Chinese Intellectuals Put Dissent on Paper

BEIJING —  Fang Lizhi--the man who didn’t come to dinner--became the focus of Chinese intellectual frustration last week. His plight led to an essay by Bei Dao directly challenging the Chinese government.

Fang was prevented from attending a banquet in Beijing although he had been invited by President George Bush. Chinese secret police detained the car carrying him and his wife, then blocked the way to the hotel.

Fang, a prominent Chinese astrophysicist and pre-eminent human-rights activist, was also the focus of attention in January when he wrote an open letter to Deng Xiaoping asking amnesty for political prisoners.

Chinese intellectuals were beginning to “straighten up their bent backs” and speak out, as Fang described it.

Then one of China’s most respected contemporary writers organized a petition of support for Fang. Bei Dao came to prominence during the Democracy Wall Movement of 1978-79 as editor of the literary journal Today; after an extended stay in Europe and the United States, he returned to China this winter because, as he recently told me, “It is impossible for a writer to live and create outside the context of his own country and culture.”

Once back in Beijing, Bei was disturbed to find an increasingly ineffective government mocked by its own people for ineptness and moral bankruptcy. What particularly dismayed him was the way the Communist Party ignored calls for democratic reform while doing little to rectify human rights abuses.

So Bei drafted his petition, signed by 33 other prominent Chinese intellectuals--the first time in almost four decades of Communist Party rule that Chinese had dared publicly petition government for human-rights grievances. Addressed to the National People’s Congress, it asked amnesty for political prisoners to “create an atmosphere which would be beneficial to reform and which would at the same time be more in line with the general trend in the world of increasing respect for human rights.”

The petition sent shock waves both through the party and Chinese intellectual circles, putting Bei in the middle of a political whirlwind.

That wind might well have died down had it not been followed by the bizarre banquet blockade involving Fang. Disturbed by the brazen police harassment, Bei once again took up his pen to write the following:

“The ears of those in power must become used to listening to dissenting voices.

“Last night on Feb. 26, Prof. Fang Lizhi and his wife Li Shuxian had their personal freedom grossly violated in a protracted and crude incident which took place while they were en route to the Great Wall Hotel in Beijing to attend a banquet hosted by President George Bush. This incident is a scandal to the record of Chinese human rights.

“Prof. Fang Lizhi is an outstanding representative of Chinese intellectuals, and this gross infringement on his personal freedom is an insult to every upright Chinese. If this is the response to Mr. Fang’s Jan. 6 open letter to Deng Xiaoping (calling for the release of political prisoners such as Wei Jingsheng) and to the petition of support which I myself initiated on Feb. 13 and which was signed by 33 other intellectuals, I can only feel deep regret.

“In circulating this petition I presumed that the government was, to some degree, both reasonable and enlightened. At the very least, it should have listened patiently to the suggestions--mild ones at that--of these few writers and scholars. If the government is unable to tolerate even these voices, it only reveals the fragility of democracy and law in China. Guarantees of human rights such as freedom of expression have not been patented by capitalism alone. They are, in fact, an important measure of the civilized nature of any society.

“Every Chinese intellectual can understand that the path of China’s reform is fraught with difficulty. However, in this process, the ears of those in power must become used to listening to dissenting voices, even if those voices sometimes grate. Such a positive attitude would be a good beginning in our pursuit of a modern and enlightened society.

“I am a poet, and politics are far from being my main concern. I loathe the thought of becoming the object of media attention. In fact, originally I intended to return to the isolation of my desk and my poetic imagination after circulating the Feb. 13 letter signed by the 33. But, as long as China remains intolerant, I cannot allow myself to fall silent.”