在美國看過的電影中，有兩個關於逃亡的印像最深，一個是描寫二戰時盟軍戰俘通過一場足球賽「勝利大逃亡」。據說是根據真事——球員休息室下挖了通道，在球賽半場時，抵抗戰士從那裡接應他們。但他們拒絕逃走，堅持要踢贏納粹球隊。雖在納粹球員故意撒野傷人、裁判百般偏向下，但盟軍隊在全場觀眾的震天支持聲中，打敗了納粹球隊，最後在歡呼人潮的簇擁下，衝垮了納粹的警衛線，勝利大逃亡。

另一部是《肖申克的救贖》（The Shawshank Redemption》，寫一個被冤枉的囚徒，最後挖地道逃亡。這是一個經典影片，在電影頻道不斷播放。

近日中國盲人陳光誠的逃亡經歷，可謂一曲中國式的「勝利大逃亡」，如拍成電影，也一定會很感人。已有人建議由史蒂文•斯皮爾伯格（《ET》和《辛德勒的名單》等名片的導演）來拍導。

陳光誠仍在中國，不便談逃亡經過。營救他的女俠何培蓉為保護他人，也不談完整細節。但從已有的資訊，仍可大致勾畫出這個故事——

據何培蓉說，陳光誠是4月19日晚上出逃的（為迷惑當局，當時都說成是22日出逃），26日進入美使館。這個「六天」之差，是陳光誠逃亡成功的關鍵！

為什麼「六天」之久看守都沒發現？奧秘就在這裡，這是陳光誠的智慧。幾個星期前，他就一直臥床，更不出去活動。海外一度傳聞，陳光誠生命垂危。後來利用看守取水的前後短暫瞬間，陳光誠逃離房間。但是，取水回來的看守怎麼沒看到床上無人呢？原有傳言是看守良心發現，幫了陳光誠。但據營救陳光誠的何培蓉說，沒有這回事。她的消息來自陳光誠，應是准確的。

那麼這唯一的可能，就是陳光誠的侄子陳克貴，迅速和陳光誠做了替換，躺到床上，看守才沒發現人走床空。直到六天後北京公安部通知臨沂，他們才知道陳光誠逃了。陳的侄子所以被當地政法人員毆打並抓走，可能就是遷怒於他「扮演」陳光誠，騙了看守們。

一個盲人能從重重防守中逃出來，有人認為是不可思議的事情。他什麼都看不見，怎麼認路呢？哪裡是河，哪裡是牆，哪裡是方向，怎麼跟外部聯系等等，都是常人無法想像的。

但陳光誠能夠逃亡成功，大概有這幾個因素在起作用：第一，今年41歲的陳光誠多年在這個村落生活，會相當默記周邊的環境。據說盲人的默記和辨認能力超過常人。第二，他是在夜間逃亡，盲人沒有晝夜之分，對他們來說，世界都是沒有陽光的，所以他們在夜間行動照樣靈敏。當年曾采訪過陳光誠的《華盛頓郵報》駐北京采訪主任潘公凱（Philip Pan）近日撰文說，當年到北京上訪告狀的陳光誠就在他眼前被當局抓走，他還記得陳光誠被警察按在地上時的喊叫。陳光誠曾對潘公凱說，他在夜間行動非常靈敏。

陳光誠在逃亡時，翻過幾道牆，還涉過一條河。之所以翻越村民的院牆，應是為了不走村裡的道路，以免被保安們發現。陳的妻子沒一起逃，則是為了防止看守迅速發現（袁偉靜不在了）而封路搜索。

沒有妻子或他人領路，陳光誠的逃亡要克服巨大的、幾乎是無法克服的困難，主要是對方向和周圍環境的辨認。

從何培蓉的簡單描述來看，陳光誠迅速逃出了本村，到鄰村時曾敲門求救，但看到是陳光誠，村民很驚恐，沒有給予援救，但也沒有告發。陳光誠曾在一個豬圈躲藏。

陳光誠是在夜間逃亡的，由於盲人的聽覺系統特別靈敏，所以他聽到任何動靜，就臥地不動。白天則躲在田野，夜晚才行動。由於翻牆時踝骨摔折，所以才有他後來說的，摔倒二百多次，只得爬行。前後有17個小時！

在闖過來最初的難關後，陳光誠設法跟山東臨沂的朋友聯絡上了。安排了陳藏身的臨沂朋友兩天後給何培蓉發了電郵，用的是暗語：「鳥已離籠，我們該怎麼辦？」

何培蓉當時在北京，看到電郵後就明白是陳光誠逃出，於是馬上驅車去山東臨沂。但不巧在路上她的車爆胎，還一度找錯路等，在凌晨才抵達陳光誠的藏身處。他已在那裡藏匿了三天。

然後他們驅車直奔北京。在北京陳光誠明顯和異議人士胡佳聯絡上，不僅因為陳光誠進入「北京最安全的地方」的消息是胡佳發出來的，而且那個被送上youtube的陳光誠的視頻講話的背景窗簾布，跟網上的胡佳和陳光誠在一起拍照的窗簾是一樣的。

胡佳可能又是通過美國朋友聯系到美國大使館。據《紐約時報》的消息，當時力主營救陳光誠的美國官員，不是駱家輝（因他當時正在印尼巴釐島度假），而是正巧在北京的美國國務院韓裔法律顧問高洪柱（Harold Hongju Koh），他請示了國務卿最高領導（顯然是希拉里）後，陳光誠被用外交車輛帶進美國使館。這件事國務院通報了「國家安全議會」（NSC）。但奧巴馬總統當時並不知情。

在這場成功逃亡事件中，最大的功臣是陳光誠本人！他有多天「臥床」、他人置換來做掩護的智慧，面對無人指路的困境，夜行晝止、連摔帶跌、最後爬行的勇敢，這份智慧和勇敢，換來了自由！

最主要的營救者是何培蓉。她的行動不是心血來潮一時衝動。從網上查到的文章來看，去年她曾一人駕車多次去臨沂看望陳光誠，結果被當地保安所阻，車被砸，人被辱；有一次還遭當地保安毆打，錢和手機被搶，人被扔在遠處野地。她還因此被南京派出所扣留，被安排睡在派出所會議室的桌子上，由兩名男保安看守。胡佳當時呼吁和抗議，說這不僅是踐踏法律，也是踐踏起碼的公序良俗。

但即使遭受如此羞辱和毆打等，何培蓉還是堅持聲援陳光誠。這次去救陳光誠時，她的車子爆胎。她原是英文老師，因聲援陳光誠而丟了工作。據她的文章，第一次去看望陳光誠時，車子開進山區，手機無法上網，她到附近網吧發消息，還跟網吧討價還價：不是一小時一塊五嗎？怎麼要兩塊？最後她只用半小時，交了一塊錢。在當今中國，為了五角錢還要計較的人，可能非常非常少了，這說明她根本不是一個富人。但她當時懷揣1500元錢，准備救濟陳光誠。

這樣一個普通的英文老師，替一個最無助的盲人打抱不平，一次次去探望他，一次次被阻、被辱罵，甚至被毆打，勞命傷財傷身，最後成功地營救了他，從此改變了陳光誠及全家的命運。她又何嘗不是一個令人敬佩的英雄！

何培蓉做這些，有自己的哲學，她的推特上有美國劇作家田納西•威廉姆斯的名言：「敢想而不敢做者，會一直困在牢籠」。她敢想敢為，通過國際媒體對陳光誠事件的鋪天蓋地報道，世人也認識了這位女中豪傑，她提升了中國女性在世界的形像！

從當年鄧玉嬌勇敢拿起修腳刀，反抗強暴她的中共官員，到今天何培蓉飛車救盲人，這些中國女性不再是當局裝飾用的所謂「半邊天」，而是頂天立地的巾幗英雄。

英雄應該得到回報！今天陳光誠以英雄式的逃亡，贏得了世界的關注，都可以到自由的美國了。何培蓉同樣有這種資格。海外那些得到美國政府資助的人權、民運組織等，應該邀請這位女英雄到美國來旅游休息一趟，應該幫她買輛新車，下次她再營救誰，就不再爆胎了。真正的英雄應得到掌聲和獎勵。獎勵應給何培蓉這樣真正做事的，而不是海外那些善於鑽營各種獎項的「領袖們」。只有更多的勇敢者出現，中國才會有希望！

2012年5月9日於美國

原載：自由亞洲電台

曹長青網站 http://www.caochangqing.com

============================================================================

Chen Changed Mind or the US Changed Plan?

by Cao Changqing

What is the truth behind the different reports regarding Chen Guangcheng's leaving of the U.S. Embassy?

According to the initial report, "Chen Guangcheng left the US Embassy willingly". Was it Mr. Chen's voluntary decision or a reluctant one? During the two days immediately following Chen's departure from the US embassy, there were apparently discrepancies between what Mr. Chen said, what the U.S. State Department said and what the Diplomats said. Then whose words were closer to the truth? Who should be responsible for the situation that caused distress to Mr. Chen and the deadlock between the U.S. and the Chinese government? Of course, first and foremost, it is the communist Chinese government's persecution of Mr. Chen that led his fled to the US Embassy, however, the U.S. embassy should also take considerable responsibility after the news broke out. Why?

First of all, Mr. Chen cannot get into the US Embassy without being helped by officials from the embassy. The US Ambassador to China Gary Locke has admitted at a press conference that diplomats from the embassy came out to meet Mr. Chen and took him into the embassy with their own car. It is obvious that nobody can "break into" the US Embassy.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Fox News that he believed the highest level of the US State Department should have been informed Chen's situation and agreed to take him into the Embassy.

My understanding is that by taking Mr. Chen into the Embassy means to be ready to grand him political asylum, as it is a commonsense that people who seek protection from an embassy intend to apply for political asylum.

There is ground to be found should the Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton have personally approved to take Mr. Chen in. For Mrs. Clinton had appealed four times before to the Chinese authorities for the release of Mr. Chen from jail and later the house arrest. She had expressed considerable sympathy for Mr. Chen's case. Of course, any normal human being would feel sad and angry to hear a blind man, a self-taught lawyer, being cruelty persecuted by his government simply because he had tried to protect local villagers' rights to keep their unborn babies in a country that one-child-per-family is a mandate.

However, what had gone astray after making such an initial humanitarian effort? It is obvious that someone more powerful than Mrs. Clinton who had different views about Mr. Chen's plight and the diplomatic situation interfered with the case and made a different decision that led Mr. Chen's leaving of the US Embassy. Who is more powerful than Mrs. Clinton regarding this event? There's nobody but the US President Obama.

Without even regard for Mr. Obama’s political background, it is easy to see why President Obama could have decided to return Mr. Chen to the hand of a dictatorship. During the period that the international media had speculated Mr. Chen had fled to the US Embassy, President Obama had hold a joint news conference with the visiting Japanese Prime Minister, in which he was asked Mr. Chen's whereabouts and the possible outcome of the case. President Obama not only dodged questions regarding the blind man, but also blindly praised policies of the Chinese government without mentioning anything of the poor human rights records of China.

Therefore, it is not baseless for me to assume that President Obama had personally requested the State Department to solve the issue with high regard for the Chinese authorities and put them in priority.

Then we saw the case unfold: first, the US Secretary of State issued a statement saying Mr. Chen had voluntarily left the U.S. Embassy; then Ambassador Locke explained at a news conference that he had asked Mr. Chen three times if he wanted to leave before they took him out of the US protection and return to the Chinese hands. Here Mr. Locke gave a detailed description: Chen suddenly stood up and said: 'Go! Let's go!' To further rationalize the State Department's decision, Mr. Locke emphasized that Chen had never asked for political asylum but expressed his wish to stay in China during his six-day stay at the US Embassy. It sounded that the US diplomats had fully complied with Mr. Chen's own intention to leave the Embassy.

However, almost immediately following Mr. Chen's dramatic return to the Chinese hands, CNN and other international media reported that Mr. Chen had felt "pressured" to leave the US Embassy, and now feared about he and his family's safety, and he now wanted to go to the United States. Mr. Chen told CNN that US officials had informed him that if he did not leave the Embassy, his wife and children, who had already been brought to Beijing, would be sent back to Shandong, Chen's hometown, and the US government could not guarantee their safety. It was under such distress he decided leave the Embassy and go to Beijing's Chaoyang Hospital to meet with his family. And it was only after talking with his wife he learned the horrible ordeals his family had experienced after his flee from 18 months of house arrest——several of his family members were severely beaten up, and his nephew was arrested, and the local authorities even installed seven video camera in his house.

Mr. Chen's onetime lawyer, Teng Biao, and friend Zeng Jinyan also publicized through the internet Mr. Chen and his wife's fears at the hospital and their wishes to leave China. And soon after on May 3rd Chen made a direct plea to the US Congress through a speaker phone and expressed clearly he wanted to go to the US with his family. Now it appears that Mr. Chen's so-called “voluntary leave” of the US Embassy was not so accurate, or at least it was not the full picture of the situation.

Former US ambassador to the UN, Mr. John Bolton, said to Fox news that "We are committed by our own law to grant political asylum to people who have a well-founded fear of persecution, if he asks.” It implies to me that the US Embassy did not comply with it's own law and prescriptive practice on this matter.

Someone might point out at once that Mr. Chen did not ask for political asylum (such was the US Embassy's claim as well), therefore, the US Embassy cannot persist in giving him protection, and sending him out of the US Embassy was not the fault of the US side.

I think it is deplorable for the Obama administration to make such an evasive claim for the following reasons.

Firstly, the U. S. government is founded on the principal of protecting individual rights. This principal is the highest of American values, a pride of the United States, a pride of American diplomats who represent the US government. Even though Mr. Chen is not an American citizen, the US officials still should make their best efforts to protect him when such a fragile individual were facing an authoritarian regime's brutal persecution. Talking about protecting "rights", the first and foremost important thing is to let the individual know what rights he has.

Once accepted Mr. Chen to enter the Embassy, the US authorities became responsible to let Mr. Chen know what rights he has and how the US can protect him if he asks for political asylum. Obviously, the US Embassy did not do so throughout from the beginning to the end.

I think even most Americans may not know there is a law requiring the US government to provide protection for those being politically persecuted, let alone Mr. Chen, a none-American, a blind man (who obviously cannot read well as a normal person) who had until recently always lived in an isolated village where officials could beat him up at their whims, where visitors, even American journalists, could be beaten up if they tried to see Chen and his family. This blind man never had any rights throughout his life. How could he know what rights he has? How dare of him to ask anything from the US Embassy? What all he had was the trust in America, in Americans.

Facing such a vulnerable human being, any truly sympathetic American diplomat should make his effort to help him, provide him with as much information as possible. Unfortunately, it is obvious that Mr. Chen did not receive any this kind of information at the Embassy.

Secondly, If Mr. Chen was not very clear about the meaning of "entering into" and "leaving" the US Embassy, those American diplomats and legal advisers from the State Department should have known it clearly. Just as Mr. John Bolton has pointed out that " once he crosses that doorway into the American embassy, the whole world is different. In Chinese eyes, in Chinese official eyes, this is virtually an act of treason."

If the Chinese regime does not promise the Americans anything about the safety of Mr. Chen’s family, how could they guarantee anything about Mr. Chen’s safety? Were all the American diplomats at the Embassy too dumb to understand this simplest common sense? Of course not. They certainly clear what Mr. Chen might face once out of the US protection. But under the pressure of the White House they had to sacrifice Mr. Chen and play a very lousy show that convinced nobody.

Thirdly, if the US government began to perceive it was a "mistake" to bring Mr. Chen into the Embassy after it exploded in the international media, it should take care of the aftermath itself, as the United States, the torch of the free world, should and expected to do. It is a shame of the Obama administration to leave a vulnerable individual at the mercy of a thugocracy whose criminal record we all know.

It is understandable for the communist Chinese authorities to hold Mr. Chen's wife and children for ransom, a thuggish regime's nature. But it is jaw-dropping that the US Embassy also adopted the same practice in this case, parroting Chinese officials' threats to Mr. Chen and frightened him to leave the Embassy. It is only too obvious that claiming Chen left voluntarily is dishonest.

Some other details also showed that Chen's leaving was under pressure. According Ambassador Garry Locke, he and several other diplomats had surrounded Mr. Chen, waiting for him to make final decisions to leave the Embassy. Then a few minutes later Mr. Chen said with 'excitement' “ Let’s go.” Saying this is an action of his volition? How could one make an almost life and death decision in only a few minutes? Wasn't the encircling of the group of people a pressure?

Why do they need Mr. Chen to make the decision in such a hurry? Why didn't the Embassy allow him more time to think? Why the once sympathetic Ambassador turned to be pushy on Chen's leave? The only explanation is that he had received a new instruction from above that requested him to get rid of Chen as soon as possible.

At the Embassy's news conference, Ambassador Locke also declined to answer whether the Embassy had intended to have Mr. Chen back if he left. And the most unbelievable thing was as it has been disclosed at the Congressional hearing that the deal of Chen's leaving of the Embassy made by the two governments has no written document at all, only verbal-exchange. Everyone knows that the communist regime cannot comply with written promises, how could the American government believe that this time they would abide by their own spoken words? No, the American diplomats probably did not even think about this matter, all they hurried to do was to hoax Chen leave.

As far as I understand, there has never been similar deals made between a democratic country and a dictatorial regime, for there is no way to restrain authoritarian governments' behaviors toward their dissidents. Therefore, the so-called 'agreement' makes no logical sense at all.

To speak fairly, Ambassador Locke and Secretary Clinton had been sincere and sympathetic in letting Mr. Chen into the US Embassy and wanting to help him. Unfortunately, they eventually yield to higher authorities in the White house.

The US Embassy's action prompted me to recall a scene in Soul Mountain, the Nobel prize winning novel (which I loath) by Chinese-French author Gao Xingjian, in which the protagonist "I" picked up an abandoned, deaf-mute child on the roadside out of compassion, and carried him in "my" arms. In complete trust and reliance, the child felt asleep in "my" bosom. But "I" soon felt the burden and responsibility unbearable. So, seeing nobody around, "I" surreptitiously abandoned the child on roadside again.

This is the story of Chen Guangcheng today!

(This is only part of the original article in Chinese published on May 5, 2012. caochangqing.com)

Cao Changqing is a dissident Chinese writer and political commentator who fled to the United States in 1988 after the newspaper he edited were shutdown by the authorities for calling the then paramount dictator Deng Xiaoping to retire.