Scientists, Backing Fang Lizhi, Boycott Chinese Meetings

Petition intended to stop attendance at meetings until Fang is released; but some say the tactic is wrong or worthless WASHINGTON - The firm, clear voice belies his frail appearance at the podium. But that shouldn't have surprised anyone at last month's press conference. Former Soviet dissident Yuri Orlov is talking about a subject that he knows all-too-painfully well: a boycott by scientists of meetings sponsored by a Communist government until that government relinquishes its control over a human rights activist. This latest boycott, launched by the American Physical Society and the American Astronomical Society, is aimed at pressuring the Chinese government into providing safe passage out of the country for cosmologist Fang Lizhi and his wife, physicist Li Shuzian, from their sanctuary in the United States embassy in Beijing. Fang stands accused of inciting "counter-revolutionary" activities in connection with the student protest that was crushed one year ago at Tiannamen Square. "We can use the experiences of the defense of Sakharov, Orlov, and Shcharansky and others in the Soviet Union" as an example, says Orlov, who was forcibly deported from the Soviet Union in 1986 and is now a senior scientist at Cornell University. "It was a long, long process, but there is no doubt that it was ultimately successful. An open boycott of any official scientific meetings inside China, similar to the boycotts carried out over many years by American and European physicists in our defense, is the best way to bring about change." More than 200 scientists, most in fields related to Fang's, have pledged their support by signing a petition sent to the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Their cause, spearheaded by the two scientific societies, has also been embraced by the international Human Rights Watch organization and the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, which last fall gave Fang its award for his activities on behalf of freedom and civil rights in China. But the issue of a boycott is a touchy subject among scientists. Although few would defend China's actions, many are uncomfortable endorsing any campaign that restricts the free flow of information among scientists. The recent actions of the American Association for the Advancement of Science bear testimony to that concern. Long active in the defense of human rights and scientific freedom, AAAS last month asked the Chinese government to allow Fang safe passage and to make public the names of the scientists imprisoned for their activities in last year's massive protests. But the association's board of directors did not endorse a boycott, noting pointedly that the organization "greatly values its ties and collaboration with the [Chinese] scientific community." A boycott "raises the question of telling scientists not to talk to each other," says Kari Hannibal of AAAS international programs office. "The board decided to avoid a long and difficult debate by supporting part of this effort, but not the boycott." The issue is no less sensitive within government science policy circles. Although scientists also sent a petition on Fang's behalf to the U.S. government, presidential science adviser Allan Bromley professed no knowledge late last month of the campaign. But he asserted that continued relations are both healthier for scientific discourse and more effective than any type of boycott. "Broadly speaking," he said, "I think that it's better to work within the system and keep talking than to cut off all ties. If not, you end up hurting the people you're trying to help, and isolating the good guys in the bargain." A former president of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), Bromley also took issue with Orlov's statement that a boycott of official meetings was effective in winning freedom for dozens of dissident Soviet scientists. "I don't think that the boycott [during the 1980s] by individual scientists was effective," he said. "What really made a difference were the efforts by international organization, such as ICSU, to avoid sponsoring meetings in that country. Quietly, behind the scenes, that approach worked because the Soviets were eager to avoid an international incident." Many of the U.S. scientists who have pledged to uphold a boycott against the Chinese also were active in protesting the situation of Orlov and other dissidents. But even they seem less sure that their actions will bear fruit this time around. "I'm not sure how responsive the Chinese government is to such pressures compared to the Soviet system," says Herman Feshback, a theoretical physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has made several trips to the Soviet Union. "With the Soviets one had the impression that talking to important government figures could make a difference. But the Chinese system is different, and not as well understood by Western scientists. We don't know what buttons to push, or whether to push any buttons at all." Feshback says that he's turned down one invitation to an international meeting on heavy ion physics this fall in China, for reasons unrelated to the boycott. Although many such meetings are planned in the months ahead - APS officials drew up a list of 11 such meetings in the next year, and Feshback's meeting was not among them - several scientists who signed the petition say the boycott will have no immediate effect on their schedules. The boycott pertains only to meetings sanctioned by the Chinese government, and the line of demarcation is not always clear. Hong-Yee Chiu, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., who joined Orlov on the podium last month, says that he hasn't decided whether to attend an astronomy conference in August that is being sponsored by a regional association of Chinese scientists. "It's not an international meeting with official government sponsorship," he says, "and I have been told that the organizers want to make an effort to include foreign scientists." Chiu and others have urged Western scientists to recall Fang's plight during talks with individuals and travel inside China. They are also trying to organize an effort to assist scientists who want to visit Fang in the embassy, or meet informally with government officials. "In China, much depends on personal friendships," he says. "I suggest that people use that method whenever possible." Organizers believe that their efforts won't be successful until Chinese officials find a way to release Fang without appearing to lose face. Nobody knows how long that might take, but Orlov's willing to wait. "The effects will be measured over the long term," he says. "But I am sure that they will succeed in the end."

Scientists, Backing Fang Lizhi, Boycott Chinese Meetings

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of