U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

72–870 PDF 2012

EXAMINATION INTO THE ABUSE AND EXTRALEGAL DETENTION OF LEGAL ADVOCATE CHEN 

GUANGCHENG AND HIS FAMILY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE 

COMMISSION ON CHINA 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 1, 2011 

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 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Chairman 

FRANK WOLF, Virginia 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

TIM WALZ, Minnesota 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio, Cochairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

JAMES RISCH, Idaho 

EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

SETH D. HARRIS, Department of Labor 

MARIA OTERO, Department of State 

FRANCISCO J. SA ́ NCHEZ, Department of Commerce 

KURT M. CAMPBELL, Department of State 

NISHA DESAI BISWAL, U.S. Agency for International Development 

PAUL B. PROTIC, Staff Director 

LAWRENCE T. LIU, Deputy Staff Director 

(II) 
(III) 

CO N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening statement of Hon. Chris Smith, a U.S. Representative from New 

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

Walz, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Representative from Minnesota; Ranking Member, 

Congressional-Executive Commission on China ................................................ 2 

Chai Ling, Founder All Girls Allowed ................................................................... 5 

Cohen, Jerome A., Professor, New York University School of Law; Co-director, 

U.S.-Asia Law Institute; and Adjunct Senior Fellow for Asia Studies, Council on Foreign Relations ....................................................................................... 7 

Hom, Sharon, Executive Director of Human Rights in China; Professor of 

Law Emerita, City University of New York School of Law .............................. 13 

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Chai, Ling ................................................................................................................. 38 

Cohen, Jerome A. ..................................................................................................... 40 

Hom, Sharon ............................................................................................................ 43 

Smith, Hon. Chris .................................................................................................... 49 

Walz, Hon. Tim ........................................................................................................ 50 

(1) 

EXAMINATION INTO THE ABUSE AND EXTRALEGAL DETENTION OF LEGAL ADVOCATE 

CHEN GUANGCHENG AND HIS FAMILY 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2011 

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE

COMMISSION ON CHINA, 

Washington, DC. 

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in 

room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Representative Chris 

Smith, presiding. 

Also present: Representative Tim Walz. 

Also present: Abigail Story; Judy Wright; Kiel Downey; Anna 

Brettell; and Paul Protic. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY; CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

Chairman SMITH. The hearing will come to order, and good afternoon to everyone. 

As we sit here in this room today, free to meet, free to move, free 

to speak our minds, we are convening this emergency hearing to 

examine the plight of an extraordinarily brave man and his equally 

extraordinary and courageous wife, who in every sense of the word 

are not free and are at grave risk of additional harm, and even 

murder. 

As we speak, we can only assume that self-taught lawyer Chen 

Guangcheng, a heroic advocate on behalf of victims of population 

control abuses, languishes with his wife, Yuan Weijing and sixyear-old daughter, locked inside their home in a rural Shangdong 

province. However, we do not have the luxury of certainty regarding Chen or his family’s current whereabouts or medical condition, 

as Chinese officials have used barbaric methods to prevent all unauthorized persons from contacting or visiting their village. 

According to Andrew Jacobs of the New York Times, ‘‘Paid thugs 

repel visitors’’, and ‘‘journalists and European diplomatics who 

have tried to see him have fared little better.’’ In a post on October 

18th, Mr. Jacobs reports that the trickle of would-be visitors has 

become a campaign, Operation Free Chen Guangcheng. According 

to Peter Ford in today’s edition of the Christian Science Monitor, 

the violence against human rights activists who travel to visit 

Chen continues to escalate: ‘‘’About seven or eight men rushed up 

to me, kicked me to the ground, stole my cell phone, smashed my 
2 

ankle, and knocked me out’, Liu recalled Tuesday, ’and the police 

did nothing when I reported what had happened.’ 

Liu was one of a group of around 40 activists who were attacked 

and beaten by more than 100 thugs on Sunday afternoon outside 

the village of Dong Xigu in the Eastern province of Shangdoing 

where Chen has been illegally locked up in his house with his family since being released from jail in September of last year. ′′’I did not think the situation was so dark,’ Liu said. ’There is 

no law in this area.’ The violence marked the second weekend in 

a row that unidentified thugs had violently broken up efforts by 

human rights activists and ordinary citizens to visit Chen in a burgeoning campaign to win his freedom.’’ 

Chen Guangcheng’s only crime that we know was of advocating 

on behalf of his fellow Chinese citizens, including and especially 

women and girls who had been victimized by forced abortion and 

involuntary sterilization. When Chen investigated and intervened 

with a class action suit on behalf of women in Linyi City who suffered horrific abuse under China’s One Child per couple policy, he 

was arrested, detained, and tortured. 

Blinded by a childhood disease, Chen Guangcheng began his 

legal advocacy career in 1996, educating disabled citizens and 

farmers about their rights. Decades later when local villagers started coming to him with their stories of forced abortions and forced 

sterilizations, Chen and his wife Yuan Weijing documented these 

stories, later building briefs and lawsuits against the officials involved. 

Their efforts gained international news media attention in 2005 

and it appears that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Officials then began a barbaric campaign against Chen and his family 

in 2005, and over the years have subjected them to beatings, extralegal detention, numerous violations of their rights under criminal 

procedure law, confiscation of their personal belongings, 24-hour 

surveillance, and invasion of their privacy, discontinuation of all 

forms of communication, and even denial of education for their sixyear-old daughter. 

Chen Guangcheng served over four years in prison on trumped 

up charges and was officially released in September of 2010. However, the abuse he and his wife and his family have faced has only 

worsened. Concern about Chen’s health and well-being is growing 

worldwide, and numerous activists and journalists have made attempts in the past few months to visit Chen’s village, only to face 

large groups of hired thugs who savagely beat them and steal their 

belongings. 

Enough is enough. The cruelty and extreme violence against 

Chen and his family brings dishonor to the Government of China, 

and must end. Chen and his family must be free. 

I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Walz, 

for any comments he may have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM WALZ, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MINNESOTA; RANKING MEMBER, CONGRESSIONALEXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

Representative WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you for your 

passion as an unswerving champion of human rights, both here, 
3 

China, and around the world. Also, a thank you to Senator Brown 

for convening this extremely important hearing. I want to thank 

each of our witnesses who are here today and truly appreciate your 

attendance. I very much look forward to hearing your remarks on 

this important issue. 

Today we hold this hearing to recognize and to honor one of China’s most high-profile human rights activists. As you heard Mr. 

Smith say, Chen Guangcheng, as a person, as an activist, stands 

out as someone who exemplifies profound human courage and an 

unswerving commitment to justice. Chen not only overcame the 

hardships of being blinded at a young age, but succeeded in becoming an inspiring legal advocate, one who has touched lives not just 

in China, but around the world. 

In his legal work, Chen exposed China’s brutal application of its 

population policies. He upheld the rights of the disabled and fought 

on behalf of the victims of discrimination. For his accomplishments, 

he wasn’t rewarded. Rather, the authorities sent him to prison for 

more than four years. Upon conclusion of his sentence, he was not 

set free. Rather, he was placed under an illegal form of house arrest that has precluded Chen and his family from the freedoms and 

livelihood all just systems must protect. 

Chen and his family remain under illegal house arrest, and even 

today the conditions of their detention are shrouded in mystery. Police and violent thugs are stationed night and day around the home 

to prevent anyone from accessing them. We know that since Chen’s 

release from prison in September of last year he and his wife have 

reportedly suffered physical and mental abuse at the hands of officials. Chen suffers from a digestive disorder and reportedly has 

been denied medical treatment. His daughter, now six, has only recently been allowed to attend school, under the watchful eye of law 

enforcement officers. 

Chen explained his circumstances in a videotape released in February of this year, saying, ‘‘I’ve come out of a small jail and entered 

a bigger one.’’ I followed China closely since, as a young man over 

two decades ago, I taught high school in Foshan, Guangdong province. I know China has announced notable reforms and advancement in recent years. I applaud the accomplishments of the Chinese people and recognize that some in the Chinese Government 

advocate for greater rule of law. But we cannot believe China is serious about the rule of law while Chen Guangcheng and his family 

are being forcefully held and abused. 

We cannot believe China is serious about human rights while it 

flagrantly violates its own laws and international human rights 

commitments. We urge China today to end this ongoing illegal detention and to free Chen and his family. We urge China to stand 

on the side of those brave activists that have traveled to Shandong 

province to inquire about Chen in the face of violent reprisals and 

shameless threats. 

We urge China to embrace Chen and other civil rights activists 

and make room for these selfless heroes, the leaders that all countries need for a stable society that respects human rights and the 

rule of law. Finally, let us remind our friends in China that all 

great nations achieve more through open dialogue and free flow of 

information than through forced silence. 
4 

I thank each of you for being here today to honor this man, his 

family, and the many other advocates facing uncertain punishments and unwarranted confinement. I thank those of you who are 

sitting in this room that know that we each share a responsibility 

to raise Chen’s story and to voice our concerns on behalf of Chinese 

advocates who remain detained in silence. 

I yield back to you, Mr. Smith. 

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

for your advocacy on behalf of human rights, especially in China. 

I deeply appreciate you being here. 

I’d like to now introduce our very distinguished witnesses. But 

before I do, I ask that, without objection, the statement by our Cochairman, Senator Sherrod Brown, will be made a part of the 

record. He couldn’t be with us here today, but he has written a 

very strong opening statement and is with us in spirit. 

I’d like to introduce our very distinguished witnesses to this 

hearing, beginning first with Chai Ling, founder of All Girls Allowed. Chai Ling also serves as the founding president and chief 

executive officer of Jenzabar, Inc., a higher education software and 

services provider. 

She holds an MBA from Harvard Business School, an MLA in 

Public Affairs from Princeton University, a B.A. from Peking University. Chai Ling also established the Jenzabar Foundation and 

serves as one of its board members. 

As we all know, Chai Ling was one of the most heroic student 

leaders during the 1989 Tiananmen Square movement. She was 

one of the most wanted by the Chinese dictatorship and spoke out 

so eloquently during those days when so many of us had great 

hopes that somehow China would matriculate from dictatorship to 

a democracy. Chai Ling has previously been named Glamour 

Woman of the Year, and nominated twice for the Nobel Peace 

Price. Chai Ling’s memoir, ‘‘A Heart for Freedom’’, was published 

in 2011 and is a very, very riveting statement about her life and 

the times she lived in, and the main contributions she has made 

to the movement for human rights in China. 

We will then hear from Jerome Cohen, professor at New York 

University School of Law, a co-director of U.S. Asia Law Institute 

and Adjunct Senior Fellow for Asia Studies for the Council on Foreign Relations. A professor at NYU School of Law since 1990 and 

co-director of the Institute, he has served for years as C.V. Starr 

Senior Fellow and Director of Asia Studies at the Council of Foreign Relations, where he currently is an adjunct senior fellow. 

He introduced the teaching of Asian law into the curriculum at 

Harvard Law School, where he taught from 1964 to 1979. Professor 

Cohen retired as a partner at Paul, Wiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison at the end of 2000. In his law practice, Professor Cohen represented many companies and individuals in contract negotiations, 

as well as dispute resolution in various Asian countries. He continues to serve as an arbiter in many Asian legal disputes. 

Professor Cohen has published several books on Chinese law, including The Criminal Process in the People’s Republic of China, 

1959–1963, People’s China and International Law, and Contract 

Laws of the People’s Republic of China. He received his B.A. Phi 
5 

Beta Kappa from Yale College and graduated from Yale Law 

School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal. 

Then we’ll hear from Sharon Hom. Sharon Hom is the executive 

director of the Human Rights in China, professor of law, City University of New York School of Law, and is a human rights and 

media advocacy and strategic policy engagement with NGOs—she 

leads that—governments, and multi-stakeholder initiatives. 

She has testified on a variety of human rights issues before key 

domestic and international policymakers in the U.S. and in the European Union, and government bodies. She has appeared as a guest 

and commentator on broadcast programs worldwide, and is frequently interviewed by and quoted in major print media. She was 

named by Wall Street Journal as one of 2007’s ‘‘50 Women to 

Watch’’ for their impact on business. Let me also point out that she 

has taught law for 18 years, including training judges, lawyers, 

and law teachers at eight law schools in China over a 14-year period in the 1980s and 1990s. 

She has published extensively on Chinese legal reforms, trade, 

technology, and international human rights, including chapters in 

Gender Equality, Citizenship, and Human Rights: Controversies 

and Challenges in China and the Nordic Countries in 2010, and 

China’s Great Leap: The Beijing Games and Olympian Human 

Rights Challenges in 2008. 

She is co-author of Contracting Law, editor of Chinese Women 

Traversing Diaspora: Memoirs, Essays, and Poetry, and co-editor of 

Challenging China: Struggle and Hope in an Era of Change. 

A very, very distinguished panel to provide insights into Chen 

and his family, and I’d like to now yield to Chai Ling for her comments. 

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

STATEMENT OF CHAI LING, FOUNDER, ALL GIRLS ALLOWED 

Ms. CHAI LING. Thank you, Chairman Smith. I’m really honored 

to be here among all these distinguished witnesses to testify on behalf of Chen Guangcheng. Thank you, Congressman Walz, for your 

wonderful speech and support for Chen’s case, and thank you to all 

the CECC members for your wonderful reports advocating on behalf of all the voiceless people in China. 

Chairman Smith, thank you again, especially for your 30 years 

of persistent effort to end China’s cruel One-Child Policy and massive genocide, in addition to many other human rights abuses. The 

case of Chen Guangcheng is inexpressively as grievous as you all 

stated, but today I will try to share the most recent details in the 

most accurate way possible. I pray one day he could be standing 

here, telling his own story to all of us. 

As you mentioned earlier, Chen Guangcheng is a blind attorney 

who investigated incidents of forced abortions and forced sterilizations by Linyi municipal authorities. Because of his courageous 

finding and documentation of late-term abortions and forced sterilizations—130,000 cases took place in 2005 alone—to the media, for 

this very reason he was arrested and imprisoned for four years and 

three months, but was finally released in September 2010. 
6 

Since his release from prison, Chen has been kept under illegal 

house arrest and denied medical treatment for serious intestinal 

problems and deprived of all contact with the outside world. Reporters and activists who have tried to visit him have been rounded 

up and turned away as recently as two days ago. 

Recently, many more activists, including our workers who are 

partners through Women’s Rights in China of All Girls Allowed, 

tried to visit him because we heard he had possibly been killed. 

Until last week, we did not know whether he was still even alive. 

When we tried to visit him in the past couple of weeks, our volunteers in China were blocked and driven away. The five activists 

were all disabled, and they wanted to visit him on the International Day for the Blind, but they were pushed around and their 

gifts were taken away by force. Their van was followed by local 

mobs and was chased away over 100 kilometers before they were 

let go. 

No one had heard about Chen’s condition for months. Last week, 

we finally received word concerning his situation from one of our 

other partners at ChinaAid, a Midland, Texas-based NGO that focuses on defending the persecuted church in China. According to 

ChinaAid, in July, a brutal four-hour beating by local authorities 

almost killed Chen and his wife. It was witnessed by their elementary school-aged daughter. The couple endured a similar brutal 

beating in February after they had smuggled out a videotape documenting the shocking conditions of their illegal house arrest following Chen’s release from prison. 

The July beating occurred after a storm knocked out equipment 

that authorities had installed in Chen’s house to cut off all their 

telecommunication contact with the outside world. When the equipment was disabled, Chen was able to make phone calls on July 

25th. The calls were intercepted by authorities. 

On July 28, Shuanghou town mayor Zhang Jian led a group of 

people to Chen’s home and beat and tortured the couple for four 

hours. This is the sequence of events provided by the source from 

ChinaAid: at 2 p.m., authorities cleared out everyone from Chen’s 

village. At 3 p.m., authorities conducted an exhaustive search of 

Chen’s home and found a phone card in a pile of ashes. 

At 4 p.m., authorities started the beating. Chen’s screams of pain 

were heard first while his wife, Yuan Wenjing, was heard shouting 

angrily, along with their daughter, because of his cries. After a 

while, Wenjing’s screams of pain could be heard as well from then 

until 8 p.m. The only sounds were screams of pain. 

Sometime later, a village doctor was permitted to give Chen 

some cursory medical treatment. During the four-hour beating, 

Chen’s elderly mother, who lives with them, was prevented from 

entering their home. When she was finally allowed to go in, neighbors heard her burst into tears and her anguished cries, described 

as ‘‘gut-wrenching’’ to hear, continued for a long time. 

According to the source, Jiang tortured Chen to try to get him 

to tell how he got the phone card to make the call on July 25 and 

to reveal where he had hidden it. When Chen and his wife refused 

to give any details, their house was ransacked until the phone card 

was found in a pile of ashes. Then the mayor’s men viciously beat 

up Chen and his wife in the presence of their daughter. 
7 

The source of the information asked, as a family men themselves 

with parents and children, how could they inflict such inhumane 

pain in the eyes or heart of the little girl? Yes, activists in China 

have been beaten and sent away as well, but many have taken the 

battle to the Internet and that is why the current case is so extraordinary and important. 

Chinese citizens are also speaking out online today, and are particularly outraged by the communal punishment of the whole Chen 

family. They pressured the government, particularly on China’s 

Twitter, called Sina Weibo. Users are posting photos of themselves 

in dark glasses to honor Chen, similar to the photos we took just 

before the hearing. 

Authorities have blocked searches for Mr. Chen’s name on Weibo, 

and even deleted some posts by users, though most posts about him 

and his case can be easily found through other means of searching. 

The head of China’s Internet watchdog last week called for a 

strengthening of regulations over microblogs so they can serve the 

works of the Party and the people. 

According to the state-run Xinhua News Agency, authorities’ apparent decision to allow Mr. Chen’s daughter to attend school following weeks of growing online activism is breathing new life into 

the Internet campaign to free him, despite this online censorship. 

According to the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Chen’s case is a rare example where rights activists and ordinary citizens alike are applying online pressure on the government. 

Yet, we know that a similar return to school of the daughter of 

the missing lawyer Gao Zhisheng only added to the pressures that 

battered her and did not presage release for her courageous father. 

Chen’s daughter is accompanied by security agents to and from her 

classes. 

In America, we teach our daughters, our children, to honor police 

and to ask police officers for directions when they are lost. These 

officers and officials help to keep us safe, to keep the peace. But 

in China, when a man and his wife are beaten senselessly in front 

of their own daughter by authorities who should be protecting their 

rights, how do we respond and what does our response say about 

our nation’s values? Recently in China a two-year-old child was run 

over by a van in Forshan, a city in China. 

The whole world watched the video footage of 18 people who 

walked by the toddler as she lay in a pool of her own blood, waiting 

for help, and wanted to know how these people could walk by unaffected, not acting on her behalf, even though they knew what had 

happened and that that baby needed help. Are we any different? 

I am not speaking to the leaders here, but speaking to those who 

are not present today during this hearing. If we do not do what we 

must do as a Nation, are we different from those 18 bystanders 

who left Yu-Yu to die? Are we going to be the same people who 

take no action and watch Chen and his wife and family die? 

All Girls Allowed exists to restore life, value, and dignity to 

women and girls in China and to reveal the injustice of China’s 

One Child policy. Our work is inspired by the love of Jesus to sacrifice and to redeem humanity. 

Today, on behalf of All Girls Allowed and of our partner organizations, that is, Women’s Rights in China, ChinaAid, and Women’s 
8 

Rights Without Frontiers, we have four major requests of our nation’s leaders. The first, we urge President Obama to urgently demand Chen Guangcheng and his family to be released from house 

arrest and to be allowed to leave China to another country. We appreciate that Secretary Clinton has mentioned him by name in the 

past. The gravity of the current matter calls for urgent, immediate 

action from our Commander-in-Chief. 

Second, in addition, we continue to encourage the U.S. Embassy 

to visit Chen Guangcheng and his family. A newly arrived U.S. 

Embassy official in Beijing created a weblog account recently. 

Within days of his first message last week, a simple greeting and 

introduction of himself, the post was overrun with nearly 2,000 

comments, many of which expressed support for Mr. Chen and criticism of the Chinese Government’s handling of this case. So there 

is general support from the people, acting justly on behalf of Chen’s 

case. 

Third, we urge the U.S. State Department to work with EU partners to also demand Mr. Chen’s immediate release. Fourth, we 

urge President Obama to deny visa requests to visit America for all 

those who were, and are, involved in persecuting, torturing, and 

harassing Chen and his family, including Mayor Jian Jin, effective 

immediately. 

As a nation, when we see evil and we know it is happening clearly before our eyes, will we have the courage to speak out? I say 

today that what we have been doing is not enough and is not acceptable. We are not asking for our nation to invade China, or even 

to rescue this poor man from death. But we are asking America to 

stand and proclaim its very own belief loudly as a testimony of 

truth and light in this darkness. Continuing to allow this sort of 

brutality to go on by saying nothing is the same as saying something loud and clear. Silence has been deafening. 

As I conclude my testimony, I would like to leave all of you with 

the command that was given to us and teaches us what to do in 

this kind of situation. In the Word it says, 

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave 

me something to drink; I was a stranger and you invited me in; I needed clothes, 

and you clothed me; I was sick, and you looked after me; I was in prison, and you 

came to visit me. Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you 

hungry and feed or, and were thirsty and give you something to drink? When did 

we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothed you? When 

did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The king will reply, ’Truly 

I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, 

you did for me.—Matthew 25:35–40. 

I pray in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus, we will all take 

action today for our brother and hero, Chen Guangcheng, to bring 

him to safety and freedom. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Chai Ling, thank you so much for that very eloquent statement and for your four points which you made so eloquently as well. 

Ms. CHAI. Thank you, Chairman Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. I do appreciate it; we all do. 

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

Chairman SMITH. I’d like to now recognize Professor Cohen and 

ask him to proceed. 
9 

STATEMENT OF JEROME A. COHEN, PROFESSOR, NEW YORK 

UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW; CO–DIRECTOR, U.S.–ASIA LAW 

INSTITUTE; AND ADJUNCT SENIOR FELLOW FOR ASIA STUDIES, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m grateful to you and 

Mr. Walz and the Commission staff for giving us this opportunity 

to discuss the case of my dear friends, Chen Guangcheng and Yuan 

Weijing. I’ve known them for eight years. Unfortunately, the last 

six years they have been incommunicado. I want to say at the outset that in China, sometimes in this country, progress toward the 

rule of law comes from tragedy. Tragic events often wake up the 

people. It has happened in China; I hope we won’t have to wait for 

tragedy in the case of Mr. Chen and Yuan Weijing. 

Now, at the outset I want to address quickly three myths that 

one often hears in connection with this case. One myth is that 

cases like Chen’s are very rare, these are just minor blips on the 

radar screen. But that’s not accurate. Human rights lawyers, public 

interest lawyers, criminal defense lawyers, people who take part in 

the defense of not only rights of speech and association, et cetera, 

but who are also trying to assert the rights of those involved in environmental problems, forced housing demolition, health problems 

that they want to take to court to vindicate their rights, all are 

subject to one kind or other of severe sanction or pressure. 

Most recently, Chen was involved, as Chai Ling has reminded us, 

in an attempt to stop the abuses against not only women who were 

being forced into sterilization and abortion, but also their families. 

Tens of thousands of people were illegally being locked up. When 

I last saw Chen, he was very pale, very nervous, smoking constantly. I had never seen him so anxious: he found it hard to sleep 

and was depressed about his inability to get the courts in China 

or the administration in Beijing to do anything about this tragedy. 

But there are lots of people like him, and the fact is, events are 

turning people—lawyers, defenders who never thought of themselves as human rights advocates—into human rights advocates because of the repression that they have confronted. I cite in my 

opening remarks a number of examples. These are all people I 

know, so I speak not only from the point of view of a detached observer. I know these people and therefore am involved with their 

fate. 

A second myth that has circulated is that the central government 

doesn’t really know about this. Some say the central government 

would never tolerate or condone such terrible behavior by local officials. Well, that’s just pat. I am glad to see you have circulated an 

article I wrote in November 2005 in the Far Eastern Economic Review. It was an open letter to the then-Minister of Public Security, 

Zhou Yongkang, asking him, is this the way the government of a 

civilized country wants to behave? At that point, Chen had not yet 

been prosecuted, but the family, including him, had been locked up 

at home. 

Well, later there was reportedly a meeting of the central authorities with the provincial and local authorities, and instead of resulting in Chen’s release, it resulted in his criminal prosecution, a 

much more conventional form of repression than the illegal home 

imprisonment to which they had all been subjected. 
10 

It’s impossible certainly today to say the central authorities don’t 

know what’s going on. This is just what they used to call ‘‘one of 

Pretty Fannie’s Ways.’’ We can’t take it very seriously. Unfortunately, it’s having very serious consequences. 

A third myth is that there must be some legal justification for 

what is being done, even if it is an unpersuasive fig leaf. But the 

fact is, none has come to light. We have not heard any explanation 

of this really barbaric treatment of the Chens from any government 

official. There was an opportunity just the other day to offer an explanation. There was a press conference in Beijing celebrating the 

release of a white paper that marked all the legislative accomplishments of the Chinese Government. 

I have here the October 28 China Daily, the English language 

newspaper that’s very prominent, and you see exactly what they’re 

telling us: 240 laws enacted by the end of August; 706 administrative regulations; 8,600 local regulations. They’re telling us of all the 

laws and regulations that they have promulgated, and it’s an impressive accomplishment. 

But the problem is, if the police pay no attention, if the local authorities pay no attention, if the hired thugs pay no attention to 

all these rules, what does it mean? Well, this relates to a question 

that you have asked: Why are they doing this to the Chens? I think 

it’s clear. It started out as a local attack of vengeance against 

Chen, who was trying to expose the illegal behavior of the officialdom involving forced abortion and sterilization. He’d been a 

thorn in their side for a long time with regard to many other official abuses. 

Although that had won him considerable recognition abroad— 

that is how I met him, he was a State Department guest in 2002, 

visiting New York and Washington—but at home it made him an 

irritant to local officials. The last straw, as was mentioned, was the 

birth control violations he was revealing. 

But there is a larger motive here. This is not merely local vengeance, this is part of a national strategy of the Communist Party 

and the central authorities for dealing with the current situation 

where they’re confronted by increasing unrest and increasing domestic and foreign upset about lack of rule of law in China that 

comes up in many different contexts. 

Their new strategy is, on the one hand, to promulgate all these 

laws, as they have. On the other hand, they’re not going to allow 

the laws to be enforced whenever it’s inconvenient. The way to 

make certain that they will not be enforced is to suppress the only 

people capable of invoking these legal protections—rights lawyers. 

If you don’t allow the activities of lawyers who know how to apply 

these increasingly complicated laws, you don’t have to worry that 

you’re going to be called to account. You don’t have to worry that 

Party and government autonomy is going to be challenged. 

So on the one hand, the Party promulgates the laws. On the 

other hand, it makes sure in informal as well as formal ways—and 

the Chen case is one of the most glaring examples—that those capable of using these laws to protect people will not be able to do 

so. So it’s a kind of best-of-both-worlds policy for the Party. It reminds me very much of Shakespeare’s Macbeth: ‘‘They keep the 
11 

word of promise to our ears, but break it to our hope.’’ That’s what 

we see as the Party’s legal strategy in China today. 

The other day at the press conference that released the White 

Paper, the deputy director of the Legal Affairs Commission of the 

Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, which is 

currently revising the criminal procedure law in a very controversial fashion, was asked by a foreign reporter about the legal basis 

for what is being done to Chen Guangcheng and his family. He 

couldn’t answer. Instead, he contented himself with the generality, 

‘‘There’s always a legal basis for any sanctions we take against individuals in China.’’ 

Apparently the government didn’t have much confidence in this 

important official’s assertion, because right after the conference 

this question and the answer were both eliminated from the transcript and from the video broadcast. So the Chinese people could 

not hear the statement that in China ‘‘there’s always a legal basis 

for any sanctions taken against individuals.’’ 

Well, what can be done? I’m glad you also have asked that question. We’re all concerned about it. I think many people feel frustrated, not only those of us who are observing this from abroad, but 

large numbers of people in China. I think the case of Ai Weiwei 

recently demonstrated that foreign pressure can be useful. Ai 

Weiwei, although still under limited restraint, is now at last out of 

‘‘residential surveillance’’ in the public security force’s residence, 

and that’s as a result of the considerable foreign pressures that 

were generated by the outrageous mistreatment of him. 

I think this hearing today, and similar hearings like it in all the 

democratic countries, can help to increase awareness and useful 

pressure. Next year, 2012, there is going to be, as you know, a selection of the new generation of Chinese leaders for the next 10 

years. It’s possible—possible, not likely perhaps, but possible—that 

among them there will be some leaders who will see that the protection of human rights for their own people can become a popular 

platform for reform. I don’t discount that possibility, even though 

one has to be cautious in assessing it. 

There are, of course, a lot of possibilities for international organizations, foreign governments, NGOs, educational institutions, ordinary people to make their views known in the course of their associations and exchanges with China. We should use those to express 

our concern for cases like this. The U.S. Government has official 

human rights dialogues with China, as other governments do, and 

the two countries also have renewed their official legal experts’ dialogue. I think it’s important that in these dialogues we discuss concrete cases, individual cases, not merely general principles, not 

merely improving the legislation. The question is practice, not theory. 

But the real solution, of course, lies in China. The Chinese people 

hold the key. Even today many criminal justice specialists in China 

still claim they don’t know anything about Chen Guangcheng’s 

case. I think that for some experts that’s simply a defense against 

their inability to express themselves. I think that for others it’s 

quite true. 

The Chinese Government tries to keep things extremely nontransparent. That is the reason why they don’t allow access to 
12 

Chen Guangcheng, why they don’t want people to be able to communicate with him. They know if this case becomes more available 

to the Chinese people there will be increasing pressures for change. 

The Internet and social media offer the opportunity. For example, disabled people, who may amount to 8 or 9 percent of the Chinese population, a huge group, could make an impact. 

Chen Guangcheng once told me that he thought that in his Linyi 

City, a population of almost 11 million, roughly 10 percent of the 

population was disabled in some form. Now, you can see, if that 

kind of community gets activated by knowledge, this could make a 

difference. I use in my opening paper the analogy of environmental 

protests in China. Environmentalists have had a number of successes in China. By arranging for large-scale ‘‘strolls,’’ they call it, 

peaceful walks through their communities, whether in Xiamen, 

Shanghai, or Dalian, they have had an impact. You can imagine, 

if the disabled people of China were free to know the truth and express themselves, this could be a peaceful form of support for Chen 

leading to his release. 

So what we’re witnessing in China is something that could become another landmark—I hope it will be a landmark without tragedy—in progress toward the rule of law. Chen Guangcheng is an 

especially unfortunate target for the abuse he is suffering because 

he was one who always saw the importance of using legal institutions, not defying them by going into the streets. He wanted to alleviate many social grievances, providing an outlet for them by 

going, according to law, to the county court in his Yinan county. 

Yet, he found himself increasingly frustrated by the refusal of 

the court, under the control of the local authorities who were the 

ones being sued, to take these cases. One day he said to me in frustration, ‘‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to go into 

the streets and lead a protest? ’’ He said, ‘‘I don’t want to do that.’’ 

It’s supremely ironic that they end up convicting him of supposedly 

interfering with traffic and damaging public property. This was 

just a pretense. 

My hope is that China will move toward the rule of law in practice, as well as theory. I think this will alleviate a lot of the rising 

social discontent in China. Last year, 2011, some reports claim 

they may have had almost 180,000 public protests and riots, many 

of them violent. This would be an incredible statistic. 

Every year, as far as we can tell—and it’s hard to tell because 

of the cloak of non-transparency—this number seems to be rising. 

It seems to me that an enlightened leadership in China would want 

to increase real harmony by processing these grievances through 

legal institutions and not persecuting the people who are capable 

of implementing the protections of the law that should be carried 

out. 

We have seen similar problems in Taiwan in the Chiang KaiShek days, and in South Korea in the Park Choon-Hee days. But 

later and wiser leaders, under increasing pressure, domestic and 

international, opted for the democratic use of legal institutions. We 

have seen greater social and political stability in both Taiwan and 

South Korea since then. So that’s my hope for China, too. I look 

forward to Ms. Hom’s statement and to the discussion that will follow. 
13 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman SMITH. Professor Cohen, thank you so much for your— 

I think for your law students, it must have been a real treat to 

hear you lecture, because that was a very, very wide-ranging, but 

very incisive, commentary, and also a road that the Chinese Government should follow, an enlightened government, as you pointed 

out. So we thank you on behalf of the Commission for your testimony and for giving us your wise insights. 

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

Chairman SMITH. Ms. Hom? 

STATEMENT OF SHARON HOM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF 

HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA; PROFESSOR OF LAW EMERITA, 

CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK SCHOOL OF LAW 

Ms. HOM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Walz. Thank you 

for convening this very important and timely hearing and on an urgent situation. 

I would like to move my written statement into the record and 

not use the limited oral time to repeat the information that has already been presented by Chai Ling and Professor Cohen. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection your statement, and all the 

statements, will be made a part of the record. 

Ms. HOM. Thank you. 

It’s very difficult to follow Professor Cohen, because no one can 

follow Professor Cohen, who is one of the oldest friends of the Chinese people—and a great inspirations for all of us who work to advance human rights in China. 

As already has been documented in the CECC report this year 

and the U.S. State Department’s human rights report for China, 

human rights violations in China are ongoing, systematic, and 

quite serious. While the focus of this hearing is on Chen 

Guangcheng and related implications for rule of law, I want to note 

the urgent situation of Tibetan monks and nuns who are setting 

themselves on fire in desperate acts of protest against the crackdowns on their religious and cultural freedoms. 

I have been asked to focus on the persecution of Chen and his 

family and the treatment of those who have attempted to visit him, 

but I would like to add some highlights to what has already been 

said—Chen Guangcheng’s story is a well-known story internationally, and inside China, especially among the rights defenders community 

A blind, self-taught, barefoot lawyer activist, Chen is a vocal advocate for the disabled, land rights activists, and victims of the coercive implementation of China’s One-Child Population Policy. His 

story is the struggle of one principled, committed advocate for social justice who blew the whistle on forced sterilizations and forced 

abortions in Linyi, and then was subsequently violently targeted by 

the Chinese authorities. 

The ordeal and the abuses that he and his family and his lawyers suffered have been well-documented. Chen also served the full 

four years and three months of his sentence, despite the fact that 

back in November 2006, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, a UN independent body of experts, determined that Chen’s 

detention was arbitrary, and contravened the principles and norms 
14 

set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group requested that the Chinese Government take the necessary steps to remedy the situation and bring its actions into conformity with the standards and principles. However, the Chinese 

authorities failed to release Chen or take any remedial actions in 

response to the decision of the Working Group. 

International expressions of support and concern for Chen 

Guangcheng and his family have been and continue to be strong. 

In fact, the United States and the European Union have called for 

Chen’s release throughout his four years and throughout the ordeal 

of Chen and his family. 

Beginning in 2005, numerous independent international human 

rights experts also expressed concerns and sent urgent appeals and 

letters of allegations to the Chinese authorities, including the Special Rapporteurs on freedom of expression, on violence against 

women, on torture, on independence of judges and lawyers, and the 

Special Representative of the Secretary General on human rights 

defenders from 2005, 2006 on continued to send numerous requests 

for information and expressions of concern to the Chinese Government. 

Yet, despite all of these strong and ongoing concerns expressed 

by the international community and the high profile of Chen 

Guangcheng’s case in the media, the local authorities continue to 

allow thugs and plainclothes police to trample on the rights of 

Chen and his family. This egregious disregard for the rights of Chinese citizens protected by Chinese and international human rights 

law is part of the continuing severe crackdown on lawyers, activists, and rights defenders. 

Chen’s supporters, as Chai Ling has already referenced and 

widely reported, include activists, writers, bloggers, petitioners, 

and ordinary Chinese who have just been outraged by reading 

about or hearing about the persecution of Chen and his family, and 

who have attempted to visit him to show their solidarity. 

Last night, Human Rights in China [HRIC], issued a press bulletin titled, ‘‘Dozens of People Beaten While Attempting to Visit 

Blind Legal Advocate Chen Guangcheng,’’ detailing the most recent 

abuse of Chen’s supporters. Eyewitnesses told us that over the 

weekend about 37 rights defenders and netizens who attempted to 

visit Chen were beaten by around 100 unidentified individuals; 

many of these supporters were seriously injured. 

According to rights defender, petitioner, and activist who resisted 

the One-Child Population Policy, Mao Hengfeng was among those 

beaten and injured. She, and about 36 of these individuals who attempted to visit Chen, were surrounded about 200 meters away 

from the village where Chen lives. Our written statement lists the 

names of those who were injured. 

However, Shanghai rights defender Jin Yuehua told HRIC that 

when she and Shan Yajun tried to videotape the beatings, they 

were almost hit by a police vehicle with a license plate number 

that they did note with their cell phones, and another vehicle without a license plate. After they called the emergency hotline, four 

ambulances arrived but left without helping anyone. 

Another netizen, San Long Yong Shi, told HRIC that after dialing the emergency hotline numerous times, several officers did 
15 

show up. The officers took Li Yu, Liu Ping, and Shan Yajuan away, 

and since then their cell phones have been turned off. As of the 

time of this hearing, we do not have any updates on any contact 

with them. 

According to San Long Yong Shi, more than 20 of the victims 

went to the Linyi Municipal Public Security Bureau to report and 

file the case yesterday. They asked the police to guarantee their 

safety. San Long Yong Shi said that the vice director, Mr. Xia—officer number 078171—met with the group and asked them to report 

to the plainclothes police and special police officers, and told them 

to get into the police vehicle. When the group insisted on seeing his 

police identification before getting into the vehicle, they were told, 

‘‘If you keep making trouble we will wipe you out.’’ 

However, although thugs may be beating, threatening, and intimidating people, actually the authorities have been unable to 

shut down the virtual spaces and the online campaigns initiated in 

support of Chen. Feng Zhenghu’s Free Chen Guangcheng campaign, has generated more than 400 signatures. Once the flood 

gates of truth are opened, it’s very hard to try to shut it down. The 

‘‘Travel to Shandong to Visit Chen Guangcheng’’ campaign has attracted now more than 100 visitors. Another group of netizens are 

running the virtual campaign of Hei Yanjing, the ‘‘dark glasses’’ 

campaign, that asks people to express solidarity with Chen, to put 

on dark glasses, take a photo, and upload it to this Web site. The 

links are noted in my written testimony. So far, as of yesterday, 

more than 245 people have taken pictures of themselves in dark 

sunglasses and submitted it to the Web site. 

I want to close with some brief remarks on the role of the international community and specifically reference the recent example 

of Relativity Media which is filming its new production, ‘‘21 and 

Over’’, a feature comedy film, in Linyi. In HRIC’s open letter sent 

yesterday to Relativity Media and its partners, SAIF and IDG, we 

expressed our deep concern about their apparent failure to do due 

diligence before selecting Linyi as a filming location for a comedy 

film. We pointed out that Linyi is indeed a historic city as proclaimed by Zhang Shaojun, Linyi’s Party secretary. But Linyi has 

entered into the annals of history for something inglorious. It’s a 

place where the local authorities are responsible for egregious, ongoing, and widely reported violations against one of the most 

prominent human rights advocates. 

We urged these companies to demonstrate their professed commitment to human rights by concrete action, such as terminating 

the filming of a comedy in a city of human rights shame. We also 

urge them to raise these issues with the Linyi Party secretary— 

who they have publicly said is a good friend—and to raise their 

human rights concerns about the ongoing persecution of Chen 

Guangcheng and his family, as well as the violence and intimidation perpetrated against Chen’s supporters. In light of Congress 

and the administration’s broader concerns with the human rights 

impacts of U.S.-based companies operating in China, we urge you 

to closely monitor this situation and we thank the Commission for 

your ongoing commitment to your critical mandate. 

The severity of persecution and suffering endured by Chen and 

his family and the efforts of the authorities to intimidate his sup-
16 

porters are ongoing, even as we sit here today. The urgent challenge remains to ensure the safety and freedom of Chen, his family, and the respect for human rights for all the people in China. 

Yet, with China’s economic, political, and soft power influence, 

strengthened by its position in the current global financial crisis, 

China continues to dismiss the human rights pressures from the 

international community. Yet, China cannot dismiss the growing 

pressure from its own people for accountability and for justice. The 

courage, persistence, and creativity of netizens and China’s supporters are lights in China’s darkness. Our collective mission is to 

stand in solidarity with them. 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I look forward to your 

questions, and most importantly to our discussion and exchange 

about what can be done from here. Thank you. 

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

Chairman SMITH. Ms. Hom, thank you so very much for your testimony and for being back before the Congress to provide, again, 

your very eloquent insights as well, a lifetime of advocacy. The 

Commission is very much indebted to you today, as well as in the 

past. 

Let me ask a few questions. Do we have current knowledge of 

Chen and his wife as to their well-being, as well as their whereabouts? Are they totally isolated right now? 

Ms. HOM. I think that what has been very clear from all the 

media reports and from people that we have spoken to who have 

attempted to visit Chen, is that the information that we’re getting 

report sounds from inside Chen’s home. One of the villagers who 

watched the beatings of the group of 37 who tried to go over the 

weekend reported that they heard beatings inside Chen’s home. Although no one has confirmed or is able to confirm reports of what’s 

actually happening inside, I think these reports should really raise 

very serious concerns. 

Chairman SMITH. Let me ask you, Chai Ling, you had mentioned 

the importance—you had four points in your testimony and the 

word ‘‘urgent’’, I think, undergirded each of those points. 

Ms. CHAI. Yes. 

Chairman SMITH. That the Obama administration and U.S. Embassy work with you and EU partners. My question is, in the assessment of the panel, if you could each look at this, have we, the 

U.S. Congress, the administration, our ambassador, previous as 

well as Ambassador Locke, today, done enough to raise the case of 

Chen? Has there been, to your knowledge, a visit or attempted visit 

by U.S. Embassy personnel to his home? 

Ms. CHAI. If we apply enough pressure collectively, in unity, I believe that Chen Guangcheng can be released to freedom. So because he is suffering this continuous torture and beatings and his 

health condition continues to deteriorate in isolation, we do believe 

the time to act is now, and we must act. 

Mr. COHEN. There is a rumor that it was possible for an American diplomat, secretly, to get to Chen and his family. I don’t know 

if that’s accurate or not. Because of the non-transparency, it’s hard 

to say anything more than what has been said. Many foreign diplomats, journalists, and others have tried to get there, but they’ve 
17 

been treated just as badly as domestic people who, fortunately—a 

small group, at least—keep trying. 

The problem with U.S. Government pressure is it may be, among 

the various possibilities we’ve mentioned, the least effective, I 

would say for two reasons. One, our own well-known violations of 

human rights in a number of prominent respects deny us the 

standing we used to have when we tried to preach to foreign governments. 

Also, we have, since China’s entry into the WTO, as you know, 

lost our maximum leverage over China concerning its human rights 

violations. Before China was approved by the Congress for entry 

into the WTO, every year there would be congressional review of 

China’s human rights record in order for China to continue its 

most-favored-nation status in the United States. China’s WTO 

entry also required congressional approval. I have been involved in 

human rights cases, one as recently as the year 2000, where it was 

China’s eagerness to get your approval for entry into the WTO that 

led to the victim’s release. The case of the Dickinson College librarian, Mr. Song Yongyi, was the most recent example. 

I was involved with Senator Arlen Specter in that case, and the 

Chinese well knew—we made it clear—that Congress would be unlikely to approve their WTO entry as long as Mr. Song, a resident 

of Pennsylvania, which was Mr. Specter’s state, remained in illegal 

captivity. 

So the problem since China’s WTO entry has been, and that has 

led to your Commission’s establishment, how can public opinion 

and other governmental and non-government influences be used to 

stimulate protection for Chinese people whose rights have been 

abused? 

In another case, the case of an American businessman named 

Xue Feng, who is still locked up in China, every month our thenambassador, Jon Huntsman, or his deputy, Bob Goldberg, would go 

to visit Xue, as the U.S.-China bilateral consular agreement permitted. I’ve never seen more extraordinary, consistent pressure 

than that. I admired what our diplomats did. But Xue Feng is still 

there. It may be that overt U.S. intervention, although desirable, 

is the least effective of various pressures we should employ. 

What seems to be more effective is the popular outcry, and that’s 

what we witnessed in the Ai Weiwei case. In that case, the international artistic community, which had previously had only goodwill toward China, came up with 143,000 signatures on a petition 

to free Ai Weiwei. That made an impression on the Chinese Government, which wants a ‘‘soft power’’ reputation. That’s why 

they’ve been establishing Confucius institutes in the United States 

and in many other countries, especially universities. 

Well, you don’t get soft power when you’ve mobilized the world’s 

artistic community against you because you’ve behaved in an indecent way toward one of the world’s most prominent artists. 

So I think it may be the power of foreign public opinion. It may 

be the power of organizations, including NGOs and others, that 

may be even more important than overt U.S. Government concern 

for concrete cases. The U.S. Government’s public concern for concrete cases worked well in the 1990s. Since China’s entry into the 
18 

WTO in the last 11, 12 years, however, we have not seen that 

being very effective. 

Yet, we have no choice. We can’t expect our government not to 

pay attention to these cases, and we need its help. But I think it 

is going to also take an improvement in our own official human 

rights conduct. I think one of the most profound things ever said 

was by Robert Burns, the Scottish poet who wrote, ‘‘Oh, would the 

Lord, this giftie gie us, to see ourselves as others see us.’’ So it 

can’t be ‘‘do as we say, not as we do.’’ It’s a complicated question, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. 

Ms. HOM. We have seen over the last 30 years that overt U.S. 

pressure, by and large, has not been as effective as one would hope. 

But I do think, notwithstanding that, it is extremely important at 

the highest level, that the U.S. Government, both Congress and the 

Administration, continue to send strong messages because those 

messages actually get broadcasted back in a kind of round-trip 

translation/media circulation loop. Despite official censorship efforts, these messages get translated into Chinese, disseminated 

through the Internet and blogosphere, and they do have a ripple 

effect supporting defenders. 

On a pragmatic level, I think that the United States and other 

Western democracies need to reinstitute a more effective and transparent sharing of information and strategies—the EU is in the 

middle of a process right now of once again—rethinking its China 

policy engagement because, frankly, they must know that it’s not 

working to advance concrete progress. 

So I think this is a good moment to reach out and try to 

strategize concretely about how the United States and the European Union can perhaps coordinate effectively, though the EU is in 

a worse situation than the United States, as the EU is knocking 

on China’s doors for help with its sovereign debt problem. I believe 

that someone in the Administration was quoted quite recently as 

saying, ‘‘It’s hard to be tough with your banker.’’ 

I would say that we have to be tough with the banker because 

the recent Wall Street financial crises have shown, that not being 

tough with ‘‘the banker’’ will open everyone, the 99 percent of the 

rest of us, to the risks of corruption, greed, bad behavior, and consequences of a total lack of accountability. I think any exchange for 

short-term benefits ignores at our peril the longer term picture and 

the need for a sustainable relationship. 

I wanted to also piggyback on what Professor Cohen was saying 

about soft power. We don’t have a lot of leverage outside of China, 

but we do have one point of leverage—soft power—that seems to 

be just not used and I don’t understand why. It’s incomprehensible. 

Because, to the Chinese regime, cultural soft power is extremely 

important. Why else would they invest the enormous amount of resources it has invested into its big propaganda campaign—translated into English more benignly as an advertising campaign, or 

public relations. 

One example: The investment in one of the largest multi-media 

signs in Times Square for Xinhua, China’s official news agency— 

just beneath the Prudential billboard and above the Samsung and 

Coca-Cola signs. The People’s Daily has also moved into the Em-
19 

pire State Building, which they reported widely in the Chinese 

media. They’ve invested broadly in expanding the number of Confucius Institutes, along with exerting control over the curriculum, so 

when Chinese history is taught in the Confucius Institutes you will 

see black holes for certain periods like the 1989 Democracy Movement, et cetera. These are some of the ways in which China is deploying its soft power and enormous resources to culture, education, and media outlets, including more than 33 foreign media 

outlets, to promote a positive China story. So why is the international community allowing China this cost-free deployment of 

soft power without any push-back, without any conditions, without 

any critical scrutiny? 

If you saw a map of how many Confucius Institutes are in this 

country, you would be shocked. Perhaps not. Many of the Confucius 

Institutes are hosted at institutions of higher learning, think tanks, 

or cultural institutions. Perhaps they really ought to report on the 

funding sources and Chinese Government conditions on their programs, cultural exchanges, and curriculum. I think that would be 

a useful follow-up. 

Chairman SMITH. So let me ask you, with regards to, you mentioned the overt may not work, or has not worked since the 1990s. 

I would respectfully argue the overt efforts on human rights have 

never been tried. We have done it in a marginal way. I remember 

when President Bill Clinton linked most favored nation status to 

human rights observance and the benchmarks that were laid out 

in his executive order couldn’t have been more ennobling, more 

comprehensive than they were. 

Within weeks of setting out that executive order—and by the 

way, parenthetically, we had the votes, at least we believed we did, 

both in the House and the Senate to take away most favored nation 

status from China because—you know, I was working very closely 

with the former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and others. 

There was a bipartisan consensus that China needed to be held to 

account on human rights. 

In came this executive order, which in a way put a tourniquet 

on that legislative effort, and then within weeks, and certainly 

within months, I went halfway through the review period and I 

was told in China by a deputy foreign minister that—and I had a 

signature sheet of 100 members, bipartisan members saying, we’re 

with Bill Clinton. He will stand firm. If, by sometime in May, significant progress is not made in human rights, most favored nation 

status is a goner. 

They practically laughed at me in China, believing that there 

was no way that Clinton would hold firm. Sure enough, in May 

1994, late on a Friday afternoon, he literally ripped up the executive order and said, we are de-linking human rights with MFN. 

So I would respectfully argue that we have not even tried. They 

judged us as believing that profits trumped human rights and have 

behaved accordingly. If there was a reversal on human rights in 

the most profound of ways, in my opinion, it happened in May of 

1994 when Clinton de-linked human rights. It was exacerbated by 

statements made thereafter that were always lukewarm. So we, in 

my opinion, have never tried the overt. We have made statements 

and then we draw back. 
20 

My hope is, and I believe this Commission has an opportunity, 

to assert a more robust effort on human rights, knowing that they 

may initially be repelled by it—they being the Chinese—knowing 

that Wei Jinxiang once told me in Beijing, and then right where 

you’re sitting, Professor Cohen, when he testified after being released, having been pummeled almost to death by the dictatorship, 

that he said, when you are quiet or coddling—these are my words, 

but he spoke very closely aligned with that—when you kowtow to 

the dictatorship, they beat us more in the prison. But when you’re 

tough and transparent and predictable, they beat us less. 

I would argue, judging by what Chai Ling had said, calling on 

the Obama Administration to raise these issues in the most profound way as non-negotiable, that these are things we care deeply 

about. Yes, we care about trade. Where will China—and Tom Lantos used to love to say this. 

Where will the Chinese Government find a market for its Christmas toys and all the things that they sell here, including high-tech 

gadgetry so we don’t have to be so worried about the fact that they 

have $1.2 trillion worth of our debt because they have to use our 

markets and that’s how they keep their economy thriving, if that’s 

what you want to call it, by exports? So we have real leverage, we 

just haven’t used it. 

I would respectfully also say, and you might want to comment on 

this, when Hu Jintao was here, I had asked Secretary Clinton, 

what was raised, human rights, behind closed doors, if anything? 

Was Chen Guangcheng’s case raised in a way that is meaningful, 

not as an asterisk somewhere on page 4 on a set of talking points? 

We’ve got to be serious about human rights, and I know you three 

are. You’ve spent your whole lives on it. 

But I would hope our government, for once, would be serious and 

hopefully that bipartisan coalition that we’ve had in the past will 

re-emerge to say we’re really serious about fighting for democracy. 

You don’t have to worry about copyright infringement if they get 

the human rights piece right. You don’t have to worry about exporting revolution or projecting power if they get the human rights 

piece right. So I do believe this is a peace issue as well. 

But I don’t think we’ve even tried. As you said, Professor Cohen, 

I thought your point was well taken, that somehow it’s a myth that 

the higher echelon, the central authorities don’t know. It reminds 

me of something that was said during World War II. If only the 

Fuhrer knew what was going on in the gas chambers. Well, the 

central government does know. 

Hu Jintao does know, as does the rest of the ruling elite. And 

not only do they turn a blind eye, they are part and parcel of the 

effort to repress. So I don’t think we, in all candor and seriousness, 

and with respect, have ever done the overt. We make a statement 

and we retreat. I’m hoping that this Commission will be a light. It 

certainly has very, very professional staff who, when we produce, 

as we did recently, our report on human rights, it is heavily 

footnoted, heavily documented, and the Chinese know that we’re 

speaking truth to power as a Commission. 

So, I would just, before going to my good friend and colleague, 

just ask, has the Human Rights Council and the other important 

human rights apparatuses of the United Nations, the High Com-
21 

missioner for Human Rights, raised the issue of Chen Guangcheng 

by name? Has Bankai Moon raised it to the Chinese officials? 

Ms. HOM. Representative Smith, maybe the adjective we should 

be using is not overt, but what we should really be focusing on is 

whether the action is principled, unequivocal, without sending 

mixed messages, and not behind closed doors. I think we can quibble on ‘‘overt,’’ but I think the real problem is that it’s not unequivocal, transparent, and principled. 

I think one problem with mixed messaging can be seen when 

Secretary Clinton first went to China. The Chinese were listening 

quite closely to the messages delivered and the official media Chinese headlines declared ‘‘U.S. Says Human Rights Not on Table.’’ 

I don’t think the United States has fully recovered from that initial 

message. 

I wanted to say something about a practical suggestion for a legislative initiative that might be explored. Last year, the Chinese 

Communist authorities issued a directive regarding the disclosure 

of all assets domestically or abroad of Party officials and their families. The problem is, that the assets of most of the high Party officials, and the over 70 million Party members, are often ill-gotten 

gains that are invested in property, business, et cetera abroad. In 

fact, some Chinese studies indicate that the United States is one 

of the top destinations. So this corruption and outflow of money is 

an interesting problem—one that the Communist Party sees as a 

problem, too. Wouldn’t this be an interesting example for cross-border enforcement? 

Mr. COHEN. On your point, Mr. Chairman, about the Human 

Rights Council of the United Nations, as distinguished from the 

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the former is, of course, a 

highly political institution in which many of the participants have 

their own very serious human rights problems and there’s a kind 

of alliance of the anti-democratic governments that makes it hard 

for us to take as effective action as we should. 

I am glad that you emphasize the fact that our highest officials 

haven’t, on a continuous basis, done all that they can on human 

rights. I think that’s true. I’m also glad that Sharon Hom pointed 

out the continuing necessity for U.S. Government action. In my 

own remarks, I was trying merely to point out that we shouldn’t 

exaggerate the impact that we’ve had when we’ve made overt government interventions. 

I think to be really effective such protests have to be accompanied not only by UN organization activities, but also a lot of 

these more unofficial NGO and spontaneous popular petitions and 

educational efforts, plus committee hearings like this. I think it’s 

got to be an overall package. I think then the Chinese Government 

will be more likely to show a favorable response. 

I don’t think—and you’ve said the same thing, I believe—that we 

have to be so worried about the fact that the Chinese are 

bankrolling our economy and now negotiating with Europe to participate to a greater extent in Europe’s economy. They’re doing it 

for self-interest. If there’s a market collapse in Europe, if there’s 

a collapse in the United States, China’s huge export markets on 

which its leaders are so dependent for their own political survival 

will also disappear. So this is self-interest. 
22 

Of course, it’s harder to influence China’s leaders than in the 

past, not only because of the country’s WTO entry. There is greater 

confidence in China now. Occasionally one thinks there’s a certain 

arrogance that we normally associate with some of the western 

powers, including ourselves. There’s a rising nationalism in China, 

a greater confidence among the young people. People of 25 often 

have a different attitude from people who are 45. We have to take 

account of that also. 

But I think we obviously have to continue to use all the pressures we can. Yet, as I said in my opening statement, the real key 

is in China, and the newest development and the one that is up 

for grabs, the outcome of which is unclear, is, how effective will be 

the government’s efforts to control blogging, social media, and the 

Internet? 

Some people are very confident China will never, despite all its 

dictatorial efforts, succeed in controlling them. Other people feel, 

by and large, the government is going to be able to keep up with 

the challenges. It’s an open question, but what we see now is the 

possibility for the first time of people expressing themselves much 

more freely than they have since 1979 when there was a brief period of several months before Deng Xiaoping made his trip to the 

United States when people were quite free in Beijing, at least. 

I was living there then and it was almost frighteningly free from 

November 1978 to February 1979. But once Deng came back from 

the United States and once China went to war with Vietnam, and 

he wanted to moderate the enthusiasm of the Chinese people for 

things American, we have seen all this repression recur. I think we 

now are entering a new period, and my hope is that the Internet 

and the social media will make possible very positive, but peaceful, 

developments. 

Ms. HOM. Can I add a quick comment? On the weibos, the 

microblogs, that’s absolutely right and it’s an ongoing battle. But 

you’re talking about bloggers, some with followers of 1 million, 5 

million, 10 million followers. So if they, as in the case of Chen 

Guangcheng’s supporters, upload a weibo post, and it gets retweeted, that means even if it’s taken down, which they often are, 

by the time it’s taken down, 15 minutes, 20 minutes later, 20 million people might have already read it. This is why I think it’s not 

only impossible to shut it down, even if it is shut down, the information has already been disseminated. 

But I did not address, Mr. Chairman, your question about the 

Human Rights Council. In their urgent appeals and what they call 

Letters of Allegation, each of the special rapporteurs that I mentioned in my written statement did specifically inquire about Chen 

Guangcheng’s situation. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s decision on Chen Guangcheng should be required reading because of its extensive and detailed record on his case. 

However, when these human rights mechanisms report to the 

Human Rights Council, there is, of course, debate. The not-sorights-respecting countries will protest, but the fact remains that 

the final reports are part of the public records of the Human Rights 

Council. One example of how China tries to censor what is in a 

final human rights report: After China’s review before one of the 

UN treaty bodies, the Committee Against Torture [CAT] in 2008, 
23 

the CAT issued its final report. China filed one of the first formal 

protests and demanded certain language to be taken out of the experts’ report. The language they wanted deleted as inappropriate 

in a UN report was what it referred to as the ‘‘so-called 1989 Democracy Movement,’’ and the term ‘‘crackdown.’’ But the CAT Committee did not remove the ‘‘offending’’ language. 

So in the international arena, these independent experts need to 

hold the line, and for them to be supported, but it also requires 

them to speak up. The United States, even as an observer state at 

the Human Rights Council, did not even sign up during the universal periodic review of China. The U.S. absence and silence was 

clearly noted. 

Ms. CHAI. Yes. Chairman Smith, I just want to echo what you 

stated earlier, that the U.S. presidential level has lacked a strong, 

consistent human rights policy toward China. I would absolutely 

agree with your statement. I even want to take it further. This is 

not just an issue of the current Obama Administration. It involves 

the same kind of policy as demonstrated by the Clinton Administration and, together with even the Bush Administration. George 

W.’s Administration was much more courageous toward China’s 

faith-based movement, but on human rights there wasn’t really an 

improvement. So this is a consistent 22-year U.S.-China policy. 

As I was finishing my memoir, ‘‘A Heart for Freedom,’’ I went 

back and tried to understand this relationship. On the night of the 

June 4 massacre in 1989, I was one of the key student leaders. We 

were the last 5,000 students. We were told a rumor, saying that 

if we stayed until 6 a.m. in the morning the United States may intervene to stop China’s brutality once and for all and China can be 

set free, so we waited and risked our lives and eventually the students were given a chance to leave and the majority voted to leave. 

So I had to escape for 10 months and finally came to America. 

I came to find Ambassador Levy, who was U.S. Ambassador at that 

time in Beijing during the massacre, and I wanted to know from 

him directly, did the United States have any plan to intervene or 

do anything to stop what the Chinese leaders were doing through 

the massacre? He immediately said that rumor was an absolute lie, 

not at all. Then there was a time I met him around 1994, 1995. 

I went on and said, ‘‘Why? ’’ It was a private meeting. He just said, 

‘‘It’s far away and because they don’t care.’’ I was heartbroken. 

I believe that one sentence summarized the entire U.S.-China 

policy in the past 22 years, and that’s exactly why Deng Xiaoping 

believed he could use a massacre against his own people and scare 

the public away, because when I had researched why he used this 

massacre to kill his own people, how dare he, why did he have such 

courage to do that, he said ‘‘We, China, is a big fat piece of meat. 

The United States, the Western countries, they’re going to scream 

and kick for a few years and then they are going to come back because they each want a piece of us. Just wait, let it get its household in order. We can wait them out.’’ And he was right. For the 

longest time I was devastated when I learned this reality. 

That was a reality, I believe—you know, Sharon, you correctly 

described, and so did Professor Cohen—that after so many U.S. 

NGOs, human rights organizations, UN organizations, advocated 

for various dissidents and in persecution situations, most of them 
24 

do not end up in freedom or release. China can continue to do 

whatever they want to do and it’s simply because, unfortunately, 

the U.S. Wall Street is selling souls to China. 

The dictatorship wants to maintain the current trade, the current profitability. I have so many friends who do business in China. 

They do not approve of or support what we are doing because they 

do not want to rob the chance to make more money. Then you see 

the American poor people, the middle class, who are losing our jobs 

to China. 

What should the United States have done? It should have done 

what President Reagan did in 1988 with South Korea. Ambassador 

Levy’s memoir, when I read it, was really moving. He wrote, in 

1988 when he was ambassador in South Korea, South Korea was 

having the same kind of situation with dissidents demonstrating, 

protesting toward freedom. 

The leaders at that time of South Korea were at a crossroads. 

They could go crack down on the movement or they could go ahead 

and let them be set free. Ambassador Levy was able to obtain a letter from President Reagan and he went in courageously and 

warned the leader of South Korea that if they were to take brutal 

actions, there would be severe consequences. 

As a result of that, South Korea was let free and they have freedom today. I believe, if the United States, in 1989, had taken a 

very different approach, if President Reagan had been in office, we 

would see a different China and we would have a different U.S.- 

China relationship. 

We cannot rewrite history today, but we can determine how we 

will act differently tomorrow and we can take different action 

today. That is why I’m here. I think starting from Chen 

Guangcheng’s case, it is important for us to take a different stand. 

Mr. COHEN. I wonder whether I could say a few words just to 

broaden the discussion about what strategies might work and what 

might not work for the next couple of years. 

First of all, I think it is important to understand there is a quiet 

struggle under way in Beijing now about how to revise the criminal 

procedure laws in ways that will either enhance protection of the 

rights of suspects and defendants or expand the powers of the police and other law enforcement agencies. 

Of course, the upper hand is in the hands of the police because 

it’s the Chinese Communist Party Political-Legal Commission that 

controls all legal institutions, starting with the legislature and including the courts, the police, the prosecutors, the justice bureaus, 

the legal profession, et cetera. 

Now, that commission, until the autumn of 2012, is headed by 

Zhou Yongkang, who used to be the Minister of Public Security. 

He’s been promoted in recent years to the Standing Committee of 

the Politburo, and he’s the head of the Political-Legal Commission. 

He’s pursued a tough line. I don’t think we can expect that the people who are fighting for greater civil liberties, greater protections 

against the kind of suffering that Chen Guangcheng and many others have endured, are likely to come out of this law reform with 

very significant progress, but it’s going to be a mixed kind of bag. 

But then China gets a new leadership a year from now and the 
25 

question is, will there be any new leaders more likely to be sympathetic to a genuine rule of law in China? 

In 1956, no one anticipated what Khruschev did in introducing 

de-Stalinization. He had been a running dog of Stalin and people 

didn’t expect that he would make public the abuses of Stalin, the 

humiliations that even he and others suffered. In 1990, although 

Gorbachev had gone to law school, nobody realized that, when he 

became top dog in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, he 

would try to engineer the reforms he did. So, we have to be alert 

to the possibility of change at the top, because China is changing. 

The key is the middle class that has been mentioned. The other 

day, in discussing a potential bursting of the real estate bubble in 

China, a very good reporter in the Financial Times, Jamil 

Anderlini , pointed out that a bursting of the real estate bubble 

would deprive the Party of its strongest support, the strongest support being the middle class that has benefited from the Party’s policies. Thus there is a real question in terms of which way the middle class will go. 

There have also been signs that the middle class is getting a little restive with the Party policy on which they have depended and 

which they have supported. Traditionally, in Western Europe and 

in the United States, we associate the rising middle class with 

greater demands for human rights. 

In China, it hasn’t gone that way. Many of us hoped, 25 years 

ago, 30 years ago, it would go that way. We see until now the middle class is the best supporter of the Communist Party and they 

have been taken into the Party, and the business elite have been 

taken in. But it may be, especially if there’s an adverse economic 

turndown in China, that the middle class will become increasingly 

demanding for the kinds of improvements in the rule of law that 

we support. 

Representative WALZ. Well, thank you all for your incredibly insightful and passionate depiction of what’s happening and helping 

us try and understand what’s going on. I couldn’t agree more. The 

Chairman and I were just discussing, I had written on my sheet 

here at the top, 1994 MFN, and some of the changes I think many 

of us—my time in China was cut being there in 1989, 1990, and 

1991. 

I am very interested, coming to this Commission, too, I think the 

Chairman mentioned something. I certainly associate myself with 

his remarks on this. But the importance of this Commission. I 

gravitated to this Commission. I think first and foremost, too, is I 

have a profound respect for the Chinese people and culture and 

want to see—I think all of us do—if there is an ability as us as 

people, and I think this House especially, a representative of the 

people, get this right. 

I think, Mr. Cohen, you hit on something. I think it does trouble 

a lot of Americans, this idea of lecturing other countries on human 

rights when we certainly have our past transgressions that are 

pretty apparent. But I think the difference is, if there’s transgressions, I think the spirit of the American people to get this right 

on human rights is still very strong and I think no matter what’s 

happened in the past to move forward to get there, and I do think 

it’s important to have that, to reach that critical mass of where 
26 

people care—and it gets frustrating at a time of economic turmoil. 

People turn inwards more. People worry about it. 

The number-one call to my office is, let’s just cut foreign aid and 

we could balance the budget. It’s as simple as that. But there’s a 

deeper belief there, worrying about our own. I think human rights 

has that ability to show, and I think the quote, Chai Ling, that you 

mentioned, is we’re all in this together, especially on human rights. 

So the question I’m going to ask—well, I guess I’m trying to have 

you help me understand this. You’re getting at it. I’m trying to understand where the Chinese people are in this. I say that because 

I watched a very strange phenomenon after Tiananmen Square of 

this. I know it’s a part of—and don’t get me wrong. Having lived 

in China, and I said I traveled there maybe several dozen times, 

but every time I go I know less. I’m one trip away from knowing 

nothing about China, so I don’t want to go back. But I watched it 

afterwards and this quest for stability, preservation, or maintenance is so strong. I watched good people justify that you and your 

friends went too far, the cultural revolution was still a fresh, open 

wound, and that. 

So my question I guess I’m trying to get to is, is watching the 

Chinese Government, this latest central committee plenum, focusing heavily on cultural reform, this—and I’m a cultural geographer. 

Watching them try and change this, Mr. Cohen, you were hitting 

on this, the middle class and where they feel on this. These are the 

same people that, in 1990, were seeing positive changes that were 

saying, the students asked for too much, too fast. We don’t think 

what happened to them was right, but they were upsetting the stability. 

Is that the way these folks like Chen are viewed still by the bulk 

of the Chinese people? Is that at the core of this, why there isn’t 

a larger momentum? I’m just trying to get at this to see where the 

change is effected from. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, you have put your finger on the difference between our situation and the way we handle human rights transgressions and the situation in China. The big difference is a free 

media. When a New York policeman beats somebody up arbitrarily, 

that appears in the paper the next day and it starts a politicallegal process that often leads to change, even though sometimes it 

takes a long time. In China, it’s the non-transparency that really 

inhibits that happening. To the extent things become transparent, 

the Chinese do have to take certain measures. 

Now, your question here is very hard for us to answer because 

of the controls on knowing, what do the Chinese people think? 

We’re not the beneficiaries of all kinds of polls that take the pulse 

of the Chinese people. There is some social science work being 

done, a little bit in cooperation with foreign social scientists. But 

we don’t have the access to much data. 

Nevertheless, in impressionistic fashion, we get a lot of insight. 

I think Chinese society is changing fast, and we don’t know the direction the dominant groups will take. I think it’s up for grabs and 

I don’t think one can assume China, in the next decade, is going 

to continue this meteoric economic development because I think 

they’re becoming victims of their own success. The fact that there 

is so much socio-economic change is creating more and more ten-
27 

sion, more and more unresolved problems. People definitely long for 

the stability and harmony that is associated with Confucius, rightly or wrongly, but that doesn’t mean they will get it. 

Representative WALZ. Right. 

Mr. COHEN. But the fact is, although they remember the ‘‘Cultural Revolution’’ and even the ‘‘Great Leap Forward’’ and all the 

enormous starvation of the late 1950s and early 1960s, new generations take that less seriously but they take more seriously their immediate frustrations and difficulties. So a lot depends on where the 

economy goes, to what extent China’s leaders pursue the right economic course, to what extent they’re hurt by what is taking place 

abroad in terms of economic and other changes. 

There is a lot more openness today than there was, but repression remains heavy. I can understand why the leaders just want 

to finish their term in a quiet way. The quickest way to assure that 

is to hit people over the head and keep things quiet, but it accumulates the frustrations. And we have seen in other countries that 

too-rapid modernization produces change that gets out of control. 

Iran could be cited as an example of that in the 1970s, leading 

to what happened in 1979. The leaders of China are very sophisticated people. They’ve had people at their central party school and 

elsewhere studying the transformation of one-party states, what 

the options are, what’s happened in South Korea and Taiwan compared to what’s happened in Indonesia, Mexico, and Malaysia and 

other places. There is ferment in China, a lot more potential possibility for change, but that change could be good and the change 

could be bad. 

Representative WALZ. Just one second, Professor. I’m struggling 

with this too because I think we’re trying to understand that. I 

guess my concern is, and it’s why I’m very appreciative of this 

Commission, is where else is that happening in our government, 

are we thinking ahead, are we planning for that, trying to see what 

that transformation will look like. I am concerned on two levels 

here. 

I’m concerned on the individual level for that child in Mr. Chen’s 

household, making sure that we’re doing right and that we’re 

standing up and saying that we will do what’s necessary, even if 

it’s economically not beneficial to us to do the right thing. But I’m 

also seeing what you’re getting at: where can we be most effective? 

Having a Congressman from Minnesota and New Jersey lecturing, 

if that’s the way it’s viewed, as being detrimental, I certainly don’t 

want to do that. 

But I want to make it very clear that my constituents in Southern Minnesota care about that child because her father spoke out 

for things that are universally accepted as basic human rights. So 

that’s where we’re struggling in the advice you’re giving us. I think 

those are all incredibly important concepts. I’m just not convinced—maybe you can help me with this—that we’re thinking the 

same way, of what this outcome—what’s the end game in this, and 

what can we do to foster that end game to be positive? So, Professor Hom? 

Ms. HOM. Thank you. I totally associate with Professor Cohen’s 

comments that China is really fast changing, and in part not only 

that it is the victim of its own success; it is that those real victims 
28 

who paid and are paying the cost of China’s economic success are 

not willing to keep paying those costs, because that economic success miracle was built on the backs of workers and low wages and 

human rights violations, and that is just all exploding because it 

is not sustainable. 

On the bigger question about, where is this very complex, dynamic picture of the Chinese people heading, I want to say three 

things as observations as well as suggestions for strategic direction. 

First, the middle class. What we’re actually seeing is that the middle class may be realizing that things are not so good, especially 

as it is impacted by corruption or too fast and unsustainable 

growth. 

For example, the Shanghai high-speed train crash is very illustrative. Why? Who can afford to take the expensive, high-speed 

rails? It’s the middle class. It’s not migrant workers on those expensive high-speed trains. Within seconds and minutes after the 

crash, photos of people seriously injured were already circulating 

on the Internet. 

But hours later, the official media was still not reporting the seriousness of the crash or the injuries. They weren’t reporting the 

truth. When the middle class, comfortable, thinking they were safe, 

find themselves hurt, followed by official coverups and lies, directly 

related to corruption, you can see the growing anger. Similarly, the 

tragic incident of the two-year-old that Chai Ling raised, generated 

a diverse weibo discussion also reflected debates on fundamental 

questions asking: Who are we? What kind of people are we? And 

not only saying that we can be better than this, some posts actually 

saying don’t blame the Communist Party, don’t blame the Cultural 

Revolution for producing us like this. They said we have to step up, 

take responsibility, and be the kind of people we should be. I was 

so encouraged by these fundamental questions that go to the nature of what China’s society and people will be, and these questions 

are being asked by the Chinese people. 

Finally, there is an as yet not fully understood role for Hong 

Kong. As a Hong Kong Chinese, I think Hong Kong has not really 

been sufficiently strategized. Hong Kong now has over 10 million 

mainland people going in and out every year. Some of the prominent bloggers, newspaper editors, writers, poets, and activists, 

mainlanders, are now based in Hong Kong. Why? Because it offers 

more freedom to operate and the proximity of home in the mainland. 

I was back in Hong Kong in June and September. In June, sitting in Victoria Park with over 130,000 people including mainland 

visitors listening to Ding Ziling, the spokesperson for the 

Tiananmen Mothers, delivering her audio message, saying what 

could not be said in Beijing, suggests the power and potential of 

Hong Kong as a space for mainland students, business people, tourists, visiting scholars, journalists. If you visit Human Rights in 

China’s You Tube channel at www.youtube.com/hrichina, you can 

view our newly launched series—‘‘Word on the Street,’’ including 

the first video—‘‘Is Hong Kong the tail that wags the dog? ’’ We got 

some really interesting answers. 

On the question of stability versus human rights, I myself have 

been challenged by former Chinese colleagues and students who 
29 

say in a public setting, perhaps because they have to, demanding 

that I answer if you have to choose stability or human rights, what 

would you choose? I say it’s not a choice because there’s no stability 

without human rights, just like there’s no real effective counterterrorism measures if human rights are violated. But this message 

now is actually being grasped by ordinary Chinese people. 

They’re seeing that the Chinese national policy of weiran, this 

control policy, is not producing stability. Invoking stability is actually an excuse for not dealing with the fundamental causes of social 

unrest—corruption, lack of access to housing, jobs and healthcare, 

and a safe non-toxic environment. Invoking stability to the hundreds of millions who are suffering from these problems, is just not 

as persuasive as it was 30 years ago and I think that is encouraging. 

Representative WALZ. That’s good. 

Mr. COHEN. I just wanted to say, that’s a wonderful statement 

Sharon has made. I would only emphasize the profound unhappiness of many, many people in China about corruption, corruption 

of high officials, of low officials whom they come in daily contact 

with. I think the most profound feeling that we share with the Chinese is the desire for equal treatment. We can understand that, 

equal justice under law. There is a profound sense in China that 

there is not equal justice. 

Representative WALZ. Well, I think both of you, those are very 

profound statements. Chai Ling, I will come to you in just a second 

on this. I think that is transformative, I think in the long run, of 

seeing China, of where it will be into the future instead of in this 

town again, as a lot of false choices. Sharon, as you said, it’s either/ 

or, and we know that’s not the case. It’s either Dragonslayer, or 

Panda Hugger, whatever it will be. The reality is dealing with it 

as this relationship becomes more sophisticated over time and becomes more intertwined for us to get it right. 

I find it kind of interesting. As a member of Congress, I don’t 

think we can take ourselves too seriously, our influence; every time 

they do a public approval poll or something it lets us know. But 

I found it very interesting, after I was appointed to this committee, 

most of my contacts with friends in China stopped. Do you find 

that surprising? These were good, long-term, decades-long friendships. I certainly don’t pursue it because I don’t want to put anybody in a bad position, but I find that interesting. It also reinforces 

my belief maybe we’re doing something here. So I don’t know what 

you think, how that would—a coincidence. Could be they just don’t 

like me, I suppose. 

Mr. COHEN. I think the work of this Commission is indispensable. I think the reports that you do, the hearings that you hold, 

we can’t find anywhere else in the U.S. Government or in State 

governments. The other commission that was created by Congress, 

of course, deals with other major problems including political and 

military as well as economic security. Its work, although crucial, 

does not promote the understanding of China in terms of society, 

human rights, et cetera, to the same extent as your commission 

makes possible. So, although you’re not a substitute for the ability 

to deny China access to our market that the Congress used to have, 

you’re doing very important, fundamental work. 
30 

Representative WALZ. Chai Ling, if you’d like to follow up. I’m 

sorry. It’s not often we have three wonderful panelists here. I want 

to bounce as many things off you as I can. 

Ms. CHAI. Oh, totally. I have really been enjoying Professor 

Cohen and Sharon’s wonderful insight and report. I am excited 

when I hear that you were in China from 1988 to 1989 or 1990. 

I’d love to know what you were doing. But anyway—— 

Representative WALZ. I would add on that, I was also from 

Foshan, so the video that made its way around hit me very deeply 

because I have a lot of friends. I know that’s not the people who 

live there. Good, good people. 

Ms. CHAI. Yes. 

Representative WALZ. Sorry to interrupt you. 

Ms. CHAI. Oh, no. This is great. So I know people who were in 

China in those years that share a very strong bond. I also understand the emotion you experience when you go back to see the Chinese friends you built at that time. It was a systematic and methodical denial of who they were, what actually happened at 

Tiananmen, the nature, the spirit of Tiananmen, and that’s what 

happened to me. It was the most lonely and painful experience to 

see my dear friends’ and comrades’ betrayal, selling out for business and going back to China to do business and all that, alongside 

an open attack in the media or through all kinds of situations to 

defame the spirit of Tiananmen. 

That’s why it took me 22 years to finish my memoir, because I 

did not understand why, why this was happening, why all these 

things I experienced so intimately and so powerfully, so real, so 

true, and that genuine love, support, and courage all started being 

denied. Later on when I finally came to Jesus, I understood, even 

Peter denied Jesus three times. It makes sense. Good people can 

do the wrong things at the wrong time. Someday they will be restored to be a hero again. I want to share with you the framework 

I learned when I went back to do the research, how to understand 

China in a better way, and then I want to go back to say, so in 

the case what would be better—U.S.-China relationship would help 

facilitate a free and fair China sooner. 

In 1989, the death of Hu Yaobong led to the student movement. 

Hu Yaobong was the one who was famous for advocating for three 

reforms. At that time as a young student, I did not understand 

what he was talking about. He advocated for economic, political, 

and spiritual reform. So now, looking back, we can see that Xiaoxi 

Yong, the premier who eventually was sentenced to house imprisonment for his disagreement with Deng Xiaping’s massacre decision, he advocated for two reforms, that is, political and economic. 

Am I okay? Just a few more minutes? Thank you. 

But Deng Xiaoping only wanted one reform, and that is economic 

reform. That is what China has today. We can see, even though 

every day we hear a lot of insight and we know the generous statistics that tell us the picture of what this economic reform had led 

to, especially the massive amount of corruption, supposedly a small 

amount of people around a number of 5,000 Chinese families control 70 percent of China’s wealth and its political power and military power. The middle class divides up this other 27 percent. 
31 

A third of the Chinese population, 465 million people, live under $2 a day. Those extremely poor people are forgotten in the shadow 

of China’s power and wealth, and that’s what’s happening to China 

today. That is the singular economic reform that led to a nation in 

this kind of situation. 

The political reform is equivalent to none. There is no freedom 

in the media, there is no rule of law. When I finished at Princeton, 

when I finished from Harvard Business School, I thought, wow, we 

really need to push for political reform. Once we have that, China 

will be free. For the longest time I lived with this constant frustration, and now I see we need more than that to really free this nation, and that is the true and fundamental spiritual reform. I do 

not know if Hu Jaobong knew what he was talking about, but that 

is what China is in search of and hungry for today. But China is 

achieving spiritual reform, as over 10 percent of China’s population 

are coming to Jesus. That’s really a powerful revolution. 

In my last page of my book, when I pray and say, ‘‘God, where 

were you on the night of June 4, where were you,’’ I write about 

how He gave me the answer. He was right there with the students 

and He’s there, right there today with the Chinese people. That is 

a powerful movement. 

Dr. Tim Keller, who leads amazing American churches in the 

United States visited Beijing. The table was surrounded by people 

and they said he asked, ‘‘What happened to the Tiananmen generation? ’’ The feedback was, a third of those people went to become 

believers and serve the country, a third went to business for stability and other things, and a third are still confused, trying to figure it out. So that may in a way summarize what is happening to 

China. 

So under today’s Chinese society, because of the lack of rule of 

law, lack of a free media, lack of fundamental spiritual reform and 

transformation and this massive wealth gap between the rich and 

poor, and China has also in addition suffering the largest crime 

against humanity, the largest human rights abuses that are taking 

place every day under the One-Child Policy. Every day, over 35,000 

forced and coerced abortions are taking place. That is, every hour 

there is a Tiananmen massacre, and it’s ongoing. It’s not stopping 

until we do something to stop it. Five hundred women commit suicide every single day. 

For every six girls that are scheduled to be born, the sixth girl 

will never make it. Every sixth boy will grow up and have no wife 

to marry. Today, China has 37 million single men and they have 

become a major driver for sex trafficking and domestic civil unrest, 

and potentially for global war. Those are the base that fuel this nationalism. So that leads me to why we, the United States, need to 

care. Not only do we need to care, we need to take immediate, urgent, decisive and persistent action because if we do not, China’s 

today and China’s past will become our future. We are already losing our liberty piece by piece. We are already hearing in the media 

and politics, everybody is talking about China as powerful, China 

controlling our debt. 

I guess I want to echo Chairman Smith’s words. If we make a 

quota saying China no longer can sell or buy U.S. Treasury bills, 

let’s see who really has the true power. If we put a tariff on China 
32 

exports to the United States, let’s see what’s going to happen. If 

we really take a firm stand, like President Reagan did, on democracy, on freedom, to help in China, I believe America would become 

a much stronger America and China will become a better China as 

a result of our actions. 

I do want to conclude my statement by reminding us of the 

Frenchman, de Tocqueville, after he studied America in 1831. He 

left this amazing warning to America, that America is great because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good, America 

will cease to be great. We are at this very critical juncture now 

that America will potentially be—and it’s already being talked 

about that America is—in decline. Are we ever going to reverse 

that trend to see us to be great? I urge you to take action. I also 

encourage you that someday those people who are denied 

Tiananmen will come back. 

Representative WALZ. Thank you all very much. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again. 

Chairman SMITH. Well, thank you very much. 

I’d like to now yield to Abigail Story, who is Senior Research Associate and Manager of Special Projects for our Commission for any 

questions you might have. 

Ms. STORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Walz, 

for your interest in Chen Guangcheng’s case specifically, and for 

your interest in the development of human rights and the rule of 

law in China. 

My question is actually for any of you who choose to take it. I’d 

like to go back to Chen Guangcheng’s case specifically and what’s 

happening to his family—not just to Chen Guangcheng, but also to 

his wife, Yuan Weijing, and their six-year-old daughter, not to 

mention their young son who is not able to live with them and is 

living with his grandparents. 

Some people may call this an extreme case similar to that of Gao 

Zhisheng, the lawyer who has been disappeared since April 2010. 

Some may call these extreme, but I have to wonder what the other 

rights defense lawyers in China are thinking when they see these 

cases all across social media, as we’ve been talking about these online campaigns, they’re seeing what’s happening not just to Chen, 

but also to his family. You have to wonder if they’re thinking, 

‘‘What if I take a stand, what will happen to my family? ’’ 

My question is, what does this mean for the development of the 

rule of law in China if China’s lawyers are not able to practice freely without fear of the impact on their lives and the lives of their 

family members? 

Mr. COHEN. It’s an excellent question and it reminds me that I 

haven’t stressed today one of the more unfortunate aspects that the 

Chen case demonstrates, which is collective punishment. The rights 

lawyers, the criminal defense lawyers, and the public interest lawyers are not only themselves suffering and intimidated, but also 

their families are suffering and often threatened. 

One of the reasons for the silence in the months after their release from illegal captivity this year of many of my friends in the 

human rights area has been veiled and not-so-veiled threats 

against their spouses and their children, and this is against the 
33 

background of past discrimination against family members that 

gives credibility to those threats. 

I mentioned in my report—I didn’t because of time in my introduction—the case, for example, of Shanghai’s former lawyer Zheng 

Enchong. This man had no idea of becoming a human rights lawyer. He was just asked by people in Shanghai to give them legal 

help in trying to overturn the illegal conspiracy between government officials and real estate developers that had led to the forced 

removal from their homes and destruction of their houses of a lot 

of people. 

But because he undertook that, Mr. Zheng immediately got into 

a series of difficulties, including three years in prison. He came out 

in 2006 and he has been really confined to his apartment since 

then. There’s no legal basis for this oppression. Also, his daughter 

was told, ‘‘You’ve got no future. You can’t go to the university you 

wanted to go to in Shanghai, you might as well leave,’’ and she left. 

She’s been in New York ever since. She didn’t know English. She 

was not one of these people who intended to study abroad. She is 

struggling to survive financially. Now she can’t even have contact 

with her parents indirectly. For a while she was able to have indirect contact with the family. So this is another example of collective punishment. 

We are celebrating this year the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Manchu [Qing] Dynasty, the end of the millennial Imperial era. The question is, in the last 100 years, what has been 

accomplished in the quest for justice in China? Well, one of the immediate consequences of the end of the empire was the abolition of 

collective punishment. No longer would somebody convicted of a political crime see his children and his parents and his other family 

members suffer and even be exterminated with him. That was considered inconsistent with the demands of the civilized world that 

China wanted to enter. 

But what we’re seeing today is a resurrection in practice, not in 

law, of collective punishment. That is a sad thing and we have to 

understand that, if you want to intimidate someone, usually the 

best way is not to threaten that person, but his loved ones. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you very much, Abigail. 

Anything else you would like to add before we conclude the hearing? Ms. Hom? 

Ms. HOM. I think that the strategic questions are the kinds of 

discussions that need to continue. The CECC has done excellent 

work on reporting and monitoring the rule of law and human 

rights situation in China, including the preparation of the annual 

reports. I have been at a number of CEEC hearings, and where I 

think we need to focus is on talking about strategy in a more 

nuanced, sophisticated way and not as simple choices, and recognize that there are multiple levels of actions. But one thing I think 

everyone can do in this room, and Professor Cohen and I will start, 

is that everyone should go to the virtual campaign Web site for 

‘‘Dark Glasses Portrait,’’ put on dark sunglasses, take a photo, and 

post it—— 

Chairman SMITH. Absolutely. 

Ms. Hom [continuing].—And join the more than 242 people who 

have already done so. Professor Cohen? 
34 

Mr. COHEN. It’s even good for our eyes. 

Ms. HOM. I think that we can each make small gestures and we 

also need to continue to develop together more sophisticated, longterm strategies. Everyone who has sunglasses should put them on 

now. 

Mr. COHEN. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, we’re very grateful for 

this extended opportunity. We know how valuable time is in the 

Congress, and we thank you for your organization and intelligent 

chairing of this session and good questions, and also the able help 

of the staff. It is all in a good cause. I hope you can convince many 

of your colleagues to expand their interest in China and the vigor 

with which they support human rights. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Professor. 

Ms. CHAI. Yes, Chairman Smith. I just want to thank you again 

for your consistent fight to improve China’s human rights, including ending the one-child policy. I do see that the day for China to 

be free is near, and so therefore we should continue to preserve 

with hope and confidence. I do have two strategic suggestions in 

addition to this very symbolic, important gesture. 

One, is tomorrow there will be a hearing on H.R. 2121, China’s 

Democracy Promotion Act. Once that bill is passed—again Chairman Smith has drafted that bill—that would bar all Chinese leaders at all levels who are persecuting its own people on human 

rights violations, from religious freedom, to One-Child Policy, to 

taking away property, and all that. So I think that is a very important step. A similar bill worked in Burma very effectively, and in 

many other countries. I believe this is a very important milestone 

bill that needs a full court press to move forward to make that happen. 

The second one, I do want to echo. Sharon, you suggested a lot 

of corrupt Chinese officials own assets that are somehow stored in 

America. Professor Cohen, the law profession has a lot of lawyers 

in this country. A suggestion has been made that the victims of 

Chinese human rights abuses can take action through a legal statute in this country to go after those officials and even potentially 

seize their properties in this country. I encourage—I’m not in the 

legal profession myself, but I encourage other expertise on that 

front to take action as well. I believe if we all take action in this 

way, in addition to the social media, we’ll see a change. Thank you 

very much again. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you so much. 

I’ll just conclude by—I will actually be sitting on this side of the 

dais tomorrow. I’ll be joining Chai Ling before the Judiciary Committee as a witness on behalf of H.R. 2121, a bill that I’ve introduced. And for the record, it was patterned after the Belarus Democracy Act, which I authored in 2004, to hold Lukashenko’s barbaric regime in Belarus to account using every tool we could possibly think of, including denying visas to those people who are 

complicit in human rights abuse. 

The idea behind this bill, for those who are part of the forced 

abortion policy, the torture regime, and all of the crushing of political parties, as well as those who seek a labor party, obviously the 

apparatus in China has crushed independent trade unions comprehensively. Those who are part of that human rights abuse crime 
35 

or crimes, the President would be empowered, through the Secretary of State, to deny a visa to that individual and lists would 

be promulgated that would contain the names of people who have 

been part of those crimes. Being on that list means you don’t come 

to the United States of America. Of course there would be a waiver 

if it was in the national interest or for the purposes of promoting 

human rights, but we would hope that waiver would be used sparingly. 

Very importantly, Lamar Smith, chairman of the full Judiciary 

Committee, is one of our very distinguished co-sponsors. It’s a bipartisan bill. Our hope is, like with the Belarus Democracy Act but 

on a much grander scale—this is China—the legislation will move, 

will be enacted, and will be used in a very calibrated and focused 

and targeted way to hold to account those who commit these heinous crimes. So thank you, Chai Ling, for bringing that up. Again, 

thank you to our very distinguished witnesses for your extraordinary work. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:47 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(37) 

A P P E N D I X 
38 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAI LING

NOVEMBER 1, 2011

Members of the Committee, Chairman Smith, I thank you for your 30 years of 

persistent effort to try to end China’s cruel One Child Policy and massive 

gendercide, in addition to many other human right abuses. The case of Chen 

Guangcheng is inexpressively grievous, but today I will try to share the most recent 

details in the most accurate way possible. I pray one day he could be standing here 

telling his story himself before all of you. 

Chen Guangcheng is a blind attorney who investigated incidents of forced abortions and forced sterilizations by Linyi Municipal Authorities. He revealed his findings and documentations of late-term abortions and forced sterilizations (130,000 in 

2005 alone) to the media. 

For this, he was arrested and imprisoned for four years and three months, finally 

released in September 2010. 

Since his release from prison, Chen has been kept under illegal house arrest, denied medical treatment for serious intestinal problems and deprived of all contact 

with the outside world. Reporters and activists who have tried to visit him have 

been roughed up and turned away. Recently, many more activists, including workers 

sent by our All Girls Allowed’s partner Women’s Rights In China , tried to visit him 

because we heard he had possibly been killed. Until last week, we did not know if 

he was even alive. When we tried to visit him in the past few weeks, we were 

blocked and sent away. The 5 activists we sent were disabled but wanted to visit 

him on the International Day for the Blind. They were pushed around and their 

gifts were taken by force. Then their van was followed by the local mobs and chased 

over 100 km. 

No one had heard about Chen’s condition for months. Last week, we finally received word concerning his situation from our partners at ChinaAid—a Midland, TX 

based NGO that focuses on defending the persecuted faithful in China. In July, a 

brutal four-hour beating by local authorities almost killed Chen and his wife. It was 

witnessed by their elementary school-age daughter. 

The couple endured a similarly brutal beating in February after they had smuggled out a videotape documenting the shocking conditions of their illegal house arrest following Chen’s release from prison. 

The July beating occurred after a storm knocked out equipment that authorities 

had installed in Chen’s house to cut off all their telecommunications contact with 

the outside world. With the equipment disabled, Chen was able to make phone calls 

on July 25, but the calls were intercepted by authorities. On July 28, Shuanghou 

town mayor Zhang Jian led a group of people to Chen’s home and beat and tortured 

the couple for four hours. 

This is the sequence of events, provided by the source of ChinaAid. 

At 2 p.m.—the authorities cleared out everyone from Chen’s village. 

At 3 p.m.—the authorities conducted an exhaustive search of Chen’s home and 

found a phone card in a pile of ashes. 

At 4 p.m.—the authorities started the beating. Chen’s screams of pain were heard 

first, while his wife Yuan Weijing was heard shouting angrily along with their 

daughter Kesi’s cries. After a while, Weijing’s screams of pain could also be heard. 

From then until 8 p.m., the only sounds were screams of pain. 

Some time later, a village doctor was permitted to give Chen some cursory medical treatment. 

During the four-hour beating, Chen’s elderly mother, who lives with them, was 

prevented from entering their home. When she was finally allowed to go in, neighbors heard her burst into tears, and her anguished cries –described as ‘‘gut-wrenching to hear’’ – continued for a long time. 

According to the source, Zhang tortured Chen to try to get him to tell how he got 

the phone card to make the calls on July 25 and to reveal where he had hidden 

it. When Chen and his wife refused to give any details, their house was ransacked 

until the phone card was found in a pile of ashes. 

Then the mayor’s men viciously beat up Chen and his wife in the presence of their 

daughter Kesi. The source of the information asked: ‘‘As family men themselves 

with parents and children, how could they inflict such inhuman pain on a little 

girl? ’’ 
39 

Yes, activists in China have been beaten and sent away, but many have taken 

the battle to the Internet. Chinese citizens are also speaking up online: particularly 

galled by the ‘‘communal punishment’’ of the whole Chen family. They pressured the 

government, particularly on the Chinese Twitter, called Sina Weibo. Users are posting photos of themselves in dark glasses to honor Chen. Authorities have blocked 

searches for Mr. Chen’s name on Weibo and even deleted some posts by users, 

though most posts about him and his case can be easily found through other means 

of searching. The head of China’s Internet watchdog last week called for a strengthening of regulations over microblogs so they can ‘‘serve the works of the party and 

the people,’’ according to the state-run Xinhua news agency. 

The authorities’ apparent decision to allow Mr. Chen’s daughter to attend school 

following weeks of growing online activism is breathing new life into the Internet 

campaign to free him despite this online censorship. According to the Wall Street 

Journal, ‘‘Mr. Chen’s case is a rare example where rights activists and ordinary citizens alike are applying online pressure on the government.’’ 

Yet we know that a similar return to school for the daughter of missing lawyer 

Gao Zhisheng ‘‘only added to the pressures that battered her and did not presage 

release for her courageous father.’’ Chen’s daughter is accompanied by security 

agents to and from her classes. 

In America, we teach our children to honor police officers and to ask police officers 

for directions when they are lost. These officials help to keep us safe, to keep the 

peace. 

In China, when a man and his wife are beaten senseless in front of their child 

by authorities who should be protecting their rights, how ought we respond? And 

what does our response say about our own nation’s values? 

Recently a two year old child was run over by a van in Foshan, a city in China. 

The whole world watched video footage of 18 people who walked by the toddler as 

she lay in a pool of her own blood, waiting for help. I want to know how these people could walk by unaffected, not acting on her behalf, even though they knew what 

had happened and that the baby needed help. 

Are we any different? If we do not do what we can do as a nation, we are no different from these 18 passersby who left Yue Yue to die. 

As you know, All Girls Allowed exists to restore life, value and dignity to women 

and girls in China and to reveal the injustice of China’s One-Child Policy. Our work 

is inspired by the love of Jesus to sacrifice to redeem humanity. Today, on behalf 

of All Girls Allowed and our partner organizations: Women’s Rights in China, 

ChinaAid and Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, we have 4 major asks of our nation’s leaders. 

(1) We urge President Obama to urgently demand Chen Guangcheng and his family to be released from house arrest and to be allowed to leave China to another 

country. We appreciate that Secretary Clinton has mentioned him by name in the 

past. The gravity of the matter calls for a urgent act from our Commander in Chief. 

(2) In addition, we continue to encourage the US Embassy to visit Chen 

Guangcheng and his family. 

A newly arrived U.S. Embassy official in Beijing created a Weibo account recently. 

Within days of his first message last week, a simple greeting and introduction of 

himself, the post was overrun with nearly 2,000 comments, many of which expressed support for Mr. Chen and criticized the Chinese government’s handling of 

the case. So there is general support from the people on acting justly for Chen’s 

case. (3) We urge US State Department to work with EU partners to also demand his 

immediate release. 

(4) We urge President Obama to deny visa requests to visit America for all who 

were and are involved persecuting, torturing and harassing Chen and his family, 

including Mayor Zhang Jian, effective immediately. 

As a nation, when we see evil and we know it is happening clearly before our 

eyes, will we have the courage to speak up? I say today that what we’ve been doing 

is not enough, nor acceptable. We are not asking for our nation to invade China or 

even to rescue this poor man from death, but we are asking that America would 

stand and proclaim its own beliefs, loudly, as a testimony of truth and light in this 

darkness. Continuing to allow this sort of brutality to go on but saying nothing is 

saying something loud and clear, and the silence has been deafening. 

As I am concluding the testimony, I would like to leave with you all a command 

that was given to us and teach us what to do in this kind of situation: 35 ‘‘For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you 

gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed 

clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison 

and you came to visit me.’’ 
40 

37Then the righteous will answer him, ‘‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and 

feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a 

stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see 

you sick or in prison and go to visit you? ’’ 40The King will reply, ‘‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of 

these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’’ (Matthew 25: 35–40) 

I pray, in the name of our Lord and savior Jesus, we will take an action to our 

brother and hero Chen Guangcheng today to bring him to freedom! 

A LIST OF CHEN GUANGCHENG’S PERSECUTORS

Ma Kun, newly appointed Deputy Mayor of Linfen City, used to work on family 

planning in Fennan County 

Zhen Zhijie, Fennan Police Department Committee for Discipline Inspection 

Chairman 

Yang Xigang, Captain, Fennan Police State Security Department. Chief State Security personnel responsible for Chen Guangcheng 

Liu Changjie, Deputy head of Fennan Police Department 

Xi Yunbo, Deputy head of Fennan Police Department, 610 Office (Falungong) 

Chairman 

Du Xiliang, Deputy head of Fennan Police Department 

Xi Kelong, 110 (Emergency number) Captain, Fennan Police Department 

Ma Chenglong, Fennan Police Department State Security Captain 

Zhang Jian, Mayor, Shuanghou Town, Fennan City 

Yu Mingjiang, Deputy CCP Commissar, Shuanghou Town 

Zhang Changguo, Shuanghou Police Department head 

Liu Ruichang, Shuanghou Police Department 

Li Xianqiang, Shuanghou Justice Department Deputy Chief 

Yan Yufeng, Shuanghou government 

Han Fengyan, Shuanghou government 

Yi Jikao, Shuanghou Family Planning Commission official 

Zhang Shenghe, Shuanghou Family Planning Commission official, one of three 

people who physically assaulted Chen in his home on February 8th 

Zhi Yunguang, Gao Zhen [ . . . ], [ . . . ] Shancheng, three guards/thugs 

Zhao Wei, Li Xianli, two guards 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEROME A. COHEN

NOVEMBER 1, 2011

WILL THE PERSECUTION OF CHEN GUANGCHENG BECOME A TURNING POINT IN THE

STRUGGLE AGAINST LAWLESSNESS IN CHINA? 

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that the Commission is holding this emergency 

hearing and welcome the opportunity to make brief introductory remarks about the 

plight of my dear friends, the blind layman-lawyer Chen Guangcheng and his wife 

Yuan Weijing. Their story may have significance for all of China’s 1.3 billion people 

and surely deserves to be better known in their country as well as in the outside 

world. 

In China, as in the United States, progress toward human rights and the rule of 

law sometimes results from individual—often tragic—events. Chen and his family 

have already endured years of persecution, harassment and violent abuse, and I 

hope concern for them will stimulate progress before tragedy occurs. 

At the outset, let me dispose of three myths. One is that instances of persecution 

and abuse of lawyers and legal activists are rare in China and only occur when a 

few heroic dissidents openly invoke the law to confront injustice rather than resort 

to the more patient, less confrontational methods on which many other dissatisfied 

Chinese rely. 

Yet we know that China’s activist lawyers and non-professional advocates have 

long been under a widespread, systematic official assault, which intensified earlier 

this year and silenced many formerly outspoken voices. A large number of lawyers 

have been attacked for representing not only those clients who oppose government 

suppression of religion, speech and association but also those who seek to challenge 

arbitrary residential evictions, environmental pollution, food and drug contamination, official corruption, discrimination against the sick or disabled or, as in Chen’s 

last efforts, forced abortion and sterilization. 

Many public interest and criminal defense lawyers never consider themselves 

‘‘human rights’’ lawyers until the local judicial bureau threatens to take away their 
41 

license to practice law, the police detain them in jail or at home, the authorities 

‘‘suggest’’ that they leave the country or officially-sponsored thugs kidnap and beat 

them. Both Shanghai lawyer Zheng Enchong, who has been illegally confined at 

home for the past five years since his completion of a three-year prison term, and 

Beijing advocate Ni Yulan, whose legs were irreparably broken during a previous 

detention and who is again being prosecuted, inadvertently became ‘‘rights advocates’’ when they came into conflict with the police while representing clients challenging the forced demolition of their homes. 

I can tell you many such stories, and it should be remembered that Chinese and 

foreign observers only see those cases that slip through the Chinese government’s 

elaborate censorship apparatus. As is the case with Chen, authorities spare no expense or coercion to isolate some lawyers from contact with the outside world and 

to keep abuse of these lawyers and their clients from public view. 

A second myth is that Chen’s punishment is merely another example of local government run amok, neither approved nor condoned by the central government and 

Communist Party leadership. 

Many law enforcement abuses in China are indeed local in origin, and Chen’s case 

started out that way. It soon came to the attention of the country’s central leaders, 

however, as a result of the publicity he generated on the Internet and in foreign 

media. To make certain that the leaders knew about it, I published an essay in the 

Far Eastern Economic Review in November 2005, after the Linyi county authorities 

had begun their first illegal ‘‘home imprisonment’’ of Chen and his family, but before 

any formal criminal process was commenced. In it, I described the case and openly 

asked then Minister of Public Security Zhou Yongkang whether he would endorse 

the unlawful, uncivilized actions of the local police. 

Subsequently, representatives of the Ministry reportedly met with local and provincial officials to discuss the situation, and soon afterward the local authorities 

launched a criminal prosecution against Chen, a more conventional type of repression. I am confident that Zhou Yongkang, now in an even more powerful position 

as both a member of the Politburo Standing Committee and head of the Party’s Central Political-Legal Commission, has been aware of Chen’s persecution for many 

years. 

A third myth is that there must be some purported legal justification for the suffering that the Chen household has endured since his release from prison on September 9, 2010. Governments, even the Chinese government, normally like to maintain some veneer of plausible legitimacy for their misconduct, however thin it might 

be. The Chinese law enforcement agencies, in justifying many of their tactics, have 

taken advantage of every exception, ambiguity and gap in the current Criminal Procedure Law. Yet no such justification has come to my knowledge in this case, which 

seems to have exceeded the bounds of police ingenuity. 

Chen was not sentenced to a deprivation of political rights that would extend beyond his prison sentence and might be proffered, though wrongly, in support of his 

home imprisonment. There is no indication that he has been subjected to the notorious ‘‘residential surveillance,’’ a severe house arrest measure that might be expanded in the forthcoming revision of the Criminal Procedure Law, and even that 

criminal sanction would have expired after six months. Undoubtedly, the violent 

abuse of Chen and his wife by officials and their hired thugs cannot find any justification in Chinese law. 

When, at an October 28 Beijing press conference, a foreign reporter asked deputy 

director Li Fei of the Legal Affairs Commission of the National People’s Congress 

Standing Committee to state the legal basis for Chen’s home imprisonment, he declined to answer. He merely offered the unpersuasive generality that ‘‘in our country 

the freedom of a citizen is adequately protected, and the use of any compulsory 

measures is based on law.’’ Apparently, the Chinese government did not want its 

people to hear even this empty assertion of its lawful conduct, as the question and 

its answer were eliminated from both the transcript and the video broadcast of the 

press conference. Ironically, the purpose of the press conference was to celebrate the 

issuance of a government White Paper entitled ‘‘A Socialist System of Laws with 

Chinese Characteristics’’, which lauded and documented China’s development of ‘‘a 

comparatively complete legal system to protect and ensure human rights.’’ The reporter’s question rained on this parade. 

Chen Guangcheng never saw himself as a ‘‘troublemaker’’ bent on damaging social 

stability and harmony. Indeed, he wanted to improve stability and harmony by 

using legal institutions to process social grievances in an orderly way as prescribed 

by law. His only mistake was to accept the law as it was written, as a true believer 

in the power and promise of China’s legal reforms. One day, when he was especially 

frustrated by the county court’s refusal to accept the lawsuits he brought on behalf 

of impoverished pro bono ‘‘clients’’, he asked me: ‘‘What do the authorities want me 
42 

to do? Lead a protest in the streets? I don’t want to do that.’’ Yet, in a cruel twist, 

he was ultimately convicted on bogus charges of interfering with traffic and supposedly damaging public property. 

What is the motivation for Chen’s persecution? Of course, it reflects the vengeful 

embarrassment of local officials at having their illegal attempts to comply with the 

strict demands of the one child policy exposed to the central government and the 

world. Yet Chen’s persecution must also be seen as part of a broader, national strategy where the Party seeks to have its cake and eat it too. 

On the one hand, it strives to attain legitimacy at home and ‘‘soft power’’ abroad 

by constructing and promoting a ‘‘socialist legal system’’ that protects citizens’ rights 

and creates restraints on law enforcement’s powers to punish. On the other hand, 

it makes certain that those rights and restraints are never fully realized by crushing 

the lawyers and law advocates who are the only group capable of converting those 

paper promises into ‘‘living law.’’ 

If this group, including ‘‘barefoot lawyers’’ like Chen, can be effectively squelched, 

the Party’s image of social stability and harmony can prevail, at least for now. In 

the long run, however, many who share Chen’s frustration with the courts, but who 

lack his faith in the law, will truly take their grievances to the streets. This is likely 

to produce more instability and conflict for a country that is already plagued by an 

estimated 180,000 riots and public protests per year. 

Can anything be done to free Chen and other rule of law advocates from their 

nightmare of intimidation? As the recent release of artist Ai Weiwei demonstrates, 

it is possible that a combination of domestic and foreign pressures can improve the 

situation, especially after the Party installs a new generation of leaders one year 

from now. In the interim, enhanced publicity is indispensable. Today’s Commission 

hearing and dozens like it in democratic countries can inspire the expression of 

much greater foreign concern by international organizations, governments, NGOs, 

scholars, bar associations and ordinary people. Certainly, the official human rights 

dialogues and more informal exchanges that the United States and other democratic 

countries maintain with China should deal with individual cases of abuse as well 

as legislative improvements. 

Nevertheless, greater transparency in China remains the key. Even many Chinese 

specialists in criminal justice continue to claim—six years after Chen became wellknown overseas—that they have never heard of him. This is why the efforts of Chinese activists to employ the Internet and social media to expose this case to the people are so crucial, and this is why the government refuses to permit access to and 

communication with Chen, at great cost to its reputation. There is a chance that 

Chen’s cause could become a monumental and significant struggle for freedom and 

justice in China. 

Mr. Chairman, many thanks for your patient attention. I have appended to this 

introductory statement a number of short essays that I have published about the 

Chen case. I also suggest that the forthcoming report of the New York-based Committee to Support Chinese Lawyers entitled ‘‘Legal Advocacy and the 2011 Crackdown in China: Adversity, Repression and Resilience’’ be included in the record. 

I very much look forward to the remarks of my colleagues on the panel and to 

the questions and comments of the Commission. 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM NEW JERSEY; CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

NOVEMBER 1, 2011

FREE CHEN

As we sit here in this room today, free to meet, free to move, and free to speak 

our minds, we are convening to examine the plight of an extraordinarily brave man, 

and his equally courageous wife, who in every sense of the word are not free and 

at grave risk of additional harm—even murder. 

As we speak, we can only assume that self-taught lawyer Chen Guangcheng, a 

heroic advocate on behalf of victims of population control abuses, languishes with 

his wife Yuan Weijing and six year old daughter, locked inside their home in rural 

Shandong province. However, we do not have the luxury of certainty regarding 

Chen’s or his family’s current whereabouts and medical condition, as Chinese officials have used barbaric methods to prevent all unauthorized persons from contacting or visiting their village. 

According to Andrew Jacobs of the New York Times, ‘‘paid thugs’’ repel visitors 

and ‘‘journalists and European diplomats who have tried to see him have fared little 

better.’’ 

But in a post on October 18th, Mr. Jacobs reports that the trickle of would be 

visitors has become a ‘‘campaign—Operation Free Chen Guangcheng.’’ 

According to Peter Ford in today’s edition of the Christian Science Monitor, the 

violence against human rights activists who travel to visit Chen continues to escalate. 

‘‘About seven or eight men rushed up to me, kicked me to the ground, stole my 

cellphone, smashed my ankle and knocked me out,’’ Liu recalled Tuesday. ‘‘And the 

police did nothing when I reported what had happened.’’ 

Liu was one of a group of around 40 activists who were attacked and beaten by 

more than 100 thugs on Sunday afternoon outside the village of Dongshigu in the 

eastern province of Shandong where Chen has been illegally locked up in his house 

with his family since being released from jail in September last year. 

‘‘I did not think the situation was so dark,’’ said Liu. ‘‘There is no law in that 

area.’’ 

The violence marked the second weekend in a row that unidentified thugs have 

violently broken up efforts by human rights activists and ordinary citizens to visit 

Chen in a burgeoning campaign to win his freedom. 

Chen Guangcheng’s only crime that we know of was advocating on behalf of his 

fellow Chinese citizens including and especially women and girls who have been victimized by forced abortion and involuntary sterilization. When Chen investigated 

and intervened with a class action suit on behalf of women in Linyi City who suffered horrific abuse under China’s one child per couple policy, he was arrested, detained and tortured. 

Blinded by a childhood disease, Chen Guangcheng began his legal advocacy career 

in 1996 educating disabled citizens and farmers about their rights. Decades later, 

when local villagers started coming to him with their stories of forced abortions and 

forced sterilizations, Chen and his wife Yuan Weijing documented these stories, 

later building briefs and lawsuits against the officials involved. 

Their efforts gained international news media attention in 2005, and it appears 

that this was the straw that broke the camel’s back. 

Officials began a barbaric campaign against Chen and his family in 2005, and 

over the years have subjected them to beatings, extralegal detention, numerous violations of their rights under criminal procedure law, confiscation of their personal 

belongings, 24-hour surveillance and invasion of their privacy, disconnection from 

all forms of communication, and even denial of education for their six-year old 

daughter. 

Chen Guangcheng served over four years in prison on trumped up charges and 

was officially released in September 2010. However, the abuse he and his family 

have faced has only worsened. Concern about Chen’s health and well-being is growing worldwide, and numerous activists and journalists have made attempts in the 

past few months to visit Chen’s village, only to face large groups of hired thugs who 

savagely beat them and steal their belongings. 

Enough is enough. 

The cruelty and extreme violence against Chen and his family brings dishonor to 

the government of China and must end. 

Chen and his family must be free. 
50 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIM WALZ, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MINNESOTA; 

RANKING MEMBER, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

NOVEMBER 1, 2011

I want to thank the Chairman, Congressman Chris Smith, and the Cochairman, 

Senator Sherrod Brown, for convening this extremely important hearing. I want to 

thank each of our witnesses who are here today. We truly appreciate your attendance, and I very much look forward to hearing your remarks on this important 

issue. 

Today, we hold this hearing to recognize and to honor one of China’s most highprofile human rights activists, Chen Guangcheng. As a person and as an activist, 

Chen stands out as someone who exemplifies profound human courage and an unwavering commitment to justice. Chen not only overcame the hardships of being 

blinded at a young age, but also succeeded in becoming an inspiring legal advocate—one who touched the lives of people in and outside of China. 

In his legal work, Chen exposed China’s brutal application of its population policies. He upheld the rights of the disabled and fought on behalf of victims of discrimination. For his accomplishments, Chen was not rewarded. Rather, Chinese authorities sent him to prison for more than four years. Upon conclusion of his sentence, 

Chen was not set free. Rather, he was placed under an illegal form of house arrest 

that has precluded Chen and his family from their freedom and livelihood. 

Chen and his family remain under illegal house arrest, and even today the conditions of their detention are shrouded in mystery. Police and violent thugs are stationed night and day around Chen’s home in Linyi city, Shandong province, to prevent anyone from accessing them. We know that since Chen’s release from prison 

in September of last year, Chen and his wife have reportedly suffered physical and 

mental abuse at the hands of officials. Chen suffers from a digestive disorder and 

reportedly has been denied medical treatment. His daughter, now six, has only recently been allowed to attend school under the watchful eye of law enforcement officers. Chen explained his circumstances in a videotape released in February of this 

year, saying ‘‘I’ve come out of a small jail and entered a bigger one.’’ 

I have followed China closely since I taught high school there more than two decades ago. I know China has announced notable reforms and advancements in recent 

years. I applaud the accomplishments of the Chinese people and recognize that some 

in the Chinese government advocate for greater rule of law. But, we cannot believe 

China is serious about the rule of law while Chen Guangcheng and his family are 

being forcefully held and abused. We cannot believe China is serious about human 

rights while it flagrantly violates its own laws and its international human rights 

commitments. 

We urge China today to end this ongoing illegal detention and to free Chen and 

his family. We urge China to stand on the side of those brave activists that have 

traveled to Linyi in Shandong province to inquire about Chen in the face of violent 

reprisals and shameless threats. We urge China to embrace Chen and other civil 

rights activists and to make room for these selfless heroes—the leaders that all 

countries need for a stable society that respects human rights and the rule of law. 

Finally, let us remind China that all great nations achieve more through open dialogue and the free flow of information than through forced silences. 

I thank each of you for being here today to honor this man, his family, and the 

many other advocates facing uncertain punishments and unwarranted confinement. 

I thank those of you who are sitting in this room that know that we each share 

a responsibility to raise Chen’s story and to voice our concerns on behalf of China’s 

many advocates who remain detained and silenced. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Æ