Attorney Gao's Response to Ms. Ding Zilin's Open Letter

Ms. Ding Zilin is a respectable mother. Like hundreds of millions of mothers, she has proven the greatest love in the world—a mother's love—with her blood and all her life.

Ms. Ding Zilin is a great mother. A group of mothers, as exemplified by her, whose sons and daughters were killed during the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989, represent not only the eternity and resilience of a mother's love, but also the memories and proof of a totalitarian regime's bloodthirsty and brutal nature, as well as humanity's warranted reflection. These mothers are most unfortunate, as they lost their children to violence and yet, they are most respectable as they have not lost their faith in precious human dignity.

Today I am not simply writing in honor of mothers.

Ms. Ding Zilin is a well-known mother both inside and outside of China. Recently she wrote me an open letter on my initiative to launch a hunger strike for rights. Right now my home phone and office phone as well as Internet access, are all cut off by special agents of the Chinese communist regime. I learned fragments of Ms. Ding's letter through cell phone calls from a friend, and I was not listening to it with a response in mind; so I do not recall it with accuracy. Now I can only express my tentative views on her letter based on my memory. I hope Ms. Ding will understand if my remarks are not completely appropriate.

First off, there is one thing I don't quite understand. Ms. Ding mentioned in her letter that I easily abandoned my profession as a lawyer and got involved in politics (not her exact words but a rough idea). I view my profession as valuable as my life, which is why I could do my job with enthusiasm, passion, and energy. As Ms. Ding has probably seen in other instances, the regime illegally and forcibly deprived me of my rights. It's not, as alleged in her letter, that I voluntarily gave up my profession to go into politics. Here I want to clarify that point one more time.

As regards to my involvement in politics, allow me to comment on it and on its merits. In human society, politics that forbid either in theory or in practice citizens' participation are most wicked and unethical. The oligarchy in China is comfortably convinced through its decades of savage and unscrupulous practices that politics is the exclusive privilege of the rulers and any involvement, even forced involvement in it by ordinary citizens is considered rebellious and with ulterior motives. If an individual who's engaged in a peaceful resistance or event is labeled "someone with a political ambition," he or she will fall from grace and be regarded as an outright reactionary. So a de facto logic emerges under this system: politics under the patronage of the authorities is always "great, glorious, and correct" while politics not accepted by the Party or conducted by people who don't agree with the Party always represents "reactionary and infamous" and can be illegally suppressed or even stamped out with any grounds.

Both the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 that continues to inflict pain to Ms. Ding and the persecution of Falun Gong which has plunged the majority of Chinese into sorrow are typical cases that the communist authorities did not hesitate to label as "political incidents." After such absurd logic has prevailed in China for over five decades, many Chinese, including Ms. Ding, have accepted the following: an ordinary person, as long as he or she gets involved in politics, will be regarded as dangerous and terrible, and the thing he or she does is presumed inappropriate and incorrect.

On the one hand, politics of itself should be public in nature and therefore something beautiful. As Mr. Sun Yat-sen put it, politics is a public business. The former president of Czechoslovakia advocated a kind of politics that's based on humility and conscience.

On the other hand, in terms of institutional civilization, laws are a result of application of the rules of political games. The civilized nature of politics determines the civilized nature of laws. Speaking of the rule of law without caring about politics can only lead to the tragic result of succumbing to willful manipulation. The present plight of the Chinese people is an irrefutable testament to this harsh logic!

Ms. Ding, you talked about the supremacy of law in fighting for rights in your letter. That's exactly what I wanted to see happen and have longed for in my dreams. As a lawyer, I, probably more than anyone else, understand the value of law. I admire you for the reason, tolerance, and firmness you said you've stuck to in your fight for rights over the past 17 years. Regrettably, after 17 years of tragic experiences, you still have not recognized that under this evil regime, the legal path to fight for rights has become a dead end. Your child, once very much alive, was only one of the countless children killed by this cold-blooded regime; and those children all had mothers just like you. Your experience in fighting for your rights these past 17 years has proven to be without a moment of legal access under this regime. The regime will never allow you any means to resist. It was like that 17 years ago and it is even more so today 17 years later. 17 years ago, patriotic youth, Mr. Qi Zhiyong, lost his legs to the regime's ice-cold, armored combat tanks; 17 years has gone by, and how does the regime treat the people under it? Mr. Qi came to see me not long ago and told me that the communist regime has never stopped persecuting him these past 17 years. Until recently, the regime still withheld humanitarian funds sent to him by overseas kind-hearted people. It had been like that all these years. As I am writing this article, Mr. Qi Zhiyong, one of the victims of Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989, has been arbitrarily held by authorities for ten days and no information about his current situation is available.

Ms. Ding understands the evil nature of the Chinese communist regime, allegedly, a hundred times better than I do. With that understanding and based on the tragic lessons drawn from the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989, she suggested that I stop the current hunger strike. But for me, precisely in view of the lessons from the tragic event over a dozen years ago, I think today's resistance is rational. While ours is also a hunger strike, we are not outside our rooms, we still drink water and we don't force anyone to do it. Besides, each participant will end his or her strike within 48 hours. Ms. Ding's letter blurred the concept of mass movement, namely a large-scale uprising. Varied mass political movements, since the communists took power in China, are still a lingering and frightening memory for many of us. Their nature is to oppose civilization and ethics, totally different from that of today's massive, grass-roots resistances, which have their distinct internal and external conditions and are nothing like the "class struggle" Ms. Ding mentions in her letter.

Ms. Ding appealed to me to stop the hunger strike and said that the days of one person calling out and thousands following are over in China. Ms. Ding's insights should have diminished her worry about today's hunger strike for rights. The waves of hunger strikes against persecution and the despotic regime inside and outside China are not, and couldn't have been, the result of one hot-headed person's call. Rather, they stem from the continued deprivation of individuals' survival conditions, massive abuse of basic rights and freedoms, long-term contempt for human dignity, and the brutal suppression of people's pent-up anger by totalitarian rule.

Ms. Ding is a tolerant lady, and her tolerance is a precious asset that can help reduce or even avoid social unrest in China. I will continue to respect Ms. Ding's model in fighting for rights the past 17 years, as I will also definitely stick to my own way of fighting for rights and my own beliefs.

I strongly support the various attempts of non-violent resistance in China today, regardless of the price I have to pay!

Gao Zhisheng is at home in Beijing, surrounded by special agents and gangsters.