearing. Deutsche Welle announced that 

it would temporarily suspend its cooperation with CCTV. 

Meanwhile, Frank Sieren continues to write a column for Deutsche Welle [DW]. In 2008, another scandal took place at Deutsche 

Welle, when a DW reporter named Zhang Danhong lied on a German TV program that the human rights conditions in China were 

excellent. She was moved to another division at Deutsche Welle 

after protests from a large number of members of the audience and 

pro-democracy activists. But in early 2015, Ms. Zhang was quietly 

returned to the Chinese department of DW and was given her own 

column. 

Meanwhile, the former columnist for DW, journalist Gao Yu, who 

was detained in Beijing—her column was not revived even after 

her release. All of these changes are sending subtle signals. 

The Chinese Communist Party has been continuously expanding 

its scope of censorship. On May 10, German legislator Michael 

Brand told the media that he was denied entry to China because 

of his criticism of China’s Tibet policy. Mr. Brand, Chairman of the 

Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid of the German Bundestag, said the Chinese Embassy in Germany sent people 

to meet with him in person, demanding that he delete his articles 

on Tibet from his official website. They also demanded that Mr. 

Brand not attend a meeting with a Tibetan human rights organization. 

Mr. Brand said, ‘‘Such behaviors by the Chinese Communist 

Party are blatant and absurd, and it is unacceptable that the Chinese Communist Party exports its censorship to Germany.’’ 

Mr. Brand’s stance was very clear and of great importance. We 

hope politicians in countries around the world dare to say ‘‘no’’ to 

the Chinese Communist Party. In recent years, as China has 

achieved economic progress, numerous countries choose silence and 

compromise on China’s human rights abuses in exchange for contracts with the Chinese Government. The most notable is the U.S. 

President, Barack Obama, who has been very weak and compromising when facing China’s human rights issues. 

The Chinese Government, nowadays, dares to reach its long 

arms to control the world. One factor is the brutal politics since Xi 

Jinping took power. The other reason is the appeasement from a 

number of countries. 

As a media worker, I urge democratic countries to take notice of 

the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda campaigns overseas, 

and its infiltration and disturbance of the freedom of press. The 

United States and other countries should organize investigations 

into China’s infiltration of press freedom and media outlets established by the Chinese Communist Party. 

As a human rights activist, I am here to criticize and expose the 

increased crackdowns and persecution of human rights activists by 

the Chinese Communist government, especially under Xi Jinping’s 

16 

regime. I hereby request democratic governments not to neglect 

human rights conditions in China. Former U.S. President John F. 

Kennedy said in his speech at West Berlin’s city hall in 1963, 

‘‘Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not 

free.’’ 

Finally, please allow me to express my gratitude to CECC’s continuous focus on China’s human rights conditions and assistance to 

activists all along. My special thanks to Congressman Chris Smith 

and Senator Marco Rubio. 

Chairman SMITH. Su Yutong, thank you very much for your testimony. 

I think we are ready for Dr. Teng again. At least I have been told 

that. Yes. 

Dr. Teng, if you could continue your testimony and if you could 

move to your left because we can only see half of you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Su appears in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF TENG BIAO (Continued) 

Mr. TENG. Okay. Thank you. I am sorry for the disconnection. 

That is an example of CCP’s long arm. I will continue my testimony. 

Some Western journalists have been forced out of China or denied visas. Books and movies were partly changed or deleted when 

entering the Chinese market. Many Western scholars of China 

practice self-censorship—if their conclusions on a ‘‘sensitive’’ topic 

anger the regime, they will not get a visa, and their position and 

funding will be jeopardized. 

Chinese and Tibetan activists living in California, Paris, or London were physically attacked when participating protests. More 

and more restrictions on the peaceful protests applied or organized 

by Chinese, Tibetan, and Uyghur activists when Chinese leaders 

visit Western countries. This of course has hurt the freedom and 

rule of law of the West. [Indiscernible.] 

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Teng, if you could suspend for a moment. 

It is garbled. The connection is not good. Maybe we could try to fix 

that and come back to you one last time if we could. So we will 

try to fix that connection, but it is garbled. 

Without objection, your full statement will be made a part of the 

record. 

And I will mention some of it in my comments because it is so 

brilliantly written and it tells a story that needs to be told. So I 

want to thank you. If we could get this connection cleared up, we 

will do so. 

Let me begin with some questions to our distinguished witnesses. 

Just to point out, Dr. Teng makes very serious points, which unfortunately, we could not hear from his own lips. 

He talks about how his book—he was invited by the ABA to 

write a manuscript that was to be called Darkest Before the Dawn. 

In it, he would describe a decade that he spent engaged in human 

rights work in China and what those experiences illustrate about 

the country’s politics, judicial system, and society. 

Yet, then he was told by the American Bar Association—again, 

the very people who invited him to write this—and I will quote 

from the email. ‘‘I have some bad news,’’ wrote an ABA employee, 

17 

‘‘My publisher, after receiving some concerns from other staff members here about your proposed book, has asked me to rescind the 

offer that I made for Darkest Before Dawn on December 9. Apparently, there is concern that we run the risk of upsetting the Chinese Government by publishing your book.’’—the employee wrote. 

Let me just say, and all of you might want to comment on this— 

a tale of two stories—story number one, they got back later and 

said it was for economic reasons. To the best of my knowledge, the 

ABA is very well-endowed with finances. When they write books on 

human rights, it is not to turn a profit. It is to tell a story, and 

a story that must be told. Who better to tell it than Dr. Teng? 

My sense, as a Member of Congress for 36 years, and working 

on Chinese human rights for 36 years, of the human rights abuses 

around the world, is that it appears the ABA capitulated, caved. 

We have invited them to be here. We will invite them again because I would like to ask very specific questions. 

I do believe it is enabling of a dictatorship when a group with 

such a reputation as the ABA turns down a book like this out of 

fear of retaliation. It becomes the modus operandi of so many like 

Deutsche Welle and others who cave into the pressure. 

As Dr. Teng points out—any of you want to respond to this—he 

says he does not want to single out the ABA, although that is with 

whom he has had the problem. But says it is the latest example 

of the corrosive influence of the Chinese Communist Party on the 

west. He talks about Yahoo. We have had hearings in my Subcommittee on Human Rights in this Commission that I have 

chaired about how Yahoo has turned over the names of dissidents 

when asked and Shi Tao got 10 years simply for telling people 

about the upcoming Tiananmen Square efforts by the government 

to suppress. 

He points out in his testimony that Facebook is flirting with the 

Chinese market. Twitter has just hired a former Chinese military 

and security apparatchik to head their operations in China—that 

is not an ominous sign. 

Su Yutong, you talked about posting your comments on Twitter. 

Well, I would think Twitter is certainly that which would be found 

in China would become increasingly off limits to any kind of dissident. 

Then he makes a very good point about the ABA might imagine, 

for instance, that the All China Lawyer’s Association is their professional counterpart. It has been my experience that the Chinese 

Government and other dictatorships always want to have this twinning with what appears to be like-minded organizations. The Chinese National Peoples’ Congress with the U.S. Congress, sending 

over delegations as if they are elected by the population as opposed 

to be the party apparatchik. 

Finally, he does point out—and you might want to respond to 

this as well—that the rule of law human rights dialogues, meanwhile, have mostly become a means for the party to deflect substantive demands to change its human rights practices. Dialogues 

end with vague remarks about the importance of dialogue and the 

understanding in the ongoing nature of the reform process without 

producing results. 

18 

The United States, another country, but a similar dictatorship in 

Vietnam, has lifted the arms embargo on lethal weapons—as we all 

know—without any conditionality on human rights, without any, 

zero. We have appealed to him—me and others, many others—asking—including the New York Times in an editorial—not to do this. 

So we get a reprise of the same flawed policy of the United States. 

I would note, Su Yutong, you point out the most notable is the 

U.S. President Obama who has been very weak in compromising 

when facing Chinese human rights issues. That is an understatement. But I appreciate the candor. Forget political correctness. 

Real wonderful people are tortured—and we just had a hearing on 

torture in this Commission—with impunity, and there is barely a 

voice of dissent, and certainly no linkage to trade or arms control 

deals as we are seeing in Vietnam when this egregious behavior 

manifests itself as it does. 

So if any of you would like to touch on anything that I have said 

here, please do. 

To Angela Gui, Hong Kong, unlike mainland China, has historically enjoyed greater press freedom—we all know that—and freedom of expression. Do you know why the Chinese authorities targeted your father and his company? Is it part of a growing crackdown? Secondly, has the U.S. Government and other like-minded 

governments—what have they done to help your father? For example, has the Swedish government responded to your requests regarding your father’s case? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Teng appears in the appendix.] 

Ms. GUI. Well, I would like to say that I am very grateful for all 

the help and support I have had from the Swedish government. 

However, I do believe that its resources have not been exhausted 

completely yet. 

I would like to ask the United States and other governments to 

keep asking questions and to keep raising it with China, both privately and publicly. 

As for Hong Kong, it has not been clear what my dad, officially, 

is in Chinese custody for. I have not had any written confirmation 

of his being in detention. I have not had a formal detention notice. 

So I do not know what the official reason is. However, it seems to 

me that it is quite clear that he is there because of his work. 

I suppose that is why all of his coworkers are there as well, or 

have been there. They have nominally been released. Lee Bo, for 

example, has been made to return more than once. 

Chairman SMITH. Let me ask you, Mr. Hassan, the Chinese Government notoriously not only puts pressure, but also incarcerates 

family members, particularly of dissidents. Rebiya Kadeer has testified here before, as you know. 

We know that India’s recent revocation of the World Uyghur 

Congress Executive Committee Chairman Dolkun Isa’s visa, reportedly, was due to Chinese pressure. If you could speak to the issue 

of this harassment, incarceration, and torture of family members, 

which has to be the cruelest cut of all, to take it out on one’s loved 

ones, which is what is happening to the Uyghurs and others, but 

also the influence on other governments like India and there are 

other governments as well. 

19 

Mr. HASSAN. Thank you, sir. Definitely—we were facing—the 

Chinese Government prosecution is unprecedented. It is to understand almost like a black hole. We do not know what is going on 

over there. It is in the news, killing, shooting, and arresting. 

Personally, my sister’s detention, it was very sudden because of 

my writing in the Chinese websites about government—what they 

are doing in east Turkistan, cracking down. We were arrested— 

given the reason at the time when I had conversation with my second sister, they said only the regional authority asked to detain my 

sister. And they could only send money and clothes. No visits allowed. 

That same day, actually, it was not only my sister. Also the 

Radio Free Asia journalist Shohret Hoshur’s brother—also it was 

the same day, he got arrested in—my sister was in—another city, 

another 500 kilometers away city, and they would get arrested. 

So in the jail they are facing solitary confinement. What else 

happened, because of the cut off of communication, after that I was 

only able to call my father’s cell phone before he passed away last 

month. My father only picked up the phone to say, son, we are 

okay. Keep safe. Then he would drop the phone. 

So that is the reality. I do not know what happened to my sister 

over there, or how long she was detained. It was at least for eight 

months, I am sure, because that time I got another message from 

my son saying she is not released yet. 

Regarding the Dolkun Isa—overseas activity—Dolkun Isa was 

frequently stopped by some countries that were under the Chinese 

pressure. One was South Korea in late 2009. He was involved in 

an international human rights conference, to attend Seoul. When 

he was entering South Korea, in the airport, he was detained. They 

put him in airport confinement, solitary confinement, and for more 

than three days he lost contact. His was only able to send a few 

messages to outside. 

Then because of the United States’ intervention and the German 

European Union, finally he was put back on the German airplane. 

Recently, last month—the end of last month—Dr. Yang Jianli, he 

organized a religious ethnic groups conference in Dharamsala. The 

Uyghur Congress initially gave the names of eight delegates. Finally, I am the only to make that trip. Others—Dolkun Isa’s visa 

became a big point in the newspaper. He was issued a visa, and 

then it was cancelled. 

Over there, we met with some dignitaries. We asked them—they 

were saying because Dolkun Isa was in the Red Notice of Interpol. 

But some journalists did a search of Interpol’s wanted list. Dolkun 

Isa’s name was not there. He was only on the Chinese list, but still 

Chinese can have an impact on India’s decisions and South Korea’s 

decisions. Of course, other human rights activists are facing the 

same issue. 

A few years back, also, the Uyghur leadership tried to visit India 

and some other countries. Taiwan also denied the visas. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. I have some additional questions, 

but I would like to yield to Ted Lieu who has joined us. 

Commissioner? 

Representative LIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

20 

Angela, thank you for being here. I have a few questions for you. 

I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. 

Your father is a Swedish citizen? 

Ms. GUI. Yes. 

Representative LIEU. And only a Swedish citizen? 

Ms. GUI. Yes. 

Representative LIEU. Has Sweden taken action on this case? 

Ms. GUI. They have, yes. 

Representative LIEU. What have they done or requested? 

Ms. GUI. They were allowed to meet him in February. They were 

not given any information until this video clip aired on Chinese TV. 

Before that, they were sending inquiries to the Chinese authorities 

asking if they knew anything, but I have been told that they were 

just told that they did not know anything. And they were asking 

Sweden why they were asking them since he disappeared in Thailand. 

However, when this clip became public, it was quite clear where 

he was. So then after that, Sweden started sending inquiries to be 

able to speak with him or to meet with him. That was not granted 

until late February. 

When they finally got to meet him, he told them that he did not 

want any help, and that he considered himself to be Chinese. And 

then he got up to leave is what I have been told. 

In my understanding, they keep asking privately for more information on his charges, if there are any charges. They keep asking 

for further counselor access, which they have not been granted. 

They have not been given any proper answers to any of their questions. 

Representative LIEU. Has the U.S. State Department done anything in this case? 

Ms. GUI. Well, I read this report that was issued quite recently. 

I was quite happy with that. I would like to thank the U.S. State 

Department for doing that. 

Representative LIEU. Is your father currently detained, or is he 

free to travel within a certain area, or what is your understanding 

of where he is? 

Ms. GUI. That is very unclear. I actually do not know. I have not 

been told directly where he is even. I do not know where in China 

he is. 

As I said earlier, there has not been any official detention notice. 

So officially, it would seem that he is just there. 

I have had phone calls from him in which he has told me that 

I am not allowed to visit. But that he is going to be able to call 

me regularly which has not really happened. 

That is, unfortunately, all I know. 

Representative LIEU. When was the last phone call you had with 

your dad? 

Ms. GUI. That was a bit over a month ago. 

Representative LIEU. And China has not said anything about any 

sorts of charges? 

Ms. GUI. No. 

Representative LIEU. And then the alleged videotaped statements 

he made, what was the nature of those statements? What did they 

have him say? 

21 

Ms. GUI. Well, he said that he had returned to China on his own, 

and that he did not wish to have any help from the Swedish government or any institutions because he considered himself Chinese, 

even though he has Swedish citizenship. He also said that he returned because he felt remorse over a supposed drunk driving accident in which he is supposed to have killed a person. That is supposed to have been 12 or 13 years ago, I believe. 

This is not anything that I have ever heard of. So I seriously 

doubt that it is something that even happened, and if it did happen, I am wondering why there has not been any order for his arrest. 

I have spoken to the Swedish police, and I have been told that 

there has not been any reports to Interpol from China for my father’s arrest. So it just seems very unlikely to me that—even if it 

would have happened, this accident—that this would have anything to do with it. 

Representative LIEU. Do you believe he was making these statements freely or voluntarily? 

Ms. GUI. Absolutely not. 

Representative LIEU. At the time that he was abducted, was he 

remodeling? I read in your statement he is remodeling his kitchen 

in Hong Kong? 

Ms. GUI. Yes. 

Representative LIEU. So if you were to believe what China is saying, it would be in the middle of his remodel he just decided to up 

and leave and go to China, and stay there; right? 

Ms. GUI. Yes. Without telling me beforehand, and we had even 

planned to speak in a few days after our last call, our last Skype 

call, which I mentioned in my statement. As his daughter, I was 

quite close to him. I am certain that he would have told me. 

Representative LIEU. Right. 

Ms. GUI. If he were to suddenly decide to go to China. 

Representative LIEU. Right. Thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. GUI. Thank you. 

Representative LIEU. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you very much, Commissioner. 

I would like to ask Su Yutong, if you would. In your testimony, 

you spoke about how Mr. Limbourg said that Deutsche Welle’s coverage would fit into the guidance and direction set by China. He 

announced the cooperative framework between Deutsche Welle and 

China Central Television, CCTV, in early 2015. But then the Bundestag took note of the cooperation and conducted a hearing, and 

that they temporarily suspended that cooperation. 

One, is that still suspended, or are they cooperating now? Secondly, your termination was based on your criticism of China. 

What did the TV network tell you? For most news networks pursuing the truth unfettered and without fear is what they aspire to. 

Some do not live up to it, but when DW and others are compromised in this way, it certainly puts a—their reputation suffers 

as an objective news source. 

I am wondering—in Germany, for example, or anywhere else, has 

DW’s objectivity suffered as a result of your aspiring for speaking 

the truth about Chinese repression? 

22 

Ms. SU. Here I would like to ask all of you to continue your support to Deutsche Welle. 

I just do not agree with Mr. Peter Limbourg’s—what he said 

about when he paid a visit to the Chinese Division, not to criticize 

the Chinese Government too much. I think as a journalist, we 

should not be told what not to criticize and what to criticize. 

When Peter Limbourg told us not to criticize the Chinese Government too much, I opposed it, and he clearly expressed that my 

opinion—such an opinion was not welcome. 

When I was fired by DW, the reason they told me for sacking me 

was that I disclosed internal meetings, the information of internal 

meetings at DW on Twitter. But to me, this is a public affair. I 

have my responsibility to disclose it. This is not internal. 

So the reason, they told me when they sacked me, was that I disclosed internal information of my employment, of my work. But to 

me, for DW, hiring somebody to write articles to whitewash the 

Tiananmen massacre, I think this is my responsibility to criticize 

them. 

I actually to the matter to the court, and the court has made a 

verdict which I think is quite fair, but because of the legal issues, 

I cannot disclose any more information. But the judge did say she 

could see the political background in this case. 

So during the hearing of German Bundestag there was extensive 

media coverage of the hearing. I did disclose that DW did sign with 

CCTV a framework of cooperation that they agreed to adopt the directives from China. 

I did write numerous letters to German Bundestag, and I had 

meetings with the media committee of the Bundestag, and I did 

ask them not to talk too much about my personal case, but I did 

ask them to pay more attention to DW. That is why the German 

Bundestag held that hearing on Deutsche Welle signing the framework of cooperation with China Central TV, CCTV. After the suspension, I do not know how they will progress. 

As for other media workers who became victims of this kind of 

censorship—for example, my former colleagues, the deputy director 

and the director of the Chinese Division of Deutsche Welle, they 

were moved to other positions after my case. The worst effect of my 

case is that many of my former colleagues at Deutsche Welle decided not to touch the so-called ‘‘sensitive topics.’’ The key issue 

here is that the employees of Deutsche Welle, especially the Chinese Division, they chose to avoid certain sensitive topics, topics 

such as Tibetan—and Malaysians, and Xinjiang. So in choosing 

their coverage, Tibet and Xinjiang, they were very choosey in determining what to cover. 

The biggest significance of my fight in this case is that it pushed 

the German Bundestag to conduct the hearing. As a result, it did 

pressure DW not to avoid human rights coverage too much. 

But still, I am very unsatisfied with Deutsche Welle. For example, the columnist who wrote an article whitewashing the 

Tiananmen massacre, Frank Sieren, he continues to write his column. And in his column, he included his hidden praises of the Chinese Government. Another columnist I mentioned before, Zhang 

Danhong, continues to write her column as well. 

23 

My case is not an isolated case. After I was sacked, reporters 

from French Radio International contacted me and told me that 

they were censored by the Chinese Embassy. The Chinese Embassy 

in France pressured French Radio International. 

I have been in touch with journalist from public broadcasters. I 

am still worried about such censorship, but I have been in touch 

with reporters from Voice of American, and I am happy to hear 

that they still take up the responsibility and uphold their ethical 

standards. 

But as I said, the Chinese Embassies around the world have 

been increasingly taking up a role as the ‘‘Ministry of Propaganda.’’ 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Lieu, anything further? 

Representative LIEU. I would ask one more question to Angela. 

The Chinese Foreign Minister, I think, had made the remark that 

your father was, ‘‘first and foremost a Chinese citizen.’’ Were you 

aware of that remark? 

Ms. GUI. Yes. 

Representative LIEU. Had your father given up Swedish citizen? 

Ms. GUI. No. He has not. I have been told that Chinese authorities have told Swedish authorities that he wished to do so. There 

have not been any papers filed to my knowledge. 

Representative LIEU. Okay. 

Ms. GUI. And this was after his disappearance. 

Representative LIEU. Thank you. Just for the record, I find that 

statement from the Foreign Minister bizarre. 

Ms. GUI. So do I. 

Representative LIEU. So I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Let me just conclude here. First of all, I want 

to note that Chen Guangcheng and his wife, Weijing are here, two 

wonderful human rights activists who have paid a dear price for 

their work, having suffered in prison for four years, and then even 

a similar amount of years—over three—under house arrest. Welcome to this hearing. 

Dr. Yang Jianli is also here, President of Initiatives for China, 

who testified at our most recent hearing on torture. He is here 

somewhere. He may be in the back. 

And there are others, very notable and brave individuals. Thank 

them for their work. 

Let me just conclude—to Su Yutong and to all of you, I do believe 

that every time, every time the Chinese Government coerces a 

news organization, a policymaker, a government, and that entity 

yields, not only do they get away with impunity and in some cases 

murder, literally, but certainly human rights abuse of a very high 

degree. It only emboldens the Chinese Government to do more of 

it because it does yield results. I would hope that all news organizations—thank you for point out the VOA is very clear and does 

not stray and is not influenced. There are others like them. 

But it is very disconcerting how quickly businesses, some corporations, particularly some like Google for so long, are willing to 

just sacrifice freedom and their commitment to human rights and 

democracy in order to get a piece of the rock to get some money. 

On the case of the corporations to have access—you mentioned— 

we were talking earlier about the fact that—I mentioned it, but Dr. 

24 

Teng, especially said that we could not hear his whole testimony— 

but the whole idea of censoring like that, and having the ABA— 

which again, I will ask again if they would like to come. We will 

offer the opportunity for the American Bar Association to testify as 

to why they revoked their offer to print a book that just needs to 

be published. 

It reminds me of Stanford years ago, when the man that broke 

the story of coercive population control lost his doctorate—this was 

in the early 1980s—because it was an unpleasant truth and the 

Chinese Government pushed back on that University. It was so bad 

that a number of editorials were written, one by the Wall Street 

Journal. The title was Stanford Morality. It talked about how access to China trumped telling the truth about a hideous attack on 

women and women’s rights and children through their coercive 

population control policy. 

Unfortunately—and that is why we are having this hearing—this 

is part of a pattern. We held hearings recently, and we are going 

to do more. We are awaiting a GAO report on Confucius Institutes 

and the muzzling of American universities that have Confucius Institutes operating on their campuses to be a little more lax in their 

concerns about human rights. 

Recently, I gave a keynote speech at NYU Shanghai, pointing out 

concerns about human rights, because it concerns—regarding that 

university. So it is an ongoing probe that this Commission is doing. 

We should just speak truth to power, and let the chips fall where 

they may. And frankly, we would be amazed—I believe—on how it 

will at least on the edges, and then eventually at its core, transfer 

these societies that have embraced dictatorship. I am talking about 

at the point of a gun. 

I thank our witnesses. You helped this Commission. I think we 

are going to have to wait, frankly, until the next Administration to 

see any meaningful action. Hopefully whoever wins will take Chinese human rights abuse seriously and not mishandle it the way 

it has been. I say that not as a partisan, but as someone who 

cares—like you—deeply about these issues. It is all about the victim. It is all about the person who is suffering in the Laogai or 

some other place of detention. 

Without objection, I would just like to ensure for the record, the 

transcript of the video of the wives that spoke earlier—words from 

wives of human rights lawyers in China will be made a part of the 

record. 

And Wen Yunchao—his statement will also be made a part of the 

record. 

Thank you so much to our witnesses for your bravery and for 

speaking truth to power. The hearing is adjourned. 

[A transcript of the video clip appears in the appendix.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wen Yunchao appears in the appendix.] 

[Whereupon the hearing was concluded at 1:55 p.m.] 

(25) 

A P P E N D I X 

26 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TENG BIAO

MAY 24, 2016

THE COST OF SELF-CENSORSHIP IN DEALING WITH CHINA

In December 2014 I was invited by the American Bar Association (ABA) to write 

a manuscript for a book to be titled ‘‘Darkness Before Dawn.’’ In it, I would describe 

the decade I spent engaged in human rights work in China, and what those experiences illustrate about the country’s politics, judicial system, society, and future. 

But the formal offer with the ABA was soon rescinded. The reason, I was told by 

the executive director of ABA publishing, was because they were afraid to anger the 

Chinese government. 

When ‘‘Chinese politics’’ is mentioned, most think of the factional struggles forever 

roiling Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of the Communist Party. But this is only 

part of the picture. The stories I’ve long sought to tell are otherwise: about the activists given heavy prison sentences for forming opposition political parties; about the 

human rights lawyers who’ve represented persecuted Christians, Falun Gong practitioners, Tibetans, and Uyghurs; about the rights defenders whose dogged activism 

helped to abolish the labor camp system. And then there are those who’ve worked 

against the one child birth control policy, forced demolitions, judicial misconduct, 

and environmental pollution, as well as the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 

who have promoted democratic ideals, defended free speech, and pushed for greater 

gender equality. 

I’m one of their number: for my activism I’ve been banned from teaching, been 

forced out of a job, had my passport confiscated, been disbarred from practicing law, 

and have even been jailed and tortured. All of us engaged in this work have paid 

an enormous price—but we’ve made progress. No understanding of contemporary 

China is complete without a thorough grasp of this community of Chinese activists. 

They’re the country’s hope for the future. 

These were the ideas animating the manuscript proposal that was at first enthusiastically received by the ABA. It promised to be ‘‘an important and 

groundbreaking book,’’ my correspondent said. But the formal publishing contract 

we signed was soon reneged upon, with this explanation: ‘‘There is concern that we 

run the risk of upsetting the Chinese government by publishing your book, and because we have ABA commissions working in China there is fear that we would put 

them and their work at risk.’’ 

I don’t want to single out the ABA. This is simply the latest example of the corrosive influence of the Chinese Communist Party on the West. I had the experience 

that my schedule speech was cancelled for the last minute by an American university, the reason given to me was exactly the same one as ABA. It’s a crowded field: 

There are the Confucius Institutes and the Federations of Chinese Scholars and 

Students, both under the control of the Chinese government as they erode academic 

freedom on campuses in the United States. There’s Yahoo, who provided China’s 

public security forces with the personal information of Chinese political dissidents 

so authorities could arrest and jail them. Facebook is flirting with the China market. And Twitter just hired a former Chinese military and security apparatchik to 

head their operations in China. ‘‘Red capital’’ has flooded the media markets in 

Hong Kong and Taiwan, and some Western journalists have been forced out of 

China or denied visas. Books have had key passages deemed sensitive deleted. And 

many Western scholars of China practice self-censorship—for perfectly understandable reasons: if their conclusions on a ‘‘sensitive’’ political topic anger the regime, 

they won’t get a visa, and their prestige, position, and funding will be jeopardized. 

Chinese and Tibetan activists living in San Francisco, London, Switzerland were attacked when participating in protests. Chinese activists, dissidents, publishers were 

kidnapped in Thailand or Burma and sent back to China, Some of them hold Swedish or UK passport. 

The ABA is just one of the many major Western institutions attempting to promote change in China—on the Communist Party’s terms. Alongside the ABA’s Rule 

of Law Initiative, there’s the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue, the EU–China 

Human Rights Dialogue, training programs for Chinese judges, prosecutors, and police, and exchange programs with universities and the official lawyers’ associations. 

These organizations want their programs to be effective—and so they carefully avoid 

a great many issues that might endanger their success. The list is long: the persecuVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:24 Nov 09, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 U:\DOCS\20804.TXT DEIDRE
27 

tion of Falun Gong, the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, the Party’s policies 

in Tibet and Xinjiang, dissidents, ‘‘radical’’ human rights lawyers, and street activists. There is a constant guessing game about which way the political winds in Beijing are blowing. And so without realizing it, Western institutions end up helping 

the Chinese government to silence and marginalize the individuals and groups it 

finds the most troublesome. Self-censorship has become instinctive, and now characterizes the very basis of their interactions with the regime. 

For the quiet sense of guilt that self-censorship engenders, there is a tempting 

comfort in the idea that: ‘‘Well, in the end we’re still creating more space for the 

rule of law and human rights.’’ 

But the reality of foreign assistance has resulted in an unintended consequence. 

Nearly all the major program funding has ended up in the pockets of government 

departments, Government-Organized Nongovernmental Organizations (GONGOs), 

and scholars with state ties. Resources meant to support the rule of law and human 

rights have made their way into the hands of those whose job it is trample upon 

human rights: courts, Procuratorates, public security departments, the official lawyers association, and Party-affiliated mass organizations like the All-China Women’s 

Federation. 

Americans here are guilty of the classic error of mirror-imaging: projecting onto 

China what is familiar to them. The ABA might imagine, for instance, that the All 

China Lawyers Association (ACLA) is their professional counterpart. This would be 

a deep misunderstanding. My book discusses the extensive efforts by rights defense 

lawyers in Beijing to lobby for free elections for key positions in the ACLA, and how 

the attempts were shut down and those engaged in them punished. ACLA, and all 

Bar Associations in China, are simply part of the government’s apparatus of control: 

it has disbarred numerous rights lawyers on the orders of the Party, and has been 

a proactive accomplice in drafting policies that prevent lawyers from taking on political cases. Helping these GONGOs is worse than doing nothing. 

The same can be said for the training programs directed at police, judges, and 

prosecutors: Western organizations are inclined to think that miscarriages of justice 

must simply be a matter of insufficient professional training. Wrong again. The primary reason for abuses of justice in China is because the judicial system is an instrument of Party control, where political cadres directly and arbitrarily interfere 

in legal cases. 

Foreign organizations are thus limited to working in the apolitical safe zones the 

regime tacitly permits. These include, for instance, environmental protection, better 

treatment for handicapped people, women’s rights, HIV/AIDS, and education. Even 

in these sectors though, they’re still treated as ‘‘hostile foreign forces.’’ In the past 

few years, in particular, the regime’s realm of permissiveness has rapidly constricted. And so we see that attempts to please the Communist Party with mildmannered human rights promotion haven’t brought about any concessions on the 

part of the authorities. The soon-to-be-passed Foreign NGO Management Law will 

further narrow the space in which these organizations can operate. 

Rule of law and human rights dialogues, meanwhile, have mostly become a means 

for the Party to deflect substantive demands to change its human rights practices. 

Dialogues end with vague remarks about the importance of dialogue and understanding and the ongoing nature of the reform process. Yet rights defenders and 

journalists are arrested in still greater numbers. Torture, forced disappearances, detention in black jails, and religious persecution haven’t decreased. When the Chinese activist Cao Shunli attempted to participate in the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review, she was tortured to death. Other recent prominent 

cases include that of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, a Tibetan monk, who died in jail in 

July 2015, and Ilham Tohti, a moderate Uyghur scholar, who was sentenced to life 

imprisonment last year. Both were peaceful activists. And then there is Nobel Peace 

Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo, who is still serving his 11 year sentence in prison. 

Because the Party has already fixed the realm of the permissible, foreign organizations feel that they’re limited to working only with official agencies and scholars. 

But those who need help the most, who deserve it the most, and who’ve taken the 

greatest risks for China’s future, are excluded before a conversation can even begin. 

If refusing to publish my book was the price to pay for genuinely effective work 

by ABA to promote the rule of law in China, then I would happily tear the contract 

up myself. But the opposite is true. 

The permissive attitude and mild policies on China by international NGOs is of 

a piece with the West’s general appeasement of China’s dictatorship. It’s an approach based on short-sighted interests, and it undermines the sanctity of universal 

values. Not only do these policies fail to promote human rights and the rule of law 

in China, but the relentless self-censorship has come to erode the moral prestige 

28 

and values that are at the foundation of free societies. It’s high time for a new approach. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANGELA GUI

MAY 24, 2016

Mr. Chairman Smith, Co-chairman Rubio, 

Thank you for inviting me to testify at this important hearing, and thank you for 

the concern this Commission has shown for people like my father who are being persecuted by the Chinese government in China, and now, increasingly, abroad. 

As a university student, I never would’ve thought I’d find myself testifying in 

front of the US congress, and certainly not circumstances like these. 

On October 13th last year, I had my last Skype conversation with my father. Living in different places, we used to call each other on Skype regularly—I would tell 

him about how my studies were going, and he would tell me about work and how 

he was trying to get back into shape. Our last Skype call wasn’t very different— 

he had been renovating his kitchen in Hong Kong and sent me pictures of what it 

looked like, saying he would show me in person when it was finished. 

We made plans to speak again in a few days, but then he stopped replying to my 

messages and emails, wouldn’t pick up when I called, and about three weeks later 

I received an email from his colleague Lee Bo saying that my father had been missing for over twenty days and that he feared my father had been taken by Chinese 

agents for political reasons relating to his publishing business and bookstore. 

I was later told that my father was last seen leaving his holiday apartment in 

Thailand with a man who had been loitering there, waiting for my father to return. 

I was also told that three of his colleagues at the bookstore had gone missing 

around the same time. We didn’t know that Lee Bo himself would be next. 

Since then, the Chinese have detained my father without trial or charges. In November and in January, he sent me two messages on Skype telling me to keep quiet. 

As his daughter, I could tell he sent these under duress. I didn’t hear or see anything of my father until a clearly staged and badly put together confession video 

of him was aired on Chinese state TV in January, three months after he was last 

seen. It failed to explain why they had held him without charge for three months 

and looked to me like they felt they needed to fabricate a justification in face of increasing media pressure. 

Mr. Chairman, it has now been eight months since my father and his colleagues 

were taken into custody. I still haven’t been told where he is, how he is being treated, or what his legal status is—which is especially shocking in light of the fact that 

my father holds Swedish, and only Swedish, citizenship. In the so-called confession 

my father says he travelled to China voluntarily—but if this is true, then why is 

there no record of him having left Thailand? Only a state agency, acting coercively 

and against both International and China’s own law could achieve such a disappearance. By acting against my father and his colleagues, the Chinese are undermining 

their commitment to the ‘‘One Country, Two Systems’’ principle. 

I want my testimony today to be a reminder to governments that despite the 

media having gone eerily quiet, my father, a Swedish citizen who was abducted by 

Chinese state agents from a third sovereign country, is still in unofficial and illegal 

detention somewhere in China, without access to consular visits or legal representation. 

Despite having been told to stay quiet, I believe speaking up is the only option 

I have. Past cases show that public criticism has had positive effects, and I’m convinced my father would have done this for me, were I the one abducted and illegitimately detained without any indication of timeframe. Therefore I’m also here to ask 

for the committee’s help and support in working with the Swedish and other governments to demand my father’s immediate release. Alternatively—if he is suspected 

of an actual crime—we should be given official details of his detention and proof 

that his case is handled according to established legal procedure. I also want to ask 

the United States to take every opportunity to ask China for information on my father’s status, and urge that he be freed immediately. Finally, the US, Sweden, and 

other countries concerned about these developments need to work to make sure that 

Chinese authorities are not allowed to carry out illegal operations on foreign soil. 

Thank you. 

29 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ILSHAT HASSAN KOKBORE

MAY 24, 2016

Good afternoon. 

I would like to first thank the CECC for holding this important hearing today, 

and for inviting me to participate. I am a victim of the Chinese government’s constant political persecution, and a human rights activist living in the United States. 

Personally, I hope the U.S. government and U.S. Congress can understand the 

Chinese government’s long arm, which stretches beyond China’s borders to overseas, 

to threaten and harass overseas human rights activists. I hope the U.S. government 

and Congress will act to hold the Chinese government accountable for its vicious 

actions. 

This is my personal story. 

My name is Ilshat Hassan Kokbore, also known as Ilshat Hassan. I was born in 

Ghulja, East Turkistan. 

I have been politically active against communist Chinese rule in East Turkistan 

since studying at university in the 1980s. Constantly under harassment, threats, 

and persecution from the regional government’s secret service agency, I was forced 

to leave East Turkistan in November 2003, leaving behind my parents, sisters and 

brothers, wife, and child. After three years of waiting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 

for resettlement as a refugee, in July 2006, I came to the United States. 

After coming to the United States, I joined the Uyghur American Association 

(UAA) and became a very active member of UAA. I actively participated, organizing 

demonstrations against the Chinese government’s occupation of East Turkistan, attending and holding conferences to expose the Chinese government’s cruel policy 

against the Uyghur people, and writing articles in Chinese to rebuke their claim 

over East Turkistan. 

My political activities greatly agitated the Chinese government. In the beginning, 

the Chinese government held my family members hostage, denying my wife and son 

passports; inhumanely causing the forced separation of my family. I was only able 

to meet with my son after 10 years of long-suffering separation. 

After losing the hope of getting a passport for my wife, and also of protecting her 

from constant harassment from the Chinese government and secret agents, I had 

to make the painful decision to get a divorce. But that didn’t stop the Chinese government from continuing to harass and threaten my ex-wife, and she was continually under surveillance and threats. 

In order to pressure me to stop my political activities, on August 17, 2014, at midnight, Chinese authorities burst into my elder sister’s house around 1:30 a.m.; after 

searching her house and taking her son’s computer, she was detained in an undisclosed place for around 8–10 months, without any charge. Even though she was released, she still has to report to the local police regularly, and has to get approval 

even to visit our parents. 

On the same day, August 17, 2014, RFA journalist Shohret Hoshur’s two brothers 

were detained, and were later sentenced. This was obvious retaliation against Mr. 

Hoshur, who revealed a great deal about Chinese police brutality against Uyghurs. 

As we all know, prominent Uyghur leader, human rights champion, and World 

Uyghur Congress (WUC) president Mrs. Rebiya Kadeer has constantly been accused 

by the Chinese government of being an evil separatist; and her two sons were sentenced to jail as retaliation from the Chinese government. 

The Chinese government pressured one of Mrs. Kadeer’s imprisoned sons to condemn his mother, and to accuse Mrs. Kadeer of being an evil criminal. As normal, 

civilized human beings, we cannot imagine under what circumstances, and under 

what kind of pressure, a son was forced to condemn his dearest mother, accusing 

his own mother publicly of being a criminal! 

Dolkun Isa, another prominent Uyghur human rights activist, and chair of the 

WUC executive committee, was recently preparing to attend a meeting held in 

Dharamsala, India. The Indian government, after issuing a visa to Mr. Isa, and 

under the Chinese government’s pressure, cancelled the visa, denying Mr. Isa entry 

into India. 

In late 2009, Mr. Isa, as a German citizen, was in immediate danger of being repatriated back to China when he tried to enter South Korea to attend a human 

rights conference. He was put in solitary confinement for more than three days, before the U.S. and European Union intervened. 

The Chinese government has constantly tried to block all of Mr. Isa’s political activities by claiming he is a wanted terrorist according to an Interpol red notice, 

baselessly accusing him of supporting and funding terrorists. 

30 

Recently, another friend of mine, a Uyghur who is a Norwegian citizen, called me 

and told me that his family members living in East Turkistan were being harassed 

by the Chinese government; some of his family members were brought to the police 

station and interrogated for several hours, and they were told to tell him to stop 

any activities supporting Uyghurs. 

Of course, we all know about the Uyghur refugees who managed to get out of 

China; but unfortunately, they were sent back to China by some irresponsible countries when they were in the process of applying for UNHCR refugee status. Some 

of them were directly interrogated by Chinese police in other countries, and their 

family members were threatened. After they were repatriated, most of them disappeared, and some of them were given harsh sentences. 

The story of Uyghurs facing the Chinese government’s constant persecution, harassment, and threats goes on and on. Even Uyghurs who live overseas can’t be 

spared from the inhuman political persecution of the Chinese government. The Chinese government’s long arm keeps stretching longer and longer. It’s obvious that if 

China isn’t pressured to stop this kind of harassment, no one will be safe, regardless 

of where we live. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SU YUTONG

MAY 24, 2016

My name is Su Yutong. I am a journalist and activist based in Germany. In June, 

2010, after I made public the personal diary of former Chinese Premier Li Peng, 

my house was ransacked by the police and I was forced to leave China. In August 

that year, I became a journalist with the Chinese section of Deutsche Welle where 

I wrote and published nearly 1,500 articles, most of which were about human rights 

and political affairs in China. The human rights lawyers and activists I reported 

included Chen Guangcheng, Ilham Tohti, Gao Zhisheng and Gao Yu. All of this 

work annoyed the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Its state-owned newspaper 

Global Times attacked me in an article in August, 2014, for ‘‘constantly criticizing 

and vilifying China.’’ 

Before I came to the United States to participate in this hearing, I was in contact 

with Chinese journalist Gao Yu and the family members of detained human rights 

lawyers. Gao, aged 72, had already been jailed twice. She was arrested and sentenced to prison in April, 2014, for a third time, on charges evidently fabricated by 

the Chinese Communist Party. The real reason for her imprisonment was retaliation for an article she published in her Deutsche Welle column ‘‘Beijing Observer’’ 

which criticized Xi Jinping. I was her executive editor at the time. Last November, 

after Gao Yu was released on medical parole, the University of Bonn hospital was 

preparing to provide comprehensive treatment for her. And the German Ambassador 

to China issued her a visa to Germany. But the CCP authorities prevented Gao 

from leaving China for her medical treatment and ordered she remain silent. 

Since July 9th, 2015, the Chinese government has been conducting a sweeping 

crackdown on human rights lawyers and activists. The wives of several detained 

lawyers asked me to bring two videos to this hearing. To this day, these women 

have been unable to visit their husbands in custody. No one knows what abuses 

these incarcerated lawyers and activists have been suffering. These women are appealing again to the international community for assistance. (I would like to request 

to show these two video clips at the hearing.) 

At this hearing today, there is not enough time to tell the stories of all the human 

rights activists in China. Since Xi Jinping took power, China’s human rights conditions have worsened constantly. The most courageous and outstanding people in 

China today are now in prison or on the way to prison. I am hoping such a human 

rights disaster will receive more media coverage and more attention from the international community. But there’s one dangerous trend, that is how the CCP has 

reached its arms of news control overseas, as part of its ‘‘Great Overseas Propaganda Strategy.’’ Such strategies include cross-border censorship and infiltration, attempting to muzzle international media in their coverage of China’s worsening 

human rights conditions. As a journalist, I urge the Congress to pay more attention 

to this reality. 

In 2011, Li Congjun, the head of Xinhua News Agency, described in a article in 

the Wall Street Journal the ‘‘new global media order’’. Hundreds of Confucius Institutes proliferate around the world as an important part of China’s overseas propaganda campaign. The Chinese government has been pouring large amount of money 

in buying up overseas newspapers and radio networks. Benjamin Ismail, Asia Director of Reporters Without Borders (RSF) says RSF found a number of digital radio 

31 

stations in Paris that had been secretly run by proxy companies operated by the 

Chinese government. In November, 2015, Reuters also reported that WCRW, a radio 

station based in Washington, D.C., has China International Radio, a Communist 

Party mouthpiece, as its hidden major shareholder. The radio waves of this station 

cover the entire Washington, D.C. region, including the Capitol Hill and the White 

House. 

According to an investigation by Reuters, there are already 33 radio stations 

around that world that are affiliated with China International Radio. Numerous 

media outlets with the Chinese government as the controlling shareholder scatter 

throughout the world. And they hire local workers. At the press conferences during 

the annual sessions of National People’s Congress and Chinese People’s Political 

Consultative Conference in Beijing, CCP officials invited reporters from fake overseas media to ask pre-arranged, non-sensitive questions. 

Buying off and cracking down—these are the two tactics being adopted in Hong 

Kong, once a paradise for books banned in China. Hong Kong publisher Yiu Mantin 

was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment in China for publishing the book ‘‘Xi 

Jinping, China’s Godfather.’’ In March, relatives of New York-based activist Wen 

Yunchao (also known as Bei Feng) and German-based political commentator Chang 

Ping were detained and interrogated in relation to an open letter calling on Xi 

Jinping to resign. 

Under the CCP’s media control, a number of overseas and online Chinese-language media outlets have been serving as platforms to learn about a real China. 

When I was young, I secretly listened to Voice of America which is was and is still 

banned in China. These media outlets have now become targets of the CCP’s incessant efforts at control. Chinese embassies and consulates around the world have 

started to play the role of the Ministry of Propaganda. 

In 2013, my former employer Deutsche Welle hired Peter Limbourg as its new director. Soon after he assumed the post, Mr. Limbourg paid a visit to the Chinese 

division and told the staff that he had met with Shi Mingde, China’s Ambassador 

to Germany. Mr. Limbourg demanded that the Chinese division not always criticize 

the Chinese authorities and should ‘‘appropriately encourage’’ them instead. In 

2014, Mr. Limbourg hired Frank Sieren, a German businessman who is a long-term 

resident of Beijing. Mr. Sieren has had numerous business cooperations with the 

CCP’s mouthpieces Global Times and China Central Television. In September, 2014, 

German newspaper Su ̈ddeutsche Zeitung reported the minutes of an April meeting 

between Deutsche Welle and China’s Ambassador to Germany, which clearly revealed that the Chinese Embassy demanded Deutsche Welle change. 

On June 4, 2014, Frank Sieren published an article in Deutsche Welle, in German 

and Chinese languages, describing Tiananmen Massacre as ‘‘a slip-up by the CCP.’’ 

The piece sparked a public outcry from a number of pro-democracy activists and 

massacre survivors. I was a signatory to an open letter protesting this article. I 

spoke up against the article on Twitter. Soon afterwards, the deputy director and 

the director of the Deutsche Welle Chinese division, both of whom were highly critical of Mr. Sieren’s article, were shifted to other positions. Meanwhile, I was fired 

by Deutsche Welle. 

In late August, 2014, Mr. Limbourg traveled to Beijing to attend a Chinese-German media symposium hosted by CCP mouthpiece Global Times. At the same time, 

I published an open letter to him in the New York Times saying that ‘‘the voice of 

China’’ is currently attempting to use economic seduction and coercion to expand its 

‘‘great overseas propaganda’’ campaigns around the world. My wishful thinking was 

that Mr. Limbourg, under the warm reception of Global Times, would not be 

drowned in Chinese wine and succumbed to become a tool in the CCP’s ‘‘overseas 

propaganda campaigns.’’ Much to my regret, Mr. Limbourg met with Wang 

Gengnian, the head of China Radio International, in Beijing on August 28, 2014. 

Mr. Limbourg said that Deutsche Welle’s coverage would fit into the guidance and 

direction set by China. Soon afterwards, he announced a cooperative framework between Deutsche Welle and China Central Television (CCTV). In early 2015, Germany’s Bundestag took note of this cooperation program and conducted a hearing. 

Deutsche Welle announced that it would temporarily suspend its cooperation with 

CCTV. 

Meanwhile, Frank Sieren continues to write a column for Deutsche Welle. In 

2008, another scandal took place at Deutsche Welle, when a DW reporter named 

Zhang Danhong lied on a German TV program that the human rights conditions in 

China were excellent. She was moved to another division at DW after protests. But 

in early 2015, Ms. Zhang was quietly returned to the Chinese department of DW, 

and was given her own column. All of these changes are sending subtle signals. 

The CCP has been continuously expanding its scope of censorship. On May 10th, 

German legislator Michael Brand told the media that he was denied entry to China 

32 

because of his criticism of China’s Tibet policy. Mr. Brand, Chairman of the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid of the German Bundestag, said the 

Chinese Embassy in Germany sent people to meet with him in person, demanding 

him delete his articles on Tibet from his official website. They also demanded Mr. 

Brand not to attend a meeting with a Tibetan human rights organization. Mr. 

Brand said such behaviors by the Chinese Communist Party are blatant and absurd, and it’s unacceptable that the CCP exports its censorship to Germany. 

Mr. Brand’s stance is very clear and of great importance. We hope politicians in 

countries throughout the world dare to say ‘‘no’’ to the CCP. In recent years, as 

China has achieved economic progress, numerous countries choose silence and compromise on China’s human rights abuses in exchange for contracts with the Chinese 

government. The most notable is the U.S. President Barack Obama who has been 

very weak and compromising when facing China’s human rights issues. The Chinese 

government nowadays dares to reach its long arms to control the world, one factor 

is the brutal politics since Xi Jinping took power. The other reason is the appeasement from a number of countries. 

As a media worker, I urge democratic countries to take notice of CCP’s propaganda campaigns overseas, and its infiltration and disturbance of the freedom of 

press. The United States and other countries should organize investigations into 

China’s infiltration of press freedom and media outlets established by the CCP; As 

a human rights activist, I am here to criticize and expose the increased crackdowns 

and persecution of human rights activists by the Chinese Communist government, 

especially under Xi Jinping’s regime; I hereby request democratic governments not 

to neglect human rights conditions in China. Former U.S. President John F. Kennedy said his speech at West Berlin’s Scho ̈neberg Rathaus (City Hall) in 1963: 

‘‘Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.’’ 

Finally, please allow me to express my gratitude to CECC’s continuous focus on 

China’s human rights conditions and assistance to activists all along. My special 

thanks go to Congressman Chris Smith and Senator Marco Rubio. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM NEW JERSEY; CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

MAY 24, 2016

One year ago, Major Xiong Yan was barred from visiting his dying mother in 

China. He was repeatedly denied access to Mainland China because he is 

blacklisted, denied access to China because he was a student leader of the democracy protests of 1989. Tragically, Major Yan’s mother passed away, her son never 

had the chance to say goodbye. 

The Communist leaders in Beijing use the blacklist—along with intimidation, repression, and the lure of the Chinese market—to stifle discussion of the Tiananmen 

protests and their violent suppression. 

Academics such as Perry Link and Andrew Nathan are also blacklisted for writing 

about Tiananmen. U.S. corporations, eager to gain access to the China’s markets, 

also engage in censorship about Tiananmen. Last year the California based 

LinkedIn began blocking Tiananmen-related articles posted inside China or by 

members hosted on its Chinese site. 

The methods used by Beijing to enforce a code of silence are going global. The 

heavy hand of the Chinese government has expanded beyond its borders to intimidate and stifle critical discussion of the Chinese government’s human rights record 

and repressive policies. 

Before I talk more broadly about our hearing today, let me first say a few words 

about the Tiananmen massacre. 

The CECC has solemnly commemorated the Tiananmen massacre on and around 

June 4 each year. The Congress does this because of the lives lost and persons permanently injured in the massacre. We commemorate June 4th each year because 

of the profound impact the event has had on U.S.-China relations and because so 

many former student leaders have made important contributions to the global understanding of China. We mark the Tiananmen massacre each year because the 

Chinese people are unable to commemorate this event themselves. 

This year the Congress is not in session on June 4th, but Senator Rubio and I 

will be sending a letter to President Xi Jinping asking him to allow uncensored, 

public discussion of the democracy protests of 1989; to end retaliation efforts against 

those who participated in the protests, and to release all those still detained for 

holding commemorations about the Tiananmen protests and their violent suppression. 

33 

We will urge President Xi to allow discussion of China’s past history. We believe 

transparency is in the best interest of U.S.-China relations and will improve global 

perceptions of China. 

Nevertheless, President Xi seems to have a different conception of what is in China’s interest. As is well-documented already by this Commission, his government is 

engaged in an extraordinary assault on civil society and human rights. China is not 

only interested in containing the spread of ‘‘Western values and ideas’’ within 

China, but is actively engaged in trying to roll back democracy and human rights 

norms globally. 

In fact it would be fitting to have an empty chair at the witness table today representing every dissident fearful of sharing their story, every writer whose work has 

been censored or edited by Chinese authorities without their knowledge and every 

journalist whose critical reporting has been blocked or tempered—not just in China, 

but in the West. 

China’s recent efforts to blunt scrutiny of its rights record and criticism of government policies include: 

(1) Pressing Thailand and Cambodia to repatriate Uyghur refugees and Chinese asylum seekers. 

(2) Disappearing and allegedly abducting five Hong Kong booksellers, including Gui Minhai, the father of one of our witnesses today. 

(3) Supporting clandestine efforts to discredit the Dalai Lama through a Communist Party-supported rival Buddhist sect; 

(4) Harassing and detaining the family members of foreign journalists and 

human rights advocates. Two of our witnesses today will attest to such harassment. 

(5) Threating the operations of non-governmental organizations working in 

China through the newly passed Overseas NGO Management Law and other 

means. Dr. Teng Biao will talk about the cancelation of his book project by the 

American Bar Association. 

We asked the ABA [American Bar Association] to testify today, but the ABA 

President Paulette Brown and the ABA’s CEO Jack Rives were unable to testify. 

The ABA sent a letter to the Commission last month, responding to our inquiry 

about the details surrounding the ABA’s rescinding of Teng Biao’s book project. 

They want that letter to serve as their testimony. 

A copy of the Commission letter to the ABA and the ABA’s response will be added 

to the record without objection. 

The long reach of China extends beyond its borders to Thailand, South Korea, Malaysia, India, Kenya, at the United Nations, and in the United States. 

These efforts present real strategic implications for the United States and the 

international community. The abductions of the booksellers challenges the one-country, two systems model in Hong Kong. China’s efforts to bend international human 

rights norms present a clear challenge to the United Nations and the Human Rights 

Council efforts to hold China accountable. China’s efforts to enforce a code of silence 

globally through its economic and diplomatic clout directly challenges the Obama 

Administration’s ‘‘Asia Pivot’’ and U.S. human rights diplomacy. 

The President and his Administration have only a few more chances to raise 

human rights concerns with China. The Strategic and Economic Dialogue in two 

weeks and the G–20 meeting in September. 

The Congress and this Commission will press the Administration to do more to 

advance human rights in China. President Obama must ‘‘shine a light’’ on human 

rights problems in China, because nothing good happens in the dark. 

But we must also look ahead; use our Commission hearings, our Annual Report, 

and other publications to make a compelling case for the next Administration about 

the centrality of human rights to U.S. interests in Asia. 

It is increasingly clear that there is direct link between China’s domestic human 

rights problems and the security and prosperity of the United States. The health 

of the U.S. economy and environment, the safety of our food and drug supplies, the 

security of our investments and personal information in cyberspace, and the stability of the Pacific region will depend on China complying with international law, 

allowing the free flow of news and information, complying with its WTO obligations, 

and protecting the basic rights of Chinese citizens, including the fundamental freedoms of religion, expression, assembly, and association. 

Losing sight of these facts leads to bad policy, bad diplomacy, and the needless 

juxtaposition of values and interests. It also sends the wrong message to those in 

China standing courageously for greater freedoms, human rights, and the rule of 

law. The human rights lawyers, the free press advocates, and those fighting for 

labor rights, religious freedom, and democracy are the best hope for China’s future. 

34 

And, they are the best hope for a more stable and prosperous U.S.-China relationship. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA; 

COCHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

MAY 24, 2016

Next week marks the 27th anniversary of the student-led popular protests in 

Tiananmen Square. Spurred by the death of a prominent reformer, thousands gathered in April 1989 seeking greater political freedom. Their numbers swelled as the 

days passed, not only in Beijing but in cities and universities across the nation. 

Eventually more than a million people, including journalists, workers, government 

employees and police, joined their ranks making it the largest political protest in 

the history of communist China. 

Late in the evening of June 3, the Army opened fire on peaceful protesters. The 

bloodshed continued into June 4. To this day the precise number of resulting casualties is unknown and more than a quarter-century later there has been no progress 

toward a public accounting of the events of that week. 

Instead, twenty-seven years later the Chinese government is increasingly brazen 

in its repression . . . no longer limiting its reach to China’s territorial boundaries, 

but instead seeking to stifle discussion of its deplorable human rights record both 

at home and abroad. Consider the following: 

Dissidents regularly report that their family members who remain in China are 

harassed, detained and even imprisoned in retaliation for their truth-telling about 

the regime’s abuses. 

News reports abound of Uyghur Muslim and Chinese asylum-seekers being forcibly repatriated from neighboring South Asian countries under pressure from the 

Chinese government. 

Journalists and academics alike are threatened with visa revocations, thereby allowing self-censorship to take root in what should be the very bastions of free expression and inquiry. 

Even educational institutions based in the United States are not immune as more 

have welcomed the establishment of Confucius Institutes. While seemingly benign 

at face value, the financial support that accompanies these centers for Chinese language and cultural education come with definite strings attached. Sensitive topics, 

including Taiwan and Tibet, are excluded from the curriculum, and invitations for 

the Dalai Lama to speak at prominent universities are mysteriously withdrawn. 

In 2014, the American Association of University Professors issued a statement 

calling on colleagues across the United States and Canada to reconsider their partnerships with these centers, stating that, ‘‘Confucius Institutes function as an arm 

of the Chinese state and are allowed to ignore academic freedom.’’ 

In April 2016, the Indian government blocked several rights advocates and activists from attending an Interfaith/Interethnic Conference in Dharamsala, India reportedly due to Chinese government pressure to rescind their visas. 

Last month, a news story broke alleging that the American Bar Association (ABA) 

had cancelled a proposed book project with prominent Chinese human rights lawyer 

Teng Biao, who we will hear from today. Multiple news sources reported that the 

project was canceled because of fears that the initiative would offend the Chinese 

government. The ABA denied these reports, claiming that the staff person in question who had interfaced with Teng Biao had been misinformed. Yet questions remain not only about the specifics of the book project but more broadly about the 

ability of groups like the ABA to continue working in China without compromising 

its principles. 

And of course, any discussion of the ‘‘long arm’’ of Beijing must include recent 

troubling developments in Hong Kong, specifically the disappearances and alleged 

abductions of five Hong Kong booksellers, which have rightly raised alarm bells 

among Hong Kong activists, human rights organizations and foreign governments. 

The Commission will have the distinct privilege today to hear from Angela Gui, the 

daughter of missing bookseller Gui Minhai, a naturalized Swedish citizen who disappeared in October 2015 from Pattaya, Thailand. In the recent State Department 

Hong Kong Policy Act report to Congress, the Department rightly noted that, ‘‘These 

cases have raised serious concerns in Hong Kong and represent what appears to be 

the most significant breach of the ‘one country, two systems’ policy since 1997.’’ 

In a sad testament to the timeliness and importance of today’s hearing topic, some 

of the witnesses the Commission approached with an invitation to testify declined 

35 

based on very legitimate fears about what would happen to members of their family 

who remain in China. This is an inexcusable reality. 

For too long, China has gotten a free pass. The Obama Administration’s final 

U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue is just days away in Beijing. Will these 

issues be prioritized? Will every participating U.S. government agency be charged 

with bringing human rights to the forefront with their Chinese counterparts? Will 

there be consequences for China’s bold and aggressive disregard for human rights 

and extraterritorial reach? In March, the United States spearheaded a collective 

statement at the U.N. Human Rights Council voicing serious concern about a number of issues to include the ‘‘unexplained recent disappearances and apparent coerced returns’’ of Chinese citizens and foreigners to China. The upcoming S&ED will 

be a litmus test for this Administration—the statement was commendable, but will 

words translate into action? 

36 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY WEN YUNCHAO

MAY 24, 2016

Honorable Representative Christopher Smith, Senator Marco Rubio, and CECC: 

I, Wen Yunchao, hereby solemnly declare that the following narrative and news 

coverage about me and my family are true facts. 

I arrived in the United States on December 27th, 2012. I lodged my application 

for political asylum in July, 2013. I have been waiting for the decision on my application. During this period, I have been subjected to tremendous pressure and harassment from the Chinese government. 

In March 2016, the Chinese government suspected I was related to the publication and distribution of an ‘‘Open Letter Calling on Comrade Xi Jinping to Resign 

from All Party and State Leadership Positions.’’ My parents and other family members and the family members of my wife Liu Yang in Guangdong were harassed, 

blackmailed, and threatened numerous times and were forced to disappear. My parents and brother were taken away by authorities on March 22nd and were released 

a week later. My wife Liu Yang’s parents, brother and sister-in-law have been 

barred by the Chinese government from leaving China. Her parents had to cancel 

their plan to visit the United States in April. Liu Yang’s brother and his wife have 

been subjected to disturbances in their daily work and life. 

The facts in the following report by New York Times about me and the forced disappearance of my relatives in China are all true. 

Wen Yunchao, a Chinese activist living in New York, said in a telephone 

interview that his parents and younger brother in southern China had been 

missing since Tuesday (Mar. 22, 2016), after police officers and officials warned 

his parents that Mr. Wen should tell them what he knew about the letter. Mr. 

Wen said he had nothing to do with distributing the letter on the Internet, and 

so refused to bow to the demands. 

The letter, signed by ‘‘Loyal Communist Party Members,’’ was sent by email 

to people with ties to China around the time it appeared on Wujie, shortly after 

12:01 a.m. on March 4. 

On Twitter, Mr. Wen, the activist, urged President Obama to ask Mr. Xi to 

release his parents and brother. ‘‘He kidnapped them on March 22,’’ Mr. Wen 

wrote. Mr. Xi is expected to visit the United States next week for a summit 

meeting on nuclear security. 

Mr. Wen said in the interview that his sister-in-law had told him that his 

parents and his younger brother, Wen Yun’ao, a driver for a local government, 

were all missing. Mr. Wen said his sister-in-law had given no details of when 

or how his parents disappeared but had said Wen Yun’ao, her husband, was 

taken away by officials. 

Starting this month, Mr. Wen said, the police and officials repeatedly visited 

his father, Wen Shaogan, 71, and mother, Qiu Xiaohua, 64, at their home in 

Jiexi County, Guangdong Province, and told them that Mr. Wen had to admit 

to helping spread the letter. 

‘‘At the start, they said they wanted to know if I had anything to do with the 

open letter calling for Xi Jinping to resign,’’ Mr. Wen said. ‘‘But on the 17th 

(Mar 2016), they said directly that they knew I hadn’t written the letter but 

believed I had something to do with spreading it. They promised that if I told 

them who wrote the letter and passed it on to me, and how I spread it around, 

then I would not be held culpable and it would not be held against my family. 

Otherwise, they said, my younger brother might lose his job.’’ 

Mr. Wen, a vocal critic of the Chinese government who is also known by the 

pen name Bei Feng, said he had passed on a message to the officials through 

his parents that he had nothing to do with writing or distributing the letter. 

‘‘I told them very clearly that I could not admit to something that had nothing 

to do with me,’’ Mr. Wen said. ‘‘I told them very clearly that I didn’t write the 

letter and had not helped anyone to distribute it, and I had not issued the letter 

on any websites.’’ (The New York Times: China Said to Detain Several Over 

Letter Criticizing Xi, By EDWARD WONG and CHRIS BUCKLEY, Mar. 25, 

2016) 

Please see below a report by AFP about me and the release of my relatives after 

they were forced to disappear. The facts in the article are all true. 

37 

Two overseas dissidents said on Wednesday (March 30) that Chinese police 

had released family members they claimed were detained as part of an official 

probe into a letter calling on President Xi Jinping to resign. 

Wen told AFP that his father, mother and brother had been released after 

being held in the southern city of Guangzhou in southern Guangdong province. 

The three were not charged with any crime and security officials accompanied 

them to tourist sites during their detention, he added. 

‘‘I think my family’s release is related to Xi Jinping’s visit to the US,’’ he said, 

referring to the Chinese President’s participation in a Washington summit this 

week. 

Wen earlier claimed that his father warned before his detention that officials 

in Guangdong believed the exiled activist had ‘‘helped spread’’ the letter. (AFP: 

Dissidents say China relatives released in letter probe, Mar. 30, 2016) 

Around the anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre in 2015 and during the annual sessions of China’s National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference in March 2016, my New York home’s WiFi network 

was under DDOA attacks. I was unable to use the Internet properly. Days before 

the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre in 2014, and just before Xi 

Jinping visited the U.S. in September, 2015, a number of Chinese government officials harassed my parents in Guangdong. They warned me not to criticize the Chinese government, especially not to criticize Xi and the Chinese economy. 

Furthermore, I have been a frequent target of systematic online attacks and 

harassing phone calls since I left China in 2010. I believe these attacks are related 

to the Chinese government. For details, please refer to my testimony on June 25th, 

2013, at the CECC hearing, ‘‘Chinese Hacking: Impact on Human Rights and Commercial Rule of Law.’’ 

Wen Yunchao 

TRANSCRIPTION OF VIDEO: 

WORDS FROM WIVES OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYERS IN CHINA

Hello friends in the United States. We’re wives of citizens and human rights lawyers who were arrested in the ‘‘July 9 Mass Arrests’’ in P.R. China. I’m Wang 

Qiaoling, wife of attorney Li Heping. I’m Yuan Shanshan, wife of attorney Xie 

Yanyi. I’m Li Wenzu, wife of attorney Wang Quanzhang. We feel very grateful to 

the international community and American friends for your persistent concerns 

about rule of law in China and the ‘‘July 9 incident.’’ 

During the process of ‘‘July 9 mass arrests,’’ not only were the arrests illegal but 

also the homes and workplaces of all involved lawyers and citizens were searched 

illegally. Moreover, they were detained secretly in ‘‘residence under surveillance.’’ 

Their family hired lawyers for them, yet their lawyers were barred from meeting 

them in person. Their lawyers were deprived of rights to meet and communicate 

with them. 

After 6 months detention when the cases reached the state of ‘‘formal arrest,’’ the 

family of each detainee received ‘‘Notification of Arrest,’’ yet our loved ones were 

still deprived of their rights to meet and communicate with their lawyers. The Public Security authorities said that our loved ones have been assigned lawyers in the 

detention center, so the lawyers hired by us as family members were dismissed. But 

the lawyers hired by us want to have the chance to meet their clients to confirm 

the status of power of attorney, but they were also deprived illegally of their rights 

to meet their clients. 

After the authorities locked up our loved ones illegally, they even put some requirements on us to obey their rules of ‘‘four not allowed’’: we’re not allowed to hire 

lawyers by ourselves; we’re not allowed to communicate with relatives of other detainees; we’re not allowed to accept interview of media from abroad; we’re not allowed to speak out on Internet. Facing these illegal and groundless requirements 

from the government we as family members didn’t give in. 

In the past 10 months, we worked together with our lawyers to stand fast in striving for our rights following legal procedures and insisted to speak out in public. 

After March 10, 2016, one statement from 12 countries to the United Nations about 

human rights situations in China, brought turning point to the ‘‘July 9 incident.’’ 

After the publication of the statement from 12 countries to the UN on human rights 

situations of China, the situation of the ‘‘July 9 incident’’ began to change in China. 

First of all, the prosecutor’s office began to accept our letter of accusation. While 

before that, they rejected dozens of our letters of accusation [of illegal procedures]. 

The second part of the change was, the police officer handling this specific case tried 

38 

to persuade each of us in private, requesting us as family members to accept the 

lawyers assigned by the government. The third part of the change was, in the previous two months Secret Police of China continuously approached the fellow countrymen in our hometowns, our old classmates and friends, our parents and 

elderships, the sisters and brothers of our loved ones, including us the wives of the 

detainees, and tried to get video recordings from us, and asked us to talk in front 

of the camera to persuade our detained family members to plead guilty. But to my 

delight, of course, all of us as family members held the same attitude and refused 

to do so. We requested the government to release our loved ones unconditionally. 

During the whole course of the ‘‘July 9 incident,’’ public attention from the international society on this case pushed it toward the better ending. We owe thanks to 

all of you! We’re also anxiously hoping our American friends continue to speak out 

and protest continuously without compromise in the days to come. Please unite with 

other Democratic countries to protest against the government of P.R. China. We also 

hope that the United States can use the chance of G–20 meeting as leverage to 

bring complete change to the ‘‘July 9 incident.’’ 

The Chinese officials take it as very important to be able to arrange private meetings with top leaders of Democratic countries. We hope that our American friends 

will request the Chinese officials to release people [in illegal detention] when they 

request private meeting [with the President of the United States]. Please ask the 

Chinese government to release all the citizens and lawyers detained in the ‘‘July 9 

incident’’ for their human rights activities. We as family members of them admire 

one line in the national anthem of the United States, that is: ‘‘the land of the free 

and the home of the brave.’’ We hope our American friends in the land of the free 

and the home of the brave will give helping hands to rescue all the Chinese citizens 

and human rights lawyers that were detained in the ‘‘July 9 incident.’’ 

Thank you all! 

39 

LETTER FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA SUBMITTED

TO THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, APRIL 19, 2016 

April, 19, 2016 

Paulette Brown Jack L. Rives 

President Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer 

American Bar Association American Bar Association 

Dear Ms. Brown and Mr. Rives, 

We write to you as the chairs of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) to 

seek additional clarification about a recent report in Foreign Policy (FP) that the American Bar 

Association (ABA) rescinded an offer to publish a book proposed by Chinese human rights 

lawyer Teng Biao. We seek from you information to determine whether or not the book project 

was canceled because of fears that ABA projects would be adversely affected in China or from 

actual threats to ABA projects and partnerships in China. We invite you to respond in writing or 

by submitting testimony to a CECC hearing next month that will examine the Chinese 

government’s global efforts to silence and punish its critics. 

As a frequent witness before the CECC since his arrival in the United States in 2014, we have no 

doubt that Teng Biao’s proposed book would have offered an insightful window into the perils 

facing China’s legal professionals and rights advocates, something which the Commission 

documented at length in its 2015 Annual Report. We are also deeply concerned about the 

unrelenting pressures faced by Chinese civil society and foreign nongovernmental organizations 

operating in China, particularly if the draft Overseas Nongovernmental Organizations (NGO) 

Management Law is enacted in its current form. 

We hope you can provide further clarification on both the pressures faced by the ABA from the 

Chinese government that reportedly led to the cancellation of Teng Biao’s book and the 

explanatory statement made by Mr. Robert T. Rupp, Associate Executive Director for the 

Business Services Group of the ABA, asserting that “the reasons resulting in the decision were 

miscommunicated to Mr. Teng,” and claims instead that “market research and sales forecasting 

conducted by the association’s publishing group,” were the determining factors. 

Many questions remain unanswered and we would be most grateful if you would provide details 

to the following queries: 

x Did the ABA receive any indication from the Chinese Government or any other 

individuals that the programs it facilitates in China would be jeopardized if, in fact, this 

book project was pursued? 

x Do such calculations routinely enter in to ABA publishing decisions, either overtly, or 

indirectly? 

x Was the ABA’s decision regarding Mr. Teng’s book influenced by concerns over the 

security and safety of ABA ROLI staff in China or potential retaliation against the 

partnerships and work of its commissions and individual members? 


20804_1.eps
40 

x Did the ABA receive updated marketing information between December 2014, when the 

book was commissioned, and January 2015 when Teng Biao was notified of the offer 

being withdrawn? 

As reported, the circumstances surrounding the cancellation of Teng Biao’s book are deeply 

concerning and not worthy of the values and principles for which the ABA stands. Along with 

the inadequate statement made by the ABA last August in the wake of a major Chinese 

government crackdown on dozens of human rights lawyers, this latest incident seems to indicate 

that the ABA is unable to coordinate robust support for fellow legal professionals for fear of 

offending the Chinese Communist government. We look forward to your reply and welcome any 

additional information you are able to provide about this troubling case. 

Sincerely, 

 

Congressman Chris Smith Senator Marco Rubio 

Chair Cochair 


20804_2.eps
41 

LETTER FROM THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION IN RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM THE

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA, APRIL 25, 2016 

Page 1 of 3

April 25, 2016

April 25, 2016

The Honorable Chris Smith The Honorable Marco Rubio

Chair Co-Chair

Congressional-Executive Commission Congressional-Executive Commission 

on China on China

243 Ford House Office Building 243 Ford House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Representative Smith and Senator Rubio:

We are writing in response to your April 19, 2016 letter inquiring about the report that 

the American Bar Association (ABA) rescinded a proposal to publish a book proposed by 

Chinese human rights lawyer Teng Biao. 

Let us begin by stating unequivocally that the publication decision was in no way related 

to ABA programs or operations in China by the ABA Rule of Law Initiative (ABA 

ROLI) or other ABA entities. The decision not to proceed with publication of the book 

was a business decision made by the ABA Publishing Services Group after an assessment 

of projected book sales, including advice from the ABA’s retail distribution partner. 

None of the ABA ROLI staff knew about the Teng book proposal until the ABA was 

contacted by the media earlier this month, some fifteen months after the decision was 

made. ABA ROLI had no knowledge that the book was considered for publication and 

ABA ROLI did not participate in any discussions about possible publication. Moreover, 

there have never been any communications with the Chinese government about the 

decision to publish this or any other book published or considered for publication by the 

ABA. There would be absolutely no reason to do so.

Our responses to your specific questions follow:

x “Did the ABA receive any indication from the Chinese government or any other 

individuals that the programs it facilitates in China would be jeopardized if, in 

fact, this book project was pursued?” ANSWER: None at all.

x “Do such calculations routinely enter in to ABA publishing decisions, either 

overtly, or indirectly?” ANSWER: They do not.

x “Was the ABA’s decision regarding Mr. Teng’s book influenced by concerns 

over the security and safety of ABA ROLI staff in China or potential retaliation 


20804_3.eps
42 

Page 2 of 3

April 25, 2016

against the partnerships and work of its commissions and individual members?” 

ANSWER: It was not.

x “Did the ABA receive updated marketing information between December 2014, 

when the book was commissioned, and January 2015 when Teng Biao was 

notified of the offer being withdrawn?” ANSWER: The ABA never 

commissioned the book or engaged in contract negotiations. No additional 

marketing information was received after the end of November 2014.

Before the end of November 2014, the ABA Publishing Services Group consulted with 

its retail distribution partner about the viability of publishing Mr. Teng’s book on the 

mass market. The distributor projected that only 10% of the books would be sold and 

recommended against publication of the book. Before receiving this reply, the ABA 

Publishing Services Group had not finalized its decision on publishing the book but was 

disinclined to do so. The concerns voiced by the ABA’s retail distribution partner 

solidified the Publishing Group’s decision to reject publication. 

An ABA employee’s initial communication to Mr. Teng of an offer to publish his book 

and that employee’s subsequent communication regarding the reasons for withdrawing 

that offer were misguided as well as erroneous. The decision not to proceed with 

publication of Mr. Teng’s book was made for purely economic reasons; the reasons for 

the ABA’s decision were unfortunately miscommunicated to Mr. Teng. 

The director of the ABA Publishing Services Group has publicly expressed his apologies 

for this unfortunate miscommunication to Mr. Teng. We emphasize that discussions 

between Mr. Teng and the Publications staff never reached the point of contract 

discussions, much less a signed commitment. Further, Mr. Teng has certainly been free to 

pursue any and all other publication venues for his book.

Your letter refers to “the inadequate statement made by the ABA last August in the wake 

of a major Chinese government crackdown on dozens of human rights lawyers.” We want 

to make certain you are aware of several important actions the ABA has taken in support 

of the rule of law and human rights in China.

On April 12, 2016, President Brown issued a call “for the Chinese government to protect 

human rights under its own law and international law, heed the United Nations Basic 

Principles on the Role of Lawyers, and observe fair trial and due process standards.” 

This was the fourth public statement of concern by an ABA President since last August.

Last June, the ABA also submitted detailed technical comments to the Chinese 

government on its Draft NGO Management Law.

In addition to these public statements, the ABA continues to be engaged in significant 

long-term efforts in China. The ABA has worked tirelessly on the ground with Chinese 

NGOs, public interest lawyers, universities, courts, and others to promote the rule of law 

and the protection of basic rights for all citizens, including in the areas of LGBT rights, 

environmental rights, indigent criminal defense, and protection of victims of domestic 


20804_4.eps
43 

Page 3 of 3

April 25, 2016

violence. Through these and other efforts, the ABA has strongly supported initiatives that 

encourage the government of China to comply with its own laws and policies protecting 

rights, to develop such laws and policies where they do not exist, and to comply with 

international standards for the protection of human rights.

When visiting China in November 2015, President Brown emphasized the importance of 

the independence of the legal profession and the ability of lawyers to represent their 

clients without fear of reprisal. She raised this issue in private meetings and a public 

speech involving government officials and private sector lawyers. She also stressed the 

ABA’s desire to expand its engagement in China to advance equal rights and the rule of 

law.

We are proud of our work in China and around the world to promote the rule of law and 

protect individual rights, and we appreciate the interest of the Congressional-Executive 

Commission on China in our efforts. Please feel free to add this letter to the record of 

your upcoming CECC hearing.

Sincerely,

Paulette Brown Jack L. Rives

President Executive Director

Original via U.S. Mail

PDF copy via email to: 

Scott Flipse

Director of Communications

Scott.flipse@mail.house.gov


20804_5.eps
44 

THE LONG ARM OF CHINA: 

GLOBAL EFFORTS TO SILENCE CRITICS FROM TIANANMEN TO TODAY

MAY 24, 2016

Witness Biographies 

Angela Gui, Student and Daughter of Disappeared Hong Kong Bookseller 

Gui Minhai 

Angela Gui [rhymes with ‘way’] is a 22-year-old final year undergraduate Sociology student at the University of Warwick, UK. As the daughter of Gui Minhai, 

she has followed and worked actively on his case with governments, police, and various human rights groups since his ‘‘disappearance’’ in October 2015. She also did 

a brief internship with his and Lee Bo’s company Mighty Current Distributions in 

the summer of 2014. Aside from her studies and work on her father’s case, Ms. Gui 

is also editor and creative director of Warwick Sociology Journal, an academic journal showcasing undergraduate and graduate student work from universities worldwide. After graduation Ms. Gui plans on continuing onto a master’s degree in the 

History of Medicine, funded by the Wellcome Trust. 

Ilshat Hassan, President of the Uyghur American Association 

Ilshat Hassan is president of the Uyghur American Association. Born in Ghulja, 

in Xinjiang [pronounced SHEEN-JAHNG], he taught at a college in Shihezi [pronounced SURE-HUH-ZI] in Xinjiang for 15 years. In November 2003, his teaching 

career abruptly ended due to his political activities. He fled to Malaysia, leaving behind parents, a wife, and a teenage son. Mr. Hassan came to the United States as 

a refugee in July 2006, and soon after joined the Uyghur American Association, 

where he became a very active Uyghur human rights campaigner. He writes and 

blogs frequently in Chinese and is well known in the overseas Chinese democracy 

community. 

Su Yutong, Journalist, Internet Activist, and Former News Broadcaster 

for the Chinese Service of Deutsche Welle 

Su Yutong is a Chinese journalist and human rights defender. Because of her involvement in commemoration events linked to the Tiananmen massacre she was ‘‘invited for tea’’ and for ‘‘chats’’ by the Chinese authorities and kept under surveillance 

and periodically placed under house arrest. In 2010, after she distributed Li Peng’s 

Diary, her home in China was raided and documents were confiscated by the police. 

After leaving China in 2010, she started working in Bonn with Deutsche Welle, the 

German international broadcaster. On July 4, 2014, a Beijing-based media consultant claimed in Deutsche Welle that some Western media were unfairly critical of 

the Chinese government crushing of the Tiananmen demonstrations—Ms. Su then 

became one of the most outspoken voices against this whitewashing of the 1989 

events. In August 2014 Deutsche Welle ended their employment relationship. 

Teng Biao, Chinese Human Rights Lawyer, Visiting Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and the U.S.-Asia Institute, NYU Law School, and CoFounder of the Open Constitution Initiative 

Dr. Teng Biao [rhymes with ‘lung’] is a well-known human rights lawyer, Visiting 

Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and the U.S.-Asia Institute, NYU Law 

School, and the Co-founder of the Open Constitution Initiative. Dr. Teng Biao holds 

a Ph.D. from Peking University Law School and has been a visiting scholar at Yale 

Law School. He is interested in the research on human rights, judicial systems, constitutionalism, and social movements. As a human rights lawyer, Dr. Teng is a promoter of the Rights Defense Movement and a co-initiator of the New Citizens’ Movement in China. In 2003, he was one of the ‘‘Three Doctors of Law’’ who complained 

to the National People’s Congress about unconstitutional detentions of internal migrants. Since then, Dr. Teng has provided counsel in numerous other human rights 

cases, including those of Chen Guangcheng, rights defender Hu Jia [Who Jah], and 

many other religious freedom and death penalty cases. 

Æ