Harry Wu Lies for the AFL-CIO

The publicity attendant upon his arrest in China last summer endowed Harry Wu with far more influence than he possessed before his attempted clandestine entry. He is now in a position to disrupt and disturb American foreign policy towards China. He has challenged the World Bank on their investment policy in China and told Boeing how they should not do business with China. Unfortunately overlooked by the media, Harry Wu is also a purveyor of lies. One only has to review information already in the public domain on Wu to come to this conclusion. Normally the veracity of any one person is not worth fussing about. In Wu's case, he is capable of doing considerable damage to public interest. Thus, the public has the right to know the dubious pulpit from which Wu is bullying governments, corporations and other legitimate organizations.

One simple example of his propensity to lie is to look at his own statement in the Playboy interview appearing in the February 1996 issue. He said, "I videotaped a prisoner whose kidneys were surgically removed while he was alive, and then the prisoner was taken out the next day and shot. The organs remain fresher that way. The tape was broadcast by BBC." Organ transplant from prisoners has been one of Wu's most dramatic accusations about China and pivots on the evidence presented by the BBC broadcast.

Recently I had the opportunity to review a videotape of that infamous BBC telecast and can find nothing that comes close to depicting any organ removal. It did include a snippet taken by the Sue Lloyd-Roberts, the BBC reporter pretending to be Wu's wife, of an open heart surgery taking place in a Chengdu hospital. Publicly, Wu has admitted that the scene from the civilian hospital had nothing to with organ removal from prisoners and attributed the use of the footage to error in editing by BBC. After his return, the Laogai Research Foundation, of which he is the executive director, issued the claim that no attempt to mislead was intended, since BBC never claimed the incision in the middle of the chest cavity to be related to kidney removal or implantation. ("Laogai" is an abbreviated Chinese term for "reform through labor.") According to the statement released by the Foundation: "The operating room video was used as a background shot." The disclaimer did not explain why Wu and his "wife" took the trouble of surreptitiously filming such a non-relevant and innocuous scene. They certainly didn't need to go all the way to China for a "background shot."

Wu frequently made the claim, including in the Playboy interview, that it was his protest of the Russian invasion of Hungary in 1956 that got him in trouble with the Chinese authorities. It took a reporter from San Francisco State University to point out to Wu that he was 19 and in college at the time. (In the context of the 1956 environment in China, he would have been exceptionally precocious--at least politically, predating Wei Jingsheng by about a quarter of a century.) When Mike Mattis questioned him about the accuracy of attributing his political problems to the purported protest, Wu's response was to deny the existence of such protest and shift the blame to "a mistake in translation" of his statements. This interview was published in November, 1995 issue of Prism, a monthly publication of SFSU.

Inconsistencies and shifting statements abound from Wu's public utterances and activities. The issue isn't that they exist and is pointless to analyze every one of the inaccuracies. The real puzzle is why and how the media have so willingly swallowed Wu's utterances. I believe there is more to this behavior than simply that today's media are overcome by the tabloid mentality and are too lazy to conduct the necessary due diligence. I believe Wu has sponsors and supporters with vested interests in containing China through public opinion, irrespective of truth and facts. One of Wu's more obvious sponsors is the AFL-CIO.

Shortly after Wu's arrest in China became known, an ABC Nightline program revealed that his clandestine trip into China via Kazakstan was financed by the AFL-CIO, and the attorney who accompanied Wu was on the AFL-CIO payroll. After the two were detained, she was promptly released and that was how the world first heard about Wu's arrest. In retrospect, she was an essential part of Wu's cover and protection.

An article covering Wu's participation in the picket line at Boeing, in the November 30, 1995 issue of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, quoted Wu as saying, "The strike by Boeing members is really a strike against the Chinese government. It is a strike which the American labor movement must win." Matt Bates, a spokesman for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, on whose behalf Wu was appearing, said, "Clearly, a major part of the fight here is over the loss of jobs to overseas producers." With a 15-year suspended sentence awaiting him, Wu is unlikely to return to China, not even under cover. Consequently, Wu is now more useful to the AFL-CIO by becoming a public anti-China spokesperson on behalf of American labor.

When I tried to find out more about the Laogai Research Foundation, I found out that the Foundation is in the AFL-CIO's Washington D.C. headquarter building. Directory assistance for area code 202 (Washington area) cannot provide a listing for the Foundation. I then tried to reach the Foundation via the AFL-CIO. The headquarter switchboard transferred my call to their Food and Allied Services Trade who then switched the call over to a line with a recorded message representing the Foundation.

The AFL-CIO's motivation is naive but transparent. The AFL-CIO seems to believe that by stopping imports from China, they can preserve American jobs. For example, organized labor accused Boeing of exporting jobs to China. Actually, as Boeing's spokesman rebutted, by subcontracting certain sections of the 737 to the Chinese, Boeing is assured of continued future sales. Keeping all the manufacturing at home won't do any good, if China's orders for planes all go to European Airbus. Conversely continued sales to one of the largest markets in the world would allow Boeing and the Machinist Union to keep more jobs. It is not very complicated logic or economics, but has so far eluded the American labor leadership.

According to data presented to the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee in May 1995 by Robert Kapp, president of the Washington-based US-China Business Council, America exported $9.3 billion worth of goods to China in 1994, equivalent to the support of approximately 187,000 jobs. According to Department of Commerce data presented at the same testimony, China will be buying $90 billion worth of power generation equipment, $65 billion worth of commercial jets, $40 billion of telecommunication equipment, $18.2 billion of oil field and gas machinery and $4.3 billion of computers in the coming years. Getting a fraction of that business will create many more jobs than the low cost goods imported from China that AFL-CIO objects to but America can no longer produce competitively.

AFL-CIO'S agenda on China and its dependence on Wu is no secret; the media simply have not seen fit to report the matter. In a testimony before the House of Representatives in July, 1995, Peggy Taylor, Director of Department of Legislation of AFL-CIO, made specific mention of "this lucrative trade" in organ transplants from prisoners as reason to deny Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading status to China. There is no need to speculate as to where her "data" came from.

At the airport interviews immediately upon his release and return to the United States, Wu freely admitted to the San Francisco Bay area reporters that lying, stealing, impersonating a police officer and adopting other underhanded means were perfectly acceptable while undercover in China. He has never responded on whether it is also acceptable to lie to the American public.

While the Clinton Administration is working to open foreign markets and promote trade as the surest means of creating jobs, the AFL-CIO is working to undermine such efforts by sneaking Wu across the Chinese border. The public has the right to know the truth. Cut through all the hypocrisy about defending human rights, and one sees Wu performing dubious activities to support AFL-CIO in their efforts to stopping the flow of low cost goods from China. It's lucrative work for Wu and that's all there is to it.

AFL-CIO needs to review its policy towards China. The issue before the leadership is whether such a broad brush smearing of one of the America's major trading partners would not simply erode its credibility and neutralize the potency of the organization on those occasions when they actually need to intervene in specific trade issues.

Responsible journalism requires a willingness to look at all sides of the issues. Being a gullible pushover for easy to digest sensationalism is hardly discharging its duty to the public. Too much is at stake for someone not to take up the challenge and set the record straight.
# # #
About the Author:
George P. Koo, founder of International Strategic Alliances, Mountain View, California, assists and advises American companies on doing business in Asia. He first became aware of Harry Wu during the past summer and he organized Concerned Citizens for Rational Relations with China to protest the nomination of Wu for the Nobel Peace Prize by the San Francisco Bay Area Congressional delegation. (see SF Chronicle, and SF Examiner, 8/16/95) He is the Chairman of Asian American Manufacturers Association, based in Silicon Valley and is a Human Relations Commissioner in City of Mountain View.

China's View of Harry Wu

When we formed the Concerned Citizens for Rational Relations with China, it was to make a public plead that the bilateral relations of two major nations should not be put in jeopardy by the actions of one private individual. An open letter was sent to Congress along the lines similar to those of outlined by Senator Dianne Feinstein (AW, Voices, September 1, 1995). Since that letter was distributed to the media, Harry Wu has been released. To his supporters and, thanks to the English language press coverage, a large part of the general American public has embraced him as a hero of extraordinary courage and conviction. On the day a mortar shell killed over thirty innocent civilians in Sarajevo, the front page of the San Jose Mercury News disclosed that Harry Wu lost a few pounds as result of his incarceration. The news on Bosnia was buried somewhere in first section. Clearly, Wu's cause for human rights carries much weight.

Our open letter did receive significant coverage and response from the Chinese American community was particularly high. One of the responders sent us a reprint of the August 25, 1995 article from China's People's Daily on the Harry Wu case. Since ours is a democratic society where issues are openly debated, we believe that the American public is at least entitled to see what the other side have to say about this case.

So far, I haven't seen any specific reference to China's official position in the English language press and the People's Daily article is much too long to translate and reprint in full. Presented below are the salient points from that article without embellishments:

The Chinese court accuse Wu of the following major criminal offenses:

On June 16, 1991, Wu accompanied by a Ms. Chen, on the pretense of visiting friends, went to the jail in Huozhou, Shanxi to take photos of the prison and security measures. Next day, Wu took Ms Chen to Yangchuan No. 2 jail for the same purpose. On July 29, Wu returned to this jail where he found two persons tot take him inside and where he used a video camera hidden in a bag to take video of the prison and surroundings. Wu unlawfully gave these material to outside organizations.

On the afternoon of June 18, Wu pretending to be an American businessman and accompanied by Ms. Chen visited a factory in Shanghai on the pretext of wanting to buy certain products from that factory. Using the noisy environment as excuse, he went to the director's office, and when unobserved he stole confidential documents from the desk top. On next day afternoon, Wu again pretended to be a businessman and visited another factory in Shanghai, again on the pretext discussing business. On departure he stole confidential documents from the chief engineer's office using the same approach.

On early August, 1991, Wu wore a police uniform and assumed the identity of a police officer to enter a jail in Qinghai to take video with a hidden camera. The material was unlawfully given to outside organizations.

On March 12, 1993, Wu in Hongkong paid a Mr. Feng (or Fung) $4000 to film and take pictures of provincial and municipal jails in Zhejiang, Hubei and other provinces. Wu indicated that the funds came from an Anti-China's Laogai Funds that he had organized.

During the latter half of April, 1994, Wu and Ms. Chen met with a Mr. Zhang, a retired worker from Shanghai prison to take secret photographs of the Shanghai jail

When questioned by the court, Wu admitted that all of the above were true and factual.

The court also presented a confession handwritten by Wu on August 9. The main contents are as follows:

In the summer of 1991, he did returned to China twice for the purpose of taking video, photos and secret documents for the purpose of helping CBS produce an anti-China TV program. Doing business was used as cover and he also used old acquaintances to get into laogai for videos and photos. He also used the collected material to present to the U.S. Congress.

In 1994, with BBC's support, Wu again returned to China and took BBC personnel to China to visit laogai in Xinjiang, Sichuan and elsewhere to take secret videos for the anti-China program, "Condemned Criminals' Organs."

Results of the Court Examination

During the court hearings, Wu was accused of resorting to various underhanded means to steal China's secrets for the purpose of damaging China's reputation. Wu was also accused of using fabrication to achieve the same goal.

In April, 1994, Wu accompanied by a woman reporter from BBC entered China on the pretext of visiting China's Silk Road. The actual purpose was to collect material for two BBC programs, one on prison made goods and the other on organ transplants from executed prisoners.

One of the scenes of BBC's program purported to show a street outside Xinjiang's No. 2 Prison full of stalls with goods for sale that were made in the prison. During the cross examination, Wu admitted that the street scene was actually taken in Wulumuqi, Xinjiang's capitol, that no such street exists outside of No. 2 Prison and that the goods displayed had no relationship with the prison. Wu admitted that splicing the two scenes together was wrong.

The same program also showed a scene of burial grounds indicating that it was where executed prisoners were buried. Wu admitted that he knew at the time of filming that it was actually a local civilian cemetery.

The Source for the BBC Program on Prisoner Organ Transplants

On April 12, 1994, Wu and the BBC reporter, pretending to be husband and wife, visited the Urology Department of No. 1 Hospital near Chengdu's West China Medical College. Wu represented himself as an university researcher from the U.S. with an uncle suffering from acute renal failure and seeking a kidney transplant. He even presented a falsified medical history on his "uncle." He asked to tour the hospital's operating and recovery room facility.

Next day the couple visited operating room no. 15 where the patient was undergoing an open heart surgery for repair of the mitral valve. While Wu engaged the host in conversation, his "wife" surreptitiously took the operating scene which later became the so-called organ transplant from prisoners scene. Surgery was actually performed on Chen Zuchuan, a civilian patient on bed No. 29 of the thoracic surgery ward. During the cross examination, Wu admitted that he had no uncle, the medical history was false and no doctor from the hospital ever discussed kidney transplant from executed prisoner with him.

The BBC program indicated that the hospital was full of patients from Hongkong, Taiwan, Europe and the U.S. seeking organ transplants. Wu admitted that while he was there he did not see one foreigner.

In his confession, Wu admitted that he utilizes distortion and fabrication in order to satisfy BBC's request for material for the Condemned Criminal Organ program. He accepted responsibility for all of the action in connection with the BBC program.

Wu's History in China

Wu was born in Shanghai in 1937 and after graduating from university was sent to Beijing on a work study assignment. [*Note: Work study assignment, sort of like an internship, is a frequent precursor to actual full time job.] He was caught stealing money from office colleagues and sentenced to three years in laogai. From May, 1961 to May 1964, Wu spend his time at Qinghe and then Tuanhe prison farm to receive reform through labor. His first assignment after release was at a coal mine in Hou Xian, Shanxi. [*I am guessing that Houzhou where he visited one of the laogai is a city inside the Hou Xian (county).]

While working at Wuhan Geology University, Wu was severely criticized for repeatedly using falsified receipts and was criticized before the entire school for forgery of authorized signatures to obtain travel expense reimbursements. [I have been told that China uses different degrees of severity of criticism and censure to deal with lesser crimes.]

While working at Shanxi Finance College and at Wuhan Geology University, Wu received internal disciplinary censure for seducing women students.

Some Questions for Mr. Wu

Since the People's Daily is the official organ of China's Communist Party, the reaction of some Americans will be to dismiss the contents without further ado. Since Wu upon his return has already publicly admitted that he would do anything to expose China including using aliases, masquerading as a police officer and other pretenses, he would no doubt disown the confession as one of convenience made under duress. Nevertheless the article from China does raise some interesting questions.

(1) In his campaign to "expose" China, just how far does he go? Does his approach include fabrication and falsification to satisfy his sponsors as the trial contend? The article calls it "yi hua jie mu," i.e., moving the flower to another tree.

(2) Now he is free again, how much of the BBC program will he admit as factual and how much as not? How does he now explain the apparent video sleight of hand described in the People's Daily?

(3) According to China, Wu started his career as a common criminal, not as a political prisoner. When and how did Wu become a human rights activist?

(4) No doubt, Wu will contend that the People's Daily article is a complete fabrication. It seems to this writer that China went to a lot of trouble to make up a case full of details. Perhaps, Wu would be more convincing on his own behalf if he would care to rebut some of the details in full.