福布斯报导高智晟失踪事件 /郭国汀律师专栏

然而国内体制内外迄今仍有不少人士却称:中共较之毛时代有进步,胡氏较江泽民更宽容,中共已从反孔到现在的尊儒,因此有希望改良云云.我不知道此种人士到底是因为弱智还是出于自保？！其实，胡锦涛本质上一点也不比毛泽东好，老毛之罪孽多少还有点因无知狂妄所致，而胡锦涛之罪孽完全是明知故犯，因此胡氏之罪孽深重比毛泽东有过之无不及。毛之滥杀无辜故然有毛之个人嗜血因素，但与马列原教旨及当时的历史背景不无有关，胡氏之所以不能象毛一样滥杀，并非其不想而是其不能．因为当今全球化电子信息时代，已不容许任何人胡作非为．

郭泉博士仅因在互联网上发表民主先声系列文章及组建松散的中华新民党,便被中共流氓逮捕,刘晓波博士仅因主导《零八宪章》便被胡氏无赖政权拘禁，陈道军，黄琦，谭作人等几十位正义良知之士，均仅因公开表达政见或揭露中共屠杀藏民或披露中共腐败的豆渣学校工程害死上万学生均被罗织“颠覆（煽动）颠覆国家政权罪逮捕判刑。这一切均充分证实：中共极权暴政下，中国人根本没有人权！唯有彻底抛弃中共极权专制暴政，中国人民才有未来与希望．

福布斯报导高智晟失踪事件

中国之希望犹如大海中的小船？

The Nonexistent Case Of The Missing Lawyer

Gady Epstein, 05.07.09, 06:00 PM EDT

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/07/gao-zhisheng-china-human-rights-beijing-dispatch.html

A Chinese rights defender has disappeared into China's shadowy security apparatus.

Gady Epstein

BEIJING -- I first met the now-disappeared lawyer Gao Zhisheng four years ago. He was not one to mince his words: "The China you see and the China we feel are totally different. Maybe you see only the prosperity and development in China and also the many legal rights that the Chinese people should have on paper," he said. "Every day, I feel the truth of the development of the rule of law in China."

That is chillingly true now. Gao, 45, was taken away by police on Feb. 4, in what had all the markings of a black operation by China's shadowy security apparatus. Not a word from the government on his whereabouts. Not a word on his condition. Not even an assurance that he is alive. Once named one of the best lawyers in the country, Gao's crime was to advocate for those who have no rights, most notably the followers of the banned spiritual movement Falun Gong. Today, he is the one without rights.

For his crime, the secret police abducted Gao and tortured him for days on end. A kangaroo court convicted and sentenced him for subverting state power. His wife and two children, relentlessly harassed by police, finally escaped while under surveillance in January, fleeing for exile in the U.S.

This is the other China Gao was talking about, "a state with the characteristics of the mafia," he said, where no laws can protect lawyers like him. This China is a Stalinist anachronism: brutal and merciless when it encounters the most stubborn dissidents; thuggish when it thinks a good beating or detention on trumped-up charges will teach the appropriate lesson; merely intimidating when it believes that making some bluntly worded threats and scaring off a lawyer's paying clients will produce the desired results.

And this China gets results. There is a limit to how much intimidation and brutality most Chinese rights defenders can endure before deciding, finally, that it might be best for them and their families if they work within carefully defined boundaries. They remain under constant pressure even while operating in the mainstream, working in the China that is part of our more acceptable, comfortable discourse, the one where many earnest efforts are being made to improve rule of law, human rights, working conditions and environmental protections.

I don't need to describe this China because it is the one that the rest of the world engages with every day, the one that international institutions and NGOs work with, the one that multinational corporations invest in, the one that appears daily in the foreign media (despite many fine individual efforts to peer into and describe Gao's China). The Western democracies long ago concluded that engagement with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is ultimately in the best interests of the Chinese people; Gao counters that engaging with the Chinese government is no different historically from "shaking hands with Stalin" at Yalta.

"I would like to remind those so-called 'good friends and partners' of the CCP around the world," he wrote in his first-person account of torture at the hands of the secret police, "that the increasing level of confidence of the CCP in treating the Chinese people with increasingly cold-blooded brutality and cruelty is the direct result of appeasement by both you and us [the Chinese people]."

Obviously, engagement at this point is not a choice. It is reality. Many Chinese rights defenders work diligently within that reality, and some believe unrestrained activism like Gao's undermines their cause, weakening reform-minded bureaucrats within the government, strengthening the hard-line security factions. What Gao calls appeasement, they would call realism, and vice versa. It is a debate with no clear winner, only differing shades of struggle.

Gao, nominated last year for the Nobel Peace Prize, calls for more help from the West in that struggle. He blasts France and Germany for caring more about securing big Chinese purchase orders than about human rights. He affords praise for American values, but says the U.S., too, has a "bottom line" in dealing with China, and it is not human rights.

Gao's wife, Geng He, has pleaded for Congress to help. American diplomats have pressed the Chinese government repeatedly about Gao's case, never hearing so much as an acknowledgment that there is a case to discuss.

Gao was, in his way, grimly realistic about such things. Speaking about another lawyer who was in jail at the time of our interview, he said, "The regime does not have the right to do this, but they have the power to do it, and now that they've done it, no one can do anything about it."