BEIJING: Blind Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng left the US Embassy in Beijing on Wednesday after winning concessions from Communist Party authorities that will keep him as a pivotal figure in China-US relations, but a supporter said he made the decision “reluctantly” after his family were threatened with reprisals.
Chen’s dramatic escape from house arrest and his flight to the US Embassy have already made him a symbol of resistance to China’s shackles on dissent, and the deal struck between Washington and Beijing to have him remain in China will ensure he stays an international test case of how tight or loose those shackles remain.
China accused the United States of meddling and demanded an apology for the way US diplomats handled the case.
Bob Fu, the president of Texas-based religious and human rights group, ChinaAid, said Chen agreed to leave the embassy only because “serious threats to his immediate family members were made by Chinese government” if he refused the government’s offer.
US officials said Chen had never asked for asylum during the time he was in the embassy and emphasized that he had made the decision to leave out of a desire to be reunited with his wife and two children.
“I am pleased that we were able to facilitate Chen Guangcheng’s stay and departure from the US Embassy in a way that reflected his choices and our values,” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in Beijing, where she arrived a few hours earlier for top-level US-China talks.
“(Chen) has a number of understandings with the Chinese government about his future, including the opportunity to pursue higher education in a safe environment. Making these commitments a reality is the next crucial task. The United States government and the American people are committed to remaining engaged with Mr. Chen and his family in the days, weeks and years ahead.”
China’s Foreign Ministry said the blind Chen, who escaped the watch of the world’s biggest internal security apparatus, had left the embassy of his own will. But the ministry criticized the United States’ role, saying it was meddling in its domestic affairs.
“What the US side must do is not to continue misleading and not to strive by all means to shirk and hide its responsibility for this matter, and even less should it continue interfering in domestic Chinese affairs,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin.
Washington has said it will watch his treatment closely, and any effort by Beijing to fetter his activities could provide a new source of contention.
But it is far from certain that Chinese authorities, especially nervous with a leadership succession later this year, will grant him free rein.
The drama over Chen, who was driven to a Beijing hospital accompanied by US Ambassador Gary Locke, threatens to overshadow this week’s US-China talks.
Quite apart from the importance of developing ties between the world’s two largest economies, both governments are aware of the impact the case could have on their domestic politics.
Later this year, US President Barack Obama will seek a second term, knowing that his Republican foes are already accusing him of being too soft on China. They may now criticize him for not doing enough to ensure the activist’s safety.
Also later this year, China’s ruling Communist Party will bring in a new set of leaders, a normally well choreographed process that has been wrong-footed by a scandal enveloping senior leader Bo Xilai. That too was triggered after a senior Bo aide sought refuge in a US diplomatic mission.
Some analysts said the issue appears to have divided the top leadership and may have upset hard-liners who want to keep a firm lid on any thing they see as undermining Party rule.
“As soon as you lighten the pressure on dissidents or political activists, a herd of them are going to wake up and are going to stand up,” said Jean-Pierre Cabestan, a China political expert at Hong Kong’s Baptist University.
CHINESE PUBLIC ANGER
The Chinese Foreign Ministry’s first public reaction was anger.
“The US method was interference in Chinese domestic affairs, and this is totally unacceptable to China. China demands that the United States apologize over this, thoroughly investigate this incident, punish those who are responsible, and give assurances that such incidents will not recur,” ministry spokesman Weimin said in a statement.
Rights lawyer Teng Biao said he had spoken briefly with Chen’s wife, Yuan Weijing, and that both she and their two children were now in Beijing.
He had no details on how they had been treated since Chen escaped.
“I think the outcome has been positive for China’s human rights situation,” said Li Fangping, a Beijing lawyer who has defended dissidents and protesters. “It shows that the international community has a role to play in cases like this.”
Censors were still blocking searches for Chen’s name on China’s wildly popular Twitter-like service Weibo, but many people were able to skirt restrictions by simply calling him “the blind lawyer.”
“I’ve beaten the censors to find out about this great event - respect to the blind lawyer,” wrote one user.
“The blind lawyer has broken out from the stockade to freedom. So gratifying,” added another.
As for Chen himself, he was in high spirits. A US official quoted him as telling Clinton by phone: “I want to kiss you.”
![]()
Dissident to stay in China, Beijing denounces US meddling
Dissident to stay in China, Beijing denounces US meddling
Russian poisonings aim to kill — and send a message
- Neurotoxin epibatidine, found in Ecuadoran frogs, was identified in laboratory analyzes of samples from Navalny’s body
- Even if a poisoning can fail — some targets survived, such as Yushchenko and Skripal — it also serves to send a message
PARIS: Polonium, Novichok and now dart frog poison: the finding that Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was killed with a rare toxin has revived the spectre of Moscow’s use of poisons against opponents — a hallmark of its secret services, according to experts.
The neurotoxin epibatidine, found in Ecuadoran frogs, was identified in laboratory analyzes of samples from Navalny’s body, the British, Swedish, French, German and Dutch governments said in a joint statement released on Saturday at the Munich Security Conference.
“Only the Russian state had the means, motive and opportunity to deploy this lethal toxin,” said Britain’s Foreign Office, with the joint statement pointing to Russia as the prime suspect.
The Kremlin on Monday rejected what it called the “biased and baseless” accusation it assassinated Navalny, a staunch critic of President Vladimir Putin who died on February 16, 2024, while serving a 19-year sentence in a Russian Arctic prison colony.
But the allegations echo other cases of opponents being poisoned in connection — proven or suspected — with Russian agents.
In 2006, the Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko was killed by polonium poison in London. Ukrainian politician Viktor Yushchenko, campaigning against a Russian-backed candidate for the presidency, was disfigured by dioxin in 2004. And the nerve agent Novichok was used in the attempted poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal in the UK in 2018.
“We should remain cautious, but this hypothesis is all the more plausible given that Navalny had already been the target of an assassination attempt (in 2020) on a plane involving underwear soaked with an organophosphate nerve agent, Novichok, which is manufactured only in Russia,” said Olivier Lepick, a fellow at the Foundation for Strategic Research specializing in chemical weapons.
Toxin ‘never been used’
“To my knowledge, epibatidine has never been used for assassinations,” Lepick added.
Until now, the substance was mainly known for its effect on animals that try to attack Ecuadoran poison dart frogs.
“It’s a powerful neurotoxin that first hyperstimulates the nervous system in an extremely violent way and then shuts it down. So you’ll convulse and then become paralyzed, especially in terms of breathing,” said Jerome Langrand, director of the Paris poison control center.
But to the scientist, using this substance to poison Navalny is “quite unsettling.”
“One wonders, why choose this particular poison? If it was to conceal a poisoning, it’s not the best substance. Or is it meant to spread an atmosphere of fear, to reinforce an image of power and danger with the message: ‘We can poison anywhere and with anything’?” he said.
Russian ‘calling card’
For many experts, the use of poison bears a Russian signature.
“It’s something specific to the Soviet services. In the 1920s, Lenin created a poison laboratory called ‘Kamera’ (’chamber’ in Russian), Lab X. This laboratory grew significantly under Stalin, and then under his successors Khrushchev and Brezhnev... It was this laboratory that produced Novichok,” said Andrei Kozovoi, professor of Russian history at the University of Lille.
“The Russians don’t have a monopoly on it, but there is a dimension of systematization, with considerable resources put in place a very long time ago — the creation of the poison laboratory, which developed without any restrictions,” he added.
Even if a poisoning can fail — some targets survived, such as Yushchenko and Skripal — it also serves to send a message, and acted as “a calling card” left by the Russian services, according to Kozovoi.
“Poison is associated in the collective imagination and in psychology with a terrible, agonizing death. The use of chemical substances or poisons carries an explicit intention to terrorize the target and, in cases such as Litvinenko, Skripal or Navalny, to warn anyone who might be tempted to betray Mother Russia or become an opponent,” said Lepick.
“A neurotoxin, a radioactive substance, or a toxic substance is much more frightening than an explosive or being shot to death.”
The neurotoxin epibatidine, found in Ecuadoran frogs, was identified in laboratory analyzes of samples from Navalny’s body, the British, Swedish, French, German and Dutch governments said in a joint statement released on Saturday at the Munich Security Conference.
“Only the Russian state had the means, motive and opportunity to deploy this lethal toxin,” said Britain’s Foreign Office, with the joint statement pointing to Russia as the prime suspect.
The Kremlin on Monday rejected what it called the “biased and baseless” accusation it assassinated Navalny, a staunch critic of President Vladimir Putin who died on February 16, 2024, while serving a 19-year sentence in a Russian Arctic prison colony.
But the allegations echo other cases of opponents being poisoned in connection — proven or suspected — with Russian agents.
In 2006, the Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko was killed by polonium poison in London. Ukrainian politician Viktor Yushchenko, campaigning against a Russian-backed candidate for the presidency, was disfigured by dioxin in 2004. And the nerve agent Novichok was used in the attempted poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal in the UK in 2018.
“We should remain cautious, but this hypothesis is all the more plausible given that Navalny had already been the target of an assassination attempt (in 2020) on a plane involving underwear soaked with an organophosphate nerve agent, Novichok, which is manufactured only in Russia,” said Olivier Lepick, a fellow at the Foundation for Strategic Research specializing in chemical weapons.
Toxin ‘never been used’
“To my knowledge, epibatidine has never been used for assassinations,” Lepick added.
Until now, the substance was mainly known for its effect on animals that try to attack Ecuadoran poison dart frogs.
“It’s a powerful neurotoxin that first hyperstimulates the nervous system in an extremely violent way and then shuts it down. So you’ll convulse and then become paralyzed, especially in terms of breathing,” said Jerome Langrand, director of the Paris poison control center.
But to the scientist, using this substance to poison Navalny is “quite unsettling.”
“One wonders, why choose this particular poison? If it was to conceal a poisoning, it’s not the best substance. Or is it meant to spread an atmosphere of fear, to reinforce an image of power and danger with the message: ‘We can poison anywhere and with anything’?” he said.
Russian ‘calling card’
For many experts, the use of poison bears a Russian signature.
“It’s something specific to the Soviet services. In the 1920s, Lenin created a poison laboratory called ‘Kamera’ (’chamber’ in Russian), Lab X. This laboratory grew significantly under Stalin, and then under his successors Khrushchev and Brezhnev... It was this laboratory that produced Novichok,” said Andrei Kozovoi, professor of Russian history at the University of Lille.
“The Russians don’t have a monopoly on it, but there is a dimension of systematization, with considerable resources put in place a very long time ago — the creation of the poison laboratory, which developed without any restrictions,” he added.
Even if a poisoning can fail — some targets survived, such as Yushchenko and Skripal — it also serves to send a message, and acted as “a calling card” left by the Russian services, according to Kozovoi.
“Poison is associated in the collective imagination and in psychology with a terrible, agonizing death. The use of chemical substances or poisons carries an explicit intention to terrorize the target and, in cases such as Litvinenko, Skripal or Navalny, to warn anyone who might be tempted to betray Mother Russia or become an opponent,” said Lepick.
“A neurotoxin, a radioactive substance, or a toxic substance is much more frightening than an explosive or being shot to death.”
Latest updates
Recommended
© 2026 SAUDI RESEARCH & PUBLISHING COMPANY, All Rights Reserved And subject to Terms of Use Agreement.