The Village Voice

January 28, 1997

NAT HENTOFF

Twenty-two Nobel Laureates

Petitioned China To Free Wang Dan

THE BEIJING TRIAL OF WANG DAN

Wang Dan was one of the student leaders of the 1989 prodemocracy movement. He was arrested in June of that year and charged with "counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement." That meant he

had continued his prodemocracy writing and speaking - all technically permitted by the laws of China. The laws as written - not as practiced

by the government. Wang was released after four years in prison, but

he was then subjected to increases police harassment, surveillance,

and death threats. In May 1995, after he sent a letter to the Chinese leadership asking for the release of political prisoners, he became a political prisoner again, held incommunicado for 17 months. In October

of last year, his family was told that Wang had been indicted on charges of "conspiring to subvert the government". The family was informed they had one day to find a lawyer before Wang's trial began. The charges, as reported by Human Rights in China (485 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10017), were that Wang "accepted a scholarship from the University of California to take a correspondence course; published antigovernment articles abroad; and attempted to raise money to support needy dissidents." The Chinese government regards these as criminal activities. Hearing about the trial, two former United States attorneys general-Nicholas Katzenbach and Richard Thornburgh- tried to get visas from the Chinese government so they could go to Beijing immediately and monitor the fairness of the proceedings. They were denied the visas. A number of foreign diplomats and journalists were also forbidden to attend. Cordons of security officials blocked the entrance to the court building. The trial took four hours, and obviously

the verdict had been prepared in advance. (This often happens at Chinese trials of "subversives.") Wang Dan, who had pleaded not guilty, was convicted and sentenced to 11 years in prison, plus two more years' deprivation of political rights. (As if he had political rights when he was free.) His mother, who was one of his defenders at the trial, had been allowed to see her son only once since he was taken into custody. That visit took place shortly before his October 1996 trial. She says that her son suffers from serious prostate and throat problems. Wang's family appealed the conviction and sentence on November 1. Two weeks later, the appeal was rejected after a 10-minute hearing. at that hearing, neither Wang nor his counsel were allowed to speak. And again, foreign reporters were kept away from the court building. In reaction to the trial and sentence, more than 900 organizations and individuals from around the world-including 22 Nobel laureates-have so far signed a petition demanding his immediate release

and that of all prisoners of conscience in China. The petition, which is ongoing, is cosponsored by Human Rights in China, the New York Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Committee of Concerned Scientists. Amnesty International has also been active on his behalf. Among the 22 Nobel laureates writing in support of Wang were Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel, George Wald, Milton Friedman, and Jose Ramos Horta of East Timor. The petition is addressed to China's president Jiang Zemin, and its premier, Li Peng. You may not have seen that information because the American press-except for A.M. Rosenthal in the New York Times and a very few others-has fallen in with the Clinton approach to China: if we make nice to the Chinese government, the jails will eventually be emptied of political prisoners. Human Rights Watch's World Report 1997 accurately indicts our abandonment of Wang Dan and the thousands and thousands of other prisoners of conscience: "The Chinese go

vernment's continued linkage between trade and human rights-threatening to restrict foreign trade or foreign investment in relation for criticism of China's human rights record-paid major dividends in 1996. Human rights fell nearly to the bottom of the international agenda..." And to the very bottom of the American agenda. As Steven Erlanger reported in the January 7 New York Times: "Perhaps the biggest disappointment of human rights proponents is China. The President flip-flopped on policy, first insisting that China's trade privileges be tied to its willingness to improve its human rights record, and then changing his mind. The decision undermined his credibility with Beijing, and [because of Clinton's weakness] China's rights record worsened, if anything, as China rearrested political opponents and tried to stamp out public dissent. Critics accuse the Administration of abandoning its moral goals in the face of pressure from American businessmen and hot rhetoric from the Chinese." (Emphasis added.) I am op

posed to term limits because they're antidemocratic. If people want to vote for somebody 10 times, that's their right. But I admit that, insofar as Clinton is concerned, the two-term limit for the presidency does not displease me. His China policy, his signing of the welfare bill, and his continuous assaults on the Bill of Rights have made him the most dangerous and disgusting president we have ever had. As for the perennially overcrowded prisons in China. it's not only Clinton who helps fill them. There are the columnists. Like the New York Post's Monica Crowley ( a prosperous China will eventually become democratic). Or Jessica Matthews in the Washington Post (China's record on human rights is abysmal, but there is another China that is responsible on arms control and environmental issues, so we can negotiate with that China). Tell that to Wang Dan. And the most recent session of Columbia University's American Assembly issued a report on fostering cooperation and preventing conflict with China. Among those

responsible were Sam Nunn and various bankers and academics. Its conclusion: "The threat of imposing sanctions is not a useful tool in advancing respect for human rights in China and, in fact, is often counter-productive." But "especially serious violations require a strong response." Like what? A letter from that man of firm principle, Bill Clinton? For all he and American diplomats and businesspeople care, Wang Dan can spend the rest of his life in prison.