The Epoch Times, Jan 09, 2005-

Afraid of the 'JiuPing' (Nine Commentaries) phenomenon, the Chinese Communist Party attempted to control the media and interfere with the freedom of press in the United States. On December 21, 2004, The Epoch Times held a “Jiu-Ping Communist Party” forum at the National Press Club (NPC). One of the panelists, Michael A. Ledeen, former Consultant of the National Security Council, Department of State and Department of Defense, and the Commissioner of U.S.-China Commission, is currently freedom scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

(Photo: First English Jiuping forum held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on December 21, 2004.)

Days before the forum, Mr. John Bloom, General Manager of NPC, received a phone call from the Chinese Embassy pressuring NPC to cancel The Epoch Times’ “Jiu-Ping Communist Party” forum. On the morning of December 21, the spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy, Sun Weide, emailed NPC to cancel the Jiu-Ping forum.

Not bowing to such pressure, NPC held the “Jiu-Ping Communist Party” forum as scheduled, and the forum was a success. On December 22, Mr. John Donnelly, Chairman of NPC’s Board of Governors and Co-Chairman of NPC’s Freedom of Press Committee replied in a letter to Sun, expressing NPC’s core principles of defending the freedom of press and freedom of speech. On December 29, NPC issued a press release on this matter, and published the email from the Chinese Embassy along with NPC's reply on NPC’s website.

The following conversation is from the discussions at the forum: 

Q: I heard mention that there was a website for people to withdraw from the Communist Party, and that to me sounds huge, if that’s actually true, if that’s actually happening, that people are withdrawing from the Communist Party, publicly. So I’m wondering; I haven’t really seen it on CNN, I haven’t seen it on other things, so I’m wondering, what is this?

A (Michael Horowitz): Can I answer without direct or specific knowledge, but to just throw a broad thought on the table that’s provoked by your question. I think too many of us are looking at the Soviet collapse scenario as the mode for what will or may happen—that is to say, one night, the walls come down, and millions of people are protesting, and the government is overthrown. I think the point Michael Adene made is probably the more critical area of concern surely is for the Chinese. And that is, just to take one extraordinary Achilles Heel, it’s the children of the Apparats, the ones who’ve been to the United States, not who come and stay here, but who go back. They know the level of corruption of the regime. In Eastern Europe, I was able, for example, to tap into extraordinary leadership through one means: I’d meet somebody who was very bright, who was Havel’s press spokesperson in Prague, and she’d say, “well, why don’t you see my friend so-and-so in Sofia,” and he would say, “why don’t you see my friend so-and-so in Budapest.” What tied them all together was that they were children of bigshots, and were sent to what must have been the world’s leading anti-communist training school, Moscow University. They hated the regime, and they bored from within, not in the dramatic way of walls coming down. And so when you talk about the receptivity to that paper—they just ran out of print—you’re really talking about the educated elite: the children of the bigshots, the people who’ve had the freedom to travel. And do not expect the kind of dramatic outcome as you did in Europe, although there may be some, there may be defections and the like. I think the rapidity of the circulation of that paper is evidence in and of itself, because it involves a not-so-subtle erosion of the power base and a not-so-subtle impulse for profound internal reform. And indeed, it is for that reason that the worst step we can take is to give legitimacy to the communist regime to take the pressure off, because what we do then is we sell out the people inside the regime who are looking for moral and other forms of support from us. They wind up surrendering, despite their own feelings, despite their hunger for papers of this kind on the history of the Communist Party, if the rest of the world, who they look for as alternatives, are coming and giving obeisance to the very rulers of that Party. So do not understate at all the impact of that story of the circulation of that paper because you haven’t seen a next-day dramatic result.

Q: What I’m saying is that Mr. Stephen Gregory had said that there were 100-200 people a day withdrawing from the Communist Party, and I’m wondering more about the drama surrounding the actual, less than the theory behind it, which is fascinating as well, but what is actually happening to the Communist Party right now if there is 100-200 people a day, that to me sounds huge, I don’t know how else to say it.

A (Michael Horowitz): Well, what’s huger is that nobody believes in that stuff anymore. That’s Michael Ledeen’s point, that’s everybody’s point. It’s just rhetoric, which has no relation to the ongoing reality. So once again, yes, there are some people who are taking dramatic personal steps, which tells you something, but the larger story is the fact that nobody believes the propaganda anymore, nobody is studying Marx, nobody takes that seriously. Take a look at what’s selling at the bookstores and what the curricula are at the universities in China, and you’ll get a much more telling story, and a more optimistic story of the future, than you will from the number of people, whether it’s 100 or 150 a day—which is not small, and which is significant—but I tell you, that’s the real story to follow.

Q Moderator: Professor Ming would you like to talk about the phenomenon of the people resigning from the Party?

A (Professor Ming): First let me give you a personal observation of what really happened in New York City while I was attending one of those forums. We had about four or five speakers that day, and after we spoke, there was a Q&A session, and many people stepped forward to tell their own stories. Some of them even burst into tears, crying out loud, literally. They were telling what really happened to them, to their own families, and to their lives. And there was one gentleman who announced his resignation, his withdrawal from the Party. It was one case that I observed right there. About this website thing, I haven’t looked into the website, but I kept hearing about the development of it. I think it was around 2000 several days ago, so I think it’s around 2000 withdrawing from the Party, and there’s a website, which I’m sure you can visit. Does anybody here know the website, the address of the website?

Q Moderator: Nine Ping.

A (Professor Ming): www.9ping, dot org or dot com? Dot com, ok. There was a funny incident more than a week ago, about Mr. Meng Weizai, as mentioned by Stephen earlier. There was an announcement published on the New China News Agency website saying that he will forever stay on as a Party member, as a very stubborn Party member, so on and so forth. And this happened because a few days prior to that, there was a withdrawal announcement circulating in several websites, saying that he withdrew from the Communist Party, so the New China News Agency published this announcement, allegedly by him. The funny thing is that New China News Agency is the major news agency in China, it is the news agency in China. I cannot imagine the national news agency would run a story like that, it’s an itty-bitty story by any standard, so that means it’s a major thing, it’s a major blow to them. That’s why they reacted in such a, how should I describe it—bizarre way. But that’s not the end to it. A few days later, we hear more things coming out, saying that he personally made an announcement that “New China News Agency fabricated that announcement, I did not say that. I did withdraw from the Party.” There were some people who called mainland China in the past few days, and what they heard was that it was true, Mr. Meng did withdraw from the Communist Party, because it had been circulated, officially circulated inside the Party network, so we know it’s true. I want to call your attention to the development of the whole thing. That it was so strange means that it was a heavy blow to the Party. I would not exactly call it a disintegration of the Party, but I would call it, rather, an awakening of conscience.

A (William Murry): If I may, just a couple of items. You know, if I said that the Sicilian Mafia—that I had great news, that they had given up kidnapping and extortion and they were a completely changed organization, and they had gone into prostitution, porn and drugs now. Would everybody be happy? This is basically what we have: the people that have exploited China for decades now, and have exploited the people of China for so long, have now figured out that not only can they have power, but they can have money and power. And somehow we think that because they’ve got power and money rather than just power, that they’re going to turn into better people. And I tend not to believe that. And as far as Jiuping, and what that is accomplishing now; what it has accomplished is the fact that this press conference is taking place, and that there is actual media in it. I’m shocked. The media is transfixed on Russia right now, which has a democratically elected president, a democratically elected Duma (a parliament), and a multiparty system, and editorials appear daily in The Washington Times, The Washington Post, The New York Times. Both conservative and right-wing journals have political cartoons showing how unfree this place is. [note: the audio gets jumbled up here]
…go onto a website and reserve yourself a kidney or a liver in China, they will find somebody that matches you, and they will execute that person in order to harvest that kidney or liver for you. Nothing from the media, nothing. But we are transfixed you know, Serbia’s just a horrible place, they’ve got elections there, my gosh, these people need to be punished, maybe we should boycott them. And I think if this has accomplished anything, it got people in this room. There may even be an article buried somewhere in The Washington Post or The Washington Times. It may not be in the first section, and it won’t be above the fold on any page, I can guarantee that, but somewhere in the newspapers tomorrow there may be some small mention of this event and there were several speakers. (Laughs). None of us by name of course, that would take up too much room. But I think that it has accomplished the fact, it has accomplished media attention on a tyrannical regime that has managed to totally and completely escape the magnifying glass of the press for too long. Thank you.

A Moderator: Let me add just a positive coda to your remarks…

A (William Murry): Well I was very positive, or I thought I was positive.

(Laughter)

A Moderator: Well, then let me supplement your positive remarks. Dajiyuan has organized 35 Chinese-language forums in the just over a month since the first article of the Jiuping was published. These are remarkable things in the Chinese community—to have people attend a public event to discuss the end of the Communist Party and the crimes of the Communist Party. It’s absolutely amazing; it’s never happened before. This is the first English language forum, of course in this case, organized by The Epoch Times, and yes, the Communist Party officials are very concerned that these discussions are going on. They’re very concerned that what has been taking place under the radar of Western society in a Chinese discussion might break out and become a general topic of Western society. If Western society begins talking about the nature of the Communist Party, the crimes of the Communist Party in China, and what’s happening with the Communist Party in China today, that will greatly amplify, greatly amplify the effect of the Jiuping inside China as the people of China realize, as some of our colleagues have said, as they realize that this is no longer being accepted, that the crimes of the Communist Party are no longer being accepted or tolerated by the world at large.

*******************

A (Ethan Gutmann): Just rephrase that question slightly; I didn’t quite understand. You’re saying that Chinese is booming, right, that’s your assumption?

Q: Yes. China is booming. It’s doing so well, better, much better than any of the other Communist or dictatorships that we have seen in history. So maybe it will work, it’s just a theory, people are hoping that it will work, that if we just give China time, let it…

A (Ethan Gutmann): Let it grow, that economic growth will sort of outgrow the oppressive system that is in place.

Q: Yes. After people have enough money, they will begin to think about something else.

A (Ethan Gutmann): That’s always been the theory that’s out there, that you just get money in people’s pockets, and that will begin to happen. I think the problem is something, I don’t want to repeat myself too much, but I think the problem is that if you don’t start training for democracy, like, if you don’t create a kind of political culture that can start stepping into this, it may not happen for a much longer, surprisingly long period. I’m not saying it could never happen, but it would be very difficult. What you have right now is a political system, which is so strangely out of step with the kind of economic growth we’re seeing, that’s all I’d say about it. Now, I’m not on the ground in China right now; it’s very hard for me to even get a clear beat on whether the Chinese economic growth figures are accurate. They weren’t before. They haven’t been for years. Before, you had economic growth figures that seemed to be true for the coastal areas, and for the areas that expats go to, but they clearly were not for the vast state-owned enterprises and the huge part of the country—the inland part of the country. Now is that, to a certain extent, one economy beginning to shut out the other? Probably. Hopefully it is. Will that automatically lead to political freedom? I’m feeling a bit pessimistic today, so I’m going to say no. but I think Michael Horowitz is going to say something else.

A (Michael Horowitz): Well, there’s a tactic in bargaining here, and people get it almost always backwards. In building political movements, when people are in trouble, when things are going badly for your side, the tendency is: do something, act. That’s almost never the time to act, that’s the time to hunker down, survive the bad things that are happening, but to think about what you’re going to do when the opportunity arises. But the worse scene is when things seem to be trending your way, the impulse is to coast. That’s got it exactly backwards. If the premise of your question is correct, that with the growth of wealth and capitalism and economic freedom will come political freedom—that’s the story you hear from the Chamber of Commerce—and they therefore say, “let’s coast to victory.” And that’s wrong. That is the time precisely when the pressure should really be applied, it’s when things are going your way that you floor the accelerator. So passing the “End Dictatorship, Advance Democracy” Act, enforcing the foreign assistance bill that Ethan has talked about, that bars the export of products that permit police surveillance. Promoting religious freedom and enforcing that is a central element of American human rights policy. These are the kinds of things we should be redoubling and tripling our efforts on if the premise of your question is correct, if things are booming, if change appears to be happening—that’s all the more reason for us to increase our efforts, not to coast.

A (Professor Ming): Exercising pressure on the Chinese Communist regime would have certain effects. We have personal experience on that point. A couple of years ago, I had a friend who practiced Falun Gong, and who accidentally got into Shanghai and was abducted there, and was thrown into jail for 20 days. And we knew nothing about him, we knew nothing about what happened to him, but after he was released, he returned to Taiwan. It took him a long while to recover, just for 20 days. Then, we said, what did they do to you? And he said, “They exercised pressure on me, and they kept interrogating me,” and all that. Then he said, “one day they changed their attitude, and my treatment was totally different. And they brought me breakfast, and changed the food and everything, and gave me royal treatment. And we began to compare the dates of what we had done in Taiwan to save him. We publicized his story and we had a press conference just like this, just for his case, and the next day his treatment in Shanghai was improved. And the more pressure we exercise on Chinese communists, the better results you get. So yeah, I do agree with you, the Chinese economy may be booming, but simultaneously I think, improvement on human rights will be very helpful. I’m sure that no one will argue that “I have to abuse human rights just to develop my economy.” I don’t think they go together. And for the United States, for both the government and the people, I guess what we can do, and what we are doing is: let’s stop feeding totalitarianism. Let’s begin exercising pressure on them. If you have any doubts about it, little by little—you don’t have to do it all at once.

A (William Murry): If I may, there is for some reason the assumption in the United States that economic freedom and social freedoms are the same thing, and that is just not the case. Several South American nations did their best economically under totalitarian regimes. I would like to point out that if we take into consideration that religious freedom is a fundamental human right, that if you do not have religious freedom, then you do not have freedom of speech, you do not have freedom of assembly, you do not have freedom of press, period. Now you can argue that point, but if you cannot express your religious beliefs publicly, do you have freedom of speech? No. If you can’t assemble to practice those religious beliefs, do you have freedom of assembly? No. If you’re not allowed to print your religious books and distribute them, do you have freedom of press? No. Religious freedom is the absolute core to those other things. We have a situation where I can’t call Canada a free nation, there are so many restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the freedom of the use of the airwaves there—you can’t own a radio station if you’re a religious organization. Even if you are a Christian organization, you cannot teach certain things in your school, the certification—a graduate of a Christian college cannot teach in a Canadian public school. Sweden is, per capita, the most productive nation in the world; earlier this year, they sentenced a pastor to six months in jail for a sermon he made from the pulpit of his small rural church. Belgium has outlawed the largest political party in the country because it disagreed with their courts’ political correctness. The EU has refused to appoint a man to an important position in the EU government because he is “too Catholic,” and expressed his Catholic positions. The idea that somehow economic activity has to do with freedom is ludicrous. The reality is that Europe is fast-moving towards totalitarianism: restrictions on speech, restrictions on press, and restrictions on assembly. To say that France has religious freedom—they’re passing a law that says that all preachers will have to preach in French. They can’t preach in Arabic, they can’t preach in Hebrew, they have to preach in French so they can be monitored by the government. That just sounds like a wonderfully free thing. And if we have this trend in Europe of suppression of basic human freedoms, and particularly regarding the freedom of religion, how can we possibly say that the expansion of economic opportunity in China is somehow going to lead to the same freedom of religion and the same freedoms that are currently being taken away in Europe, which is perhaps one of the greatest economic engines other than the United States, that has ever existed. So I think that we need to continue the pressure, and this is the answer to the question. I think backing off and waiting for the Communist Party to evolve goes back to my Sicilian mafia example earlier. People like power. George Bush didn’t say, “hey, most of the world’s leaders don’t like me, I think I won’t run for president again. If the world’s opinion is against me, I’ll just quit.” Nobody voluntarily gives up power. And we’re sitting here and we’re speculating as to how many good economic things have to happen in China before the Communist Party says, “Ok, let’s make everybody free. We’re going to give up our power, we’re going to give up our mountaintop homes, we’re going to give up our yachts, we’re going to give up our private airplanes, we’re going to give up our police escorts. We’re going to give this all up, we’re going to give the people freedom because it’s the right thing to do now that everybody’s rich.” I don’t see this. It’s possible, but I don’t see it.

*******************
Q: My name is Robert and I’m a fine artist and a human rights activist. My question is actually related to the Nine Ping, or the Nine Commentaries themselves. I started reading the Nine Commentaries yesterday, and I found them extremely enlightening, and I felt like it was very historical, what was going on, and I actually wanted to hear, because maybe there are many reporters here, and others who have not read the Nine Commentaries, is why are the Nine Commentaries significant, and what is in them that’s creating such an uproar in China. What is the essence of the Nine Ping and why is it bringing about all this? That’s my question.

Q Moderator: And this is going to have to be our last question. Professor Ming?

A (Professor Ming): I would say that the most important thing that this Nine Ping has accomplished is to reveal, or to disclose to the world, in a very systematic way, what the Chinese Communist Party has done to the country and to the people. And, the purpose of this disclosure is not to summon the overthrow of the country, or the state. You see the absence of that kind of summons in the nine articles all the way through. What I see is a moral summons, a summons on the conscience of each and every one of us, so that we understand what’s wrong in China, and let’s not speak for it, and let’s share the truth with our friends, with our families, with our colleagues, so that more and more people will understand. With less and less support, physical or moral support, totalitarianism will die out eventually. That’s why we’re doing it.

A (Michael Horowitz): I remember when Gorbachev permitted that history to be published, the history of the Soviet Union. It had an extraordinary impact on people in the Soviet Union. I mean, it was no longer possible—people knew that Stalin wasn’t a good guy, by that time, but there was still some sort of heroic status, iconic status that he had. After the publication of the history of the Soviet Union by Gorbachev, the so-called Penkovsky Papers and some of the others, the legitimacy of the Communist Party in the minds of the people inside the Soviet Union was just shattered to an incredible degree. It was true that the world press picked up on that history of the Soviet Union in a way it has not in the case of China. And we have more work to do. We can’t whine about press bias, what we need to do, and what I have done already, and what I’m going to go back to my office and do, is to call up reporters from The New York Times and The Washington Post and CBS, and say, look, I don’t care about your biases or what you think—you’re a reporter. You’re blowing one heck of a story. And those statistics that Stephen mentioned about how they’re running out of paper, and they can’t publish enough of this history, tells something. And it made a difference in the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union, and it will have, it cannot help but have a like impact in China, and so instead of whining about a biased press, we just have to go to reporters and tell them, you’re missing a heck of a story, and in the end, the professionalism of reporters can be engaged. It doesn’t happen overnight, we’ve got to keep trying, but I’ve also heard comments here to the effect that not a word is being heard in our press about how terrible China is, they’ve totally and completely escaped notice for all of their terrors. That’s not true. We just have to do more, and we’ll succeed if we do more too.

A (Ethan Gutman): I’ll keep this brief. I just want to note that when you’re living in China, you run into something with an awful lot of your Chinese acquaintances and colleagues, which is there is obviously a feeling of inequality. Now, it’s covered up in various ways, it’s protested about, the assumption is that you’re American, and you’re arrogant and so on, but the fact is that is the underlying theme in the relationship. I don’t believe that that is really due to economics anymore, because we’re looking at this powerhouse economy of China. I don’t believe it’s due to some kind of perception of the situation in China in the 19th Century. I believe it’s because of the suppression of the—the fact that the Chinese cannot talk about these basic issues: the Cultural Revolution, the history of the Communist Party, exactly the kinds of issues that are now being addressed, and I think that’s why this document is so important. It’s the beginning of that, and that’s the beginning of true equality, the kind that is going to be real, and sustaining. And hopefully that’s the end of lots of the more extreme forms of Chinese nationalism, which are really just offensive in nature.

Q Moderator: Bill, do you want the last word? Would you please join me in thanking our panel for their great efforts this afternoon.

The full text of The Nine Commentaries can be found here.

- Source: U.S. Think Tanks Discuss 'JiuPing' and Chinese People Quitting the CCP