This afternoon 87 Chinese dissidents sent a letter to President Obama asking him to reconsider the appointment of Chas Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council. Freeman's financial ties to the People's Republic of China, including his role as a member of the international advisory board of the Chinese state-owned oil firm CNOOC, have already launched an investigation by the independent Inspector General for the Office of National Intelligence. Freeman's views on China, particularly his support for Beijing's blood crackdown on democracy activists in Tienanmen Square 20 years ago this June, have been sparked outrage across the political spectrum.
The letter notes Freeman's "longstanding record of defending China's authoritarian regime," and rebukes his denigration of the calls for democracy and human rights by the protesters at Tienanmen as the "propaganda" of "dissidents." The authors further warns against the danger of having a man "with values such as these guiding our nation's intelligence activity." Several of the authors spent time in Chinese prisons as a result of their participation in the Tienanmen protests.
The letter is addressed to President Obama, but among those copied on the letter is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has modeled herself as a champion of human rights in China, and particularly of Tibetan democracy activists -- activists whose protests last year were described by Freeman as a "race riot."
Freeman met today with Senator Kit Bond, ranking member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, while Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) sent Barack Obama his own letter asking the President to reconsider the appointment of Freeman in light of his business ties to the Chinese Communist party. The full text of the letter from the 87 dissidents follows below and a pdf can be found here.
Dear President Obama: We are writing to convey our intense dismay at your selection of Charles W. Freeman to be chair of the National Intelligence Council. No American in public life has been more hostile than Mr. Freeman toward the ideals of human rights and democracy in China.
Mr. Freeman has a longstanding record of defending China's authoritarian regime. In his view, for example, China's nationwide democracy movement in spring of 1989, which protested government corruption and embraced international norms of human rights, was only the "propaganda" of "dissidents." That movement ended in the use of tanks and machine guns to massacre hundreds unarmed protesters in Beijing on June 4, 1989," but Mr. Freeman wrote, as recently as three years ago, that "the Politburo's response to the mob scene at 'Tiananmen' stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership" and that "the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud."
The prospect of a person with values such as these guiding our nation's intelligence activity is truly frightening. It is difficult to see how a person with such a strong ideological tilt toward the Chinese Communist Party will be able to provide you with unbiased assessments of the very dynamic interactions among various aggrieved segments of Chinese society and their authoritarian government. But following these trends will be one of the most important tasks of the intelligence community in the coming years.
The June Fourth massacre, which Mr. Freeman so badly misreads, is not just something that happened twenty years ago. It remains a powerful symbol for the ideals of human rights and democracy among large parts of the Chinese populace. It also, quite plainly, has remained powerful in the minds of the Chinese leaders, who for twenty years have banned any mention of the massacre from textbooks and the media in China, and who take great care to detain and "control" any citizen who might want to observe the June 4 anniversary or make "sensitive" statements. "Dissidents" were pre-emptively confined to their homes during the recent visit to Beijing of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
We share your hope, Mr. President, that the United States might regain its moral standing in the world and once again be viewed as a universal beacon for fairness and justice. Your appointment of Charles Freeman could not be more damaging to this hope. Please reconsider.
