原文链接：
http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/07/blog-post_12.html
纽约时报发表文章，指责陈光诚卷入美国党派政治漩涡。实际上，陈光诚是中共潜心培养打造的战略间谍，中共通过苦肉计，将陈光诚送到美国，并成为美国普遍关注的政治明星和人权斗士。随后，中共指使陈光诚挑起美国两党纷争，以便中共坐山观虎斗，坐收渔翁之利。中共还派其他几位著名的中共特务配合陈光诚的工作，包括对华援助协会主席傅希秋，中国知名人士胡佳，美国国会及行政当局中国委员会主任刘天龙，等人。
傅希秋给陈光诚安装间谍软件，很多人认为这是傅希秋为了便于监视陈光诚。实际上，没有人会有兴趣去监视一个瞎子。这些间谍软件是为了帮助陈光诚同中共间谍部门进行联络和接受指令。
刘天龙在进入美国国会之前，曾经常年在中国北京工作。刘天龙曾经是美国共和党议员克里斯托夫·斯密斯的助理，以及民主党参议员谢罗德坎贝尔·布朗（Sherrod Campbell Brown）的助手。就是在刘天龙的策划下，使得这两位资深议员对中共政权是小骂大帮忙，使得美国国会只是关注一些诸如计划生育和堕胎这类问题，而很少关注中国的人权及敏感的政治经济问题。这正是中共政权派遣这些高级特务游说美国国会的目的所在。
陈光诚、傅希秋、刘天龙花大力气游说美国国会的目的不外乎是：
1. 挑起美国两党纷争，挑动美国斗美国，挑动共和党和民主党为鸡毛蒜皮一类的琐事而大动干戈，从而使两党都无暇关注中国人权，都不再谴责中共政权。必要的时候，中共政权出面调节，进而拉拢腐蚀某些美国议员。
2. 游说美国国会，甚至是控制美国国会的有关部门，比如美国国会的“美国国会及行政当局中国委员会”就被刘天龙控制。
3. 拉拢腐蚀美国议员，影响美国国会决策。刘天龙就对美国参议员谢罗德坎贝尔·布朗和美国共和党议员克里斯托夫·斯密斯有着十分重要的影响。美国国会的有关中国的听证会以及相关议案，很多都受到刘天龙的影响。
这就如同当年潜伏在蒋介石身边中共间谍郭汝瑰，郭汝槐是蒋介石的国防次长，蒋介石的许多作战计划就是由郭汝瑰按照中共的旨意来制订的。这些计划是首先送达到毛泽东的桌面，这种计划当然使得中共“知己知彼，百战不殆”。
4. 渗透美国议会选举和美国总统选举，帮助那些中共政权欣赏的候选人能够当选。
刘天龙的简历。
Chen Guangcheng, along with Mr. Lawrence T. Liu, and Mr. Bob Fu, are all Chinese spies who were sent by the Chinese government to the United States to do lobby for the Chinese government. Their major tasks are:
1. To manipulate the partisanship in the United States. Let the two parties to fight for Trivialities and pay less attention to other Chinese related sensitive issues, such as Human rights issues.
2. By involving partisanship, Chinese government could create chances to bribe or help some of the lawmakers, and to control some of the Chinese related offices. For example, the Congressional Executive Committee on China (CECC) has been controlled by Mr. Lawrence T. Liu.
3. Influence/control the Congress and the White House to make decisions or issue laws to favor the Chinese Communist government.
4. Manipulate the presidential elections and the Parliamentary elections.
Mr. Lawrence T. Liu worked with Mr. Bob Fu closely to arranged many Chinese to do testimony at the Congress hearings. Mr. Lawrence T. Liu has worked as the Staff Director of the Congressional Executive Committee on China (CECC) for several years. Mr. Lawrence T. Liu has been assistants to some of the Senators and Representatives.
Please check the following link:
http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/06/blog-post_28.html
Gang Liu
July 12, 2013
相关文章
1. 陈光诚卷入美国党派政治漩涡
杰安迪 2013年07月11日
失明的法律倡导者陈光诚挑战了中国政府严酷的计划生育政策，他无疑是具有政治智慧且善于生存的。他智斗软禁他的看守，然后想方设法逃到了美国大使馆，由此引发一场外交危机。只有在国务卿希拉里·罗德姆·克林顿(Hillary Rodham Clinton)插手干预，就陈光诚的自由问题进行交涉后，这场危机才得以化解。
然而，在美国这片复杂而党派斗争激烈的政治版图上，他的政治智慧却未能得以发挥。2012年5月，甚至在这位勇于挑战中国共产党的维权人士调整好时差之前，他就被人权活动人士、反堕胎人士，以及两党中一大批渴望利用他知名度的政治人物所包围。
Mark Makela for The New York Times
中国异见人士陈光诚上月参访匹兹堡。
Mark Makela for The New York Times
陈光诚和他的妻子袁伟静以及孩子们，上个月参访匹兹堡。
Michael Reynolds/European Pressphoto Agency
陈光诚（左）和傅希秋，傅希秋领导的福音派基督教组织在宗教问题上向中国施压。
陈光诚在纽约大学(New York University)的赞助人奉劝他，远离他所不了解的、危机四伏的党派纷争。陈光诚的密友、法学教授孔杰荣(Jerome A. Cohen)表示，“我告诉陈光诚，美国就要举行总统选举了，在介入政治之前，他应该先花一年时间研究美国的政治格局。”
朋友们表示，陈光诚从未真正听取这个建议，而如今他已卷入争议之中。在一群保守派人士的支持下，陈光诚已公开指责纽约大学屈服于中国政府的压力，在今夏提早中止为他提供奖学金。而校方表示，奖学金原本就只有一年。陈光诚身边的一些人也纷纷谴责纽约大学试图阻止他与保守派活动人士进行接触。
陈光诚对纽约大学的指责引发了争议，这令他的一些支持者感到失望，以至于一名富有的捐助人最近收回了资助承诺。这名捐助人曾表示，将资助陈光诚在福特汉姆大学(Fordham University)为期三年的访问学者计划。这意味着，陈光诚周四结束对台湾的访问回到纽约后，就需要谋划其他的经济来源。如果不能成功，他就只剩下一个机会——威瑟斯庞研究所(Witherspoon Institute)，这是一家位于新泽西的保守派研究组织，它最为人知的或许是其反对同性婚姻及干细胞研究的立场。
相关的批评之声分散了陈光诚的注意力，扰乱了他向北京施压的努力，但对于中国活动人士来说，抵达美国后却变得碌碌无为，并不稀奇。
自20世纪80年代末以来，有很多备受瞩目的、获得美国庇护的中国流亡人士，都发现自己赴美后作用减弱，或者名声受损。比如天安门抗议事件中的学生组织者
柴玲，她后来信奉了福音派基督教。她曾多次起诉一部纪录片的制作人，称该纪录片损害了她的名誉。很多支持者因此疏远了她。因为进行民主活动，魏京生在中国监狱度过了18年，他在1997年抵达美国后，受到国会及人权组织的热情款待，但后来他与其他活动人士产生了不和，地位便大不如前。
加利福尼亚大学河滨分校(University of California, Riverside)的林培瑞(Perry Link)教授表示， “异见人士必须得是硬骨头，但离开中国后，同样的这些特点未必总能对他们有所助益。”林培瑞曾帮助很多中国流亡人士适应美国的生活。
陈光诚的朋友表示，他一直努力听取他人的建议，但他经常会被最后一个谈话者的意见左右。虽然他们称陈光诚是一个非常有原则的人，但他们也说陈光诚可能高估了自己，以为他能避开美国国内政治中的党派陷阱。中国异见人士胡佳经常通过Skype与陈光诚交流。“光诚常常告诉我，他对支持民主党还是共和党并不感兴趣，他是站在民主与自由的一边，”胡佳说。“我认为这一切可能超出了他的理解范畴。”
去年，甚至在他抵达纽瓦克自由机场(Newark Liberty Airport)前，一些经验丰富的人权倡导者就预言，民选官员及各种中国流亡组织将会激烈争夺陈光诚以及他的超级英雄光环。这些流亡人士组织通常都会争相吸引各界的注意，并争夺稀缺的资金。
对话基金会(
Dui Hua Foundation)主席康原(John Kamm)表示，那时候，想到有陈光诚那样知名度的人正在来美国的路上，就感到异常振奋。这家总部位于旧金山的组织倡导维护中国政治犯的权益。“在异见人士圈子里，不是每天都会有像他那样有名望的人出现，”康原在陈光诚抵达美国前不久这样说。“他戴着墨镜的脸，就仿佛是切·格瓦拉(Che Guevara)的形象，你可以将之印在T恤上。”
那些急于利用陈光诚名声的人中就有傅希秋(Bob Fu)，他的组织对华援助(China Aid)在宣传陈光诚长期遭受迫害的境遇时发挥了积极作用。在山东省地方官员的手中，陈光诚曾遭受六年的监禁和软禁。
最为戏剧化的是，在一场由新泽西州共和党众议员克里斯托弗·H·史密斯(Christopher H. Smith)召集的国会听证会上，傅希秋举着手机，让当时正在一所北京医院养伤的陈光诚通过电话请求庇护。此前，陈光诚在出逃时受了伤。
批评人士表示，傅希秋夸大了他在陈光诚冒险出逃时发挥的作用，然后又在呼吁他的福音派基督徒支持者捐款时利用了陈光诚的故事。傅希秋有时在请求捐款时会将陈光诚塑造成反堕胎人士。然而，尽管陈光诚反对强制结扎和流产，他已表示，自己在这一分歧性话题上没有立场。
傅希秋也曾是一位中国异见人士，1997年，他获准在美国避难。对于指责他操纵了陈光诚，令陈光诚与纽约大学的赞助人反目，傅希秋在一次采访中进行了驳斥。“说我用宗教极端主义来给他洗脑，这完全低估了陈光诚的智商，”他说。“说实话，我认为，纽约大学那帮人一直努力向他灌输宗教人士多么危险的想法，而这种行为却适得其反，最终，他忍受不下去了。他认识到，我们不是恶魔。”
几位曾在过去一年与陈光诚密切合作的人则描述了一场为赢取陈光诚欢心而展开的令人尴尬的拉锯战，一方是他在纽约大学的顾问，另一方则是傅希秋和史密斯。在陈光诚抵美后不久，史密斯就开始努力劝说他，要求他在国会听证会上作证，来调查在帮助陈光诚离开中国赴美的行动中，奥巴马政府是不是差点儿搞砸。陈光诚最终拒绝参加，这场听证会也就此胎死腹中。
朋友们说，在最初的几个月里，陈光诚接受了孔杰荣教授和其他一些人的意见，数次拒绝了要他出席华盛顿活动的请求，因为这些活动可能会为他加上党派的标签，这包括兰托斯人权与正义基金会(Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice)赞助的一场活动。该基金会以2008年去世的加利福尼亚州众议员、民主党人汤姆·兰托斯(Tom Lantos)命名。
史密斯没有回应采访请求，他曾试图指出纽约大学对陈光诚行动的干预相当严重。史密斯告诉路透社(Reuters)记者，在今年１月，他曾试着在他的华盛顿办公室与陈光诚单独见面，却被一位翻译打断，此人闯进他的办公室，带走了陈光诚。他认为这位翻译是纽约大学雇的。
马克·科拉洛(Mark Corallo)一直担任陈光诚的顾问，他是共和党的公共关系顾问，也曾任司法部长约翰·阿什克罗夫特(John Ashcroft)的发言人。有人指责他在令陈光诚与纽约大学反目一事上发挥了作用，而这可能会有损这位维权人士的无党派形象，科拉洛对此予以否认。
“他是一位勇者，是被压迫的受害者，坦率地说，帮助像他这样的人是每一位美国人的责任，”他说。
纽约大学顾问裴金(Mattie J. Bekink)曾在数月时间里担任陈光诚的翻译和顾问，她否认纽约大学在压力之下放弃了陈光诚。并且，对于人们所说的，纽约大学试图控制陈光诚，或者限制他的维权工作，她也予以了驳斥。
“陈光诚可以自由地和任何他选择的人进行沟通和来往，”她说。
最近几周，当陈光诚走访台湾各地时，记者们一再要求他详细描述他对纽约大学的指责，还问他是否担心，这样的争议可能会削弱他作为中国维权人士的影响力，但他都巧妙地避开了。但傅希秋表示，陈光诚会在未来数周内搬离纽约大学的寓所，他目前正在积极规划那之后的安排。傅希秋说，他还是几乎每天都会与陈光诚进行交流。
在一次采访中，傅希秋描述了他与陈光诚的一次谈话，那是在陈光诚会见威瑟斯庞研究所的一位创始人、极有影响力的保守派基督教思想家罗伯特·P·乔治(Robert P. George)之后。据傅希秋回忆，陈光诚表示，他并不介意该组织对堕胎和同性家长的攻击。“他告诉我，‘不要说他们保守，他们是有原则的。如果他们愿意支持获取自由的斗争，那对我来说就足够了。’”
杰安迪(Andrew Jacobs)是《纽约时报》驻京记者。
翻译：曹莉、许欣
Gang Liu's comments following the following two files:
CCP spies manipulate Congress hearings to cheat/mislead US Lawmakers. Mr. Cheng Guangcheng, Mr. Bob Fu, and Mr. Lawrance T. Liu, are all working for the Chinese government to do lobby in the United States. They helped the Chinese government to control/influence the Congress, the White House, especially to influence the Chinese related issues.
http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/06/blog-post_28.html
http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-and-how-morgan-stanley-and.html
http://jasmine-action.blogspot.com/2013/02/judge-thomas-miller-helps-ccp-to.html
相关文章2.
After a Tense Year, NYU and Chen Guangcheng Part Ways
Jul 9, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
Since Chen’s dramatic escape from China and arrival at NYU, the activist found himself at odds with the university that took him in, his supporters tell Josh Rogin.
Just a year after escaping China to start a new life in the United States, Chinese human-rights activist Chen Guangcheng’s future is in limbo again as university officials feud with right-wing lawmakers and members of the Christian human rights community over who is responsible for the fallout between Chen and NYU, the university that took him in.
130702-rogin-guangcheng-tease
Chen Guangcheng at New York University in New York, June 18, 2012. (Todd Heisler/The New York Times, via Redux)
The blind lawyer’s dramatic path to New York gripped the world’s attention during Hillary Clinton’s April 2012 visit to China for a major bilateral dialogue. After escaping house arrest in his hometown and making it all the way to the U.S. embassy in Beijing, Chen’s plea for refuge overshadowed the summit and top State Department officials spent a week negotiating Chen’s permission to travel to the U.S. with his immediate family.
Chen’s travel was not billed as asylum. China allowed Chen to go to America to pursue his legal studies and the deal hinged on a major U.S. law school taking responsibility for Chen. NYU stepped up fill that role. Now, Chen is publicly accusing the school of forcing him out in response to what he called “great, unrelenting pressure” from Beijing, a claim NYU adamantly denies. But Chen’s public break last month was just the latest in a long string of incidents between NYU and the various interests that have been working on Chen’s behalf.
Some lawmakers and members of the Christian Chinese human rights community, who have made it their mission to advocate for Chen, allege that NYU has been controlling Chen’s every movement and keeping him from speaking out in a way that might raise tensions with Beijing.
“The mistreatment of Chen was NYU with the full acquiescence of the State Department,” Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), the head of the House Foreign Affairs human rights subcommittee, told The Daily Beast.
Smith played a key role during Chen’s time holed up in the U.S. embassy, arranging for Chen to call live into a congressional hearing and publicly ask for the ability to leave China, which had the potential to upset the State Department’s delicate negotiations with the Chinese government. Smith has been holding hearings on Chen’s situation and Chen’s cause—ending the one-child policy and forced abortions—for years.
As soon as Chen arrived in the U.S., NYU tried to prevent Chen from testifying on Capitol Hill and then pressured him to avoid controversy after he finally testified, according to Smith. The pressure on Chen ramped up after he went to Capitol Hill to give a press conference in August 2012, according to Smith, and NYU told Chen he had to leave the school just after Chen testified before Smith’s committee April 9.
“April 11, that week, he was summoned and told you are out of here,” said Smith. “That’s not how to treat a world-class human-rights defender whose nephew is being tortured as we speak.”
“One day before he testified, NYU had a meeting and instructed him not to accept this award and said it will anger the Chinese government.”
Smith also alleges that Chen was constantly surrounded by minders who controlled his schedule and refused to leave his side. Smith believes those minders played a role in censoring Chen and stopping him from meeting with politicians and activists who are critical of Beijing, such as Smith.
“When I would talk to him at NYU there was always someone there. I would say, ‘Can we have a moment of alone time?’ and they would say ‘No’ in a loud voice,” he said.
Smith says that NYU is caving to Chinese pressure and abandoning Chen because they don’t want any problems opening up their new campus in Shanghai. “It’s the price of admission, but it doesn’t have to be,” he said.
Jerome Cohen, the 83-year-old NYU law professor who helped orchestrate the school’s hosting of Chen, called Smith’s claims outrageous and erroneous. Smith, said Cohen, is part of a group that’s trying to exploit Chen to attack China and the Obama administration, and promote pro-life policies.
“The impression that [Smith] tries to give, that we’ve been restraining Chen from talking, is preposterous,” he told The Daily Beast. “The last thing that I wanted to see was to see him embroiled in American politics. They are trying to make him the poster boy for their anti-abortion, anti-same sex [marriage] agenda. They are harming Chen and he has lost an enormous amount of support.”
The resentment between the school and the right-wing human-rights community over Chen’s case runs deep. There were problems as early as Chen’s arrival, when officials like Smith were not allowed to attend the welcome ceremony and not given early access to Chen.
Cohen believes that Chen is being led astray by Smith and figures like Pastor Bob Fu, the head of a Texas organization called China Aid, and a close personal friend of Chen. Chen would not have publicly accused NYU of caving to Chinese pressure if not for his friends like Fu, who have been waging a public campaign against Beijing for decades, said Cohen.
“I’ve been at NYU 25 years I’ve been a consistent critic of China. Nobody ever told me not to say this or that,” said Cohen. “Allegations should be supported by facts. If I saw any facts that NYU was forcing Chen out despite doing a huge service to him, I would speak up.”
NYU hosted Chen despite their pending business in Shanghai, taking a significant and brave risk, as Cohen tells it. Chen always knew it was to be a one-year deal, he said. NYU has supplied Chen with a residence in their staff dormitories, a weekly stipend for living expenses, and helped him get involved in various legal and academic projects, he said.
“Any university would try to minimize the consequences,” he said. “People assume that all universities must be cozying up to China for financial reasons, but NYU had different motives.”
In a statement, NYU Spokesman John Beckman called Chen’s accusations of Chinese influence at NYU “false and contradicted by the well-established facts.”
“Mr. Chen’s fellowship at NYU and its conclusion have had nothing to do with the Chinese government. All fellowships come to an end,” the statement said. “NYU believes it has been generous in supporting this family, and we are puzzled and saddened to see these false claims directed at us.”
Cohen is disappointed by Chen’s accusations but said that Chen was his own man and capable of making his own decisions.
“The State Department used to joke they freed him and he’s been biting the hand that was feeding him,” he said, adding that while attacking State may be in the interests of partisan Republicans in Congress it’s not in Chen’s best interests. Smith and Fu, Cohen argued, are making it still less likely that Beijing might negotiate for the release of Chen’s family still imprisoned in China, such as Chen’s nephew, who was arrested for attempted murder after fighting off intruders in his own house.
“People who are impartial should praise their support of Chen rather than turning it into an anti-Obama, anti–Hillary Clinton attack,” he said.
Chen’s “minders” were simply the aides that NYU provided for Chen to help him get around, especially when travelling, Cohen said. Smith and Fu are interested in provoking Beijing, but not all China critics agree that is a productive strategy.
“It annoys me that people don’t see that there could be many good reasons to cooperate with China on education,” he said. “We’ve got to deal with the real world and that involves bringing Chinese people along.”
The feud between Cohen and Smith and Fu reached a pinnacle last month when Cohen said that an iPad given to Chen by Fu contained Spyware. Fu told The Daily Beast he simply bought the iPad at the store and has no idea what Cohen is talking about.
Fu, who speaks to Chen on a regular basis, said that the allegations against NYU come from Chen directly.
“What I have heard from Mr. Chen over the past 12 to 13 months was that he had felt increasingly that NYU had been under relenting pressure from the Chinese government and every time when he speaks up for Chinese human rights and is critical of the Chinese government or when he tries to go to Congress to testify, NYU has taken increasing measures to pressure him,” Fu said.
NYU’s tactics ranged from subtle to aggressive, Fu said. For example, when Chen was in Washington to testify for a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing last July, he went completely missing along with his NYU handlers, said Fu.
“On that day I was not able to locate Chen at all. He was basically missing. Later that day, committee staff told me Chen was driven to an undisclosed location so nobody was able to communicate with him. So the hearing did happen but without Chen,” he said. “Up until today I don’t know where he was taken, who threatened him. What happened to him that day? I was really alarmed.”
When Chen raised his concerns about NYU and alleged Chinese pressure with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), it only made NYU more uncomfortable, according to Fu. He also alleges NYU discouraged him from accepting a Congressional Gold Medal that was being planned preliminarily in April.
“One day before he testified, NYU had a meeting and instructed him not to accept this award and said it will anger the Chinese government,” Fu said.
Fu, though, rejected the claim that his priority is to attack the Obama administration or promote his pro-life agenda.
“We are a nonpartisan human rights organization and of course I am a Christian pastor, but that doesn’t mean we are involved in U.S. politics. We are forbidden to do that,” he said. “Show me the evidence, Mr. Cohen.”
Cohen’s claims that Chen is being manipulated by the Christian right don’t match with what everyone knows about Chen, that he is strong willed and independent minded above all else, said Fu.
“That’s an insult to Mr. Chen’s intelligence,” said Fu. “What’s the point of making this a fight about pro-life or pro-choice. There’s nothing there for Mr. Chen.”
Chen must vacate his NYU apartment by July 15. NYU stopped paying his expenses some time ago, but Chen has gotten an advance from a book deal and is also supported by a “wealthy democratic donor,” said Fu. He is considering offers from other top universities, including Princeton and Fordham.
But Chen’s original plan, to go back to China to continue his work there and fight for the freedom of his family members, is farther from reach than ever. Rather than negotiating with Chen, over the past year the Chinese government has increased its efforts to round up his supporters and prosecute his relatives.
“This is going to make other universities hesitant to take the next guy,” Cohen said.
相关文章3.
Chen Guangcheng Criticizes NYU on Principle, the Times Sees Partisanship
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353210/chen-guangcheng-criticizes-nyu-principle-times-sees-partisanship-patrick-brennan
By Patrick Brennan
July 11, 2013 5:28 PM
On the front page below the fold today, the New York Times has a piece on the plight of Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese dissident who escaped his country last year. What’s befallen the man now?
Mr. Chen’s political savvy has not translated well in the complex and fiercely partisan terrain he has encountered in the United States. Even before he could recover from jet lag in May 2012, Mr. Chen was besieged by human rights activists, opponents of abortion and an array of politicians from both parties eager to harness the celebrity wattage of the man who stood up to the Chinese Communist Party.
His sponsors at New York University cautioned Mr. Chen to stay clear of a partisan minefield he did not understand. “I told Chen there was a presidential election coming up and he should spend a year studying the American political landscape before wading in,” said Jerome A. Cohen, a law professor and close confidant.
That advice, friends say, never really sank in, and Mr. Chen, 41, has found himself enmeshed in controversy. Backed by a coterie of conservative figures, Mr. Chen has publicly accused N.Y.U. of bowing to Chinese government pressure and prematurely ending his fellowship this summer. The university says the fellowship was intended to be for only one year. Some of those around Mr. Chen also accuse the university of trying to shield him from conservative activists.
The sparring has grown fierce, with N.Y.U. officials accusing one of those conservative activists, Bob Fu, the president of a Texas-based Christian group that seeks to pressure China over its religious restrictions, of trying to track Mr. Chen surreptitiously through a cellphone and a tablet computer that Mr. Fu’s organization donated to him.
It seems what the Times is really concerned about is that Chen’s criticized NYU’s treatment of and is now working with activists who also happen to be politically conservative. He’s not actually “mired in [the] partisan U.S.,” as the headline frets — instead, he just now happens to be leaning toward one side rather than the other.
As they explain, Chen is currently “left with a single job offer: from the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative research organization in New Jersey that is perhaps best known for its opposition to same-sex marriage and stem cell research.” In addition to the Witherspoon Institute (which, by the way, is a leading voice for religious freedom around the world, a rather more important issue with regard to China than same-sex marriage) and its insidious offer, the Times discusses Bob Fu, an exiled Chinese dissident himself who played a key role in Chen’s escape from China but has also made the mistake of associating with Evangelicals in America who want to support religious freedom in China; New Jersey Republican congressman Christopher Smith, who called an important hearing that helped secure Chen’s release from China; and Mark Corallo, a former spokesman for John Ashcroft who’s now providing public-relations work for Chen.
There are some vaguely partisan controversies here, of conservatives apparently trying to use Chen – the story about the tracking devices is bizarre but entirely unclear; obviously it would be unfair of Fu’s organization to cast Chen as an opponent of abortion when he only opposes forced abortions, but it’s only the Times’s assertion that Fu’s fundraising off of that, and Fu has clarified on a number of occasions Chen is not against voluntary abortion.
You’ll notice that the Times doesn’t mention liberal partisanship presenting a problem for Chen. But the problem here actually appears to be coming from the left, or not be much of a problem at all: There’s no evidence in the story that Chen’s engagement with conservatives has actually harmed his reputation in any way; the only problems he’s had are with liberal institutions trying to prevent him from engaging with Republicans and religious types — which actually has interfered with his work, if Fu and Smith are to be believed.
The Times suggests that the acrimony surrounding his departure from NYU — the objections and complaints Chen has raised about the place – has been instigated by conservatives and has harmed him, but they have a legitimate, principled point to make there about American educational institutions and China (see what NR’s editors had to say). And it’s just quite possible that Chen agrees with them, and that he doesn’t want to be involved in partisan fights, but happens to agree with conservatives on this, and wants to make himself known. The idea that he might side with conservatives on principle, of course, doesn’t sit well with NYU or the Times.
The Times’ other explanations of conservative manipulation, and the wages of “partisanship,” don’t really hold up: Representative Smith, for instance, had the temerity to “pressing him to testify at a Congressional hearing that would have explored whether the Obama administration had nearly bungled Mr. Chen’s bid to leave China for the United States,” which could well be a partisan exercise, but also kind of sounds like one worth holding, and to which Chen would be an important contributor. NYU, meanwhile, was the real driver of “partisanship” here, pressuring Chen to decline to cooperate (he did turn Smith down, though the hearing was never held). Corallo, the former Ashcroft spokesman, has “waved off accusations that his role in helping Mr. Chen risked tainting the rights advocate’s nonpartisan bona fides” — whether it has or it hasn’t, Chen is the one who hired Corallo, and the Times is the one basically leveling the accusation here.
