查看完整版本: [-- 陈光诚在美国这一年(原题Friends Like These) --]

Bay Area Chinese--灣區華人 -> 海外文摘 -> 陈光诚在美国这一年(原题Friends Like These) [打印本页] 登录 -> 注册 -> 回复主题 -> 发表主题

卡拉 12-29-2013 17:11

陈光诚在美国这一年(原题Friends Like These)

来源:观察者网
(本文原刊路透社网站2013年11月25日,作者Jonathan Allen,原题Friends Like These;观察者网 王杨/译,张苗凤、朱新伟/校)
[attachment=72367]
【观察者网按】去年5月,作为美国对华策略的一枚棋子,陈光诚飞往美国;民运分子与政客们屡屡拉拢、算计、窃听……这一年,陈光诚又成为美国国内政治斗争的筹码。观察者网年末刊登路透社记者乔纳森·艾伦(Jonathan Allen)长篇报道。如该记者所言,异见人士“到了美国后大都变得碌碌无为”。媒体此前警告“他身边的人最好别坑他,别再把他往偏执的方向使劲推。”可惜,在美国这一年,陈光诚的路越走越远,越走越窄。

这一年多来,陈光诚跟纽约大学的关系逐渐恶化,并最终投向傅希秋等人。两大阵营争夺陈的战争终于落幕,纽约大学战败,但事情还没完。陈光诚是否真如孔杰荣所说,是“中国的甘地?”路透社深度报道《这样的朋友们》为您揭开这一年多来,围绕陈光诚的种种勾心斗角。

[attachment=72368]

  2012年5月,中国“异见分子”陈光诚逃脱软禁,准备飞往纽约。大约在他抵美一周前,一位福音派基督教牧师和纽约大学法学教授相约去中央公园散步。他们想谈谈高调而难觅踪影的移民到纽约后,可能会面临哪些困难。

  这两个人是陈光诚未来最亲密的顾问,而这也带来许多麻烦。转眼一年过去,信任逐渐消失,他们俩常常提出尖锐对立的意见,这让陈光诚左右为难。但是眼下,当他们在这个周日的下午漫步于公园时,似乎结成了同盟,共同为陈出谋划策。

  同盟瓦解

  知名教授、中国法律专家孔杰荣(Jerome Cohen)认为陈光诚最好慎言自己的事迹:他揭露了家乡为推行计划生育而非法实行强制人流和绝育的事实。

  他的苦难在去年四月的一个晚上结束。他翻越家里的围墙,逃过接管他村子的守卫,跑到北京,去美国大使馆寻求避难。

  在美国没有人会质疑他的事迹。但是孔杰荣觉得,初来乍到,不宜探讨此事;因为在美国,孕妇何时能够合法堕胎是个高度对立和存在严重分歧的话题。宗教保守派是最仰慕陈的人,而孔杰荣担心,陈光诚自己又不是基督徒,懵懂无知的他可能会触碰政治红线。再说,陈有很多可以谈,如帮助残疾人和农村穷人上法庭维权这样的法制话题。

  走在孔杰荣旁边的是傅希秋,他是得州米德兰市基督组织“对华援助协会”(ChinaAid)的创始人。该组织致力于推动中国的宗教自由。这位45岁、留着一头黑色板寸的傅先生在流亡之前被关过两个月,因为他劝人改宗,还在地下教堂里传教。

  听着孔教授的话,傅希秋没有什么异议——他们两个多年来关系融洽——不过,他自称,不太明白反对堕胎有什么大不了的。傅在美国并没有参与限制堕胎的活动,他还说对这类话题不太关注。

  “我也许有点天真,”傅希秋说,“我当时不知道跟捍卫女性堕胎组织对抗有多困难,这种分歧几乎是无法调和的。”

  孔杰荣今年83岁,他个子很高,表情威严,声音沙哑,喜欢戴领结。他在中国法律方面备受学者推崇,很重要的一个原因就是学界很多人都是他教出来的。傅说愿意听从教授的智慧。他们都想帮陈光诚一把,免得他走上很多中国激进分子和异见人士的老路——这些人到了美国后大都变得碌碌无为。
[attachment=72369]
2012年5月,孔杰荣在办公室。
THE PROFESSOR: Jerome Cohen at his office in May 2012. He helped craft the diplomatic deal that brought Chen to New York University. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

  他们都向身处美国大使馆的陈光诚伸出援手,时机非常微妙,当时美国国务卿希拉里•克林顿抵京,刚要展开双边会谈,却没想到需要化解一场外交危机。傅希秋跟协助陈光诚离开北京的激进分子一直有联系,他在陈光诚和形形色色的美国官员和政客当中充当起了类似联络人的角色。

  孔杰荣有办法,他设计了一个巧妙的外交解决方案。他是纽约大学法学院亚美法研究所的负责人,给陈光诚提供了一个客座研究员的职位,这就避免了直接给陈光诚寻求政治避难(美国华盛顿大学和卫斯理大学也愿意提供类似职位)。基本靠自学成才的陈光诚渴望进修学习。这给美国和中国都留下了体面的台阶。中国每年有数千人持学生签证赴美学习,多一个陈光诚也没什么。

  孔杰荣第一次见到陈光诚是在2003年,当时陈作为“具有潜在影响力的外国人”,获得了美国国务院的奖学金,在美国访问数周。之后,孔杰荣还去中国探望过几次。“他可能是中国的甘地。”孔杰荣断言。傅还没见过陈,但参与他的事很多年了,他还传播了从陈被软禁的住所偷录的一段视频和一封信,控诉野蛮拘禁。

  不过,离他们散步还不到一年,陈将在这两位朋友间做出决绝的选择。今年6月,陈发表了一份煽情的声明,他发表前请傅校对;孔杰荣也看到了这份声明,但在发表后才看到,这让他很失望。

  在声明中,陈谴责纽约大学迫于“中国共产党”“强大无情的压力”而让他离开——不过依然感谢学校此前慷慨收留。

  正在上海建分校的纽约大学坚决否认。纽大的自辩提到了孔杰荣在陈抵美前数周接受美国公共电视台(PBS)和路透社采访时的内容。孔杰荣称,陈的工作期限是一年。陈的一些支持者和同事们怀疑他是不是搞错了。(因此,他们很多人接受采访时都要求匿名,希望这件不愉快的事能很快过去。)

  陈光诚邮件拒绝了记者的采访请求,拒绝谈及所谓在纽约大学的艰难一年。
[attachment=72370]
2012年,陈光诚抵达纽约后接受媒体采访。孔杰荣(左一)将他视为中国的甘地。
SPOTLIGHT: Chen Guangcheng sits for an interview shortly after arriving in New York in 2012. Cohen, at far left, saw him as a man who “could be China’s Gandhi.” REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

  “将独裁者和自由世界的矛盾移植到美国这个自由世界(比如,在纽约大学和我之间),这一直是独裁者努力在做的事。”他在邮件中写道,“我们不能被蒙蔽!此外,我不想让那些曾经帮过我的人受到伤害。”

  一个从中国农村走出来的赤脚医生想在曼哈顿的沥青路上找到立足之地,注定不会一帆风顺。陈以为他会一门心思学法律,结果在美国的文化战争中撞得头破血流。他在美国的第一年可以用处境尴尬形容,他发现,谋士们毫不隐瞒彼此互不相信、难以合作的事实。

  陈光诚不太会说英语,因此需要别人翻译他的话。他小时候因为发烧失明,因此去陌生的地方需要别人领路。他从未在外国生活过,因此需要别人告诉他新家的方向。但是得州米德兰市和纽约市是两个截然不同的美国。他在纽约的多数时间,身边都有一场争夺最细心的监护人兼最可靠导师地位的战争,而纽约大学在节节败退。

  起初,这个角色由孔杰荣担任。在公园散步时,孔杰荣还告诉傅希秋,除了避免谈论堕胎,他认为在2012年总统大选结束前,陈光诚应当跟政客撇清关系,至少是在公开场合。孔杰荣担心,如果陈光诚获得某种宗教或某个党派的响应,反而会削弱他的声音。

  “也许他想跟我组成联合阵线。”傅希秋说,“也许他已经把我划为反堕胎、宗教福音派、右翼——总之我不知道到底是出于什么心态。”

  如果傅希秋和孔杰荣之间有过盟友关系的话,那它在陈光诚抵达纽约的几天里就破裂了。

  傅希秋的指控:纽约大学企图控制陈光诚

  5月19日,陈光诚及其妻子袁伟静和两个孩子抵达纽瓦克自由国际机场(Newark Liberty International Airport),几乎从飞机落地的一刻起,陈在纽约大学的新同事以及他最亲密的几位支持者就很少能跟这位“异见分子”见上一面。

[attachment=72371]
傅希秋是陈光诚的山东同乡,他们很快成了好朋友。
THE PASTOR: Bob Fu of Texas. An exile himself, he fled religious persecution in China. He and Chen hail from the same province, and became fast friends. REUTERS/Mark Makela

  分歧在陈光诚的首次新闻发布会上就出现了。当晚的发布会在格林威治村纽约大学的一栋公寓外召开。陈光诚坐着汽车到达现场,迎接他的是欢呼声和镁光灯。方方的下巴,朴实的微笑,八字须和深色太阳镜,这位异见人士的魅力让镜头无法抗拒。他的右脚绑着石膏,他只能靠拐杖蹒跚地走向话筒。这石膏是他飞向自由的象征,现在更为他加分。

  陈光诚用普通话向记者和支持者们发表讲话,感谢美国政府的帮助以及中国政府的“克制和冷静”。他补充道,希望中国能够遵守自己的承诺,对他和他的家人的遭遇展开调查。“因此,我们要携起手来。”他说道,“继续为世界上的仁善而战,与不公正作斗争。”

  他左侧就是孔杰荣。孔杰荣勾着陈的胳膊,不时耳语几句,或在他说太久时急忙拍他的肩,让译员翻译。陈光诚右边是耶鲁大学历史系在读博士黄小姐(CJ Huang)。她是前一天晚上被招募的,以帮助陈家人适应这边的生活。她伏在一张纸上做记录,紧张地为陈做口译。

  人群里有瑞吉•李特约翰(Reggie Littlejohn)。这位美国激进分子是反对中国堕胎组织女权无疆界(Women’s Rights Without Frontiers)的负责人。这些年来,她多次在国会听证会上为陈光诚的困境作证。这对她而言是个无比激动的时刻。

  “我本该在他被拘时跨过半个地球去见他,”瑞吉说——现在,她与他近在咫尺。她带来了一束玫瑰——红色在中国预示吉祥——想在陈光诚发言完毕后献给他。

  不过,据她回忆,纽约大学的某人过来阻拦,替陈光诚收下了花。李特约翰发给路透社一张失败的合影,照片里陈光诚被马特•道夫(Mart Dorf)和孔杰荣搀扶着离开,而他扭过身面对着李特约翰和她的花束。道夫是那天新上任的公关顾问。道夫的公司经常为希拉里•克林顿等民主党客户服务。

  “我都能摸到陈光诚,但他被人从发布会上强行拉走了,”李特约翰在邮件中写道。

  道夫称第一天很忙乱,都是不熟悉的面孔,基本上每个人都是第一次见面,而且陈光诚当时很累。

  陈上楼跟他的家人团聚,这是纽约大学租给他的一套三居室,里面挤满了人。鲜花、给孩子们的玩具和好心人的礼物堆了满满一屋。

  克里斯•斯密斯也在那儿。他是新泽西的一名共和党议员,多年来一直呼吁释放陈光诚。史密斯本想在纽瓦克机场的停机坪上为陈举行英雄般的欢迎仪式,但国务院的官员却匆匆把陈光诚一家送上了车,这让他很恼火。但他今天应该算是陈光诚的首位访客,两人交谈并合影。

[attachment=72372]
NJURED: Chen’s foot was broken in his dramatic escape. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton
陈光诚逃跑时伤了脚

  孔杰荣和纽约大学的人表示,他们尊重史密斯等人对陈光诚的支持和努力,以及他们自1980年代以来跟威权政体的抗争。但是,史密斯清楚,他们对自己的某些政见很不认同。作为一名罗马天主教徒,史密斯坚决反对堕胎,他还是反堕胎组织的联席主席。

  不过,至少在当晚,所有人都相处融洽。傅希秋去亚洲做短途旅行。但是他的妻子蔡女士来访,还带来了傅的问候和礼物——一部崭新的iPhone和iPad。

  李特约翰差点也能上楼。在记者会结束后不久,她说她得到口信,陈说想见她。她正要去乘电梯的时候,纽约大学的人告诉他陈身体不适,他们必须改时间。

  即使跟期待的不完全一样,李特约翰和史密斯都将其形容为生命中最快乐的几天。多年来为释放陈光诚做的努力总算修成正果。

  但是这一年来,史密斯、李特约翰和傅希秋都或多或少确定,纽约大学企图控制陈光诚的行动。甚至黄女士潦草的笔记,尽管陈的几个口译员都会这么做,也被看作可疑的行为。

  纽约大学的指控:傅希秋装间谍软件

  傅希秋结束了他的亚洲之行,在下个周四返回纽约,他热切希望拜访陈光诚。孔杰荣安排上午8点半在陈光诚的公寓会面。陈出门迎接,他们互相拥抱并热烈地交谈。两人都是山东人,他们的妻子在相邻的村子里长大。他们还能交流关于中国司法的第一手经验。

  过了一会儿,孔杰荣、媒体顾问道夫和纽大副校长琳达•米尔斯(Linda Mills)也来了,根据安排,他们同陈光诚一家、陈的助手兼翻译黄小姐一起坐在餐桌前商量沟通策略。傅希秋问自己能否参加。

  “我天真地同意了。”孔杰荣说。

  会议主要探讨帮陈光诚拿下出书的合同。这似乎是个完美且显而易见的好主意——有了回忆录,陈能记录他生平的工作,还能靠稿费养活家人。

  道夫等人跟陈光诚说,他的故事,特别是被囚禁和戏剧般逃跑那一段,要是每个细节都在访谈和公开场合讲完了,恐怕价值就不是很大了。留着出书,这是他们的建议。

  陈光诚表面上答应着。鲍勃•巴内特(Bob Barnett)是一名来自华盛顿的律师,人脉颇广,他是巴拉克•奥巴马、小布什和比尔•克林顿的出版商,也是同陈洽谈出书的三位书商之一。

  美国市场对陈光诚的非凡事迹表现出强烈的兴趣:陈到美国的当天,位于加州比弗利山市的威廉莫里斯经纪公司就给傅希秋发了邮件,称想为一位“主要客户”取得陈光诚的电影和电视版权。

  不过陈光诚最关心的还是他亲属的消息。他逃跑之后,他们不断被当地官员骚扰。就在他逃跑的当晚,一群人闯入他的侄子陈克贵家中,陈克贵从厨房拿了把刀冲出去,刺伤了其中一人。他的亲戚和律师抱怨不能去探望陈克贵。孔杰荣敦促陈光诚在媒体采访时表达关切,这次会议似乎成果丰硕。

  之后,傅希秋下楼,等在外面的记者们围过来。傅希秋记得跟他们谈了一会,告诉他们陈光诚状态很好,就是时差还没完全倒过来,本周末就会跟孔杰荣一起到参议院外交关系委员会作证言。

  第二天,傅希秋和孔杰荣约好共进午餐,但当傅希秋去办公室找他时,孔杰荣很生气。“他几乎是在大吼。”傅希秋说。孔杰荣告诉傅希秋,纽大的人看到了他的话,已经失去信任,决定不跟他合作了。傅希秋称他很诧异,但心生歉意。

  孔杰荣告诉路透社,傅希秋当天提前离席“擅自发表意见”,接受“采访,仿佛是他允许我们纽大的人会见陈光诚,而不是相反。”对此他很生气。傅希秋称他并没有提前离开,也不同意孔杰荣对他的评论的解读。

  而傅希秋发给他“对华援助协会”支持者的一封邮件也让孔杰荣反感。该邮件号召他们为一个法律基金捐款。“我觉得这笔钱是想用来支付陈在中国的律师费用,这很奇怪。”孔杰荣说。

  陈光诚不是基督徒,傅在采访和文章中间或提及。不过,人们要是读到傅的募款邮件,误以为陈是基督徒,那也不是没有道理。

  “作为基督徒,我们要跟中国的兄弟姐妹站在一起,为所有追寻真理的人祈祷。”傅希秋的邮件写道,“帮助对华援助协会,支持被迫害的中国信徒们的工作吧。”

  在孔杰荣看来,这种将陈光诚包装成愤青的做法正是他要竭力避免的。而傅觉得他在别的场合把这件事已经讲清楚了,如果这封以协会全体人员名义发的邮件让人误将陈当成基督徒,那确实是无心之失。

  我认为可能因为这是我们邮件的标准结束语,因此发件员工就直接粘贴了。”傅希秋说。像对华援助协会这样的组织有权筹款,他说,而且他还从中拿出一部分钱给律师用来帮助陈光诚在中国的亲属。他还说从协会中拿出大约2000美元,让陈补贴第一周的家用。

  经历了一些大大小小的事情,傅希秋渐渐地不受陈光诚新团队的待见。一名助手发现傅在第一周习惯频繁造访陈的公寓,送去新鲜水果。这令人厌烦,而且有些可疑。好像鲜果会让他不请自来时不那么好打发走。傅则觉得这是完全合情合理的,更何况,当时陈还在康复期间。“我知道他喜欢吃水果。”他说。“他喜欢吃樱桃和西瓜。”

  而傅希秋显然不知道的是,孔杰荣和纽约大学的人已经确信,他在送给陈的iPad和iPhone上装了窃听软件,企图监控陈光诚一家。

  据孔杰荣等知情人士透露,有一天陈光诚团队的某人请纽约大学的技术人员检查这些设备。技术人员称他们发现了间谍软件。而柴玲送给陈家人的智能手机上也有类似的漏洞。柴玲是天安门事件后的流亡者,她在美国改信了基督教,目前是一家反中国堕胎组织的负责人。孔杰荣等人指出,安装有间谍软件的第三方设备就混在支持者送的那堆礼物里。(柴女士的发言人称对此不予置评。)

  孔杰荣相信,陈的iPad和iPhone装有间谍软件,而傅的苹果设备肯定装有秘密监控软件,这样就能访问陈光诚设备中的文件和GPS导航系统,从而有效地将它们变成跟踪工具。另一名纽约大学的助手回忆,记不清是技术人员查出了间谍软件还是警告有潜在的风险。

  傅希秋称,根本没料到会受到这种指控,直到路透社今年6月问他对此事的评价时他才知道。他说他立即向联邦调查局一个认识的人举报。而纽约大学的人称傅从未当面对质过,因为在忙乱的第一周里,这似乎不是最要紧的事。傅坚称无辜,称他的做的唯一改动就是让协会的技术人员装了Skype、设置了iCloud账户,通过它用户可远程访问某设备的文件,还安装了Find My iPhone的应用,该应用可通过设备的GPS系统追踪其位置。“伯春掌握着所有的密码。”傅说的是他妻子。

  这一间谍案的细节依然模糊。路透社无法确定孔杰荣的指控是否准确,或傅希秋只是想激活设备。采访技术人员的请求被纽约大学拒绝,联邦调查局也拒绝评论此事。

  傅希秋和孔杰荣当天共进午餐。他们闲聊了几句,提到陈的冰箱已经被饺子给塞满了。但两人的关系从此之后再没好过。

  “我更小心了,我认为陈最好自己跟傅打交道,而不是在他和我的意见之间进行权衡。”孔杰荣说。

  孔杰荣和纽大的人说他们立即告诉陈有间谍软件,而且他们确信是傅希秋干的。陈的一名前同事说,他非常愤怒。傅说,要真是如此,陈也没有讲出来。

  在美国还不到一周,陈就不得不担心那些主动帮他的人的动机,他应该相信谁呢:傅希秋?纽约大学的新同事?都不信?都信?

  人们问陈光诚他想怎么处理这些设备,他的意思似乎是:技术人员查完了就还给他。从那以后,他同时带着两部电话:纽大发的黑莓手机和傅送的iPhone。纽大的同事几乎没有他iPhone的手机号,但愿是因为他们觉得没有问的必要。傅经常一周打好几次电话。

  几天后,陈光诚的首篇专栏文章刊登在《纽约时报》上。孔杰荣称是他帮助陈光诚写的。题为《中国如何无视法律》。这篇文章呼吁中国遵守“法治”,并对陈及其家属的迫害展开调查。文章并未提及强制堕胎,一个字都没提。

  虽然刚来的这些天并不顺利,但一切似乎都朝着孔杰荣在中央公园跟傅希秋散步时所期待的方向发展。

  与纽约大学争夺陈光诚

  陈光诚在中国山东省坐了将近7年牢,在牢房里待过,后来被软禁在东师古村自家的石头农房里。在当时的绝大多数时间里,他唯一能接触的人是地方官员雇的看守。陈和他的妻子袁伟静说,那些人有时候闯进屋打他们。有一次,他们一伙人把袁用毯子卷起来,把陈光诚绑在椅子上打。

  现在陈光诚到了纽约,七年以来仰慕他的政客、记者、学者、律师、代理商、人权专家、激进分子、仰慕者以及至少一名好莱坞影星都想立刻见到他。这真是件了不起的事。

[attachment=72373]
陈光诚在他家里(资料图)
ORIGINS: Chen in China, in an undated photo. After fighting solo for years against corrupt officials, the dissident had an awkward transition to academia in Manhattan. REUTERS/Handout/ChinaAid

  刚开始没几个人有陈光诚的直接联系方式,他们不得不通过孔杰荣、陈的同事或助手联系他。这位令人尊敬的纽大法学教授在学校里为陈安排了个访问学者的工作。这些曾经努力保护陈远离可疑人员的学界人士,如今也开始为了打起了自己的算盘——利用这位“异见分子”的感召力。

  一条路走不通,傅希秋还有别的选择。

  在近期的媒体报道中,傅希秋成了陈光诚逃跑之后重要的消息人士。他很快成了陈光诚的亲密好友,也差不多同时成了纽约大学孔杰荣等人的仇人,他们发现这人不可信。你可以很容易地在得州米德兰市傅希秋的办公室找到他。他指出拒绝回答的理由时,也没纽约大学那么不耐烦。傅称得知失去纽大的信任后他很痛心,但依然尽职尽责地将所有联系陈光诚的请求转发给纽大方面的人。

  那些被拒绝或没有获得回复的人有时候会起疑心,他们觉得陈肯定希望见他们,是纽大从中阻拦。

  “他同意见面的人都能去见他,但不见得是在他们要求的那个时间,也不一定必须是私人的,除非他们特别要求,并获得他的同意。”孔杰荣说。

  助手说有时候陈光诚反应迟缓,部分是因为眼盲让他无法快速查看邮件,这时他会请别人读给他听或借助繁琐的英汉翻译阅读软件。其他时间的安排则难以预料。一名助手回忆,他曾欣然接受一家名不见经传的以色列媒体的访谈,没人知道为什么。

  跟陈光诚的会面可能会惹来麻烦,有些访客和纽大工作人员直勾勾地盯着对方,有时几乎变成对峙。

  对纽约大学最强烈的批评来自傅希秋和陈光诚两位最热情的支持者:人权激进分子瑞吉•李特约翰和共和党议员克里斯•史密斯。

[attachment=72374]
  共和党议员克里斯·史密斯,陈光诚的坚定支持者。
ALLY: Among Chen’s U.S. supporters was Republican Rep. Chris Smith. REUTERS/Bruno Domingos

  “我觉得陈被人监视了。”傅希秋说。据他回忆,有天晚上他带着一名中国人权律师造访陈的住所,那晚住在同一栋公寓的黄CJ也去了,她带着手提电脑,称家里的网断了。黄是陈的助手和口译员,几乎是24小时工作。

  黄进屋后,她键盘敲击的声音让傅希秋起了疑心,他接着断定所谓的断网不过是借口,这样她就能记录他们的谈话了。傅的客人、那位人权律师似乎也这么觉得,而且他开始针锋相对地给黄拍照,成功制造了一种尴尬的气氛,直到黄起身告辞,傅希秋说。(陈的一位前纽大同事则认为黄更可能是复习她中国历史的博士课程,她是挤出时间来上课的。)

  而女权无疆界负责人李特约翰和共和党议员克里斯•史密斯都有类似的抱怨。

  史密斯称他跟陈光诚的很多次会谈期间总有人在记笔记。“我不知道他们是谁,他们向谁报告,”他说。史密斯说他唯一一次跟陈单独会面是在今年的1月份,当时他坚持让丹妮卡•米尔斯(Danica Mills)等在他的办公室外面。米尔斯自去年秋天起担任陈的主要顾问。史密斯说,被赶到走廊里的米尔斯很快不断地打陈的电话,过了一会儿,她径直打开门走进来,带着陈离开了。史密斯说,这是国会山数十年来前所未见的失礼行为。米尔斯则拒绝谈论此事。

  傅希秋、史密斯和李特约翰的担忧并不普遍。激进分子、律师和其他支持者们告诉路透社,他们会见陈的时候没有遇到任何麻烦。

  陈光诚前同事和助手有几位是外聘的,一听说自己可能被人利用来欺骗他们的偶像,他们立刻就愤怒了。他们说,自己之所以留下是因为陈需要他们。

  他们说傅希秋能够给陈发邮件、或通过iPhone联系,或私下见面,什么时候都行——傅希秋对此没有否认,不过没人知道两个人谈了什么。

  比如,当傅希秋安排共和党律师、前总统小布什的助理总检察长维耶•丁(Viet Dinh)与陈光诚在纽约大学一间会议室见面时,就没有人干预。丁的公司Bancroft位于华盛顿,在最高法院的奥巴马医改和婚姻保护法案听证会上,该公司以捍卫共和党的利益闻名。Bancroft想无偿向陈提供法律咨询服务。傅称陈要再考虑一下,丁拒绝透露为陈提供了哪些服务,除了其中一项:一年以后,丁的公司帮助陈光诚宣传他抨击纽约大学的声明。

  陈的助手说,在会上做记录是为了更精确地翻译。他们还说自己不仅仅是译者,还是无处不在的配角。一名助手说,其中包括扮演“坏警察”。陈会让他们接听不合时宜的电话,或接待他不想见的客人,然后他们会告诉那人陈累了或想陪陪孩子——有时候真是如此。

  我们不清楚陈光诚是怎样处理这种不合,他似乎不介意那个被史密斯赶到走廊里的米尔斯是否可靠。陈光诚今夏离开纽约大学之后,还私下聘用了米尔斯担任助手。米尔斯是一名艺术家兼制片人,在中国和美国都有业务。

  不过,史密斯的一条指控并没有被纽约大学完全否认。纽约大学称陈光诚的时间自己做主,但是他们需要对某些邀请做出警告——特别是一些来自华盛顿的人。所以陈光诚必须要听从强势的孔杰荣等人的意见:延迟会面,这才是明智的做法。

  孔杰荣曾让陈光诚在大选结束前远离华盛顿,到了去年7月,这个期望受到了考验。

  去华盛顿

  史密斯等议员希望陈光诚在2012年夏天去对外事务委员会作证,而孔杰荣等纽约大学的人则努力说服陈这是个坏主意,至少目前是。

  “不论这个要求是谁提出来的,我的观点是陈光诚应该先花几个月了解美国的生活,而不应该涉足总统大选,对某个党派表达支持或反对。”孔杰荣说。“当我告诉史密斯的同事我觉得陈应当等到今年1月份时,他说:‘那就太晚了。’我问:‘什么太晚了?’”

  丹尼斯•哈尔平(Dennis Halpin)是对外事务委员会共和党主席伊莱亚娜•罗斯-莱赫蒂宁(Ileana Ros-Lehtinen)的下属,他说他是“硬着头皮”去找陈光诚。他参与安排听证会已经有12年了,但让陈露面实在是太难了。有一次,他电话联系上了陈,用结结巴巴的中文请他来。陈光诚也已经收到了史密斯的请柬,就同意了。

  但哈尔平还要说服孔杰荣和纽约大学这些中间人。他们对他说,陈去参加听证会可能会影响他出书,而且对他远在中国的亲属可能弊大于利。

  离听证会举行还有一周,哈尔平开始制定最后议程。他发现没办法联系上任何人。他听说孔杰荣和陈光诚带着家人去汉普顿了,他们经常去海滩漫步,而且他们的手机信号一直很差。

  没办法,哈尔平只好放弃。听证会上将没有陈光诚。

  他的原同事透露,陈家人早就盼望着汉普顿之行,一位有钱的支持者请他们去海滨寓所玩。(没人愿披露主人的身份。)陈光诚的孩子们尤其兴奋——他们还从没去过海边。但有报道说,这次旅行并不像期待的那么轻松。

  陈光诚觉得不接受史密斯的邀请太失礼了,毕竟他帮他离开中国。说好了去又食言,这让他很懊恼。陈也不喜欢纽大的人说他期望不现实、他对美国政治依然缺乏了解。那个夏天,这样的争论越来越频繁,越来越激烈,最终在去长岛的旅行中失控。

  “那是非常巨大的分歧,”同去的一名陈光诚的助手说,“大家的情绪都非常激动。”

  而另一方面,傅希秋几乎从来不让陈光诚觉得自己很天真或被误导了。恰恰相反——他会谴责纽约大学,他认为那里的人时常对陈摆出一副屈尊俯就的架势。傅说他和陈从来没有过分歧。

[attachment=72375]
傅、陈和陈的妻子袁伟静,摄于今年10月。
AMONG FRIENDS: Fu, Chen and Chen’s wife, Yuan Weijing, last month. NYU says the plan all along was for Chen’s post to last just one year. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

  听说有人称这次旅行充满压力,孔杰荣表示“很疑惑”。“我和我妻子玩得很愉快,而且很喜欢讨论如何应对秋天的事情。当然我要承认讨论不是那么富有激情,”他在一封邮件里写道。“我认为陈家人也过得很愉快。我的儿子Ethan还教陈听回声打网球。”

  傅希秋也曾抱怨无法跟陈光诚取得联系。当他们回到曼哈顿后,他见了陈光诚的妻子。据他称,袁女士都快哭了,她说丈夫回来后,浑身被汗水湿透、痛苦不堪地坐在沙发上,仰头看天,心里非常焦虑。

  不久,傅希秋想问问陈光诚这次旅行如何。陈不想说很多,但提到一些访客曾在他面前高谈阔论。这些访客告诉陈光诚他要去华盛顿就犯了大错,他们警告他,他会被共和党政客给利用的。陈光诚反问了一句:所以如果我不去的话,是不是就被民主党给利用了?

  大约一周后,8月1日,在纽约大学同事的帮助下,决心已定的陈光诚去了华盛顿。

  陈光诚与纽大关系继续恶化,投向另一阵营

  两党就谁来见陈光诚发生了一点小争执,不过这次国会山之行是成功的。陈光诚、共和党众议院议长约翰•博纳(John Boehner)和民主党参议院领袖南希•佩洛西(Nancy Pelosi)合影留念,陈光诚还对议员和记者发表了一则简短的演说。因为对他家庭遭受不公正待遇的调查没有启动的迹象,他对中国政府进行了严厉的批评。

  “假如像我这么有名的人都不能遵照中国法律和国际法律规范妥善对待,那我们如何相信中国会尊重人权和法律?”他说。

  他回纽约后不久,一名助手就来跟他商量他明年夏天离开纽约大学后更详细的计划。傅希秋说这是对他去华盛顿跟共和党称兄道弟的惩罚。陈则将其视为纽大屈从于中国压力跟他断绝关系的证据。纽大的人说他们只能努力给陈光诚争取尽可能多得时间,尽力帮他做好下一步规划。

  出书的事情终于谈妥了。陈光诚签下了他的出版商——时代图书公司系麦克米伦出版公司的分公司。该公司称他们签的是标准的保密协议,在出版前不泄露回忆录的独家内容。

  陈光诚变得越来越独立了。孔杰荣和纽约大学的工作人员说他们经常不知道陈光诚见了谁或去了哪。他们表示其实并不反对,但有时会怀疑为什么要那么神秘。

  这个时候,他的同事和一些支持者们已经明显决裂。而他处理这种裂痕的方式,就是小心翼翼地绕开。

  随着8月的临近,陈的同事们问他是否要帮他安排一次家庭旅行。陈光诚最后拒绝了,称他已经有安排了。一名助手已经开始取消课程和邀约。

  “他们神神秘秘地说回新泽西一个礼拜,明显不想告诉纽约大学他们的东道主是谁,”孔杰荣说。“他们回来之后晒黑了、显得健康、快乐,对此我们很高兴。他们后来做了很多承诺,没有咨询或告诉我们。”他们误以为东道主是史密斯议员,因为他的辖区包括新泽西海滩的一部分。

  而他们通过陈光诚的沉默猜测,他的主人来自另一个阵营。

  事实是,陈家人和傅希秋的妻子和女儿去旅行了。(傅希秋在家照看陈光诚的两个孩子)傅希秋在费城的一个朋友请他们去新泽西海滩的家里做客——“一位普通的基督教商人”,傅希秋称,拒绝透露更多细节,他说他朋友不想公开身份。”

  就在几周前,傅希秋还抱怨陈光诚“消失”,跟着孔杰荣去了汉普顿。现在反过来了。

  傅希秋说,陈光诚越来越频繁地向他吐露心声,陈光诚有很多不能跟纽大说的话都跟他说。

  “他问过我一个问题,”傅希秋说:“‘为什么纽约人那么恨基督徒或其他教徒,他们为什么这么害怕?’他听的够多了,结果适得其反。”

  “他再也不相信他们的洗脑了。”傅希秋说。

  孔杰荣说这就像漫画一样荒谬。如果他真这么想,那是误解了他们的建议,他们只是让他小心别跟任何一派结盟。

  不过,纽约大学并不否认他们之间的紧张关系。他们认为原因在于陈光诚的背景。

  陈光诚的人生之路充满了抗争。他出身于一个贫穷的农民家庭,他不想当按摩师,在中国这是盲人能做的极少的几种工作之一。他选择自学法律,并用法律知识为越来越多陷入麻烦的邻居辩护,因此常常得罪政府最专制的代表。7年艰苦的监禁生活并没有磨灭他的反抗精神。

  如今,陈光诚这个孤独的独行侠藏身于美国最大的一所大学里。助手怀疑他内心是否将纽约大学视为一个掌权者,而他本能地要进行反抗。

  傅希秋说,陈光诚最大的痛苦,就是不知道对中国的强制堕胎该说什么不该说什么——“这是他生命中的核心议题。”

  “你在他的任何异常公开演讲中都不会听到‘强制堕胎’这个词,”傅希秋说,“我认为孔杰荣对这些词汇的掌控是很成功的:‘只谈法治问题’。”

  傅回忆了早些时候跟陈的一次交谈。“他告诉我,‘昨晚,我得知家乡一位妇女有八个月身孕,他们强制给她做了引产。’”傅说,“他整夜都不能睡,非常非常痛苦,然后他跟我说,‘别告诉任何人。’”

  8月30日,陈光诚在一封写给苹果公司CEO蒂姆•库克的公开信中,首次对强制堕胎做出实质性评论。公开信敦促苹果利用其在中国的影响力,为谴责中国的计划生育政策做出跟多努力。苹果的很多手机和电脑都在中国组装,但苹果并未回应这一要求,并告诉记者这些问题将在公司年度社会责任报告中予以解答。这封信还有傅希秋、李特约翰和人权活动家安德鲁•邓肯的署名。邓肯在幕后与陈的关系日益紧密。

  孔杰荣:赶走陈光诚跟政治无关

  随着2013年的到来,陈光诚似乎在分裂的支持者中维持了平衡状态。2月,他和孔杰荣一起参加了纽约新学院(The New School)开学典礼,并做了中国人权状况的演讲。4月,傅安排他去得州达拉斯市的乔治•W•布什总统中心跟这位前总统见面,他还接受了中心主管的采访,谈自己的维权行动。

  同月,姗姗来迟的陈光诚去参加了史密斯的下属委员会的听证会,并会见了华盛顿的议员们,他还坦诚了自己的担忧,正是这种担忧让他跟纽约大学决裂。

  在史密斯任主席的下属委员会就中国人权举行的听证会上,陈举起一张纸作为开头,纸上列出了“腐败官员”名单,他说“他们的手上沾了血”因为参与了强制堕胎。他请求依据史密斯写的第2000号令,这些人应被禁止进入美国境内。

  陈光诚和傅希秋此行还去民主党参院领袖南希•佩洛西的办公室拜访了她。佩洛西一直支持陈的事业,而且他们之前还见过几次。

  陈光诚告诉她,自己对纽约大学的控诉几个月后就会公开。佩洛西似乎有些忧虑,并让人拨通了孔杰荣的电话。

  “我尽量简单明确地向她保证,纽大迫于中国压力将陈赶出去之事是子虚乌有,我还向她保证陈家人不会被扔到大街上,还告诉她我们正在为他争取高就的机会,”孔杰荣说。(一名佩洛西发言人拒绝了采访请求。)

  陈光诚尚未表示他的指控有任何证据。

  有迹象表明,中国官员对陈去美国大使馆耿耿于怀。但这究竟只是中国外交官形式上的、无效的抗议,还是最终迫使纽约大学屈服的更激烈干预,似乎只能靠猜测了。
[attachment=72377]  
驻华大使骆家辉送陈去北京的医院接受治疗。
SAFE HANDS: Chen at a Beijing hospital shortly after his escape with U.S. Ambassador Gary Locke (right). The incident created a brief diplomatic crisis. REUTERS/Handout/U.S. Embassy Beijing

  “中方的感情受到了伤害,这是无疑的,”对华基金会创始人、跟孔杰荣和傅相交多年的约翰•凯姆(John Kamm)说。该基金会的工作是营救中国被关押的政治犯。“他们受到了羞辱,当然会让我知道他们很不高兴。”不过,他也说,他认为中国不会威胁对纽约大学上海分校“釜底抽薪”。

  两名参与此次谈话的政府官员和一名美国驻华大使馆的官员称,他们没有发现中国施加压力的证据。陈光诚落脚纽约大学的5个月后,中国的教育部最终批准设立上海分校。

  孔杰荣指出,在任何情况下,中国的任何措施都将是多余的。且不说资金的问题,纽大有更多平常的理由不再留他。孔杰荣说:这位“异见分子”让他的同事很不满。

  “比如,我们亚美法研究所发展很快,办公空间严重短缺,”孔杰荣在一封邮件中说。“然而,我们从少数几个办公室中匀出一间给他,这样我们的两名正式研究员必须在开放式隔间里办公。这非常不方便,对其他人也不公平。而陈认识的激进分子们一周来来办公室好几次,还要让我们的学者做翻译,安排等事情。他活泼的孩子们有时也来玩。这必然会有摩擦,而同事们觉得陈光诚对他们的帮助并不领情。


  孔杰荣自己的办公室在纽大另一处,不在研究所,他说这些事情他要过段时间才会知道。

  “同事们想让他在学年结束前离开,这跟政治没关系。”孔杰荣说,“只是个性不合、一些误解,还有他神秘的访客和活动。”

  找工作

  纽约大学至少在2012年秋天就已告诉陈,他需要在学年结束前找个新地方办公。陈光诚四月份从华盛顿回来后,傅希秋回忆道,这件事变得非常紧迫。

  孔杰荣已经做好了初步安排——“非常好的职位,”他安排陈去中国律师之友(Committee to Support Chinese Lawyers)。该组织位于曼哈顿福特汉姆大学法学院,他是顾问。陈在那会儿加入一支法学学者组成的小组,他们监控并帮助中国人权律师摆脱麻烦。几乎所有人,包括傅和史密斯,都说这是个好工作。

  安德鲁•邓肯是陈光诚致苹果CEO公开信的联合署名人之一。据傅和两外两名知情人士透露,他原则上同意赞助陈的新职位。邓肯没有回复路透社的邮件,未对此发表评论。

  邓肯曾是一名私募基金执行人,现在则是人权倡议者。孔杰荣和傅希秋说,自从在纽约会面后,他就成了陈慷慨的支持者。他曾经在彭博社对苹果公开信的采访中短暂露面,但傅称他更希望在幕后。邓肯是陈的密友圈中罕见的一个人,他似乎跟孔杰荣和傅希秋两人的关系都不错。

  一边跟福特汉姆大学进行谈判,傅、邓肯、史密斯等支持者们一边在匆忙寻找在其他机构的工作机会。史密斯运气最好。他联系上了威瑟斯庞研究所董事会的一个人。该研究所位于新泽西州普林斯顿市普林斯顿大学对面,是一家保守派研究机构,以发布反同性婚姻、反堕胎和反肝细胞研究报告闻名。

  5月份,史密斯致电威瑟斯庞研究所创始人、总裁路易斯•特列斯(Luis Tellz)。

  “实话跟你说,那会我还不知道陈是谁。”特列斯说,“但我从赞助人那听说这人很重要,而我也很快断定,他可能确实很重要。”

  雇佣这位“异见分子”可能是威瑟斯庞研究所的新动向,这家机构之前很少关注中国的人权问题。特列斯一直是普林斯顿大学主业会的活动协调员。主业会是一个天主教自治社团,其使命为教育人们:普通人在日常生活中也能做神圣之事业。特列斯称,虽然会受到天主教伦理的影响,威瑟斯庞并非一个正式的天主教或主业会的机构。特列斯还参与成立了全国婚姻组织(National Organization for Marriage),该组织现在是最大的反同性婚姻游说团体之一。

  陈光诚从未参与过这些事业。不过,在特列斯看来他们都反对对准孕妇进行强制流产,这一点他们的立场是一致的。

  在傅这个双语中间人的撮合下,特列斯邀请陈在普林斯顿的教职工俱乐部共进午餐。“假如你信任我们,我们愿随时效劳。”他记得这样跟他说。陈有一些“疑虑”,他尤其希望能在一所大学任职。特列斯说他和他的同事将尽力安排。

  6月份,陈和福特汉姆大学和威瑟斯庞研究所接触的新闻出现在《金融时报》上,报道称这位“异见分子”受到“意见相左”的机构的青睐。报道引述孔杰荣的话说:“他要是接受了威瑟斯庞的工作,那他在美国的地位将受损。”

  傅看到了孔的评论。这样的场景几乎是一年前的翻版,不过当时是孔杰荣谴责傅在媒体面前多管闲事,如今轮到傅生气了。

  “这是蓄意破坏!”他说。“你怎么能招呼不打一声,擅自接受公开采访却不告诉陈光诚,这不是毁了他唯一的工作机会吗?”

  孔杰荣称他认为陈“比较适合更中立、学术氛围更浓的机构,特别是关注中国律师困境的机构。不过,当然,据说威瑟斯庞给了很多诱人的好处,而且我想陈光诚到了春末已经足够成熟和消息灵通,有能力自己做出决定。”

  特列斯在还没收到陈光诚回复的时候,读到了这篇报道,他当时觉得福特汉姆大学的待遇不错。他确定陈最终会选择那里。

  正式向纽约大学宣战

  到了6月13日,星期四,《纽约邮报》刊登了一篇题为“纽约大学为在上海的扩张将中国异见分子陈光诚踢开”的报道。该报道引述了一位不具名的“来自纽约熟悉陈光诚处境的教授”的话。

  这则消息迅速传播开来,但纽约和北京的记者们都无法联系上陈。

  孔杰荣当时在中国旅行,他曾给陈光诚发电邮,催他在房子的租约到期前赶紧找新房。然后他读到了这篇报道,就又发了封邮件。

  “我希望陈发表一份声明,因为他要是一直沉默,就显得《纽约邮报》说的是实话。”孔杰荣说,“但他把声明给了华盛顿的人,那人又把它变成了共和党的一派胡言。等他把这事告诉我的时候已经太迟了。”

  陈在3天后发布了声明,称纽大要他在6月底离开属实。

  “其实,早在去年8月到9月,中国共产党就已无情地向纽约大学施加了巨大压力,”声明写道,“其压力之大,以至于我们到美国不过3、4个月,纽大就跟我们提离开的事。”

  不过他向纽大和孔杰荣表示感谢,结尾称中国政府的计划是“让我忙着谋生没时间推动人权,但这是不可能的。”

  傅希秋称声明都是陈光诚自己写的,他只负责校对和翻译成英文。去年夏天在本克罗特学校做法律咨询的共和党议员维耶•丁称,他收到了陈的声明,将其转给了他的公关顾问马克•克拉罗(Mark Corallo),后者又把这份声明给了媒体。克拉罗是丁的好友,他们曾在小布什任内的司法部共事。

  孔杰荣称陈的声明是一派胡言,丁不同意。“除非你认为人权、自由和言论自由仅仅是共和党的事业或共和党的问题,我想恐怕不是这样,我觉得这些矫揉造作的阴谋论毫无意义。”他说。

  在声明发布后仅数小时,尘封已久的矛盾就被报纸、网站和电台全面曝光。傅、史密斯和李特约翰将它们跟陈交往时遇到的怪事和盘托出。而陈纽约大学的同事则说陈的指控莫名其妙,感到被伤害了,他们还告诉记者这些理由都不是真的。中国外交部表示迷惑,一位女发言人称她不知道陈是搞错了还是在撒谎。

  “我要是觉得有人企图堵我或他的嘴,我想你保证我肯定早跟《纽约邮报》说了,”声明发布后不久,身在中国的孔杰荣在接受路透社简短的电话采访时表示。他还谴责了陈,称他冒着被看成“忘恩负义之人”的风险。他还怀疑,这是否会让中国的下一个政治难民在美国更难找到容身之所。

  但在通话结束前,孔杰荣用更宽容的语气说:“我们是老朋友。我对此毫不遗憾。显然,如果不趟这趟浑水,我的生活本可以更简单,也不会有这么多人污蔑我,但到了我这个年纪,这些代价也不算什么。”

  过了几天,陈光诚福特汉姆大学访学计划的资助者邓肯也发邮件称,他做出了一个艰难的决定:撤销资助。

  还是朋友

  大约一周后,孔杰荣和陈光诚共同参加了计划已久的台湾之行,孔杰荣之前的一个学生如今是台湾的“总统”。中国外交部警告陈访问争议领土时言行要得当,但陈还是忍不住歌颂了台湾民主。孔杰荣的一些老话又派上用场,他告诫陈光诚,不要跟台湾右倾的国民党和左倾的民进党中的任何一方走得太近。

  陈光诚在抨击纽约大学后第一次面对记者。他对关于纽约大学的问题很恼火,称现在不是说这事的时候。孔杰荣也参与了记者会,他表示同意:在中国面前为琐事吵架显得很不好。

  陈光诚回到曼哈顿,接着找房子。这要花时间,而校方稍稍延长了他的居住期限。然而,到了7月底,就在孔杰荣对PBS电台说陈要待上“至多一年”的14个月后,陈和他的家人离开了纽约大学。
[attachment=72376]
今年6月,陈光诚在台湾举行新书发布会。
BOTHERING BEIJING: In Taiwan this June, Chen praised the disputed territory’s democracy, ignoring warnings from Beijing that he must behave in a circumspect manner. REUTERS/Pichi Chuang

  与此同时,保守派智库威瑟斯庞研究所的特列斯想知道出了什么事。陈依然没有回复他们的工作邀请,而特列斯多次联系傅希秋,希望能从任何一方获得答复。到了夏末,特列斯又开出更优厚的条件,他告诉陈,华盛顿国家天主教堂的大学——美国天主教大学似乎愿意考虑联合聘用他。

  到了九月初,随着福特汉姆大学的申请石沉大海,陈光诚做出了决定。他将担任威瑟斯庞研究所的人权问题高级研究员,同时他将任倾向自由派的兰托斯人权与正义基金会(Lantos Foundation for Human Rights & Justice)的顾问。该基金会以已故的加州民主党议员汤姆•兰拓思(Tom Lantos)命名,今年早些时候他还给陈光诚颁发了年度人权奖。

  似乎可以这样解释,陈光诚横跨自由保守两大阵营的做法是希望能够中和别人的看法,避免被人归入美国政治光谱中的某个特定的派别。

  消息宣布的那天,傅希秋告诉路透社他觉得“平反昭雪”了。“那些左派理论家、意识形态先行者把我当成靶子,想给我贴上偏右翼、反同性恋、反堕胎、反奥巴马的标签。”他说,“当我们有这样三个机构一起支持陈,这些都成了无稽之谈,而我也是推动进步事业的一分子。”

  当电话联系上孔杰荣时,他变得更加沉默寡言。

  “我很高兴问题都解决了,”他说。“我要说清楚,我为他感到高兴,祝一切都好,我们还会是朋友。”

  第二天,陈和他的新同事一起出席了在华盛顿举行的新闻发布会。他左边坐着专业口译员,她一边埋头记笔记,一边做英-中和中-英口译,不过显然没人在意。陈的妻子袁伟静坐在前排,脸上挂着热情的微笑,还拿出iPhone为他的丈夫拍照、摄像。几排位子后面坐的是傅希秋。

  国家天主教大学的校长约翰•贾伟(John Garvey)赞扬陈的主张跟基督教精神一致:“穷苦和软弱者尤其需要我们的仁爱和慈悲。”

  陈光诚起身发言。

  “今天我站在了新的起点上,”他说。他如今将中国称之为“邪恶势力,”而就在一年前他还希望中国当局停止对他亲属的骚扰,并启动调查。发言结束时,他说想向纽约大学表达真诚的感激。

  当一名记者问他是否被美国保守派追捧时,他回答称将他划分派别是错误的。

  “我相信人权超越了党派政治,也超越了国界,”他说。

  就在陈开始新工作之际,让他成名的事业又成了媒体的焦点。上周一份令人意外的声明中,中国政府称将对数十年的计划生育政策做出重大改变,允许夫妻生育二胎。但我们尚不清楚这项政策对农村能有多大影响。绝大多数农村的夫妇从1980年代起就获准生育二胎。(译者注:原文如此。十八届三中全会《决定》提出,启动实施一方为独生子女的夫妇可生育两个孩子的政策。)

  与此同时,孔杰荣在撰写自己的回忆录。他说很可能会用一章篇幅来写陈光诚。

http://www.guancha.cn/america/2013_12_27_195763.shtml

卡拉 12-29-2013 17:20

New York November 25, 2013

In May 2012, Chen Guangcheng, the Chinese dissident, was getting ready to journey to New York after his improbable escape from house arrest. About a week before his arrival, an Evangelical Christian pastor from Texas and a New York University law professor took a walk in Central Park. They wanted to discuss the difficulties Chen might face as one of the most high-profile and sought-after immigrants to come to the United States in some time.

These men were to become two of Chen’s closest advisers in America, which would create a difficulty of its own. Over the course of an increasingly distrustful year, Chen couldn’t possibly follow their often sharply conflicting advice simultaneously, leaving him torn. But for now, as the pair strolled through the park on a Sunday afternoon, it seemed as if they were in alliance and set to counsel Chen in unison.

Jerome Cohen, the renowned professor and expert in Chinese law, thought it best if Chen initially spoke with caution, if at all, about his best-known cause: his exposure of the grisly practice of forced abortions and sterilizations in his native Shandong Province as an illegal means of enforcing China’s family-planning policy. Chen’s efforts enraged local officials and led to nearly seven years of imprisonment and house arrest.

His ordeal ended only when, one April night last year, Chen, who is blind, leapt the walls around his home, evaded the guards who had taken over his village, made his way to Beijing and sought refuge in the American Embassy.

Few in the U.S. could disagree with Chen’s cause. But Cohen felt it was tricky for a newcomer to discuss it with an American audience without getting enmeshed in the distinct and far more divisive debate here about when pregnant women can legally choose to have an abortion. Religious conservatives are among Chen’s most admiring supporters, and Cohen feared that Chen, who is not himself a Christian, might stumble on American political fault lines he’d not yet learned to detect. Besides, Chen had plenty else to talk about, having helped disabled people and the rural poor affirm their rights in China’s courts – so-called rule of law issues.

Walking alongside Cohen was Bob Fu, the founder of a Christian organization called ChinaAid, based in Midland, Texas, that agitates for religious freedom in his native China. Before his own exile, Fu, a 45-year-old with fuzzily buzz-cut black hair, had once been imprisoned for two months for proselytizing and for preaching in churches not sanctioned by the Chinese government. Sixteen years had passed since Fu and his wife, Heidi Cai, pregnant without the requisite government permit, fled China for political asylum in the United States.

Fu found little to object to as he listened to the professor – the pair had been friendly acquaintances for years – although he says he didn’t quite get why the abortion issue was such a big deal. Fu is not involved in efforts to limit access to abortion in the United States, and says he has never paid much attention to the debate.

“I maybe was a little naive,” Fu says. “I was not very conscious of how strong the battle with the pro-life group is, the almost irreconcilable differences.”

Cohen, a tall, imposing, gravel-voiced 83-year-old with a white mustache and a preference for bowties, is revered among scholars of Chinese law, not least because he taught so many of them over the decades. Fu says he was happy to defer to the professor’s wisdom. They both wanted to help Chen avoid the fate of the many previous Chinese activists and dissidents who struggled to continue their work after arriving in America before fading into embittered irrelevance.

Both men had been involved in helping Chen extricate himself from his awkwardly timed refuge at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, where he had arrived just as Hillary Clinton, then U.S. secretary of state, was getting into town for bilateral talks only to find herself defusing a diplomatic crisis. Fu had long been in contact with activists who helped Chen flee to Beijing, and became a sort of liaison among them, Chen himself, and various American officials and politicians.

Cohen, for his part, helped craft the diplomatically elegant solution of offering Chen a place as visiting fellow at the U.S.-Asia Law Institute, where he is a director, at NYU’s law school, rather than have Chen seek political asylum. (The University of Washington and Oklahoma Wesleyan University made similar offers.) Chen, whose legal knowledge is largely self-taught, was keen to study. The arrangement also gave the United States and China the face-saving pretense of acting as if Chen was basically indistinguishable from the many thousands of Chinese who travel each year to America on student visas.

Cohen had first met Chen in 2003, when Chen spent several weeks in the United States on a State Department fellowship for foreigners of potential influence, and later called on him several times in China. “He could be China’s Gandhi,” Cohen liked to say. Fu hadn’t yet met Chen but had been involved in his case for years, helping circulate a video and a letter smuggled from the Chens’ guarded home in which they described their brutal confinement.

However, a little over a year after their stroll, Chen would make a stark choice between these two friends. In June of this year, Chen issued an incendiary statement. He asked Fu to proofread it beforehand; Cohen would see it, and with dismay, only after it was published.

Within a year, Chen Guangcheng would make an incendiary accusation: NYU was ousting him to please China.

In that statement, Chen accused the university of asking him to leave as a result of “great, unrelenting pressure” from “the Chinese Communists” – while thanking the school all the same for its generosity.

NYU, which is building an outpost in Shanghai, strenuously rejected the claim. In its defense, it can point to interviews Cohen gave PBS and Reuters weeks before Chen’s arrival in which he said the dissident’s position would last up to a year. A number of Chen’s supporters and colleagues from his year at NYU wonder whether he has made some sort of mistake. (For this reason, many of them would only speak on condition of anonymity, saying they wished the upsetting story would just go away.)

Chen, in an email, declined to be interviewed or to address questions for this account of his tumultuous year at NYU.

“To transplant the contradictions between dictators and the free world into the free world (for example, between NYU and myself) is something that the dictators are always working hard to do,” he wrote in the email. “We must not be fooled! Moreover, I don’t want to allow those people who have helped me to be harmed.”

It was never going to be straightforward for a so-called barefoot lawyer from rural China to find his feet on Manhattan asphalt. Chen thought he’d just be studying law. He ended up also getting a crash course in America’s culture wars. It was a predicament that would define his first year in the United States, where he found himself depending on the guidance of people who made no secret of the fact they did not entirely trust one another and were unable to cooperate.

Chen speaks little English, and so relies on others to translate his words. He was blinded by a childhood fever, and so relies on others to lead him around unfamiliar spaces. He had never lived outside China, and so depended on others to describe the ways of his new home. But America can seem a very different place when viewed from Midland, Texas, than it does from New York. Much of his time here can be seen as a battle, gradually ceded by those at NYU, over who could be considered the most careful custodian of his voice and his surest guide.

Pastor Bob Fu didn’t get why NYU’s Jerome Cohen wanted Chen to avoid the issue of forced abortion. “I maybe was a little naive.”
At first, that role belonged to Cohen. Besides avoiding abortion talk, Cohen told Fu that day in the park that he also thought Chen should steer clear of politicians, at least in public, until the 2012 presidential election had passed. He worried that Chen’s voice might be easier to dismiss if it came with a religious or partisan echo.

“Maybe he wanted to build a united front with me,” Fu says of Cohen, “and maybe he already put me in the column of pro-life, religious, evangelical, right-wing – you know, I don’t know this mentality.”

If there ever was an alliance between Fu and Cohen, it dissolved within days of Chen arriving in New York.


From almost the moment the plane carrying Chen, his wife, Yuan Weijing, and their two young children landed at Newark Liberty International Airport on May 19, Chen’s new colleagues at NYU and some of his closest supporters rarely viewed an encounter with him in quite the same way.

The cracks began to appear at Chen's first New York press conference, which took place that evening outside an NYU apartment building in Greenwich Village right after he emerged from a van to cheers and camera flashes. Chen, with his square jaw, easy smile, his wispy moustache and dark sunglasses, has the sort of dissident glamour that cameras find irresistible. That his right foot was in a cast and he hobbled towards the microphones on crutches, the lingering marks of his astonishing flight to freedom, seemed only to add to this appeal.

Chen addressed the journalists and supporters in Mandarin, thanking the American government for its help and the Chinese government for its “restraint and calm.” He added that he hoped China would honor what he said was a promise to investigate the treatment of him and his family. “So we should link our arms,” he said at one point, “to continue in the fight for the goodness in the world and to fight against injustice.”

To his left was Cohen, who clasped Chen’s elbow and occasionally whispered guidance in his ear or patted urgently at his arm when he spoke for too long without pausing for the interpreter. To Chen’s right was CJ Huang, a Chinese-speaking doctoral student at Yale’s history department, recruited the previous night to help the Chens with their transition. She took to scribbling words on a scrap of paper as she tried nervously to keep up with translating Chen’s remarks.

In the crowd was Reggie Littlejohn, an American activist who runs an organization called Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, which campaigns against forced abortions in China. She had testified several times over the years at congressional hearings about Chen’s plight. It was an emotional moment for her.

“I would have crawled half way around the world to see him while he was under house arrest,” she said, and now he was an arm’s length away. She had brought along a bouquet of roses – red, an auspicious color in China – to give Chen after he spoke.

“I would have crawled half way around the world to see him.”
Rights activist Reggie Littlejohn

Instead, she recalls, someone from the NYU team interposed themselves, taking her flowers on Chen’s behalf. Littlejohn sent Reuters a photograph of the failed Kodak moment. It shows Chen twisting around to face Littlejohn and her bouquet as he is led away by the arms between Cohen and Matt Dorf, who had met Chen that day as his newly appointed public-relations consultant. Dorf’s firm has often worked for Hillary Clinton and other Democrat clients.

“I was close enough to touch Chen, but he was forcibly escorted from the press conference,” Littlejohn wrote in the accompanying email.

Dorf says it was a hectic first day, full of unfamiliar faces, with more or less everyone meeting for the first time, and that Chen was exhausted.

Chen went upstairs to join his family in the three-bedroom apartment provided rent-free by NYU. It churned with people. Flowers, toys for the children and gifts from well-wishers piled up.

Chris Smith, a Republican congressman from New Jersey who had agitated for Chen’s release for years, was also there. Smith was irritated that his attempt earlier to give Chen a hero’s greeting on the tarmac of Newark airport had been stymied when State Department officials whisked the Chens from the plane into the van. But after a bit of a wait, he was more or less Chen’s first visitor, and they talked and posed for photographs.

Cohen and others at NYU say they respect Smith’s support and efforts on behalf of Chen and others who run afoul of authoritarian regimes, work Smith has done since the 1980s. But, as Smith is aware, they tend to disagree strongly with some of his politics. A Roman Catholic, Smith is passionately opposed to abortion and is a co-chairman of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus.

Still, on this evening at least, everyone mingled amicably. Bob Fu was away on a short trip in Asia. But his wife, Cai, came by, bringing Fu’s regards and gifts - a new iPhone and iPad for Chen.

Littlejohn almost made it upstairs, too. Soon after the press conference finished, she says she got word that Chen wanted to meet her. Before she got to the elevator, someone from the NYU team told her Chen was feeling unwell. They’d have to reschedule.

Even if it did not go entirely as they’d hoped, Littlejohn and Smith both describe it as one of the happiest days of their lives, a vindication of years seeking Chen’s release.

But as the year unfolded, Smith, Littlejohn and Fu, to varying degrees, grew convinced NYU was trying to control Chen’s movements. Even Huang’s frantic note-taking, a practice used by several of Chen’s interpreters, would come to be seen as part of a pattern of suspicious behavior.



Bob Fu ended his Asia trip and went to New York City the next Thursday, eager to finally meet Chen in person. Jerry Cohen had set up an appointment at Chen’s apartment for 8:30 a.m. Chen welcomed Fu at the door, and the two embraced and began talking earnestly. Both hailed from Shandong Province – their wives grew up in neighboring villages – and could swap dour tales of first-hand experience with Chinese justice.

A little later in the morning, Cohen, media strategist Dorf and Linda Mills, an NYU vice provost, arrived to join the Chens and Huang, his aide and interpreter, around the dining table for a pre-arranged meeting about communications strategy. Fu asked if he could stay and join in.

“I naively agreed,” Cohen says.

Much of the meeting focused on the importance of securing Chen a book deal. It seemed a perfect, obvious idea - with a memoir, Chen could describe his life’s work and provide for his family.

Fu’s circle grew convinced NYU – even its interpreters – was trying to control Chen’s movements.

Dorf and others discussed with Chen how the value of his story, particularly the parts about his imprisonment and dramatic escape, could corrode if every detail was aired in interviews and public appearances. Save all that for the book, was their advice.

Chen seemed to take this on board. Bob Barnett, a well-connected lawyer based in Washington who has worked as a book agent for Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, was one of three agents who had already been approached to represent Chen.

There was strong appetite for Chen’s remarkable tale: The day Chen arrived, an agent from William Morris Endeavor, the talent agency in Beverly Hills, California, had emailed Fu in hope of securing of Chen’s film and television rights for a “major client.”

The incoming messages Chen paid most attention to, however, were those with worrying news from his relatives: They were being harassed by local officials after Chen’s escape. A nephew, Chen Kegui, had been arrested for brandishing a kitchen knife at men who stormed his home at night after Chen’s flight, wounding one of them; other relatives and his lawyers complained they were barred from seeing Kegui. Cohen urged Chen to raise these concerns in media interviews. The meeting seemed productive.

Afterwards, Fu headed downstairs, and reporters waiting outside approached him. Fu recalls speaking to them for a short while, telling them Chen was well, if a little jetlagged, and would be appearing at the weekend alongside Cohen to speak at the Council on Foreign Relations.

The next day, Fu and Cohen had arranged to have lunch together, but when Fu got to Cohen’s office the professor was angry. “He was almost screaming,” Fu says. Cohen told Fu that people at NYU had seen his quote and would no longer trust him or work with him. Fu says he was surprised but apologetic.

Cohen told Reuters he was upset with Fu for leaving the previous day’s meeting early to “put his own spin on things,” giving “an interview that made it seem like he had allowed our NYU group to meet with Chen rather than the contrary.” Fu says he didn’t leave early and disputes Cohen’s interpretation of his remarks.

Cohen was also “put off” by an email Fu sent supporters of ChinaAid, Fu’s Christian advocacy group, seeking donations to a legal fund. “I think the money was supposed to defray the expenses of lawyers for Chen in China, which I thought rather odd,” Cohen says.


Chen is not a Christian, as Fu has sometimes pointed out in interviews and articles. But readers of Fu’s fundraising email might be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

“As Christians, we can stand with our Chinese Christian brothers and sisters as we pray for all those in pursuit of the truth,” the email said. “Help ChinaAid as we help support the work of the persecuted Chinese faithful.”

To Cohen, it seemed like just the sort of cynical misappropriation of Chen’s image he was trying to prevent. Fu feels he has been clear enough on the question elsewhere, and if the email, which Fu says was written by a ChinaAid staff member, caused Chen to be briefly mistaken for a Christian, of all things, it was unintentional.

“I think that might be our standard sign-off on every email we send, so maybe our staff just pasted it,” Fu says. An organization such as ChinaAid has every right to raise funds, he says, and in the end it sent some of its own money to lawyers helping Chen’s relatives in China. He says he also gave Chen about $2,000 from ChinaAid in the first week to defray the costs of his family’s transition.

Fu was falling out of favor with other members of Chen’s new team, too, over matters small and large. One aide found Fu’s habit that first week of frequently turning up at Chen’s apartment to drop off fruit tiresome and vaguely suspect, as if fresh produce might make it harder to turn him away when he swung by without an appointment. Fu considers this perfectly reasonable behavior, especially while Chen was still convalescing. “I know he likes to eat fruits,” he says. “Some cherries, some watermelon.”

What Fu apparently did not know was that Cohen and others at NYU had already come to believe that the iPad and iPhone given to Chen by Fu and his wife were loaded with spyware, in what they concluded was a deliberate attempt to monitor the Chens.

At some point, someone on Chen’s team asked NYU technicians to inspect the devices, according to Cohen and another person familiar with the episode. The technicians believed they had found spyware on the devices, and similar bugs on smartphones given to the Chens by Chai Ling, a post-Tiananmen Square émigré who has become a born-again Christian in the U.S. and runs an organization against forced abortions in China. They also thought spyware had been implanted on a third set of devices that some unknown person added to the pile of Chen’s well-wishers’ gifts, Cohen and the other person say. (A spokesman for Chai said she had no comment.)

Cohen had come to believe that the iPad and iPhone given to Chen were loaded with spyware.
Fu’s Apple devices were determined to have secret software on them allowing a third party to access both the devices’ files and their GPS systems, effectively turning them into tracking tools. Another NYU aide has a hazier memory, unable to recall whether the presence of deliberately installed spyware was established or whether technicians were instead trying to warn the team of potential vulnerabilities.

Fu says he was not even aware of the allegations until Reuters contacted him in June this year for comment. He says he then immediately reported them to someone he knows at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. People at NYU say Fu was never confronted because it did not seem a priority during a frantic first week. Fu maintains his innocence, saying all he did with the new devices was get a ChinaAid technician to install Skype and set up iCloud, a standard bit of Apple software that allows a user to remotely access a device’s files and – with a feature called Find My iPhone – track its location using its GPS system. “Heidi handed over all the passwords,” Fu says of his wife.

The details of this episode remain murky. Reuters was unable to establish whether Cohen’s allegation is correct, or whether Fu was simply trying to help get the devices up and running. Requests to speak to the technicians were denied by NYU, and the FBI declined to comment.

Fu and Cohen had their lunch that day. They managed some small talk about how Chen’s refrigerator was already amusingly stuffed with dumplings, but the relationship between the two men never really uncurdled after this.

“I became more cautious and decided that it would be better for Chen to have his own dealings with Bob rather than seek to coordinate with Bob any advice I might give,” Cohen says.

Cohen and others at NYU say they immediately told Chen about the spyware and their belief that Fu was behind it. Chen was furious at the news, one former colleague says. If so, Fu says, Chen kept it to himself.

Chen hadn’t been in America a week, and already he was forced to worry about the motives of those who purported to be helping him and to decide whom to trust: Fu? His new colleagues at NYU? Neither? Both?

Chen was asked what he wanted to do with the gadgets, and his response seems telling: He wanted them back once the technicians were satisfied. From then onwards, he would carry two phones at all times: his NYU-issued BlackBerry and the iPhone from Fu. Few, if any, of his NYU colleagues had the iPhone number, if only because they never saw a need to ask. Fu often called it several times a week.

A few days later, Chen’s first Op-Ed appeared in the New York Times. Cohen says he helped Chen write it. The piece, “How China Flouts Its Laws,” called on China to observe the “rule of law” and to investigate the harassment of Chen and his relatives. It did not mention forced abortions, even in passing.

Although the early days had been bumpy, everything still seemed to be going pretty much as Cohen had hoped during the walk with Fu in Central Park.


Chen Guangcheng spent nearly seven years of detention in China’s Shandong Province, in both a prison cell and under house arrest in his family’s stone farmhouse in the village of Dongshigu. For most of that time, the only people who were able to visit were the men hired by local government officials to guard him. Chen and his wife, Yuan Weijing, have described how those men sometimes came in and beat them: Once, a gang of them rolled up Yuan in a rug and pinned Chen to a chair in preparation for their pummelings.

Now that Chen was in New York City, a seven-year build-up of politicians, journalists, academics, lawyers, agents, human-rights professionals, activists, admirers and at least one Hollywood movie star all at once were eager to see him. It was sometimes overwhelming.

People who did not have Chen’s direct contact details – few did, in the early days – were obliged to approach him through Jerome Cohen, the venerable New York University law professor who had found a place at the school for Chen as a visiting scholar, or through Chen’s other NYU colleagues and newly hired aides. The academics tried to protect Chen from people they suspected were trying to harness his dissident charisma for their own ends.

If that route didn’t work, there was an alternative in Bob Fu, the Christian pastor and activist who runs an organization called ChinaAid, which agitates for religious freedom in his native China.

Fu had been prominently featured in recent media reports as a source of information about Chen after his escape from house arrest. He was fast becoming a close friend of Chen, and, about as quickly, an irritant to Cohen and others at NYU, who found him suspect. Fu was easy to get hold of at his office in Midland, Texas, and was generally less quick to point out potential reasons to turn down a request than the NYU people. Fu says he was disheartened to realize he’d fallen from NYU’s favor, but continued to dutifully forward all requests from people trying to contact Chen to staff at NYU.

Those whose request was denied or went unanswered sometimes became suspicious, believing Chen would surely want to accept but concluding that NYU must have intervened against his wishes.

“Everyone he agreed to see got to see him, not necessarily at the precise moment they demanded and not necessarily privately unless they especially requested such a meeting and he agreed,” Cohen says.

Sometimes Chen was slow, aides say, partly a factor of his blindness making him unable, for example, to speed-read through emails, which he would instead get others to read to him or listen to using slightly cumbersome English-text-to-Chinese-speech software. Other times he was unpredictable. One aide recalls him being keen to accept an interview request from a minor Israeli newspaper for reasons no one else understood.

The meetings that did take place could be prickly affairs, with certain visitors and Chen’s NYU-appointed aides eyeing each other warily across the room, occasionally to the point of confrontation.

Some of the strongest criticisms against Chen’s NYU colleagues came from Fu and two of Chen’s most ardent supporters: the human-rights activist Reggie Littlejohn and Republican Congressman Chris Smith.

“I felt Chen was being watched.”
Bob Fu

“I felt Chen was being watched,” Fu says. He recalls bringing a Chinese human-rights lawyer to Chen’s apartment for a meeting one evening, during which CJ Huang, who lived in the same apartment building while working virtually around the clock as Chen’s aide and interpreter, arrived carrying her laptop, complaining that her Internet was down.

After Huang was let in, the clacking of her keyboard took on an ominous cast to Fu, and he decided the Internet outage was a ruse to allow her to document the conversation. Fu’s guest, the human-rights lawyer, seemed to feel the same way, and began pointedly photographing Huang, successfully creating such a fug of awkwardness in the apartment that Huang got up and left, Fu says. (One of Chen’s former NYU colleagues thought it more likely Huang was doing work for her doctorate in Chinese history, which she had to squeeze in around her Chen schedule.)

Both Littlejohn, who runs an organization called Women’s Rights Without Frontiers that campaigns against forced abortions in China, and Smith, the Republican congressman who worked to secure Chen’s freedom, had similar complaints.

Smith, who has been working with people who’ve fallen afoul of authoritarian regimes since the 1980s, says that in his numerous meetings with Chen, there was always somebody taking notes. “I don't know who they are or who they are reporting to,” he says. Smith says the only time he was able to meet without a Chen aide present was in January this year, when he insisted that Danica Mills, Chen’s main adviser since the previous autumn, wait outside while the congressman met Chen in his office. Mills, banished to the corridor, soon began ringing Chen’s phone repeatedly, Smith says. After some time, she opened the door, entered, retrieved Chen, and left, Smith says, in what he recalls as an unmatched breach of protocol in several decades of having an office on Capitol Hill. Mills declined to discuss the incident.

The concerns described by Fu, Smith and Littlejohn aren’t universal. Other people, including activists, lawyers, and other supporters, told Reuters they did not encounter any problems when meeting with Chen.

And Chen’s former NYU colleagues and aides, several of whom were hired from outside of NYU, bristle at the suggestion they could be rented by NYU to hoodwink a man they admire. They were present because Chen wanted them there, they say.

Fu was able to email Chen, they say, or to call Chen on the iPhone Fu had given him as a gift, or to meet privately with Chen whenever he liked – Fu does not dispute this - without anyone knowing what the two men discussed.

For example, no one interfered when Fu arranged for Viet Dinh, a Republican lawyer and a former assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush, to meet Chen in an NYU conference room. Dinh’s Washington-based firm Bancroft, known for representing Republican interests in Supreme Court hearings over the Affordable Care Act and the Defense of Marriage Act, wanted to offer Chen pro-bono legal advice after being approached by a ChinaAid board member. Fu says Chen wanted to get a second opinion on his book deal, which was being handled by Bob Barnett, another prominent Washington lawyer. Dinh declined to discuss what he did for Chen, aside from one service: A year later, Dinh’s firm would help Chen circulate his dramatic statement attacking NYU.

Chen’s aides say that if they took notes in meetings, it was so they could interpret accurately. And these aides say they were not mere interpreters, but had a much broader supporting role. That included playing “bad cop,” one aide says, in which Chen would ask them to intercept a badly timed phone call or unwanted visitor at his building and tell whomever it was that Chen was tired or spending time with his children – which sometimes really was the case.

What Chen made of this discord isn’t clear, although he doesn’t seem to question the trustworthiness of Mills, the aide Smith made wait in a corridor. After leaving NYU this summer, Chen privately hired Mills, who has worked as an artist and filmmaker in both China and the U.S., to stay on as his assistant.

Still, one aspect of Smith’s claims is not entirely disputed by Chen’s NYU associates. They say Chen was the boss of his own schedule. But a caveat applied to certain invitations - particularly some originating from Washington. In considering these, Chen first had to listen to loudly voiced opinions from Cohen and other colleagues that it was wiser to defer accepting.

By July 2012, Cohen’s hope that Chen might steer clear of the capital until after the election was put to the test.


Smith and other lawmakers wanted Chen to testify before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in the summer of 2012. Cohen and others at NYU tried to convince Chen this was a bad idea, at least for now.

“Whether the requests came from Chris Smith, Bob or various other groups, my view was that Chen should take some months to learn about American life and should not allow himself to be injected into the presidential election campaign, whether in favor of or critical of either political party,” Cohen says. “When I told Smith's staff man that I thought Chen should wait till January, he said: ‘That will be too late.’ I said: ‘Too late for what?’”

Dennis Halpin, a staffer who worked for the committee’s Republican chairwoman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, says he was “under the gun” to get Chen. He had helped book hearings for a dozen years, but the difficulties in getting Chen to appear stand out in his mind. On one occasion, he got Chen on the phone and, in halting Mandarin, invited him down. Chen, who had also received a written invitation from Smith, said yes.

After a trip to the Hamptons, Chen sat sweat-soaked and distraught on a couch, his head cast back, racked by anxiety.
But otherwise Halpin was dealing with Cohen or other NYU intermediaries. They told him they were concerned that a committee appearance might cause problems with Chen’s book negotiations, and might do more harm than good for his relatives back in China.

About a week before the hearing, as Halpin was drawing up the final agenda, he found himself unable to get anyone on the phone. He learned that Cohen and Chen had gone with their families to the Hamptons. There, he was told, they were often preoccupied with beach strolls, and in any case the mobile phone reception was bad.

Defeated, Halpin gave up. The hearing would take place without Chen.

The Chens had been looking forward to the Hamptons trip, hosted by a rich admirer at a beachside estate, his former NYU colleagues say. (No one would disclose the host’s identity.) Chen’s children were especially excited - they had never been on a beach before. But by some accounts, it was not nearly as relaxing as had been hoped.

Chen thought it would be graceless to not accept the invitation to testify from Smith, who had played a role in his exit from China. He felt he had given his word to Halpin that he’d appear, and was upset at the idea of reneging. Chen also did not like being told by Cohen and others at NYU that his expectations were unrealistic or that his understanding of American politics was still lacking, say people who worked with him at NYU. These arguments increased in frequency and intensity over the summer, before spilling over out on Long Island’s wealthy eastern tip.

“That was a very big rupturing point,” says an aide to Chen who joined the family on the trip. “It was just incredibly emotionally wrought.”

Fu, on the other hand, virtually never made Chen feel naive or misguided. Quite the opposite – he could be critical of NYU, believing people there sometimes condescended to Chen. Fu says he and Chen have never once had a disagreement.

Asked about the trip, Cohen says he was “puzzled” to hear it described as stressful. “My wife and I had a very good time and enjoyed the discussions about how to handle matters in the fall, although I would not say the discussion was especially passionate,” he wrote in an email. “I think the Chens also had fun. My son Ethan even tried to teach Chen how to hit a tennis ball guided by the sound of the bounce.”

Fu, who also had been complaining that he couldn’t reach Chen while he was away, spoke with Chen’s wife after they returned to Manhattan. According to Fu, Yuan was nearly in tears as she described how her husband was sitting at home sweat-soaked and distraught on the couch, head cast back to the heavens, racked by anxiety.

Later, Fu tried to ask Chen about the trip. Chen was reluctant to say much, Fu recalls, but described being harangued by some people who visited the estate. The visitors told Chen he would be making a huge mistake to travel to Washington, warning that if he did, he would be used by Republican politicians. Chen replied with a rhetorical question, according to Fu: So if I don’t go, will I get used by Democrats?

About a week later, on August 1, with the help of NYU colleagues, a determined Chen went to Washington.


There was a little noticeable tussling between Republicans and Democrats over who would see Chen when, but the trip to Capitol Hill was successful. A bipartisan photo-op was organized for Chen with John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Nancy Pelosi, leader of the House Democrats. Chen gave a short speech to lawmakers and journalists. With no sign of an investigation into his family’s treatment forthcoming, Chen toughened his tone toward the Chinese government.

“So if a case as high-profile as mine cannot be properly handled in accordance with Chinese law, and with international legal norms, how are we able to believe that China will respect human rights and the rule of law?” he said.

Soon after his return to New York, an aide organized a meeting with Chen to discuss in greater detail what he might do once he left NYU the next summer. Fu says this was punishment for insisting on going to D.C. and fraternizing with Republicans. Chen saw it as evidence that NYU was succumbing to pressure from China to end its ties with him. People at NYU say they were only trying to give Chen as much time and help to sort out his next steps as they could.

The book deal that Cohen and others at NYU helped arrange was finally completed and announced, and Chen signed what his publisher – Times Books, a division of Macmillan – said was a standard agreement not to disclose the memoir’s exclusive contents before publication. Chen’s publisher and agent declined to discuss Chen’s advance. Several people who worked with Chen say it was around $500,000. (Fu released his own memoir last month, titled “God’s Double Agent.”)

Chen was growing increasingly independent. Cohen and others at NYU say they often didn’t know who Chen was speaking to or where he was going. They didn’t really object, they say, although they would wonder why he sometimes seemed so secretive.

By this point, his NYU colleagues and some of his closest supporters were clearly divided. His way of dealing with the breach, it seems, was to tip-toe around it.

As August had drawn near, Chen’s colleagues had been asking him if he wanted help sorting out a family vacation. Chen eventually declined their offer, saying he’d made his own arrangements. An aide set about cancelling classes and appointments.

“They mysteriously announced they would be away for a week's New Jersey holiday and plainly did not want to tell our NYU group who their host was,” Cohen says. “We were glad they returned looking tanned, fit and happy. They subsequently made various commitments without asking or telling us.” They speculated, wrongly, that the mystery host was Congressman Smith, whose district includes part of the Jersey Shore.

They were correct to infer from Chen’s quietness, however, that Chen’s host was someone in the other camp.

Chen “asked me a question: ‘So why do people in New York so hate the Christians or the religious people, why are they so panicked?’”
Bob Fu

In fact, the Chens had joined Bob Fu’s wife, Heidi Cai, and Fu and Cai’s daughter for the vacation. (Fu stayed home to look after the couple’s other two children.) The trip was hosted by a friend of Fu’s from Philadelphia at a Jersey Shore beach house – “an ordinary Christian businessman,” Fu says, declining to elaborate, saying the host did not want publicity.

Only a few weeks prior, Fu was complaining that Chen had “disappeared” with the Cohens to the Hamptons. Now the roles were reversing.

According to Fu, Chen increasingly confided in him the concerns he felt he could not share with people at NYU.

“He asked me a question,” Fu says: “‘So why do people in New York so hate the Christians or the religious people, why are they so panicked?’ So he had heard enough, so you can tell it backfired.”

“He could just not believe their propaganda anymore,” Fu says.

Cohen says this is a cartoonish picture. If this is indeed how Chen felt, Cohen and his colleagues say, then Chen misunderstood their advice, which was to simply to be cautious about being seen to align closely with any one faction.

Still, Chen’s NYU colleagues weren’t oblivious to the tensions. They looked to Chen’s background to explain this.

Chen was used to taking the path of most resistance. He came from a poor family of farmers. He had refused to let himself be funneled into becoming a massage therapist, one of the few professions that, in much of China, are thought to be within the ken of blind people. He had instead taught himself law and used that knowledge to defend a widening circle of beleaguered neighbors, often in defiance of the government’s most authoritarian representatives. Seven years of often harsh detention had not dulled his spirit.

Now Chen, a lifelong sole trader, was ensconced in one of America’s largest universities. Aides wondered if a part of him had come to see NYU as the authority figure against which his instinct was to rebel.

Chen’s main source of anguish, Fu says, was his uncertainty about what he could and couldn’t say about forced abortions back home – “the most central issue in his life,” Fu says.

“You didn’t see him mention this word ‘forced abortion’ in any of his public speeches,” Fu says. “I can see Jerry Cohen was very successful in those terms: ‘Just talk about the rule-of-law issues’.”

Fu recalls a conversation with Chen from the early months. “He told me, ‘Last night, I learnt in my hometown there’s another woman with eight months pregnancy, they forcefully aborted the baby,’” Fu said, “and he didn’t sleep all night and he was just agonized and painful, but then he told me, ‘Don’t tell anyone.’”

On August 30, Chen made his first substantial public comments on the issue in the United States, in an open letter to Tim Cook, chief executive officer of Apple. The letter urged Apple to use its clout in China, where many of the company’s phones and computers are manufactured, to do more to criticize the country’s family-planning policies. (Apple didn’t respond to the appeal, telling reporters that the issues were addressed in its annual corporate-responsibility reports.) The letter was co-signed by Fu, Littlejohn and Andrew Duncan, a human-rights advocate who was to play an increasingly close role behind the scenes as one of Chen’s supporters.


As 2013 rolled around, Chen seemed to have patched up an equilibrium with his fractured circle of supporters. In February, he joined Cohen at the New School in New York to give a talk on human rights in China. In April, Fu helped arrange a trip to the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas, Texas, to meet the former president and record an interview with the center’s director about his activism.

That month, Chen returned to belatedly testify at a hearing of Smith’s subcommittee and meet lawmakers in D.C., where he began sharing the concerns that would lead to the year’s unraveling.

“His delightful children were sometimes in the office. Inevitably, there were frictions.”
Jerome Cohen

At the subcommittee hearing chaired by Smith on human rights in China, Chen began by holding up a piece of paper. It listed the names of “corrupt officials” he said had “blood on their hands” because of their alleged involvement in 130,000 forced abortions in Shandong Province. He asked that they be barred from entering the United States under a 2000 law written by Smith.

During that same trip, Chen and Fu also visited Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House leader, in her office. Pelosi had long supported Chen’s cause, and they had met several times after he arrived in the U.S.

Chen told her the allegation against NYU that, a couple months later, he would make public. Pelosi seemed concerned, and someone got Cohen on the phone for her.

“I assured her as briefly and clearly as I could that there was nothing to the story that Chen was being ousted because of Chinese pressure, and I guaranteed her that the Chens would not be cast into the street and told her we were working on better opportunities for his next step,” Cohen says. (A Pelosi spokesman declined to make her available for an interview.)

Chen has not said whether he has any evidence for his claim.

There is some indication that Chinese officials were sore over Chen’s embarrassing arrival at the American embassy. But whether this consisted of pro-forma and ultimately ineffectual complaints from Chinese emissaries, or was something fiercer that forced NYU to change course, seems stuck in the realm of speculation.

“Feelings were hurt on the Chinese side, no question about it,” says John Kamm, who has known both Cohen and Fu for years and is the founder of the Dui Hua Foundation, which seeks to free Chinese political prisoners. “They were embarrassed, they certainly let me know they were very unhappy.” Still, he says, he does not think China threatened to “pull the plug” on the Shanghai campus.

Two government officials involved in the talks and an official at the U.S. embassy in Beijing say they saw no evidence of Chinese pressure. About five months after Chen arrived at NYU, China’s education ministry gave its final approval for the Shanghai campus.

In any case, Cohen suggests, any effort from China would have been redundant. Aside from funding, there were more commonplace reasons for not extending Chen’s time at NYU, Cohen says: The dissident was getting on his colleagues’ nerves.

“For example, our burgeoning U.S.-Asia Law Institute has a severe shortage of space,” Cohen said in an email. “Nevertheless, we gave him one of our very few offices, making it necessary for two of our permanent research scholars to work in open cubicles, a big inconvenience and status deprivation. Chen-related activities tied up our conference room many times a week and involved our U.S.-Asia Law Institute scholars in interpretation, scheduling and other matters. His delightful children were sometimes in the office. Inevitably, there were frictions, and the group got the impression that he was not very appreciative of their efforts.”

Cohen’s own office is in a separate part of NYU, away from the institute, and he says it took time for news to trickle down the corridors to him.

“The group's desire to see him leave at the end of the academic year had nothing to do with politics,” Cohen said, “but was a matter of personalities, misunderstandings and his frequent secretiveness about certain visitors and activities.”


NYU had been telling Chen since at least the autumn of 2012 that he would need to find a new place to work by the end of the academic year. After Chen’s April trip to Washington, Fu recalls, the matter took on urgency.

“Sabotage! How could (Cohen) just preemptively destroy the only available job offer by doing a public interview?”
Bob Fu

Cohen had already managed to arrange a tentative place – “really a wonderful position,” he says – for Chen at the Committee to Support Chinese Lawyers. Cohen is an adviser to the committee, housed at Fordham University’s law school in Manhattan, a few miles uptown from NYU. There, Chen would join a small team of legal scholars who monitor and ease the harassment of human-rights lawyers in China. Virtually everyone, including Fu and Smith, said it seemed a good fit.

Andrew Duncan, one of the co-signers of Chen’s open letter to the CEO of Apple, agreed in principle to fund Chen’s position, according to Fu and two other people familiar with the negotiations. Duncan did not respond to emails seeking comment.

Duncan, a former private-equity executive now working as a rights advocate, had become a generous supporter of the Chens after meeting them in New York, Cohen and Fu say. He briefly emerged into view in an interview with Bloomberg News to discuss the Apple letter, but otherwise preferred to remain behind the scenes, Fu says. Duncan became a rare figure in Chen’s close circle who seemed to make a point of getting along equally with both Cohen and Fu.

As negotiations with Fordham continued, Fu, Duncan, Smith and other supporters worked to rustle up offers from other institutions. Smith had the most luck. The congressman spoke with a contact on the board of the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative research center in Princeton, New Jersey, across the street from Princeton University. Witherspoon is best known for producing research that opposes same-sex marriage, abortion and stem-cell research.

In May, Smith phoned Luis Tellez, Witherspoon’s founder and president.

“To tell you the truth, at that point I didn't even know who Chen was,” Tellez says, “but I heard from my donors that this is an important person and I quickly concluded that he probably was.”

Hiring the dissident would be a new direction for Witherspoon, which had given little scrutiny to human rights breaches in China. Tellez has long been the coordinator of the Princeton University activities of Opus Dei, a conservative organization within the Catholic Church which teaches that ordinary people can be saintly in their daily lives. Witherspoon is not officially a Catholic or Opus Dei institution, although it is influenced by Catholic ethics, Tellez says. Tellez also helped found the National Organization for Marriage, now one of the largest lobbying groups opposed to same-sex marriage.

This was not the sort of cause Chen had ever been involved in. Still, Tellez saw they had common ground in their shared abhorrence of forcing abortion upon a resisting expectant mother.

“I wanted Chen to make a statement because if he keeps quiet it will look like there’s some truth to that New York Post story.”
Jerome Cohen

With Fu helping as a bilingual go-between, Tellez invited Chen to lunch at Princeton University's faculty club. “If you trust us, we are here to help,” Tellez recalls saying at the lunch. Chen had some “misgivings” – in particular, he was keen to be affiliated with a university. Tellez said he and his colleagues would see if they could help with that.

In June, news of Chen’s discussions with Fordham and Witherspoon appeared in the Financial Times, which reported that the dissident was being courted by institutions with “opposing views”. Cohen was quoted as saying: “If he takes the Witherspoon position that would diminish his stature in the US.”

Fu saw Cohen’s quote. In a mirroring of events a year earlier, when Cohen accused Fu of being meddlesome in the press, it was Fu’s turn to be angry.

“Sabotage!” he thought. “How could you just preemptively destroy the only available job offer by doing a public interview, without even talking to Chen?”

Cohen says he thought that Chen “would do better in a more neutral, academic setting, especially one that focused on the plight of Chinese lawyers. But, of course, the purported Witherspoon offer had some attractive benefits, and I felt that Chen was mature and informed enough by late spring to make his own choice.”

Tellez, who hadn’t heard back from Chen, read the story and recalls thinking Fordham’s offer was a good one. He assumed that’s where Chen would end up.

On Thursday, June 13, the New York Post published an article with the headline: “NYU booting blind Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng amid Shanghai expansion.” It quoted an unnamed “New York-based professor familiar with Chen’s situation.”

The story quickly spread, but journalists from New York to Beijing were unable to reach Chen.

Cohen, then traveling in China, had been emailing Chen urging him to focus on finding a new apartment before his lease at NYU expired. Then he heard the reports, and sent another message.

“I wanted Chen to make a statement because if he keeps quiet it will look like there’s some truth to that New York Post story,” Cohen says, “but what he never told me until it was too late was that he turned the statement over to people in Washington who turned it into something with, shall we say, a Republican spin.”

“In fact, as early as last August and September, the Communists had already begun to apply great, unrelenting pressure on New York University.”
Chen Guangcheng
Chen’s statement, released three days after the Post story, said it was true that NYU had asked him to leave by the end of June.

“In fact, as early as last August and September, the Chinese Communists had already begun to apply great, unrelenting pressure on New York University,” the statement went on, “so much so that after we had been in the United States just three to four months, NYU was already starting to discuss our departure with us.”

He nonetheless thanked NYU and Cohen, and finished by saying China’s plan was “to make me so busy trying to earn a living that I don’t have time for human rights advocacy, but this is not going to happen.”

Fu says Chen wrote every word of it, with Fu’s only role being to proofread it and get it translated into English. Viet Dinh, the Republican lawyer who had offered Bancroft’s legal services the previous summer, says he received Chen’s statement and passed it on to Mark Corallo, his public relations consultant and a friend since they worked together in George W. Bush’s Justice Department, who circulated it to the press.

Dinh disagrees with Cohen’s suggestion that Chen’s statement was spun. “Unless you think human rights and freedom and free speech is solely a Republican cause or Republican issue, which I do not think it is, I think these types of namby-pamby conspiracies are senseless,” he says.

Within hours of the statement, the old tensions flashed across newspapers, websites and television channels. Fu, Smith and Littlejohn told journalists about the weirdness they’d encountered in their dealings with Chen. The people who worked with Chen at NYU talked about how they were left hurt and mystified by Chen’s claim, and told the same journalists all the reasons it couldn’t be true. China’s foreign ministry declared itself bemused at the allegation, with a spokeswoman saying she didn’t know whether Chen was wrong or just making stuff up.

“If I thought there was any attempt to muzzle me or muzzle him, I assure you I would have announced it in the Post,” Cohen said in a brief phone interview with Reuters from China shortly after Chen’s statement. He also briefly chastised Chen, saying he risked being seen as “biting the hand that feeds him,” and wondered if he might have made it harder for the next political refugee from China to find a host in the U.S.

But before ending the call, Cohen took a more magnanimous tone. “We are old friends,” he said. “I have no regrets about this. Obviously, life would have been more simple, and fewer people would have been maligning me otherwise, but that is not much of a price to pay at this stage in my life.”

A couple of days later, Duncan, the donor behind the Fordham offer, sent around an email saying he’d reached a difficult decision: He would withdraw the funding.

A week or so afterwards, Chen and Cohen were reunited on a long-planned joint trip to Taiwan, where a former student of Cohen’s has become the president. China’s foreign ministry had warned Chen to behave in an appropriate manner while visiting the disputed territory. That didn’t stop Chen from praising the island’s democracy. Cohen had some old advice for Chen updated for a new setting, urging him to avoid being seen as too closely associated with either Taiwan’s right-leaning Kuomintang party or its left-leaning Democratic Progressive Party.

The trip required Chen to face journalists for the first time since his NYU broadside. He bristled at their questions about NYU, saying now was not the time to discuss the matter. Cohen, who joined Chen at a press conference, agreed: It would look bad to squabble in front of China.

Chen returned to Manhattan to continue apartment hunting. It took time, and the school extended his stay a little longer, but, at the end of July, more than 14 months after Cohen said on PBS that Chen would come for “up to a year,” Chen and his family left NYU.

Meanwhile, up at the Witherspoon Institute, Tellez wondered what was going on. Chen still hadn’t replied to the job offer, and Tellez contacted Fu several times to try to get an answer either way. In late summer, Tellez sweetened the deal, telling Chen that the Catholic University of America, the national university of the Catholic Church in Washington, seemed willing to discuss a joint affiliation.

By early September, with attempts to revive the Fordham offer going nowhere, Chen made his decision. He would become a senior fellow in human rights at Witherspoon and a visiting fellow at Catholic University’s Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies. He would also become an advisor for the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights & Justice, a more liberal-leaning organization named after the late Tom Lantos, a Democrat Congressman from California, which had awarded Chen its annual human rights prize earlier this year.

As Chen would explain, he hoped the mix of affiliations would neutralize the idea that anyone could pin him to any particular point on the American political spectrum.

The day the news was announced, Fu told Reuters he felt “vindicated.” “When those leftist ideologues, ideology-driven people who pick me as a target and tried to paint me as partisan, right-wing, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-Obama,” he said, “I think it’s just baseless, groundless, when we have the three institutions like this come together in supporting Mr Chen, and I'm part of that process.”

Cohen, reached by phone that day, was more muted.

“I'm very happy that all of this is resolved,” he said. “I want to make it clear I'm happy for him, and wish for the best, and we'll continue to be friends.”

The next day, Chen joined his new colleagues at a news conference in Washington. To his left sat a professional interpreter, who scribbled notes as she parsed English into Mandarin and vice versa, apparently to nobody’s concern. Yuan Weijing, Chen’s wife, sat smiling warmly in the front row, and pulled out an iPhone to photograph and video her husband. A few seats down was Bob Fu.

John Garvey, the president of National Catholic University, praised Chen’s advocacy as aligned with Christ’s message “that the poor and the vulnerable are especially worthy of our kindness and mercy.”

Chen rose to speak.

“Today I’m at a new starting point,” the dissident said. He now referred to China, which a little over a year before he had hoped would end and investigate his relatives’ harassment, as an “evil power.” Before ending his remarks, he said he wanted to express sincere gratitude to NYU.

When asked by a reporter what he thought of the notion that he had been courted by conservatives in the United States, Chen replied that it would be a mistake to pigeonhole him.

“I'm happy for (Chen), and wish for the best, and we'll continue to be friends.”
Jerome Cohen

“I believe human rights supersede partisan politics, and it’s greater than national borders,” he said.

Chen is taking up his new posts just as the cause that made him famous returns to the news. In a surprise announcement last week, China’s government said it will make the most significant change to its family-planning policy in decades, allowing millions more urban couples to have a second child. What difference this might make in the countryside, where most couples have been allowed to have two children since the 1980s and where Chen did most of his work exposing forced abortions and sterilizations, remains unclear.

Cohen, meanwhile, is working on his own memoir. He says he will probably devote a chapter to Chen Guangcheng.

(Additional reporting by Sui-Lee Wee and Max Duncan in Beijing, Clare Jim in Taipei, and Paul Eckert in Washington, D.C. Edited by Michael Williams. Photo editing by Jim Bourg. Designed and illustrated by Troy Dunkley. Developed by Charlie Szymanski.)

Email: Jonathan Allen ([email protected])

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/chen/

Troublemaker 12-29-2013 23:25
kala

你这专家真不是盖的

昨天看这篇文章就想到要转过来,但因为是二手的,而且题目被改的乌烟瘴气,所以犹豫了一下,今儿就看见你这第一手的了。

厉害厉害。

这篇文章基本上客观地交代了陈这一年在美国各种政治漩涡中,绞尽脑汁故作老练地苦苦挣扎的经历,很有意思。这对围绕陈周围的各种势力的角力也着墨了一些,算是一个近距离的解析,好玩儿。

crazy8 12-30-2013 11:03
是啊,这更说明了,国内“异议人士”在投美之前要做好功课。

Thanks for sharing.

露佳 12-30-2013 20:44
谢谢分享。。。

悠然之至 12-31-2013 04:40
感觉陈一踏进了米国的大门好像是进了天堂了,这棋子被下好后放在一边,可能等下次再下棋是还要用上的。

宝子妈 12-31-2013 05:56
卡拉,辛苦了。
祝新年快乐!

卡拉 02-25-2015 18:32
来源:多维网

 流亡到美国的中国盲人维权律师陈光诚在即将出版的回忆录《赤脚律师》中称,时任美国国务卿希拉里在就他的前途去留问题上向中国的谈判者妥协。
 
 英国《每日电讯报》2月25日报道,陈光诚在回忆录中说,虽然他对美国大使馆给与他的庇护以及后来接受他去美国留学感到感激,但是他表示,他当时面临巨大的压力,不得不接受离开中国的选择,他说这并不是他当初的意愿。

  他希望经过两国协商可以让他留在中国,自由地工作和写作。

  报道称,无疑陈光诚的回忆录和希拉里(Hillary Clinton)早先时候发表的回忆录《艰难的选择》(Hard Choice)有说法不一致的地方,而这可能给希拉里竞选2016年美国总统带来更多的争议焦点。希拉里在回忆录中说,他们满足了陈光诚的所有愿望,陈光诚的意愿得到了充分的尊重,并说这是一次外交上的胜利,但显然陈光诚并不这么认为。
  
[attachment=76444]
  陈光诚

  陈光诚在回忆录中表示,最令他感到不安的是,美国这个崇尚和宣扬民主的国家在与中国这个“流氓”政府交涉时,不得不向中国政府让步。

  陈光诚表示,他最初逃到美国大使馆,感到自己身处安全环境的喜悦很快被冷酷的现实冲淡。他面临不断的压力,让他离开大使馆。

  陈光诚形容他感到“失望与绝望”,因为他被迫接受一项并不能使自己、自己的家人感到安全的出路,而且这条路也不能阻止中国政府再次限制他的自由。

  陈光诚写道,“我从没有意识到中美两国有这么多的人竭尽一切努力就是要让我离开,而且并没有保证我的权利以及我家人的安全。”

  陈光诚还表示,“似乎没有人给中国政府施压,而是把巨大的压力放在我的肩膀上,把我当成双方交易的筹码。我突然感到非常的悲哀,使我哭泣”。

  陈光诚在回忆录中还表示自己在北京朝阳医院住院期间突然觉得被美国大使馆所抛弃。就是在那时,陈光诚公开呼吁允许自己去美国,因为他已经不再感到安全。


http://global.dwnews.com/news/2015-02-25/59637406.html

卡拉 02-27-2015 12:31
来源:倍可亲综合

  流亡美国的中国盲人维权律师陈光诚即将出版自传,他在书中披露了2002年4月逃入美国驻北京大使馆的内幕,指责美国给他开空头支票,失去了对整件事情的控制权。
  
综合媒体2月27日报道,3月10日,陈光诚将出版的英文自传暂译为《赤脚律师》,出版前,出版社通过媒体公布了该自传的部分内容。陈光诚在书中写道,当美方与中方就他的情况展开谈判,以及准备安排他离境时,他要求美方保证他的家人的安全。他说,美方高级外交官员曾经向他许下多个诺言,但都没有兑现。


  陈光诚在书中说,在2002年4月,即他逃入美国驻北京大使馆后,当时负责东亚及太平洋事务的美国助理国务卿坎贝尔(Kurt Campbell)直接负责处理这宗事件。坎贝尔保证,他与当时的驻华大使骆家辉(Gary Locke)会亲自安排他(陈光诚)与家人团聚。,并要求陈光诚发表公开声明。当时陈完全信任美方。

  书中披露,坎贝尔在大使馆内对陈光诚表态:“我以母亲、我的孩子、上帝之名起誓,骆家辉和我将会让你与家人团聚。”坎贝尔其后要求陈发表一篇声明,说美国政府非常愿意提供帮助,而他完全信任美国政府。

  不过,坎贝尔并没有履行诺言,没有前往陈的家乡山东把他的家人带到北京,相反是中国官员作出安排,令陈光诚十分担心家人的安全。陈光诚在书中写道,美方在整件事件中完全失去控制权。

  陈光诚写道,在美国大使馆匿藏期间,美国官员不断向他施压,要他尽快接受条件,解决事件。坎贝尔向他警告:“如果你不离开大使馆,中国政府会控告你叛国罪。”坎贝尔当时还表示,感到不安,不知还能提供什么帮助?并说不能这样僵下去。

  现时管理Asia Group顾问公司的坎贝尔用电邮回覆记者问询时,没有反驳陈光诚回忆录内容,也没有否认他向陈所作出过的诺言。他说:“我尊重陈的看法和他所作出许多牺牲。”


http://www.backchina.com/news/2015/02/28/348663.html

水做的鱼 02-27-2015 22:17
谢谢分享,感觉脑细胞不够用了。


查看完整版本: [-- 陈光诚在美国这一年(原题Friends Like These) --] [-- top --]


Powered by PHPWind v7.5 SP3 Code ©2003-2010 PHPWind
Time 0.011705 second(s),query:2 Gzip disabled

You can contact us