Against a backdrop of rapid socio-economic change and modernization, China continues to be an authoritarian one-party state that imposes sharp curbs on freedom of expression, association, and religion; openly rejects judicial independence and press freedom; and arbitrarily restricts and suppresses human rights defenders and organizations, often through extra-judicial measures.

The government also censors the internet; maintains highly repressive policies in ethnic minority areas such as Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia; systematically condones—with rare exceptions—abuses of power in the name of “social stability” ; and rejects domestic and international scrutiny of its human rights record as attempts to destabilize and impose “Western values” on the country. The security apparatus—hostile to liberalization and legal reform—seems to have steadily increased its power since the 2008 Beijing Olympics. China’s “social stability maintenance” expenses are now larger than its defense budget.

At the same time Chinese citizens are increasingly rights-conscious and challenging the authorities over livelihood issues, land seizures, forced evictions, abuses of power by corrupt cadres, discrimination, and economic inequalities. Official and scholarly statistics estimate that 250-500 protests occur per day; participants number from ten to tens of thousands. Internet users and reform-oriented media are aggressively pushing the boundaries of censorship, despite the risks of doing so, by advocating for the rule of law and transparency, exposing official wrong-doing, and calling for reforms.

China’s state media has responded to the report with a flurry of indignation, as HRW’s Nicholas Bequelin noted:

此地无银三百两： People’s Daily and China Daily have published a total of 10 (!) articles on Human Rights Watch (@hrw) in one week.

— Nicholas Bequelin 林伟 (@Bequelin) January 31, 2012

(“此地无银三百两”: “No 300 taels of silver here”; to draw attention to something by denying it.)

People’s Daily, for example, suggested that criticism of China’s rights record arose from Western insecurity:

It seems that some Western countries and NGOs have set out to attack China over its human rights issues. They first assume that human rights are being ignored, then seek evidence from rumors, and make speculations to blindly accuse China of violating human rights with the real purpose of distorting China’s international image ….

Why does the West still hold a prejudice against China’s human rights? The only reason is that the Cold War mentality and ideological hegemony still prevails. As long as China is a socialist country, the West will insist on distorting its image and see China as a threat to the Western system.

Since the end of the Cold War, the West has been too boastful of its political system, believing it is the only system that has universal value in the world.

China’s significant economic progress has stirred Western anxieties. Distorting China’s human rights becomes the only political choice.

Elsewhere, People’s Daily also criticised the report for failing to acknowledge China’s progress in legal reform. From Xinhua:

The World Report “gave no word on the great progress in terms of China’s judicial reforms that have been demonstrated in the Criminal Procedural Law draft amendment,” the article said.

Legal experts say the draft amendment will help improve the protection of criminal suspects’ human rights, by preventing judges from accepting confessions from tortured suspects and giving these suspects more defense options.

In fact, the report does acknowledge the amendment, but reiterates concern at the prospect of legalised enforced disappearances:

In August 2011, in an effort to … improve the administration of justice, the government published new rules to eliminate unlawfully obtained evidence and strengthened the procedural rights of the defense in its draft revisions to the Criminal Procedure Law. It is likely it will be adopted in March 2012.

However, the draft revisions also introduced an alarming provision that would effectively legalize enforced disappearances by allowing police to secretly detain suspects for up to six months at a location of their choice in “state security, terrorism and major corruption cases.” The measure would put suspects at great risk of torture while giving the government justification for the “disappearance” of dissidents and activists in the future. Adoption of this measure—which is hotly criticized in Chinese media by human rights lawyers, activists, and part of the legal community—would significantly deviate from China’s previous stance of gradual convergence with international norms on administering justice, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which China signed in 1997 but has yet to ratify.

See more on CDT.

People’s Daily also objected to the report’s claim that “the government continues to build a ‘new socialist countryside’ [in Tibet] by relocating and rehousing up to 80 percent of the TAR population, including all pastoralists and nomads.” From Xinhua:

The People’s Daily article, jointly published by two Tibet experts, said the HRW’s conclusion was groundless and contradictory to basic facts.

The two authors, Zhang Ming, or Lorong Dramadul, with the China Tibetology Research Center, and Professor Yang Minghong with Sichuan University, hoped that their experiences and observations from over 20 years of field research in Tibet could help clarify the misunderstandings.

They cited official statistics and said that in 2011, 1.85 million Tibetans, or 61 percent of the total population, had settled in permanent residences.

“No more than 150,000 people, or less than 5 percent of the Tibetan population, had left their original residence,” the experts wrote.

Chinese Academy of Social Sciences researcher Pan Xizhe’s op-ed at China Daily accused Human Rights Watch of sloppy methodology and political motivations:

At first glance, Human Rights Watch appears to be keen on the protection of international human rights. But it actually carries out its work with double standards and bias. Its observations lack political neutrality and its research methods are questionable. The organization’s employment of unqualified workers has also hurt the credibility of its report. Human Rights Watch should reflect inward before passing on judgment to others.

The media and international observers have long criticized Human Rights Watch for passing judgment of human rights conditions of a country or region through tinted lens. It turns a blind eye to human rights issues in some countries while criticizing others vehemently. The Sunday Times quoted a human rights insider in the United States as saying that the organization caters its reports to the US government, which greatly affects its objectivity ….

In the China portion of its report, Human Rights Watch used expressions such as “estimate”, “possibly”, and “probably”. It criticized China’s judiciary system, religious institutions, regional autonomy by ethnic groups, family planning policy as well as foreign and economic policies.

The US section of the report, which criticises the Obama White House’s failure to pursue Bush administration officials for approving the use of torture and decries America’s “abusive” counterterrorism policies, growing poverty and world-leading prison population, can be read here.

While the World Report looked back at 2011, at The Diplomat, HRW’s Phelim Kine looks ahead to 2012:

These cases represent more than the Chinese government’s well-documented contempt for freedom of expression explicitly guaranteed in Article 35 of the Constitution. They are also clear efforts to breed fear and sow silence among China’s beleaguered community of human rights defenders and civil society activists. The aim: to ensure that the 12-month senior Communist Party leadership transition this year proceeds without public challenges to the Party’s 61-year monopoly on power. China’s President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao are preparing to step aside for a new generation of leaders, widely touted to be Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang, in a secretive political succession that won’t be complete until in March 2013 ….

The government’s overriding obsession with maintaining its monopoly on power make it likely that these abuses will continue under the leadership of Xi Jinping. Foreign governments could help reverse this trend and give support to Chinese who want a more accountable government by more vigorously engaging the government on such violations. Thirty years since the launch of China’s economic reform and opening, a decade after China entered the World Trade Organization, and five years since the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the deterioration in respect for human rights and rule of law in China should be of serious concern for all countries seeking long-term, sustainable and mutually-beneficial bilateral relations with China.

© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: censorship, criminal procedure law, disabled, human rights watch, industrial pollution, leadership transition, legal reform, Li Keqiang, migrants, minorities, press freedom, religious freedom, Tibet, women, Xi Jinping
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

So you’re a pragmatist?

Actually, many people think I’m more of an idealist. I still think China needs democracy, that it needs to change. I really oppose several arguments [that are commonly made] about why China can’t have democracy, such as the argument that China is unique—that Chinese people need to wait because their “quality” [a Chinese term, suzhi, that implies everything from educational level to manners] isn’t high enough and other ridiculous things like that. Some people said that democracy wasn’t part of Chinese culture, and then Taiwan became democratic. Then they said that Taiwan was a special case. Now look at Wukan. They had their own elections. People say it’s special, but in fact Wukan is really typically Chinese. It’s a Chinese town but they organized everything. So what argument are you left with? If Wukan can have democracy so can other parts of China.

I’m not saying that China should have western-style democracy. In fact, there’s not a single western model. What do they mean? Germany didn’t copy America and America didn’t copy Britain. The issue isn’t copying. It’s do you or don’t you want democracy? Of course democracy has a lot of problems but it’s a way forward.

Since the 1980s, Chinese have been pragmatic. The question since the Cultural Revolution has been: can it work? This was Deng Xiaoping’s biggest influence on Chinese people. They ask if it’ll work or not. Now China has the world’s second-largest economy and could overtake the US. So in terms of market economics it’s been successful and I support this. What we lack is justice. There is no justice in the current system. It’s a practical issue. We need justice. Democracy is a way to bring justice. This is why democracy is necessary.

Read more by and about Chang Ping via CDT, including a translation of his blog post, “I Am Ashamed of Self-Censorship“. Read also about press freedom and media conditions in China.

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Chang Ping, democracy, press freedom, Southern Weekend
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Two books published in the last few months offer a complementary analysis of investigative journalism in the People’s Republic of China. David Bandurski and Martin Hala’s book looks at stories that have caused a major stir both nationally and internationally, while Tong Jingrong’s work takes a more general approach to the profession in the context of the history of Chinese journalism. [1] The 1990s seem to represent the golden age for investigative journalism in China. It established itself thanks to a convergence of political, social and economic factors. In an authoritarian state such as China, where censorship is institutionalized, investigative journalism had to meet the needs, or at least conform to some extent to the will of the Party in order for it to first be practiced in the media. Tong Jingrong stresses the idea of a real need on the part of the political authorities. The economic reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1978 enabled the Chinese economy to develop extremely quickly, but growth also led to major problems: mediocre quality of production, an increase in social inequalities, widespread corruption, environmental problems, etc. – all of which challenged the legitimacy of the policies implemented by the political leaders. As a way of regaining public trust in the Communist Party and the system of a socialist market economy, the government allowed critical information to appear in newspapers. Beginning with an investigation into the problems of product quality, investigative journalism gradually spread to other areas, thus prompting a form of “control by the media” (yulun jiandu).

The same issue features an interview with Bandurski about the current state of the media in China within a changing information landscape:

La Vie des Idées: Reports of recent crackdowns on Chinese journalists indicate that the government policy towards them is not relaxing. How would you describe the current state of the Chinese media? Has the greater opening of the Chinese press profoundly changed the face of the Chinese media industry? Has it led to more autonomy for journalists and more freedom of information for the Chinese?

[...] Control of the media and public opinion has remained an uncompromising priority for the CCP leadership. And yet, there have at the same time been dramatic changes. How do we explain that? Simply speaking, the major factors at play have been commercialization of the media, professionalism and the rise of the Internet and now social media. Media started commercializing – which is to say they started depending upon advertising, sales and subscriptions – in the mid-1990s, so China has only had a media market, you can say, for a little more than 15 years. In this sense, it is quite a new industry in China. This process did a lot of things, but one important thing was to transform the relationship between the media and the audience. Media still had to be careful politically, minding what is called “propaganda discipline.” But they had to mind their audiences and readers as well. This was a shift in orientation. Media now had to become more relevant to the public. It wasn’t enough to just report on what Party officials were doing, or the latest government notices. So by the late 1990s, we had a whole new generation of metro newspapers in China that relied entirely on advertising and other revenue sources. They received no state support. Most of these were what we call “spin-offs” of Party newspapers. In Chinese they are actually called “child papers,” and their official Party counterparts are “mother papers.” The mothers still receive state support, and their content is mostly dry propaganda. By contrast, the commercialized metro papers are rich in content.

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: investigative journalism, media conditions, press freedom
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

In a statement posted on its Web site on Thursday, the General Administration of Press and Publication barred reporters from directly including unverified information from the Internet or mobile telephone messages in news articles.

The new rules also require journalists to produce at least two sources for any “critical” news reports and to personally conduct interviews when gathering information.

False reports must be followed by corrections and apologies, the statement said, and serious violations could lead to the suspension or even the revocation of a news outlet’s government-issued license.

[...] The immediate impact of the new rules was not clear, but their effect may be felt most at local or regional news outlets where journalists may be less experienced and government supervision can be less precise.

Another recent government campaign targeted the spreading of rumors online.

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: media control, media regulation, press freedom, rumors
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

@jajia: From today on, remove the administrative and editorial oversight of the Beijing News from the Southern News Group, and transfer it to Guangming Daily Group. 今日起，取消南方报业集团对新京报的业务指导权，转交光明日报报业集团。

From Sinaweibo:

@aihuijiangtao: it was said that Beijing Times (under People’s Daily) and Beijing News (under Guangming Daily) both will be under the control of Beijing Municipal Party Committee Propaganda Department, belonging to Beijing News Group. @安徽蒋涛：据说，人民日报旗下之京华时报，和光明日报旗下之新京报，都将划归北京市委宣传部管辖，隶属京报集团。

While none of the above information has been confirmed by any official source, “Beijing News” “新京报” and “Beijing Times” “京华” have both become forbidden search words on Sina Weibo since yesterday.

Update: China Media Project points to a weibo post by Caijing editor Luo Changping in which he confirms that the two newspapers will be moved under the direct administration of the Beijing Propaganda Department.

© Xiao Qiang for China Digital Times (CDT), 2011. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Beijing News, beijing times, media censorship, newspapers, press freedom, sinaweibo
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

It seems that the chief reason for Zhao’s suspension is an article called “China Has Risen, We Must Say Goodbye to the Foreign Policy of Revolution” (中国要崛起，必须告别革命外交), which she wrote for a recent edition of the magazine [more from the SCMP]. This article is still available on a number of blogs and chatrooms, but has been deleted from most other sites. The original link at the Window on the South website now results in an error message.

China Media Project also translates the letter Zhao wrote to the magazine’s staff to announce her dimissal:

Dear Colleagues:

After a meeting yesterday I had already accepted a notice from the board [informing me] a termination was to be carried out and that [I was to] undergo self-examination. Beginning from today, I have already been released from all editorial work on this publication. The second half of the year is a crucial time for circulation and advertising for next year, and I already had many ideas and plans in place for the next few months, but none of these can now be done. Window on the South no longer requires my thoughts and consideration.

As to the “errors of political guidance” (政治导向错误) represented in the article “China Has Risen, We Must Say Goodbye to the Foreign Policy of Revolution” (中国要崛起，必须告别革命外交), I naturally see this in a different way [from authorities], but clearly right now there is not an atmosphere or opportunity for the discussion of issues on the basis of facts and principles. As the writer of this piece and as the editorial head (采编中心主任), I feel deeply sorry for the negative impact this piece has had on this publication, but magazine publishing has its own process and I can only take on the responsibility I am meant to take on. They way things are now being handled, heaping all of the burdens on the writer and on the publisher who has no direct connection to the article, magnifying the problem as a question of principle, targeting people rather than issues and selectively and brashy handling this matter — clearly, this is something I cannot countenance.

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: journalists, media censorship, nanfeng chuang, press freedom
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

I arrived in Anshun today [July 28th, 2011] at 10am, investigating the widely circulated [story] on the Internet [of] “chengguan officials strangle handicapped vendor to death, drawing thousands of onlookers.” While I was doing an interview at the scene in the company of the family members of Deng Qiguo, the deceased [vendor], several unknown men approached, seemingly hostile. I was very vigilant, immediately put away my recorder, stopped the interview and got up to leave. A man asked me: “Which media are you from?” I wasn’t sure about their identity and claimed that I wasn’t from the media.

Then I asked them, “Who are you? The public security?” They didn’t answer. As I got up to leave, four or five men closed in, and one of them rushed over to grab my cell phone. I ran, holding the phone to my breast and was grabbed around the neck. They closed in to grab my phone. The three family members of the deceased came to protect me. I was nailed to the ground, one man pushed down my head on the ground with his leg, making me unable to move. I yelled “Help!” There were many onlookers. I called out, asking them to call the police. A family member of the deceased kneeled down on the ground, also asking them to help save me, but maybe the onlookers didn’t know the truth, nobody helped out.

Soon, the men pulled my arms and carried me to an old mini van and grabbed my phone. Then some pushed me into the van. I struggled
desperately. I had no idea who they were. They beat and pinched me while carrying me into the van, ignoring the onlookers. I continued to struggle. At this point, I suddenly felt my temple being punched violently three times. I almost lost consciousness. Unable to keep struggling, I was easily stuffed into the van.

After I barely regained my consciousness, I saw there was a police officer in uniform next to me. When I saw the officer, frankly, I laughed. I don’t even know why I laughed. It’s a complicated feeling. If they had said they were the police and showed me their card, I would cooperate. But I never thought I would be put in the van like this.

I wanted to look at the young officer’s number. He noticed and peeled it off immediately. I laughed again, “Why be afraid of people taking down your number while [you] police are working?” When we arrived at the Xixiu district PSB bureau, my bag, recorder and cell phone were nowhere to be found, and I lost my shoes.

While getting out of the van, I said to the two officers who “detained” me, “Could you give me some dignity, and let me put on my shoes?” Instead, I was carried barefoot to the fifth floor by them. The door was closed. I was controlled by three men in the hallway. Their skill at “detaining” people was very professional, making it impossible to struggle.

After a while, maybe because I had struggled too hard, or maybe it was too hot, and my heart has always been weak, I felt gradually that my body was getting tense, my consciousness frail, and I was short of breath. I begged the two officers to take me to a hospital, but they said: “Stop pretending. We have seen too many people like you. You’re young, how could you possibly have heart disease?” Then I lay on the ground, hands still held by the officers. I asked them to set free one of my hands to [let me] pound my heart — rejected. I asked for water — rejected. At that time I understood why some people “suddenly died” in police hands.

I can’t remember how long I had been lying there. Every minute, every second, seemed so long for me. Later, another police officer came. I cooperated on everything. I told them where I’m from, gave them my press card, ID card and even passport. They took me to a room on the third floor and then started to verify my identity. I asked to make a call to the head of my newspaper, but they didn’t allow it. I went to the bathroom, also followed by someone.

It was about 3 when I arrived at the public security bureau, and there was still no response at 5. I said, “You have been verifying for two hours, yet still no result. Isn’t it too inefficient?” They replied, “We are indeed inefficient. It’s legal to keep you for 24 hours.” I asked the officer, “Since you said it, tell me what my status is? A criminal suspect?” He did not answer.

It was not until about 6 that an official of Xixiu district’s propaganda department came. I was “released” and allowed to make phone calls. Then they were going to take me to a hospital to check for injuries. I said, “The public security officers took me here like this. I won’t leave until you give me an explanation.” Afterwards, an official of Anshun city’s propaganda department also came to persuade me. I raised three demands: “First, the Xixiu district public security bureau issues a written apology for me; second, my two bags were broken, pay for my bags; and, police inform me on the Deng Qiguo investigation.” The propaganda official promised.

But at 8, a head of the city’s public security bureau came and claimed that he hurried over within five minutes after he received the phone call. At first he explained to me that, when the police enforce the law normally, if anything like this happens, they should be locked up first, not me. But because of the mass incident, they were taking “abnormal law enforcement measures,” which are allowed by the public security’s regulation. I asked for the detailed articles.

Then the head said the men who took me are from “internal security” and can’t reveal their identity to the public, therefore can’t come to apologize to me in person. On behalf of them, the head would apologize for their “rude behavior” when they were enforcing the law.

The matter ended like this. I didn’t raise any excessive demands. Now I still have bruises all over my arms and neck.

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2011. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: attacks on journalists, journalists, police violence, press freedom, riots
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Zhao Hejuan, an investigative reporter at Caixin Media, found that her Gmail account had been logged into from IP address 220.170.192.25, which traced back to Longhui County in Hunan Province.

Zhao learned of the attacks July 21 after receiving a Gmail security alert. Caixin’s IT department later uncovered evidence that the hacks into Zhao’s account went as far back as July 19. Based on Gmail’s IP history, the hackers had logged on to Zhao’s Gmail account everyday since July 19. Zhao and Caixin’s legal affairs consultant reported the incident to district police in Beijing on July 22.

In May, Caixin published an investigative report stating that more than 10 children were seized by family planning officials in Longhui, with some illegally sent for adoption overseas. Zhao went to Longhui in May to follow up on the story, and has since published multiple articles on parents seeking to petition the child-trafficking cases, as well as reactions of the local government.

For those concerned about the safety of the Gmail accounts, Google has launched a two=factor authentication process for email. Read more here.

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: gmail. journalists, hacking, investigative journalism, longhui, press freedom
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Reports on China’s microblog platforms today indicate that China Economic Times, a newspaper published by the Development Research Center of the State Council and one of the country’s leading publications for investigative reporting, is being subjected to a “purge” of its investigative reporting team, which is led by veteran muckraker and CMP fellow Wang Keqin (???). We’ll provide more details on this worrying turn of events as they become available.

Wang Keqin has not yet spoken openly about the unfolding incident, but wrote cryptically on his microblog on Sina today, paraphrasing German poet Heinrich Heine: “Where political power burns books, it will ultimately burn people also. Where political power begins to suppress the voice, if it is not stopped, its next step will be to destroy the witness!”

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: investigative journalism, media censorship, press freedom, Wang Keqin
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall

Tashi Rabten, an editor of banned magazine Eastern Snow Mountain, was sentenced on June 2 by a court in Aba prefecture, a heavily ethnic Tibetan part of Sichuan province next to the Tibet Autonomous Region proper, said the International Campaign for Tibet, a London-based group critical of Chinese policies.

China’s ruling Communist Party has faced persistent unrest in Tibetan regions of the country’s west, where many residents chafe at the government’s controls on their Buddhist religion and resent the growing presence of ethnic Han Chinese people.

The banned journal “was the first published Tibetan language commentary about the protests and crackdown from 2008 onwards, offering a critical perspective reflecting a prevailing sense of despair and loss, but also a way forward,” said an statement from the group issued late on Friday.

The statement did not say what charge Tashi Rabten was jailed for. But three other Tibetans who worked for the journal were jailed last year on charges of inciting separatism, an accusation that the ruling Communist Party often levels at Tibetans campaigning for self-determination for their homeland.

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: press freedom, Tibet, tibet politics
Download Tools to Circumvent the Great Firewall