Attachment 1 TME LEGAL ADVISER
DCPA,~TMENT OF" STATE
July 24:2006
Hon. Peter D. Keisler Assistant Attorney General Civil Division United States Departmentof Justice Washington, D.C. 20530
Re: Li g/eixttm, et aL v. I3o )filaii No. ! :04CV00649(DDC)
DearMr. Keisler:
Byletter dated February24, 2006, U.8. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon solicited the Departmentof State’s views in connectionwith the above-referencedsuit, whichwas broughtunder tlle Alien "l’or~ Stava*.e (ATS)and the Torture VictimProtection Act (TVPA).Specifically, Judge Leon asked for the Departmentof State position on: (1) whateffect, if zany, adjudicationof tiffs case will haveon the foreign policy of the United States; (2 the applicability of the act of state doctrine; and(3) if the court finds that case is j asticiable, the application of the ForeignSovereign Irranunities Act (FSIA). Judge Leonasked that we respondeither directly or by statement of interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §517. A copy of his letter is enclosed (Enclosure A). Wehere provide our viewson the foreign policy consequencesof this litigation and request that this letter be submittedto the court as an attachmentto a Suggestionof Irmmunity_and Statementof Interest addressingthe legal issues.
The plaintiffs allege that Clxincs=Minister of CommerceBo Xilai planned and carried out serious humanrights abuses agaEnst practitioners oldie Falun Gongspiritual movement(FLG) in Liaoning Province. All plaintiff:s appear to be Chinese nationals whoreside in r.he People’sRepublic of Chinaor in countries other than the UnitedStates. The~.assert that Minister Bo, acr.ing "undercolor of law" in his formerposition as Governorof Liaoning,is responsible for these violations. All of the acts alleged inthe complaint are said to have occurred within China. at the dire~ion of the Chinese goverranent, against Chinese nationals. Weare unawareof any connection betweenthe underlyingsuit and the UnitedStates. JuI-Z4-OE06:tgpm From-Department of State L/DL & L~ ZOZT367541 T-191P 005 F-557
As Minister of Commerce,Bo Xilai is nowresponsible for Ckina’s commerceand international trade, including international wadepolicy and ncgotiatiun. The attempt to serve process on Minister Bo was made at a time whenhe was Minister of Commerce(no longer Governorof LiaoningProvince) and while he was on official diplomatic travel to the United States as an active memberof the delegation of Chinese Vice Premier WuYi to the U.S.-Ckina Joint Commissionon Commerceand Trade (JCCT)- a bilateral, governmentalconsultative forumthat addresses significant bilateral trade concerns and promotes commercial opportunities between the United States and China. We understand front file Governmentof China that the su.rnxnonsand complaint were physically thrust upon Minister Bo while he was attending a U.S. - China Business Councilreception in honor of Vice Premier WuYi and her delegation (see Enclosure B).
Withoutreference to the specific allegations in this suit, the Deparlxnentof State has informedCNna, both publicly and privately, olios strong opposition to violations of the basic humanrights of FLGpractitioners in China. Wehave repeatedly called on Chinato respect the rights of all its citizens, including FLOadherents. The Department of State’s critical viewsof China’streatment of the t:LO practitioners are a matter of public record. See, e.g., Departmentof State AnnualHuman Rights Report for 2005. w-ww.state.eov/~drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61065.htm(especially pages 22-23).
Althoughwe oppose the Chinese government’santi-FLO policies, we believe that rids suit shouldbe dismissed.For U.S. courts to exercise jurisdiction over Minister Boin the circumstancesof this case wouldbe inconsistemwittl international law and expectationsrelating to the immunitiesof sta~es and their official representatives and wouldseriously interfere v, ith the UnitedStates’ ability to conductforeign relations. Moreover,it will undercut the U.S. government’sefforts to engage China on human ri~hts issues, incIuding its treatment of the FLG.It could also adversely affect U.S. engagementwith China on a broad range of other issues, including counter-terrorism, law enforcement, economicsand trade, traf~c~g in persons, adoption, narcotics suppression, and nuclear nonproliferation. Indeed, the instant lawsuit has akeadyhad a chilling effect on U.S.-Chinarelations; I enclose a series of diplomaticnotes and letters that China has sent the United States expressing its deep concernabout it 0~nclosaresB - D).
1. The Departmentof State regards the April 2004 visit of Minister Boto have been a special diplomatic mission and considers Minister Bo to have been an official diplomatic envoywhile present in the United Srate~ on that special mission. Consistent with the rules of custornary international law recognizedand applied in the UnitedStates and in furtheranceof the President’s authority underArticle II of the Constitution, it is appropriate to recognizethe immunityof a high-level ofiicial on a special diplomatic missionfrom the jurisdiction of UnitedStates federal and state courts in a case such as rahis. In light of these considerations, the Departmentrecognizes and allows the immunity of Minister BoXilai fromthe jurisdiction of the UnitedStates District Court, including fromservice of process, duringthe period of his visit to the UnitedStates. The practical wisdomunderlying this immuniwis apparent. Diplomatic relations often turn on the ability of officials fromdifferent states to communicateand meetwith each other without harassmentor distraction. Indeed, the need for unhampered communicationbetween governments is often most critical whenthe disagreements beaveenthem are the greatest. If suits of this kind can be commencedin U.S. courts against a senior foreign governmentofficial present in the UnitedStates for government: to-governmentbusiness, the President will be deprived of an essential foreign policy tool and our ability to pursue our foreign policy objectives effectively will be slgnificantly undermined.The United States must be able to host foreign officials without the prospect that they maybe served with process in a civil suit. Permitting suits like this woulaalso be inconsistent with U.S. views on the assertion of jurisdiction over U.S. governmentofficials by foreign govemmemsand courts. The UnitedStates has madeclear m foreign governmentsthat it objects to service of process on senior U.S. officials traveling overseas; wehave insisted, for example,that requests for documentsand informationabout official acts of U.S. representatives for use in criminal investigations should be madegovernment-to-government through diplomatic or law enforcementchannels, not by attempting to serve or obtain jurisdiction over the officials themselves,particularly whenthey are on temporaryvisits. Permitting this suit against Minister Bowould be inconsistent with our representations to other governments,and could exposeU.S. officials visiting other countries to suits arising from their performanceof official U.S. governmentfunctions.
2. The attemptedassertion of jurisdiction over Minister Bowhile he wasin the UnitedStates on official, bilateral busit~essat the invitation of the UnitedStates has had immediateadverse foreign policy consequencesand has directly interfered with the President’s authority, to conductforeign relations, includinghis authority to receive "Ambassadorsand other public ministers" (U.S. Const. Ar~. II, Section 3). The Executive originally invited Vice Premier WaYi to head a delegation to the United States for bilateral consultardonsin an effort to further U.S. - Chinatrade relations. The attempt to serve Minister Bowhile he washere on that delegation undercut that effort and elicited strong objections from China~which characterized the purported service as an assault and questionedthe goodfaith of the UnitedStates in hosting the visit. Indeed, China’sLegal Adviserhas madecleat m methat, because of this litigation, he has recommendedthat MiNsterBo not travel to the United States unless his immunitiesfrom jurisdiction will be respected.
3. The foreign policy problemscreated by this case are exacerbatedby the fact that it is, in effect, a suit against Chinaabout acts taken in Chinaagainst Chinese nationals..any lawsuit that challenges the policies and actions of foreign authorities in their ownterritory concerningtheir owncitizens has an inherent potential to cause friction in foreign relations. A reviewof the complaint.inthis case makesclear its ambitionto challenge not only acts attributed to Minister Bo, but also the Chinese Government’santi-FLO policy, in general. S(_~.~, for exampIe,Compl. ~ 1, alleging that Minister Bo’s actions weretaken "in concert with other officials at the highest levels of the national governmentof the People’s Republicof China(PRC) and its ruling Central Jul-Z4-O506:lPpt Frot-Daparttent ef State L/DL & L~ ZOZT367541 T-19} P 005 F-657
Committeeof the Chinese CommunistParty.") The fact that the lawsuit is effectively directed against the Chinese GoverrLrnen~mad its official policies is confirmedwhen it is seen in the conte×t of the large numberof suits the FLGhave iNtiated against high-level Chinese officials in the United States and other countries. The FLGwebsite (flNustice.org) lists over sixty actions agains~ Chinese entities and officials. Lawsuits have been flied in South America, Africa, Asia and Europe (in over ten different Europeancountries), in addition to Canada, w’l~ere multiple suits havc been filed, and the UN~edStates, where Ne websi~e reports fifteen suits.
In view of the Department of State’s recognition of Minister Bo’s immunity from the Court’s jurisdiction and the significant adverse foreign policy implications of the further conduct oftkis suit, t~e Del~artmentof State asks that you submit to the Court an appropriate Suggestion of Immunityand Statement of Interest to obtain the prompt dismissal of the proceedings against Minister Bo.
Sincerely,
EncIosures:
A. Letter from Hon. Richard J. Leon, U.S. District Court for the Disn-ic~ of Columbia, to Hon. John B. Bellinger, III, dated February 28, 2006. B. Diplomatic Note from the Embassyof the People’s Republic of China to the U.S. Department of State, dated April 26, 2004. C. Letter from Liu Zhenmin, Director General of the Department of Treaty and l~.aw to Hon. William Taft, dated August 23, 2004. D. Letter from Li Zhaoxing, Minister of Foreign A_flairs, to Hon. Condoleezza Rice, dated March 30, 2006.
4 Jul-Z4-g6 06:19p~ From-Departmentof State L/DL & LIT ZOZT3~7541 T-lgl PO05 F’657
Enclosure A February 24, 2006
Honorable Jolm B. BeiIinger I17 Legal Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser United States Department of State 2201 C Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20520
Li Weixum, eral. v. Bo Xi/ai, Civil Action No. 04-0649 (RJL) ~istfict Columbia)
Dear Mr. Bellinger:
On April 22, 2004, Li Weixumand 3 other individual plaintiffs, each of whomis a Falun Gongpractitioner, brought suit against Bo Xilai, current Minister of Commerceof the Peoplo’s Republic of Chiiia ("PRC"), ander the ,Mien Tort Clain~s Act ("ATCA")and Torture Victims Protection Act ("T~v~A"). A copy of the complaint is enclose& The plaintiffs each have resided in or are currently residlng in the Liao Ni~gProvince of the People’s Republic of China ("PRC") and claim that they have been subjected to various £brrns of persecution and abuse because of their support for Falun Gongpractitioners. Accordingto the plaintiffs, t~e alleged beatings and torture took place while the p[aintiffs were being held in detention centers located in Lia.o Ning Province. The defendant, Bo Xilai, previously served as governor oft_he Liao NJa~gProvince, and plaintiffs claim that Xilai supervised the detention centers and prison campslocated in the province where plaintiffs were aliegedly abused and "plmmedand carried out a sustained and deliberate set of policies andactions that resulted in ~e arbitrary and unlawf~l arrest, dctemion, . persecution: and in somecases execution, of the [p]laindffs." Xilai is currently the Minister of Commerce.
Plaintiffs have brought the following causes o faction under ACTAand "I-v-PA: (i) Torture; (2) Genocide; (3) Depdvati0n 0fthe Right to Live; 4) Right to Liberty Ju[-24-0608:2~pm From-Department of State L/DL a L/T 2027367541 T-Igl P 008/025F-85T
Honorable JohnB, Bellingerl~ February24,2006 Page 2
Security of Person and to be Free of Arbitrary Arrest and Imprisonment, (5) Freedom Thought, Conscience and Religion, and the Freedom to Hold Opinions Without Interference and to Associate Freely; and (6) Violations of the above-cited rights and protections as embodiedki customary international law. Wllile Xilai was served on April 22, 2004, in front of the Fairmont Hotel, 24-0! MStreet, N.W., Washington, DC, he has not responded in any capaciWto the complaint in this actiol~. Havingfailed to respond to the complaint: the Court emtered a default on July 28, 2004. Plaintiffs movedfor Default Judgment and Declaratory Judgment on 2February 4, 2005. This Court denied the motions on September 27, 2005 by minute order. The motion for Default Judgment ~d Declaratory Judgrnent is enclosed.
Having reviewed the complainEplaintiff’s motion and the relevmat iaw, the Court has determined that it would be appropriate to solicit ~e Departmentof State’s opi~on on a numberof issues relevant to ~e resolutio~ of the action. In particular, r~e Court would : appreciate the Departmentof State’s views on the followialg issues:
Whateffect, if any, will adjudication of this suit have in the foreig~ policy of the Ullited States, specifically with the PRC?
Wlaat is the Departmentof State’s position on thc applicability of the Act of State Doctrine in this action?
If the Court finds that the case is justiciable~ what is the Departmentof State’s position on the application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA") in this action?
If the Departtaent of State believes a response to someor all of the above questions from the People’s Republic of Ckina is appropriate, it mayinvite the appropriate representative thereof to submit its written views to the Court as well.
The Court would greatly appreciate the Deparmlentof State’s consideration of th.is matter and a communicationfrom the Deparmaexlt of State outla?4ng the Department of State’s views and/or positio~as regarding these issues. The Court leaves to ?,our discretion wlaether your response is best submitted in ~e form of a ierter or a Statement of Interest filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517. A copy of any such response should be sent to : plaintiff’s counsel as well. This letter in no wayinvites the Departmentof State to litigate this case on behalf of X_ilai. The Court would appreciate a response by April 23, 2006. Honorable John B. Bellinger I~[ February 24, 2006 Page 3
Thankyou for yourconsideration of thismatter and yourcooperation.
Very truly yours,
United States District Judge
Enclosures co: Morton Sklar, Esq., wlo enc. Enclosure B 06:20p~From-Dep~rtment of State L/DL & L~ 2027~$7541 T-Igl P F-657
THE EMBASSY OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 2380 C;~eoticUt Avenue, N.W, Washington; D.C. 20008
C~ 057/04-
The Embassy of ~e People’s Republic of Chinapresents its oomplimentsto the Departmentof State of the "United States of Americaand has the honor to makea statement onthe following matter.
At about 6:30 on the e~e~g of April 22, when Chinese Minister of CommerceBe Xilai and other members of the ~ntoumge of Vice Premier WuYi were walking into the lobby of the Fairmont Hotel in Washington, D.C. on their way to the dtmner hosted by the U.S,-China Business Council, the National Carom[tree on U.S.-China Relations and the American Chamber of Commercein honor of the %rice Premier who came to the United States for the 15~ Session of the China-U.S. Joint Commission on Commerceand Trade (JCCT), an unidentified man suddenly rushed toward Minister Be and other membersof theCheese entourage, aud attempted to throw an object at them. Ivfintster Be and other members of the Chinese entourage swifdy dodged this physieMattack. Th~s man’s act constituted a crimtnal assault, a grave threat to the personaI safety of Minister Be and other membersof the Chinese entourage. Thereafter, the manattempted to escape fi’om the site, but was intercepted by U.S. police officer, Sergearti Regina A. Randolph. After taking his deposition, the manwan allowed to leave.
It was following the consentsreached by Premier Wen Jiabao and President George W. Bush mudat the express invitation of the U.S. G~vemmentthat Minister Be and other members of the Chinese delegation came to the United States with Vice Premier WuYi to attend the lfl ~ Session of the JCCT. The U.S. ~overament’had the full responsibility to ensure security and safety of M~ster Be and other delegation members during theLr stay in the United States. The Chinese s~de had repeatedly requested the U.S. side to ~ake necessary measures, including providing security details and safe and unobstructed passage for Minister Be, However, the U.S. side had ass~rted that Mtrdster Be had no see~rity risks in the United States and refused to do so, which has resulted in t~s crkutinal assauk and the ex-~emely unpleasant ~ituat~on_ The Chinese Governmenthereby expresses its strong dissatisfaction with the U.S. Government, and h~ maxte solemn representations with it. This year’s JCCTm~eting is the first session since the level of efti~ials attendhag it having been raised, and it is of important significance for promoting China-U,S, econoric r~lafio~and trade as well as overall bilateral ~elation~. The fact that t~e Chinese delegation was headed by Vice Premier Wux/t ~nd w~ composed of officials from over 10 departments of the Chinese Government, including 12 ~enior of~clals at ministerial and ~ice-mintsterial le’~els, fully demonstrates the high importance the Chinese Governmemthss attached to this JCCTsong[on, k should be stressed that Mtnist~ Be, as the head of the Ministry of Commercewhich is the Chinese organizer of the JCCTsession~ has pIayed an L~portant and active role in making the meeting ~ success, Regrettably howeve%due m ~e reasons of the U.8. side, the assault incident ~ieh should not have kappened took pla~e anyway. This tins not only done harm to the personal safety and dignity of Minister Be, but has also east a shadow over the exchanges and cooperation bet~’een China and the I/nlrted States and between the relevant governmental organizaflous of the two countries~ The Chinese Government strongly urges the U.S. Goverxmlen~to recogt~tze the gravity of this assault incident, charge the !oolite with the responsibility to ilavestigate this matteg punish the attacker in aecordaraeewith the law, and ensure that sim_ilar e,xents will not reoccur in the future.
The Embassyof the People’s Republle of China avails itself of this oppommtty to renew to the Department of State of the United S~ates of Americathe assurances clots highest eonslderaflon.
Washin ,2004
Department of State United States of America Washington, D.C.
The National Security Council The Departmentof Justice The Department o£ Commerce The Office of the Unlted States T;MeRepresentative
OE:ZOpmFrom-Departmentof Stats L/DL T-Igl P 014/0Z5 F-657
Mr. William Taf~
Legal Advisor to US State Department
Washington D.C. 20520-63 l0
Beijing, 23 August
Dear Mr. Taft,
I am writing to you on the attempted ~[awsuit" by the "Falun Gong"
against Chinese CommerceMinister Bo Xilai a~ the US District Court for
the District of Columbia. Ag Direotor General of the Department of
Treaty. and Lawo~ China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I would like to
inform you, officially, that the Cb.inese Government has decided, to
presen[ i~s position ~o the USside on this matter, presenting the truzh of
the April 22~a incident and explaining i~s position on the issue ol
sovereign immunity. [ would be much appreciative if you could help
convey the position ~ttzched herewith to th~ above-mentioned cour:. ;n T-191 P 015/025 good ~ime.
With best wishes.
Your Sincerely,
..t.J/
Liu Zhenmin
Director General, Depam~aemof Treaty and Law
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Fro~-Oap~rt~sntof StatsL/DL & L~
(Translation)
Position of the Chinese Governmenton the Assault and Attempted
Frame-up by "galun Gong"Against NIinister Bo Xilai
The Governmentof China wishes to state its position on the assault
and attempted frame-up by "Falun Gong" againstChinese Commerce
Minister Bo Xilai:
I. The April 22"~ incident was an assault perpetrated by "Falun
Gong" element, and ~linister Bo Xilai was not "served" any US
court summons
In April 2004, acting on the agreement reached by Chinese Premier
WenJiabao and US Yresid~-mt George W. Bush and at tb_e invitation of the US Government, Chinese Commerce Minister Bo Xilai accompanied Vice Premier Wu Y~ to attend the 154 Session of the
China-US Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT). about 6:30pm on April 22he, Minismr Bo Xilai and his Chinese entourage walked into the lobby ofthe Fairrnont Hotel in \Vashington
D.C. on their wayto the dinner held by the US-Cnmar ’ " Business’ Council, the National Committee on US-China Relations and the American Chamber of Commerce. An unidentil~ed adult male: with an object in his hand, rnade a sudden and v[oten~ charge toward M~ni~ter ~o and
Chinese entourage, posin~ ~ serous ~reat to zhe M~nister’s persona( sa[~t~. The m~n’s act could o~ly be described ~s a crimin~
A~ h~ tr~cd to fl~e th~ sc~ne, a US police o~cr by th~ namc
A. Randolph stogped and ~gprehend~d him. Neither ~in~ster Bo nor any one of th~ Chines~ entourage touched the object the assaultan~ once held in his h~nd or ~ew anyrh~n~ about ~ and how i[ was tater disposed o£
Owing to the fail:ore of the US Governmen~ to live up to the responsib{]ityfor securityand safetyof MinistcrBo duringhis stay in
US, which resulted in th= above-mentioned assault, the
Govamme.nt has made solemn representations to it accordingJy.
II. US courts have no jurisdiction over the so-called "lawsuit" by
"FMun Gong"
]. The principle of sovereign immunity is derived from one of sovereign equality, which forms the cornerstone of modern international law and is enshrined in ctear-cu~ terms in many important international legal documents including the LrN Cb.a~er. Based on the Jul-24-O~ 20273~7541 T-IglP 01B/025
principle or par in parem no~ haSe~ juridiction~m (between equal~
there is no jurisdiction), the cour~ of one State shall not accept a laws~lit
in which a foreign State is the defendant without the explicit consen,: of
its government to give up jurisdictional immunity, Only when a
foreign State institutes a proceeding b~fore a court of another State. or
only when there is a counter-claim arising out of the same legal
relationship or facts as ~e principal claim,.tlae foreign State cannot
invoke jurisdictional irnmuni~. Even if a foreign Sta~e has lost the
case in the court of another State, it is not subject to measures of
constraint. Such are the basic contents of the principle of sovereign
immunky.
2. The principle of sovereign immunity was universally accepted
by countries in their judicial practices as early as in the 19~ century.
The US was among the f?rs~ countries to follow such principle. The
Case of Schooner Exchange heard by the US Supreme Court in I982
and many other cases before US courts ~hereaf~er all upheld this
princl’ple. In international relations of the modemtimes, the principle
of sovereign immunity,- as a universally re cogmzeo’ ’ norm of international Ia,~; is widely suppo’,’~ed by legislative and judicial
practices of countries as well as by internmional legislation. Jul-2,~-OGOG:2InrnFro~-Dspartr~nt of Stat~ L/DL & L/T 202T3G7~41 T-~g~ P
3. h ~s Ch~n~’s ~ct of sm~e when ~he Chinese Oove~ment, ~c~n~ in co~=pliance with ~he Constitution and laws of th~ [and, outlawed the
"’Fa[un Gon~" cult, and when its go~e~ent offm~al_ perfo~ their
duty in ~ccordance with ~he power: entrusted to them by Chin~’s
Con~itution =rid law~. Under the principle of sovereign immunity,
China’s ~ct of state is entitled to jurisdictional ~mmunityin the US
courts. And the US coup%therefore, h~v~ no jurisdiction to hear the
so-called "lawsuit" by "Faiun Gong, mgainst Minister Bo XilaL
[1I. The negative impact of"Falun "~~o n~," ~, "lawsuit" on China-US ? relations
Since the establishment of their diplomatic relations in 1979, China
and the US have enjoyed increasingly broad and close exchanges and
cooperation in the political, economic, trade, scienoe and technology,
culture, narcotics control, counter..te~rorism and other fields, which
greatly promoted the well-being of the two people~ and effectively
contributed to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and the
world at large.
China and the US are both major countries of global influences.
They have had extensive and important commoninterests though not Jul-2a.-O6OG:Zlpr~ Fror~-Oep~rtrnent of Stat~ L/DL a LIT 202T367541 T-l~lP O20/OZS F-657
without some differences. China-US relationship has always been
t,~,.o-way and mutually benet]cial one. Such relationship can
ahead along a sound arid steady course only when the tx~’o countries
obse~’e such basic norms governing international relations as mutual
respect for sovereignWand ~erritorial integrity, mutual non-interference
in the internal affairs, equality m~d mutuMbenefit. As an important
o[’ficial of the Chinese Government, Minister Be Xilai has made a huge
contribution ~o the development of China-US relations. The frame-up
"qa~usuit" by the "Falun Gong" cult against Minister Bo Xilai, who was
a~tending a JCCT session a~ a guest of the US GovemmenL,~as aimed
not only at altacking i:he Chinese Governmentbut also obstructing the
normal contact and the friendly cooperation between China and the US.
The political motive behind the "Falun Gong" scheme cannot be more
sinister.
Should the US court, adjudicate this knamped-up"lawsuit", it would
send out a deadly wrong signal to the "Falun Gong" cult. cause
immeasurabte disruption to t~e normal bilateral exchanges and
cooperation in the various fields, and severely undermine the common
interests of the two countries. Therefore, ~.he Chinese Government.
calls for the immediate dismissal of the "Faiun Gong" "lawsuit"
against Minister Bo Xilai. Enclosure D (Translation)
Be~jing, 3o March 2006
TheHonorabl~ Condoleezza PJce " Seo~etaryofState ¯ TheUS D~artmentof State Wa~iu~ton. DC
Dear Dr, Rice,
I am writing to you concerning the unwarranted Iawsuit ned by Falun Gongagainst Chinese CommerceMinister Be Xilai at the Dis~ct Court for the District of Columbia, and I wish to draw your attention to the following
1, On 22 Apr~2004, Minister Be Xilai, whowas visiting the United States as guest of the US Government,was assaulted by au individual sent by Falua Gong, wkich put the Minister’s personal safety in great jeopardy. Neither Minister Be himse/fnor his a/ds touched the object the Falun Gong personnel held. They have not receipted ~uy documentfrom the US court,
2. Both the banning of the ~alun Gong odt by the Chinese Goverrtmontkt accordauc~with Ckina’s Constitution and other laws and the discharging of thei~ duties by. Chinesb government o~t~cials in accordance with taw are acts of ~ exercising its sovereign rights. According to ia~’nafional law and tmiversatly recognized basic norms governing international relatioua, these acts are not subject to the jurisdiction of US courts. The same conclusion oau be drawn from the Foreign Sovereign Immun~tlesAct of 1976 oft.he Uuit~d States.
3. Falun Gongis a cult madan ant~-Ckina political organization. In filing this frame-up case, FaIuu C~ongattempts to disrupt the grow~of Ch/na-US re~ons ~d normalpersonnel exch~ge between the two cov.u~es. China aud the United States are work-Lug to. develo~ a cons~tmt~veand cooperat£ve relationsttip in all fields. If Talu~ Gong should succeedi~ .its frame-uplawsuit, China-USrelation, especial/F, our economicand trade t~es as well as cooperat~o= between the relev’,tut gover~maezt departments and persormel exchange, wi/1 be adversely affected. Theinterest of th~ UnitedStates will also be undermined,This is somethiugneither qfus want~to see.
Withb~.st regards,
.(Signed) Li Zhaox~g
" ~ter of Foreign Affairs People~’s RepubIi~of China Jul-Z4-OEOS:Zlprn F,’orn-Oepartmant of Stats L/DL & L/T 20273G7541 T-I@IP 0241025 P 0~510Z5F-BST