Jiang Tianyong tweets about Chen Guangcheng

Since the US media broke the story about Chen Guangcheng leaving the New York University, the online Chinese communities have been relatively quiet about the news. This started to change yesterday after the Chinese version of a Wall Street Journal report had appeared. The report contained a statement by a former adviser of Chen named Mattie J. Bekink. Bekink backed several claims of the New York University with regard to the blind activist’s departure from the University. The defamatory accusations in the statement led to an uproar among online dissident communities and had resulted in a deluge of posts on Twitter in support of Chen. The most significant of these online comments came from Jiang Tianyong, a China-based legal expert who has been in regular contacts with Chen. The following is a full translation of a set of 14 tweets that Jiang posted on 20 June 2013.

江天勇律师就陈光诚与纽约大学事件在推特上发表的推文

A translation of China-based lawyer Jiang Tianyong’s tweets – re: Chen Guangcheng vs the New York University

关于光诚与纽约大学(一)所有关心中国人权、法治、民主、自由的人都是我们的朋友。无论美国两党及政治人物和中共当局怎么就光诚和纽约大学关系发表看法,陈光诚都会秉持良知、根据事实从人权、法治、自由、民主角度说话。

The case of CGC vs NYU:  We regard all those who care about human rights, rule of law, democracy and liberty in China as our friends. Chen Guangcheng (CGC) assures us that he will insist on speaking conscientiously and truthfully to promote human rights, rule of law, liberty and democracy, regardless of how politicians from major US political parties and the Communist Party of China (CPC) choose to express their opinions on this matter with regard to his relations with the New York University (NYU).

关于光诚与纽约大学(二)光诚在纽约大学访问学者一年期限届满是事实;纽约大学为利益屈从中共当局的压力,让光诚(立即)离开也是事实。一年期满前,科恩教授不止一次对光诚说一年期满后再延期一年更是事实!

Let us examine the facts. It is a fact that CGC’s one-year visiting scholar’s appointment at the NYU has come to an end. It is also a fact that the NYU, in expectation of benefits from its engagement with China, has succumbed to pressure from the CPC and has asked CGC to (immediately) leave the University. Another very important fact is that Professor Cohen had more than once reassured CGC that the appointment would be renewed for another year at the end of its current term.

关于光诚与纽约大学(三)Mattie J. Bekink在《华尔街日报》的声明中说的纽约大学对光诚一家的关照都是事实;但说“在即将离开纽约大学的时候,陈光诚选择用虚假陈述中伤他在这所大学的朋友和支持者”不是事实!

Mattie J. Bekink correctly pointed out at her statement published in the Wall Street Journal that the NYU had taken very good care of CGC & his family. But there is no factual substance to her claim “that as his time at NYU comes to a close Mr. Chen chooses to malign his friends and supporters at the university with false statements.” None whatsoever!

关于光诚和纽约大学(四)事实上光诚到纽约大学后,中共对纽约大学并未绝望,中共当局对纽约大学的施压及统战并未停止反而加强,尤其是后半年恩威并用成效渐显,科恩教授试图阻止让光诚离开的企图,但最终势单力薄。科恩教授骨子里也是民主党人。

The fact is, after CGC’s arrival at the NYU, the CPC did not sever ties with the NYU. Instead, it stepped up networking with the NYU, particularly towards the past six months. The carrot and stick approach towards the NYU had proven to be effective in preventing Professor Cohen from securing another term of appointment for CGC. After all, Professor Cohen is a loyal Democrat supporter.

关于光诚和纽约大学(五)压力除了来自中共、民主党、纽约大学,也来自科恩教授的身边,包括Mattie J. Bekink。科恩教授让光诚延期一年的努力失败。但纽约大学希望光诚不将学校受压屈从一事公开。

The pressure on Professor Cohen came not just from the CPC, the Democratic Party and the NYU, but also from people around Professor Cohen, including Mattie J. Bekink. Professor Cohen eventually failed in his effort to secure another year’s appointment for CGC. And the NYU also wanted CGC not to reveal in public that the University had been under pressure.

关于光诚和纽约大学(六)光诚当然非常清楚、也极为感谢纽约大学及科恩教授对他及一家的帮助。不过,光诚是一个诚实并讲原则的人,尤其是对中共当局的这种伎俩,他不可能当作不存在,也不会帮纽约大学遮掩质疑。

CGC is mostly grateful for the help he and his family have received from the NYU and from Professor Cohen. However, CGC is also a very honest man with integrity. It is not possible for him to turn a blind eye to the dishonorable tricks of the CPC and to pretend that evil does not exist. He is also not in a position to shield the NYU against public scrutiny.

关于光诚和纽约大学(七)光诚与科恩教授是10年的老朋友、忘年交。且于光诚而言,科恩亦是恩师。但光诚不是一个为尊者讳的人;而且,光诚所针对的是中共当局这种全世界破坏规则的恶行。但纽约大学显然很受伤,于是让科恩教授出面否认遭施压。

Professor Cohen has been a dear friend of CGC for the last 10 years. To CGC, Professor Cohen is both a friend and a mentor. But CGC will not lie or be silenced, not even for the person whom he truly respects. What was even more perplexing for CGC was that the NYU took offense at accusations meant to be directed only towards the CPC and its unruly behavior. Consequently, Professor Cohen was made to step forward to deny that the University had been put under pressure.

关于光诚和纽约大学(八)事情出来后,放到两党政治氛围下的美国,变得不简单。各方从民主党和共和党、从自由派和保守派的立场分析、表达,并相互解读;更重要的是,科恩教授首先说光诚受共和党和保守人士影响。于是,事情更复杂了。

This incident is further complicated by the politics the two major US political parties are playing against each other. Suddenly those from the Democrats to the Republicans, from liberals to conservatives, are all expressing their opinion on this matter and are promoting their views based on each other’s interpretation of events. Most significantly, Professor Cohen became the first person to accuse CGC of allying himself with conservative Republicans. The accusation adds another dimension of complexity to this incident.

关于光诚与纽约大学(九)其实,光诚从到纽约大学开始,并不是谁想见就能见得着的,保护措施很强。共和党人及保守人士与光诚见面的机会很少;美国宗教人权机构对华援助协会的傅希秋,甚至美国会重量级议员沃尔夫、斯密斯见光诚也不容易。

As a matter of fact, since CGC’s arrival at the NYU, he has been put under strict protection; not everyone can gain access to him. CGC has only had brief meetings with conservative members from the Republican Party and with Bob Fu from a human rights religious organization called ChinaAid. Even senior US congressmen such as Frank Wolf and Chris Smith have experienced some difficulties when they requested to meet with CGC.

关于光诚与纽约大学(十)相反,光诚更多的时间是与科恩教授、纽约大学方面及民主党自由派人士相处。此种情况下,说光诚是受共和党及保守人士影响,岂不是说民主党自由派影响力太差了?!

Meanwhile, CGC is spending most of his time with Professor Cohen, people at the NYU and members of the liberal Democratic Party. So it is absurd to suggest that CGC is under the influence of conservative Republicans.  To say so is to admit that the liberal Democrats are not influential!

光诚与纽约大学(十一)Bekink说:“但是他的言论显示出了他难以接受将开始新生活的事实。想要让他“因为忙于生计而没有时间从事人权活动”的,不是中共有关部门,而是要求人们自食其力的资本主义美国的生活。”此种污蔑显示她太不了解光诚了,也太急于为中共撇清。

Bekink says, “But his comments suggest that he is having a hard time accepting the reality of his new life. It is not the Chinese communist authorities who “want to make [him] so busy trying to earn a living that [he doesn’t] have time for human rights advocacy.” Rather it is life in capitalist America that requires individuals to support themselves.” These defamatory comments betray the fact that she does not understand CGC and she is too eager to come to the CPC’s defense.

光诚与纽约大学(十二)我近一段时间一直与光诚保持沟通交流,他会一直秉持良知、根据事实从人权、法治、自由、民主的角度讲话。光诚的可爱之处就是他的诚实和认真,因此,会说出“房间里的大象”,这可能让许多方面难受,包括科恩教授和纽约大学。

I have recently been in regular contact with CGC. He assures me that he will continue to speak conscientiously and truthfully to promote human rights, rule of law, liberty and democracy. CGC is such an honest and sincere person that he will not hesitate to point out there is “an elephant in the room”. His honesty may have upset many people, including Professor Cohen and the NYU.

光诚与纽约大学(十三) 光诚一直希望美国两党超脱党派之争,共同面对中共当局的压力,支持中国人权、法治、自由和民主;但实际上确实非常困难。此次争论中,光诚也希望美国各方面的朋友直面中共当局的压力,而不将矛盾指向科恩教授。

It has long been CGC’s wish that the two major parties in the USA could come to a bipartisan agreement of the need to face up to pressure from the CPC in their supports for human rights, rule of law, liberty and democracy in China. This is obviously not an easy task. In this dispute, CGC also hopes his American friends can face up to pressure from the CPC. Instead, Professor Cohen was put under tremendous pressure to resolve the disagreement.

光诚与纽约大学(十四)特别提醒的是,指责光诚说出对纽约大学不利的话是因其受“身边有不少人”的影响,显得荒谬。科恩教授和纽约大学最清楚光诚是一个有自己独立判断力的人,而非一个谁想左右就能左右得了的人;否则,最可能左右光诚的,应该是科恩教授和纽约大学方面!

A special reminder to those who accuse CGC of taking bad advice from “people around him”:  Your allegation is utterly absurd. Both Professor Cohen and the NYU should be well aware that CGC is fully capable of independent thinking and impartial judgment. It is not likely for anyone to persuade him into blindly accepting certain views. If CGC were really as malleable as suggested, perhaps Professor Cohen and the NYU would have had an easier time exerting their influence on him.

About these ads
This entry was posted in uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.