Gu Kailai Case Verdict: A Lose/Lose Proposition for the CCP

Gu Kailai Case Verdict: A Lose/Lose Proposition for the CCP
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 21, 2012

Summary: The verdict in the Gu Kailai case was a forgone conclusion. The wording of the court's decision was exactly what the global media predicted it would be on the 9th, when the court first convened. In recent years the Chinese Communist Party has repeatedly stressed the rule of law. The Gu case should make everyone at Zhongnanhai ashamed. Contrast this with Wen Jiabao's sharp criticism of the "Chongqing Mini Cultural Revolution." If he is forced to swallow his words, it could shorten his life.

Full Text below:

The verdict in the Gu Kailai case was a forgone conclusion. The wording of the court's decision was exactly what the global media predicted it would be on the 9th, when the court first convened.

When the court convened on the 9th, the proceedings were billed as a "public trial." But only politically vetted members of the public and the media were allowed into the courtroom. Therefore it was nothing more than a scripted show. Its writers, directors, and actors were jokes. The Xinhua News Agency reported on the proceedings. Only four or five hundred words had any relevance to the case. The report said Gu Kailai and Neil Haywood had "conflicting economic interests." The report implied that Haywood threatened Bo Guagua with physical harm. This amounted to an advanced "stay of execution." The report mentioned bodyguard Zhang Xiaojun. It explained that "Gu was the chief culprit, Zhang was an accomplice." Since Gu would be spared the death sentence, this amounted to advance notice that Zhang would as well. Zhang Xiaojun has been sentenced to nine years. This too was expected.

This was the trial of the century. The CCP should have ensured a proper trial to showcase the rule of law. Instead the CPP merely showed that it has achieved nothing in the way of judicial reform. Mainland netizens said the trial differed little from the Gang of Four trial 30 years ago. The courtroom was better designed than before. The public was a little better dressed than before. But substantively speaking the proceedings were nearly identical. All that was missing was Jiang Qing bellowing, "Down with Revisionism!" Instead we were regaled with a tacit plea bargain passed off as a "just judgment, showing respect for life, and offering no appeal." It left us with the impression that today's courts are even less honest than they were 30 years ago.

For example, during the proceedings, the court failed to subpoena either Bo Xilai or Wang Lijun. The entire world was witness to this. As we now know, Wang Lijun said he informed Bo Xilai of the facts only after he committed the murder. But why didn't the court ask whether Bo knowingly concealed or covered up the crime? Wang Lijun knew what happened. It is rumored that he kept a sample of Haywood's tissue as "evidence." Why didn't the court ask Wang Lijun why he abused his power and perverted the law? The four police officers who confessed to covering up the crime were sentenced to 5 to 11 years. Whether Bo and Wang will be charged for their crimes remains to be seen. But even if they are, the "Bo case" has been treated as if it were separate from the "Gu case." Worse, the "Bo case" has been reduced to the level of the "Gu case." This is a serious blow to justice. This has made the prosecution of the case a worldwide joke.

Politically speaking, the biggest failure of the CCP was in reducing the "Bo case" to the "Gu case." The relationship between Bo, Gu, and Wang led to Neil Haywood's murder. Wang Lijun's defection to the United States Consulate General did not happen out of the blue. The case has turned the CCP's political baptism into a disaster. It inspired Wen Jiabao to say that "We are still not free from the errors of the Cultural Revolution and feudalism" and that "The historical tragedy of the Cultural Revolution could repeat itself." Wen Jiabao's comments about the "Bo case" were dead on. But the case has been reduced to the level of the "Gu case," to the level of a single case of homicide. This is not merely evasive. It is a travesty of justice. It is widely rumored that Bo and Wang "listened in" on party officials and government officials. Could this be a cover-up?

The Beijing authorities went from aggressively prosecuting the "Bo case," to pulling their punches on the "Gu case." The twists and turns the case took, and the political allowances that were made during the prosecution of the case, are clear to see. The CCP imposes Draconian punishments on ordinary citizens. But it let Bo Xilai off with a slap on the wrist. As an old Chinese expression has it, "Crows everywhere under heaven are just as black." The CPP had to let Bo Xilai off lightly because of his poltiical status. It also went easy on Wang Lijun. This shows that seeking asylum at the U.S. Consulate General works. For 30 years the CCP has been pushing judicial and political reform. This case shows that its reforms were a lie. Both reforms have come to naught. The key is not the severity of the punishments. The key is that politics undermined the search for truth.

In a perverse sense, it is "fortunate" that Gu Kailai murdered someone. Otherwise Bo and Gu would have gotten away with their wrongdoing. Their crimes would have been passed off as "legal." So far Gu has yet to be charged with "economic conflicts of interest." The courts have yet to take responsibility for this. One has to wonder. How many cases under CCP official jurisdiction involve accomplices like Bo, Gu, and Wang murdering someone like Haywood? It is "fortunate" that Wang Lijun sought asylum at the US Consulate General. Otherwise, the Gu Kailai homicide case would have been swept under the rug. Whether Wang Lijun would have been murdered to shut him up is uncertain. The case is remarkable nonetheless. Under the watchful eyes of the world, this case was still handled in this manner. This shows just how bankrupt the CCP is.

This case contains a chilling paradox. The Bo Gu case was possible precisely because the CCP is an authoritarian regime. Suppose Bo Xilai was a democratically elected head of government? Suppose he alleged "judicial persecution?" Would he win or lose in court? It would be hard to say. So far the Bo case has shown that the CCP authorities are afraid to prosecute crimes. The Bo Xilai case shows that their judicial and political reforms are a wash. The case has been a shock to the system. CCP political and judicial reform require harsh review. Reforms cannot wait another 30 years. The clock cannot be turned back 30 years.

In recent years the Chinese Communist Party has repeatedly stressed the rule of law. The Gu case should make everyone at Zhongnanhai ashamed. Contrast this with Wen Jiabao's sharp criticism of the "Chongqing Mini Cultural Revolution." If he is forced to swallow his words, it could shorten his life.

谷案宣判暴露中共在司法與政治的雙輸
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.21

谷開來案的宣判，真是用膝蓋想也知道；這個判決主文，與九日開庭當日全球媒體的預測完全一樣。

九日開庭，號稱「公開審判」，但自聽眾至媒體全係透過政治安排；即使只是一齣戲，其編、導、演也不堪入目。當天，新華社報導庭訊內容，涉及案情部分大約僅有四、五百字。提及谷開來，謂與海伍德有「經濟利益矛盾」，又疑海伍德威脅薄瓜瓜的人身安全；這不啻是提前宣判了谷開來必為「死緩」；另在提及隨扈張曉軍時，特別說明「谷是主犯，張是從犯」，則是在提前宣告，谷免一死，張就沒有死的道理；如今張曉軍判九年徒刑，亦是不出所料。

這是一件世紀大案，中共原應努力在審判程序上力求表現，以展示「以法治國」的成就；但這場審判卻簡直顯示中共在司法改革上繳了白卷。大陸網民說，與三十年前審判四人幫比較，只是法庭比以前漂亮了，聽眾的服飾比以前光鮮了；但就司法的程序及實質言，只差未聞江青在法庭咆哮「打倒修正主義」，而僅見谷開來表達「判決公正，尊重生命，放棄上訴」的審囚默契，反而令人覺得今日的法庭還不如三十年前真實。

例如，在審判程序中，未見同庭傳審薄熙來及王立軍，正是舉世共見的敗筆。如今已知，王立軍已經供認事後將命案告知薄熙來，則法院何以不問薄是否知情掩飾或包庇？而王立軍既知此案，且傳曾切下海伍德一片組織留為「證據」，則更何以不問王立軍濫權枉法之罪？何況，涉及「包庇」谷開來的四名員警昨日分別被判刑五至十一年。未來是否將另案追究薄與王在這一方面的刑責尚未可知，但即使如此，其實已將「薄案」與「谷案」切割，更將「薄案」矮化為「谷案」，這不啻是司法正義的重傷，更是貽笑世界的司法醜聞。

其實，就政治面看，中共面對此案的最大失敗，亦在將「薄案」矮化為「谷案」。薄谷王的三人關係，演化到毒殺海伍德、王立軍投奔美國總領事館的地步，冰凍三尺、非一日之寒，這是中共政治體制日浸月滲所造成的慘重結果；這也才促成了溫家寶痛言「迄今文革的錯誤和封建的影響並未清除」、「文化大革命這樣的歷史悲劇還有可能重新發生」。溫家寶所言，才是「薄案」的層次，但如今將全案化約到只是一件殺人案的「谷案」，這不但是避重就輕，亦且簡直是不問是非黑白了。比如，盛傳薄王「監聽」黨政首長等情節，難道就此「吃案」？

北京當局從大辦「薄案」，搞到今日輕辦「谷案」；其間的支絀轉折與政治考量，已是有目共睹。以中共對一般百姓的嚴刑峻罰言，倘若此案放過了薄熙來（因為天下烏鴉一般黑），輕判了谷開來（因為必須放過薄熙來），又輕判了王立軍（表示投奔美國領事館是有用的）；則中共三十年來的司法改革與政治改革皆將因本案而成為謊言，雙雙皆告失敗。關鍵不在刑度輕重，而在用政治手段裁減了真相。

本案「幸好」因谷開來殺了人，否則薄谷二人在殺人以前的一切為非作歹儼然皆是「合法」的，且迄今亦未見對谷所涉「經濟利益矛盾」的情節有所交代；試問，中共官場現在存有多少「雖未毒殺海伍德」的「薄谷王共犯結構」？本案亦「幸好」因王立軍投奔總領事館，否則谷開來殺人案是否會揭鍋，王立軍是否仍留活口，皆是未定之數。但即使如此，在舉世矚目下，本案卻仍以這般荒唐的司法程序過場，可見中共體制之積重難返已至何等嚴峻的地步。

不過，本案亦存有一令人不寒而慄的吊詭。中共正因採行專制體制，始有可能至少在形式上將薄谷制伏；倘若薄熙來是一個民選首長，一旦喊出「司法迫害」，則恐怕難料勝敗如何？何況，薄案的司法程序進行至今，已證明中共當局之投鼠忌器，因而無論在司法上及政治上，不啻皆已敗給了薄熙來。有鑒於本案的震撼，中共的政治改革與司法改革，實須痛加針砭，不能等到再過三十年，又回到三十年前。

對照中共近年再三強調「以法治國」，谷案應使中南海諸人自慚形穢；尤其，對照溫家寶批評「重慶小文革」的一針見血之論，如今要他吞回那些話，恐怕更要令他百感交集了吧！