吴弘达（Hurry Wu），中国异议人士，华盛顿“劳改研究基金会”负责人，一直从事证明死刑犯器官用作移植手术的工作，曾在中国劳教所里呆过19年。
从2006年3月12日起，吴弘达多次派遣调查人员查访了整个苏家屯地区，3月17日、3月27日和3月29日分别探访了位于苏家屯的两处军事营、苏家屯血栓病医院和附近的康家山监狱。前述调查均未发现法轮功指称的集中营的痕迹。调查人员就调查经过及结论分别于3月15日、3月17日、3月27日、3月29日、3月30日、4月4日向吴弘达提供了许多照片及文字报告。2006年3月22日，吴弘达致函美国国会部分议员、媒体代表及有关人士20余人，就苏家屯事件表明自己的看法。信的要点有三：一是根据吴方的实地调查，关押6000余人的苏家屯集中营并不存在；二是20多年来，中国政府确实大量摘取死囚器官，但4500人规模的活体器官摘除理论上不成立，技术上不可行；三是“中共盗摘法轮功学员的器官出口至泰国及其它国家”的报导完全不可信。2006年7月18日，吴弘达发表《我对于法轮功媒体报导苏家屯集中营问题的认识及其经历》，公开表明对此事件立场。
此后，吴弘达多次接受境外媒体采访，质疑法轮功对中国政府“活摘器官”指控。
2006年8月14日，澳大利亚《澳人报》发表对吴弘达的采访《中国异议人士质疑器官活摘声明》，吴弘达表示在中国安排了可靠的联系人，走访了苏家屯地区，并在此驻扎三个多星期。他们的调查包括了所有可能进行强制活摘的地方，包括两个军营、一个脑血栓专科医院和孔家山监狱。他收到每一次走访的照片和文字报告，“没有任何一个调查能证明集中营存在”。
2013年12月17日，吴弘达接受美国之音采访时表示：“如果你（指法轮功）想讨论、想（向中国政府）抗议、想当面羞辱中国政府，我能理解。但是我以前就非常清楚地告诉法轮功，你们确实需要拿出证据来。”
My Knowledge and Experience with the Falun Gong media reporting on the Sujiatun Concentration Camp problem. July 18, 2006.
http://zonaeuropa.com/20060806_1.htm
(in translation)
First of all, my personal beliefs and political viewpoints are different from those of the Falun Gong.
Secondly, I respect everyone's freedom of belief and the right not to be persecuted. From the moment that the Beijing government announced that Falun Gong is an evil cult and persecuted its members, I have firmly and resolutely stood on the side of Falun Gong.
Thirdly, no matter from personal experience or scholarly knowledge, I should know more about the brutal nature of the Chinese government than the Falun Gong practitioners, especially their senior members.
Fourthly, I do not want my words to be used by the Beijing authorities to conceal or lessen their evil deeds.
Fifthly, I hope that everybody (including myself) respect the facts and put the truth above everything else.
In the following, let me use the narrative technique to describe my experience and knowledge about the Sujiatun affair in chronological order:
(1) At the end of February 2006, after an investigation of six months, our team wrote a report about how the Huaxi Hospital in Chengu, Sichuan, was extracting organs from death-sentence prisoners for transplanting. I was prepared to publish the report when Hu Jintao arrives in late April so that I can remind the world that the Chinese government has "used" the organs of death-sentence prisoners on a large-scale, long-term basis in violation of the basic principles of human rights. This is one of the brutal acts of the Communist government.
(2) In February, the China Information Center and one of the Falun Gong media "Secret China" went into a preliminary stage of cooperation. China Information Center was not only published on the "Secret China" website, but also in the print media.
(3) On March 10, 2006, the front page of Epoch Times carried a headline story titled "Shocking Inside News: Shenyang Concentration Camp Has Body Crematorium." The article said: "There is a secret concentration came in the manner of the Nazis in Sujiatun, Shenyang. More than 6,000 Falun Gong members are being held. The secret prison has a 'body incinerator' as well as many medical doctors. Nobody who goes in there comes out alive. Their vital organs are extracted and then their bodies are incinerated."
The following is an extract from the Falun Gong media about the Sujiatun concentration camp:
Of the 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners, three-fourths had their hearts, kidneys, cornea and skin extracted before they died and then their bodies were incinerated ... since 2001, this concentration camp has extracted the kidneys, livers, hearts, brains, cornea and other organs from thousands of kidnapped Falun Gong practitioners. The extracted organs were sold to many "biological model factories" that sprung up and then the bodies were destroyed ... The investigation verified that the organs were extracted from people who were still alive, and the process was extremely cruel. Most of the participating medical personnel suffered severe psychological problems, including committing suicide ... the Falun Gong practioners are the principal source of the organ transaction black market in China (March 17, Dajiyuan, "Witness appears to testify about organ extractions on live persons at Sujiatun.").
(4) After reading the Dajiyuan report carefully, I felt that the two "witnesses" were unreliable and this story may be intentionally fabricated. I attempted to contact Falun Gong spokesperson Zhang Erping on his mobile phone and asked him to talk to me about the Sujiatun affair, but I never got a reply from him.
At the same time, I arranged for people inside China to visit the Sujiatun scene. From March 12, the investigators canvassed the entire Sujiatun area. On March 17, the investigators visited two military barracks in Sujiatun. On March 27, the investigators secretly visited the Chinese Medical Blood Clotting Treatment Center in Sujiatun. On March 29, the investigators went to the Kongjiashan prison near Sujiatun. None of the aforementioned investigations revealed any trace of the concentration camp. The investigators provided me with photographs and written reports on their investigation and results on March 15, 17, 27, 29, 30 and April 4.
(5) At the same time, Dajiyuan and other Falun Gong media (including the English editions) continued to report on the Sujiatun concentration camp on their front pages. Sound of Hope Radio and New Tang Dynasty TV, which are related to Falun Gong, followed up extensively. New Tang Dynasty TV interviewed me, and use my related videotapes on organ transplants (with my permission). Various media and political people asked me about my views on the Sujiatun affair.
(6) On March 19, at the invitation of Falun Gong's representative Professor Nie Sen in Washington DC, I made a speech to support the resignation campaign from the Communist Party to the Falun Gong assembly in front of the Lincoln Memorial after the St. Patrick's Day parade.
At the assembly, I met Ms. Wang Wenyi for the first time. She claimed to be the person responsible for public relations at Dajiyuan. According to her self-introduction: (1) she is a graduate of a mainland Chinese medical university and she has received a doctor of medicine in the United States; she recently moved from California to New York to do medical research; (2) she was the Falun Gong person who scolded Jiang Zemin in Malta, Europe; (3) when she doing medical work in China, she had gone to the killing field and extracted organs from executed prisoners.
Based upon the above, since I was writing the report about the Huaxi Hospital extracting the hearts of death-sentence prisoners and I was hoping to get a US Congressional hearing on how the Beijing government is extracting organs from death-sentence prisoners, I invited Ms. Wang Wenyi to go to Congress because she was a Chinese doctor who participated directly in the extraction of organs from death-sentence prisoners. She gladly agreed and she said that she would email her testimony very soon.
(7) On March 22, I wrote certain US Congress Representatives and other people about the Sujiatun situation and I told them what I thought. The recipients of this letter were about 20 or so people who were either US Congress Representatives or media people. There were three main points in the letter: (1) according to my recent investigation, the Sujiatun concentration camp holding 6,000 people does not exist; (2) for over more than 20 years, the Chinese government had extracted large numbers of organs from death-sentence prisoners. But a scale of 4,500 live organ extractions is impossible in theory and infeasible in practice: (3) the report "The Communists are stealing organs from Falun Gong members to export to Thailand and other countries" is completely not credible. In the letter, I reiterated clearly that I have always opposed the oppression of Falun Gong by the Chinese government and that I will continue as always to support the Falun Gong group to have the right to observe their own beliefs. In order to avoid being mistaken as holding the same position as the Chinese Communists, I asked the recipients not to distribute the letter or publicly describe or quote its contents.
This letter has never been translated into Chinese nor has it been published at this time.
(8) After the letter was published, Falun Gong representative Tang Zhong (the president of New Tang Dynasty TV), Guo Jun (chief editor of Dajiyuan), Wang Wenyi (the public relations person for Dajiyuan) and Ms. Judy visited the China Information Center on March 28. In the presence of China Information Center editors Liao Tianqi and Chen Kuide, I delivered the following viewpoints to the Falun Gong representatives:
(1) I hope and I recommend that Dajiyuan and other Falun Gong media not use the term "concentration camp." I pointed out that this term contains specific meanings, and can be used for comparative purposes. But to cite or use it directly may lead to side effects.
(2) I quoted the example of the German Nazis using live persons for medical experiments at the Auschwitz concentration camp to the Falun Gong representatives. If 4,500 live persons had their organs removed and then their corpses were destroyed, then this is an unthinkably big deal in world history. There has to be enough solid eyewitnesses, evidence and investigation. Based only upon the indirect testimony of two witnesses, the outside world will think that this was just "propaganda." In the western world, "propaganda" has negative meaning. Only Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Russia and China have a "propaganda department."
(3) 4,500 persons in total would mean 1,500 persons per year, or at least 120 persons per month whose organs were removed and then they were murdered. This was technically infeasible and impossible to accomplish in an environment such as Sujiatun.
(4) The exporting of organs to Thailand and other countries is even more preposterous. Even though it is possible for sick people in Thailand and other countries to go to China to get organ transplants, there has to be some data. To export the organs would be impossible both technically as well as being prohibited by other nation's laws and conditions. I have been to Thailand many times to investigate the situation of Thai nationals going to China to receive organ transplants, the attitudes of the Thai officials and medical professionals and the relevant regulations. Thai patients who have received organ transplants and the Thai Royal Medical Society chairman had been invited by me to testify at the US Congress.
(5) The Falun Gong representatives admitted that the evidence about the Sujiatun concentration camp was still inadequate, but they firmly believed that the Sujiatun concentration camp exists and that the report was truthful. They were in the process of going in to collect the relevant evidence. Their reasoning was this: the Chinese Communists is a brutal regime and capable of any brutality. Therefore, one should not doubt the Sujiatun affair. In order to prevent further massacre (supposedly another 2,000 people were going to have their organs extracted immediately), they publicized this affair and the purpose was to call for the attention of the international community to investigate and hence save lives.
During the discussion, I asked whether I can meet with the two witnesses. Wang Wenyi replied that the two witnesses have issues with personal safety, and the representatives don't even know the whereabouts of the witnesses. She said that she will contact them and make the arrangements. The meeting finished at noon that day. I learned from the US Congress that the two witnesses had already met with many people at the US Congress through the arrangement of Wang Wenyi and other Falun Gong lobbyists.
(9) On the morning of March 31, Falun Gong representatives in the Washington DC area Professor Nie Sen and Ms. Amy came to the China Information Center without prior notice. At the time, editors Liao Tianqi and Chen Kuide were present. Ms. Amy did not say anything. Nie Sen said that he knew that I had written a letter and he told me three points in a direct manner:
(1) If you (Wu Hongda) do not have sufficient evidence and you don't know the facts, it would be best for you to maintain neutrality.
(2) This way, you can maintain your reputation and continue your significant work. We have always respected you, etc.
(3) Your letter was aiding the Communists. Please don't do that.
At the time, I told Nie Sen: "You are threatening me."
He said, "No. This is not a threat."
I asked: "This is persuasion or advice, right? Who are you to talk to me this way?"
He said: "I read your letter."
I said: "According to my understanding, that was a private letter from me to the Congressional representatives. You have not brought the two witnesses to lobby Congress yet. How did you see it?"
Nie did not reply. I asked further: "If you did not see the letter, then someone else told you about it and therefore you must have discussed it among yourselves and they ordered you to come here and give me advice. Right?"
Nie did not reply.
I said; "You can leave now. Please." Nie then left the office of the China Information Center.
(10) After Nie's visit, I called Zhang Erping again and he finally responded. He said that he will come to see me next Monday to talk. On the morning of April 3, Zhang Erping and Wang Wenyi came to the office of China Information Center. Editors Liao Tianqi and Chen Kuide were present.
Zhang Erping said: "I respect you, and you have the right of freedom of speech. But what you wrote in the letter was wrong and objectively helped the Communists as well as hurt our feelings. You know that many Falun Gong members came to Washington DC to demonstrate in front of the White House. They are extremely mad at you."
I asked, "Please tell me whether you personally read my letter to the Congress?" Zhang did not respond directly.
I said: "There is no Chinese-language version of the letter. The English-language was only sent by email to twenty or so people and it clearly said 'Confidential: not to be distributed or cited; for advice only.' Can you tell me how the Falun Gong members learned about it? You ought to know Nie Sen was ordered to come here. It seems that you have made a systematic communication and plan." Zhang did not respond.
I was deeply disappointed. Although Zhang Erping was gentle and proper and we got along well privately, he showed that Falun Gong was "angry at me." At that point, I realized that Falun Gong would be taking hostile action against me. Of course, they can claim that I was hostile to them first.
That evening, I wanted to express my thoughts again and so I called Zhang Erping. It was impossible to communicate even after a one-hour conversation. In the end, I said, "Erping, please shove me aside and ignore me. Will you please consider the following two problems? First, did the Sujiatun affair give credit or discredit to the reputation of Falun Gong? Second, based upon the current situation, is Falun Gong rising or falling compared to 1999? You don't have to answer me. No matter what the answers are, it does not concern me. You are the responsible person at Falun Gong. You better think about it."
(11) On April 6, the Falun Gong groups wrote a letter to the US Congress to urge an investigation of the Sujiatun affair.
(12) On April 8, the Falun Gong medium Renminbao published two articles, "Chaos at the senior level of National Security" and "The butcher Wu Hongda." The articles named me directly as interfering with the Sujiatun investigations. Therefore, I am the "butcher" and "National Security senior-level spy." The articles included my photograph.
On that day, I emailed the two articles without adding or subtracting one word to Zhang Erping. Upon information, on the next day, the two articles disappeared from the Renminbao website. There is no proof whether Zhang Erping gave the order. Individual Falun Gong people explained to me that the two Renminbao articles were written by individual Falun Gong persons and do not represent the opinion of "Falun Gong."
(13) On April 12, Reuters and Agence France Presses reported that China's State council held a press conference on April 11. At the conference, the Shenyang Sujiatun district officials and the Sujiatun Blood Clot Treatment Center leaders came forward to refute Falun Gong and denied that they had imprisoned large numbers of Falun Gong practioners.
(14) On April 13, Falun Gong declared that "after further investigation, we are more inclined to believe that the Sujiatun affair is true ... faced with these brutal murders, we hope the international community will not hold onto a rigorous or skeptical attitude. The world cannot wait until all the evidence become available because the crimes will worsen. Even if there is a 1% probability that this is true, it is worth the whole world to carefully and fully investigate the matter and deal with it."
(15) On April 14, the US Department of State released its report of the investigation about Sujiatun by the Embassy in Beijing and the Consulate in Shenyang. The report said: "No evidence was discovered that says the place is used for any other purpose other than as a public hospital."
(16) On April 16, the Falun Gong medium Renminbao published the articles "Agence France Presse and Associated Press colluded with Xinhua" and "On Easter, God questions Bush." In the essays: "More than three weeks after the affair of the Sujiatun concentration camp is exposed, the place has been vacated. The Chinese Communist Foreign Ministry spokesperson Qin Kong said that the outside world is welcome to investigate. More than a month later on April 14, US State Department Sean McCormack claimed that American investigators (under the detailed arrangement and guidance of the Chinese Communists) found no evidence of the Falun Gong charges when they investigated the Sujiatun area in northeastern China. The Agence France Presse and Associated Press reports about Sujiatun were very similar to the Chinese Communists' Xinhua releases." "The American government elite ignored the usual fakery of the Chinese Communists and were led on a guide tour of Sujiatun as arranged by the Chinese Communists. This was how they readily came to the conclusion of that there were no 'abnormal' activities at the hospital."
(17) On April 16, a Congressional aide called me and said that Falun Gong was extremely dissatisfied with me because I opposed the attendance of Falun Gong members at the schedule April 19 congressional hearing.
He said; "A certain Congress person said that if Wu Hongda does not agree, then Falun Gong cannot attend the Congressional hearing."
I replied: "That is not true. I have never told anyone (including people at Congress) that Falun Gong cannot attend congressional hearings."
The aide said: "Zhang Erping said that he learned about it from someone at Congress."
I told the aide: "I am willing to confront Zhang Erping and that person at Congress."
I also said: "I do not have the power and standing. I don't know why Zhang Erping or the person from Congress would say that. You are someone from the Hill. Please verify with them."
The aide said; "If you are willing, I can arrange for you to meet with the two witnesses. This may be of assistance to you."
I said: "I will be glad to meet them. But this is not connected to the congressional hearing. This is something completely different. I must find out why Zhang Erping said that I obstructed the Falun Gong from attending the hearing."
The aide asked me to wait because Zhang Erping was right there next to him. Moments later, the aide said: "Please come to the office tomorrow morning at 11am."
The next day, I went with my aide to the Hill. At the office of the congressional representative (note: Congress was on vacation and no representative was working), I saw the aide and Zhang Erping, but not the two witnesses.
I said that the purpose of my coming to the office was to meet the two witnesses. If the two witnesses were not there, then I should leave. As to why my so-called "unwillingness" to let Falun Gong members attend the congressional hearing, I reiterated once again -- in the presence of Zhang Erping -- I have no right to agree or disagree with the presence of any person or group to attend. I have no intention of interfering with the affairs of the US Congress. Please check with all the parties concerned.
The aide said that he wanted me to sponsor and arrange for the Falun Gong people to attend to the hearing. I emphasized that I did not have the power. The aide wanted a deeper exchange and I requested Zhang Erping to leave.
After Zhang Erping left, I told the aide about my position (namely, points 1 through 16 above). I showed the aide certain investigative photos from Sujiatun (he was the first outsider to have seen those photographs). The aide immediately said that he was unaware of the circumstances and he said, "I had provided a copy of your March 22 letter to Zhang Erping." He apologized to me formally (this was in violation of personal conduct code for Congressional personnel as well as violating my personal rights). I have had a friendship and understanding with this aide for more than ten years. Although I was not happy that he leaked my letter, I knew his character and views. I thought that he may have over-reacted as he did not understand the situation. So I spent almost one hour to relate the circumstances to him again and again. He told me what he went through and how he saw it, and he apologized many times and begged for my forgiveness.
(18) On April 17, Falun Gong spokesperson Zhang Erping made a public statement: "All investigations under the control of the Chinese Communists are meaningless." He said: "Falun Gong has started a Committee to Investigate the Truth of the Oppression. We welcome international organizations including the American government to join this independent investigative group."
(19) On May 6, I went to the Human Rights Conference in Frankfurt, Germany. The previously friendly Falun Gong leader in Germany named Wu ignored me totally, and I was surprised.
Wu spoke about the extraction of organs and incineration of bodies, but four Germans dissented. In order to avoid a public clash, I left the conference hall using an excuse.
Two veteran Falun Gong representatives from Sweden and Belgium spoke to me extensively. They did not say that they were "angry" with me, but they said that it "broke their hearts." They all knew about the March 22 letter and they said that they "did not understand." I gave them the detailed explanation (points 1 through 16 above). They were sorry that Renminbao had called me a spy and a butcher.
(20) Many mainland Chinese friends and relevant persons showed concern about my being labeled "butcher" and "Chinese Communist senior-level spy."
(21) Many overseas websites carried the two Renminbao articles as well as other strange and weird opinions.
(22) According to various channels, Falun Gong accused me of being a senior-level Chinese Communist spy because Gao Zhan once worked at China Information Center. Furthermore, I had gone through a similar experience like Gao. I had been arrested, sentenced and exiled by the Chinese Communist government. That was their inference.
(23) Two veteran political figures in Canada announced that they will conduct an investigation of the Sujiatun affair. On May 20-21, they met with me in Washington DC. They somehow had a copy of my March 22 letter in their hands (where did it come from?).
They knew me from before and they have always respected me. They said that they did not understand why I was "against" the Sujiatun affair. I narrated the history (namely, the events from points 1 to 16 above).
They asked me if I had met the two witnesses. I said that I had not. They were surprised why I hadn't met them and they immediately said that they would arrange it. The next day, they told me that it was impossible. They said that the two witnesses refused to meet with me because I said that they were fabricating stuff. I told the two Canadians that I had wanted to meet with the witnesses prior to the March 22 letter, but I was refused.
At this point, the conversation with the Canadians reached a dead end. Suddenly, they wrote on a piece of paper the name "Gao Zhan" and they asked me, "Do you know this person?" I said, "Yes, Gao Zhan is presently in an American prison awaiting expulsion." I asked them, "We are talking about the Falun Gong affair at Sujiatun today. How did Gao Zhao come in?" The two sides had a laugh.
没有评论:
发表评论