Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

LETTER TO U.S. CONGRESS BY WIFE OF TORTURED CHINESE HERO

Jay Nordlinger has sobering words to share with reference to the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to the United States.  Nordlinger writes:

In a below post, I mentioned Gao Zhisheng, one of the best people in all of China — I believe he is still alive.  [Me: See my earlier post on Gao Zhisheng here.]  With the PRC, the government we Americans are honoring this week, you never know. Gao has been incredibly brave: He has defended Falun Gong practitioners, “house church” activists, and other people targeted by the government for arrest, torture, and death. Gao has paid very, very heavily for his principles.

In April 2009, Gao’s wife, Geng He, wrote a letter to the U.S. Congress. I wrote about this matter in a column, here. The letter in full can be found here. Geng began,

“On the night of September 21, 2007, my husband, with a black hood thrown over his head, was kidnapped and brought to an unknown location. For 59 days, many people tortured and ravaged him in all kinds of ways, including beating him with an electric prod, inserting bamboo sticks into his reproductive organs, holding lit cigarettes close to his eyes and nose, etc., so that his eyes would burn and he would be forced to inhale smoke. My husband told me later that he was in such unbearable pain at the time that his sweat, blood, and other bodily fluids covered the floor. Among the reasons the authorities gave for tormenting my husband was that he had written to the United States Congress.”

The head of the government that has done this to Gao, we are honoring at the White House, our American home. Isn’t that wonderful? Are you proud?

Geng went on to write,

“I remember that, when my husband was still free, whenever major human rights cases arose in China, he would always look towards the United States. He always said: The United States is the cornerstone of world freedom, human rights and social order; the United States would not tolerate despotic rule and the wanton abuse of the weak and the masses.”

Ain’t that quaint? I’m sure you’re laughing your head off. One more excerpt, from Geng’s letter:

“Honorable members of the U.S. Congress, please help me support my husband, lawyer Gao Zhisheng, so that the evil forces will know that there is resistance against persecution; so that the millions of Chinese suffering this despotic rule will know that the United States is concerned about their human rights situation, and will not give up. My husband would be more resolute because of this, the Chinese people would feel inspired because of this, and China and the world would eventually transform because of this!

“Many thanks for your concern!”

“Your concern”? Our concern?! I’ll tell you what our concern is, lady: to make money and go with the flow.

At the beginning of this administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, traveling in Asia, said that human rights would not be allowed to “interfere” with such urgent issues as “the global climate-change crisis.” This week’s pomp in honor of Hu Jintao proves that the administration is true to its word: Human rights sure as hell aren’t interfering.

SHAMEFUL FAILURE OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO SUPPORT DEMOCRACY IN IRAN - AND CHINA

I remember well the silence of the Obama administration in 2009 when Iranians rose up in revolt against their rulers.  Fouad Ajami in a Wall Street Journal article today also recalls that moment.  He writes: (my bolding)

. . .  Mr. Obama had come into office with a belief that he knew and understood the Islamic world. He was proud that Islam was a strand in his identity. He was sure that the policy of his predecessor had antagonized Islam. President George W. Bush's "diplomacy of freedom" was not given the grace of a decent burial. "Ideology is so yesterday," Secretary Clinton proudly proclaimed in early 2009. Realpolitik was to be the order of the day.

The Bush diplomacy had declared an open ideological assault against the Iranian theocracy. Mr. Obama would offer that regime an olive branch and a promise of engagement. Syria had been pushed out of Lebanon and viewed as a renegade regime that had done its best to frustrate the American war in Iraq. The Obama diplomacy would offer the rulers in Damascus diplomatic rehabilitation.

Thus the word went forth to the despots in the region that the American campaign on behalf of liberty that Mr. Bush had launched in 2003 had been called off. A new Iraqi democracy, midwifed by American power, was fighting for its life. The Obama administration would keep Iraq at arm's length.

This break of faith with democracy was put on cruel display in the summer of 2009, when the Iranians rose in revolt against their rulers. True, American diplomacy was not likely to alter the raw balance of power between the regime and its democratic oppositionists. But the timidity of American power, and the refusal of the Obama administration to embrace the cause of the opposition, must be reckoned one of American foreign policy's great moral embarrassments. . .   [more . . .]

Me:  Mr. Ajami goes on to talk about Syria, Lebananon, and Tunisia in this article.   But I wanted to record Ajami's assessment of President Obama's inexplicable and shameful failure to support the 2009 uprising.  Though it struck me forcefully at the time, it seemed that Obama's silence never received the attention it deserved.  Now the distinguished Fouad Ajami offers his opinion, and explains how the ebb of Americn power continues to affect the Middle East.

(Ajami is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. )

Update 1/20/11 - Regarding the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to Washington, Ellen Bork notes that awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo

undermined the carefully cultivated image of a legitimate regime in full control of, and tacitly accepted by, its people.  Chinese leaders fear international support for individuals who are brave and stubborn enough to work for a democratic alternative to the Communist party. . . .

On January 13, he [President Obama] did meet at the White House with a group of experts and activists on China. But people who would have offended Chinese leaders — people like Harry Wu, the former prisoner of China's laogai or forced labor camps; Rebiya Kadeer, the exiled Uighur leader; Ngawang Sandrol, a Tibetan nun jailed and tortured for her songs of praise for the Dalai Lama; Wang Juntao, a former Tiananmen protester; or Wan Yanhai, a famous AIDS activist and longtime associate of Liu Xiaobo — they were absent.

The president's determination to avoid using the weight and prestige of his office to support democratic opponents of authoritarian regimes in China, Iran, Belarus, and elsewhere is quickly becoming a hallmark of his administration. It's a dispiriting trend. And it suggests that the president simply does not grasp the meaning and potential of Liu Xiaobo and his fellow Chinese democrats.  (my emphases)

Update #2 - Washington Post editorial - "President Obama makes Hu Jintao Look good on rights"

CHINA'S PRESIDENT HU JINTAO TO VISIT THE U.S. - HUMAN RIGHTS PROTESTERS WILL BE ON HAND

Chinese President Jintao arrives in Washington on Tuesday, January 18th.  He goes on to Chicago on Thursday, January 20th.  China's human rights abuses need to be spotlighted and protested.  (I am focused today particularly on Gao Zhisheng who has suffered incredible torture and has been missing for eight months.  See also here.)  [Photo above is of Gao Zhisheng]

Bridget Johnson writes for The Hill:  (my emphases)

Lawmakers and activists plan to draw attention to China's human-rights record when President Hu Jintao is feted at a state dinner in Washington this week.

Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), who leads the House Foreign Affaris subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights and co-founded the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), co-chairman of that commission, will hold a press conference Tuesday at 2 p.m. in the Rayburn House Office Building with several activists for greater freedom in China.

These include Geng He, the wife of Gao Zhiseng, a human-rights lawyer who has defended the underground Christian church in China and the Falun Gong movement. He had reported torture at the hands of secret police after taking on such cases, and has been missing since April. 

Also at the press conference will be Chai Ling, a student leader in the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square that were met with a violent government crackdown. She now runs a nonprofit called All Girls Allowed that battles the one-child policy in China, which has resulted in many parents selectively choosing a male child, and draws awareness to forced abortions that ensure compliance with the policy.

Another Tiananmen Square activist who will speak, Yang Jianli, won the support of members of Congress in trying to secure his release from prison, which happened in 2007. He is now president of Initiatives for China.

And Harry Wu, an activist who spent 19 years in forced labor camps for criticizing the Communist Party, spearheaded the creation of the Laogai Museum in Washington, which teaches visitors about human-rights violations in China.

HOW IMPORTANT IS "HUMAN RIGHTS" IN OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY?

Answer:  Not Important at All.

I find that disgusting.  Chuck Colson's report is an eye-opening, important read.  I knew about Obama's refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama, following are some things I didn't know:  (excerpts)

Obama and his aides have also reportedly refused to meet with a representative of Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi.

And now we learn that the President has been quietly cutting off aid to groups that monitor human rights abuses and fight on behalf of human freedom—especially in Iran.

Colson says:

In the Wall Street Journal, David Feith and Bar Weiss write that the administration has eliminated millions of dollars in funding for the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, Freedom House, and the State Department’s Iran Democracy Fund.

These actions go against everything America stands for. Our worldview is largely informed by our Christian heritage—one that puts human dignity first. Has this administration forgotten that human rights have always been America’s greatest export?

Colson points out rightly,

We believe that all humans are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, as our Declaration of Independence says. We can’t just write off these rights for the sake of climate change or the economy; they’re central to who we are.

[More . . .]

"HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH" - STRONG BIAS AGAINST ISRAEL

Noah Pollak lays out the facts in the Wall Street Journal:

Over the past two weeks, Human Rights Watch has been embroiled in a controversy over a fund raiser it held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. At that gathering, Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson pledged the group would use donations to “battle . . . pro-Israel pressure groups.” . . .

From 2006 to the present, Human Rights Watch’s reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict have been almost entirely devoted to condemning Israel, accusing it of human rights and international law violations, and demanding international investigations into its conduct. It has published some 87 criticisms of Israeli conduct against the Palestinians and Hezbollah, versus eight criticisms of Palestinian groups and four of Hezbollah for attacks on Israel. . .

PERSONAL CONSCIENCE VS. GOVERNMENT LAW

Charles Colson has it right:

Where Do Human Rights Come From?

As I’ve said before on BreakPoint, the Obama administration is planning to revoke the Bush-era “conscience clause” that protects health-care workers from having to perform procedures that violate their conscience—procedures like abortion.

A leading post-modern scholar, Professor Stanley Fish, defended Obama’s stance recently in the New York Times. Fish’s reasoning should disturb anyone who believes that human rights come from a higher source than government.

ISLAM VIEWS NON-MUSLIMS AS WORSE THAN ANIMALS

Ex-Muslim Abul Kasem explains.

Anne Bayefsky on the Fiasco that is the U.N. Human Rights Council

Click here.  Bayefsky begins her excellent report with these words:

When President Bush told the United Nations General Assembly this week “the American people are disappointed by the failures of the Human Rights Council,” his words could not have been more timely or deserved. He pointed out “This body has been silent on repression by regimes from Havana to Caracas to Pyongyang and Tehran — while focusing its criticism excessively on Israel.” On Friday, the Council piled the dung heap higher. It wrapped up another session in Geneva by adopting two more resolutions against Israel and no resolutions critical of the human-rights record of any of the other 191 U.N. member states.   (more)

Me: Read the whole thing.  It's amazing... and disgusting.

Catholic Bishops Conference Blasts Amnesty International's Embrace of the Culture of Death

From Kathryn Jean Lopez:

The Catholic bishops conference blasts Amnesty International's embrace of the culture of death :

A Statement of the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Bishop William S. Skylstad, Bishop of Spokane

August 23, 2007

After nearly a year of dialogue with leaders of Amnesty International (AI), the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops strongly protests the recent action of AI’s International Council to promote worldwide access to abortion. This basic policy change undermines Amnesty’s longstanding moral credibility and unnecessarily diverts its mission. In promoting abortion, Amnesty divides its own members (many of whom are Catholics and others who

A MUSLIM-RAISED MALAYSIAN WOMAN HAS CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY. WILL THE GOV'T ALLOW IT?

All eyes are on Malaysia.  Michelle Malkin has the story which she relates as follows: 

Apostasy. The last time I visited the subject, an ex-Muslim man's life was at stake in Afghanistan. Remember Abdul Rahman?

Now, meet Lina Joy. Like Rahman, she was born Muslim, converted to Christianity, and is facing death threats for abandoning Islam. She wants to marry a fellow Christian man in her native Malaysia. A Muslim legal advocate for Joy, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, also faces death threats for defending her in a case that has reached the highest court in their country. The Wall Street Journal and NYTimes both spotlight her plight today. WSJ summarizes:

In 1998, Azlina binti Jailani changed her name to Lina Joy and was baptized a Catholic in a church in Kuala Lumpur. Ms. Joy now wants the government to stop classifying her as a Muslim.

But it isn't that simple: While Muslim-majority Malaysia is considered a largely moderate, modern society, renouncing one's Muslim faith still is considered both sinful and illegal by Islamic authorities -- who have gained increasing sway of late. Ms. Joy's apostasy case, now before Malaysia's highest court of appeal, has inflamed public debate, divided the legal community -- a Muslim lawyer supporting Ms. Joy has received death threats -- and threatens to set off political tremors in this Southeast Asian nation of 25 million people.

The landmark legal ruling, expected within a month, will help define Malaysia's character as a nation.

"We are at a crossroad, whether we go down the line of secular constitutionalism or whether that constitution will now be read subject to religious requirements," says Benjamin Dawson, one of Ms. Joy's lawyers.

Malaysia has been governed for more than a half century by a tradition of civil law passed on by former British colonial rulers. A separate shariah, or Islamic, legal system has co-existed with civil law specifically to govern the religious lives of Muslim citizens, who are mostly ethnic Malays. About 40% of the population is ethnic Chinese, Indians and other minorities of other faiths.

But conservative Islam's rise as a political force in the 1980s and 1990s has propelled pro-Western Malaysia -- and its legal system -- on a steady swing to the religious right. The government has ceded some powers once held by the civil-justice system to the shariah courts.

While the Quran states there should be "no compunction" in religion, Islamic authorities world-wide consider apostasy both a sin and a crime. In Malaysia, Islamic courts can sentence apostates to "rehabilitation" in prison-like re-education centers that sometimes use caning as part of their program.

Although Malaysia's constitution guarantees freedom of religion, civil courts now routinely refer any cases involving Islamic matters for adjudication in shariah courts. And the shariah courts almost never grant Muslims the right to leave the religion.

The National Evangelical Christian Fellowship-Malaysia has more legal background. Wikipedia (always taken with a grain of salt) has an extensive entry on the status of religious freedom in Malaysia and Christian persecution including the loss of the right to marry, torture, illegal imprisonment, and loss of the right to work. The Catholic Church that baptized Joy is reportedly being targeted by police. Malaysia's prime minister is calling for expanding bans on proselytizing to Muslims.

An Islamic scholar explains why Muslims must not be allowed to leave:

"If Islam were to grant permission for Muslims to change religion at will, it would imply it has no dignity, no self-esteem," said Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad, senior fellow at Malaysia's Institute of Islamic Understanding.

"And people may then question its completeness, truthfulness and perfection."

Got that? It's a Religion of Peace for those who submit, and a Religion of Pieces for those who even dare think of leaving.

***

Yoo-hoo, American feminists. Have you nothing to say about this case? Perhaps if Lina Joy were clamoring for the right to marry an atheist woman instead of a Christian man, you'd be all over it, huh?

***

Flashback: At Dhimmi Watch, read Ibn Warraq's 2004 paper on Islam, Apostasy, and Human Rights.