Chinese Law Prof Blog

Editor: Donald C. Clarke
George Washington University Law School

Monday, February 9, 2009

Jerome Cohen and Eva Pils on Gao Zhisheng: still desaparecido

Here's an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal by Jerome Cohen and Eva Pils on the continuing disappearance of Gao Zhisheng (高智晟). Actions like this are the most convincing refutations of the "Asian values" thesis that holds that human rights violations are just manifestations of differing values conscientiously held.

If you want to see differing values (differing from mine, at least) conscientiously held, look at capital punishment in Texas, where one gubernatorial race (known locally as the "fry-off") had candidates arguing about who could take credit for more death sentences during their respective previous terms as governor and attorney-general. They weren't trying to hide anything.

Gao Zhisheng's case is obviously different. Here we have a government that is unwilling to say, "Yes, this man did X, we believe it's wrong, and we're going to punish him for it." In effect, they are acknowledging the validity of a value system under which Gao (apparently) isn't punishable. They say that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. The same thing is going on here: concealment and lies are the acknowledgment that what's going on here is not some civilizational clash of values at all.

Even if I'm right, of course, this incident logically refutes the Asian values thesis only in this particular instance, not in all cases at all times. (There are other weaknesses of the thesis that I won't go into here in this short post.) But cases like this are pretty common; the typical response of human rights violators is not to justify the violation but to deny it. (Take this recent report: the Chinese delegation to the UN solemny declared that China does not engage in press censorship!)

Commentary, News - Chinese Law | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jerome Cohen and Eva Pils on Gao Zhisheng: still desaparecido:


Thank you. I suppose the Chinese "no censorship claim" is because they give out orders and punish people afterwards but generally don't have a party censor going through things before publication. Intimidation and post-publication punishment do the job. Of course it really is censorship, but I wonder if the Chinese system fits the technical defintion of the word. Can they really claim that it isn't censorship even though it really is?
My favorite book on PRC press control is He Qinglian's book Media Control in China. The 2004 version is available online in Chinese; a 2006 update was published in Taipei.

Posted by: David Cowhig | Feb 17, 2009 7:19:36 PM

The Chinese government's "values" claim is a bald-faced lie. The people in Taiwan have achieved one of the most vibrant young democracies in Asia, if not the entire world. And yet they are arguably more culturally "Chinese" than the society on the mainland, as no Cultural Revolution took place.

Last time I checked, advocating "splittism" is a crime in China. The CCP cannot have it both ways. Either Chinese people are just as capable culturally of pursuing and attaining liberty under a democratic system as any other people on earth, or else the Taiwanese are culturally distinct and separate from China.

This shows, of course, the futility of attempting to reason with an authoritarian regime.

Posted by: Cinnabar | Mar 19, 2010 8:32:06 PM

Post a comment