Nicole's blog

It’s hard not to feel let down by the US-China Human Rights Dialogue which took place at the end of last week.  As many others have already pointed out, China doesn’t really take it seriously.  After all, they sent Chen Xu, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director General for International Organizations.  When you Google him, the Chen Xu in question doesn’t even come up on the first page of search results.  And as Sophie Richardson pointed out in her post for Foreign Policy, the “Chinese officials spend their visit just trying to run out the clock.” But as the previous eight years have taught us, a minor human rights dialogue is better than no dialogue at all.

The focus of the discussion was primarily around rule of law in China, undoubtedly a critical piece in the drive towards encouraging China to be a more responsible international stakeholder.  Ideally, these talks have set the scene for the continuation of the conversation in the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) taking place in China on May 24-25, but you can’t help but feel that the timing of the Human Rights Dialogue provides a convenient out for human rights to be sidelined during the S&ED. When I read the State Department briefing on the S&ED this morning, there was no mention of human rights, and no indication that human rights issues will be raised at the meeting. As Elizabeth Lynch of China Law & Policy has written, the Chinese government places much more importance on the S&ED, and human rights issues raised there, on Chinese soil, are likely to have much more of an actual impact. 

As the years go by, it makes less and less sense to separate the two dialogues anyway.  Specifically,

-On cybersecurity:  The US is just now waking up to the issue of cybersecurity.  There is good evidence to suggest that while China may not be engaging in direct state-sponsored hacking of foreign corporations, government networks, and human rights activists’ emails, there is at the very least tacit approval (dare I say encouragement?) of the practice.   Those hacking the Chinese government are punished.  Those hacking foreign governments are smiled upon.  Almost every single day I walk into the office to find emails in my inbox containing tracking software or malware intended to shut down my ability to do work.  My boss, Harry Wu, receives at least five such threats each day.  In the larger scheme of things, we’re the little people who are unimportant in these sorts of dialogues, but multinational corporations, many of whom are headquartered in the US, are facing similar difficulties.  It costs American businesses a huge amount of money and time to fight these threats.  Not to mention that it would be pretty catastrophic if Chinese hackers did something like shut down a major electrical grid or something like that, which they have been shown to be capable of doing.  (Read more after the jump)

Rumors that Google may pull out of China has thrown the state of the Chinese Internet into sharp focus. It says much about the disconnect between the idealism of the Internet pioneers and the reality of how the Internet is utilized in undemocratic states.

During the 1990s, we were told that the Internet was going to single-handedly topple totalitarianism throughout the globe. Regimes would no longer be able to control the free global flow of information to repressed citizens, and knowledge would be power enough to squeeze the dictators out. Everything the optimists said about the Internet is true: unfettered access does have the power to liberalize less than undemocratic public spheres. But it's getting to that free and unfettered version of the Internet that's the problem these days. And the authoritarians -- most notably China and Iran, but others too, like Vietnam -- have been amazingly adept at filtering out what they don't want people to hear. Normally we don't think of business interests in China overlapping with human rights, but in the case of American technology companies, the two camps are, and will continue to be, more closely aligned than we might think. (Read more after the jump)

Reporters Without Borders has reported that Tibetan filmmaker Dhondup Wangchen was sentenced to six years in prison on December 28, 2009 in a court in Xining, the capital of Qinghai Province, a region with a large Tibetan population which is also known by its original Tibetan name, Amdo.  Wangchen was most likely imprisoned for directing “Leaving Fear Behind,” a documentary featuring interviews with ordinary Tibetans from all over the region. Wangchen’s family was kept in the dark regarding the charges against him, though there are severe concerns for his health as the authorities have denied him treatment for his hepatitis B.  

Prior to receiving his sentence, Wangchen was held without charge for 19 months.  His lawyer, Li Dunyong, was replaced with a government-appointed lawyer in July 2009.  Li has told Tibetan authorities that Wangchen was tortured in order to extract a confession.  Jigme Gyatso, who worked as Wangchen’s assistant while making the film, was detained in March 2008, and released on October 15, 2008.  He reported that he had been tortured while in prison, but was not formally sentenced.  Wangchen has until January 7 to appeal.  

The Laogai Museum screened “Leaving Fear Behind” as part of a special exhibition on Tibet in Spring 2009.  You can watch the film after the jump.

In the United States and much of the rest of the developed world, human rights and climate change aren’t usually treated as related issues.  In China, though, they are intimately intertwined, and policymakers meeting in Copenhagen this week would do well to realize the connection.  Copenhagen will be dealing with China’s climate issues at the macro level.  They’ll be talking to central government ministers, trying to get an agreement from Beijing.  But they’ll miss out on the bigger picture. China has no freedom of speech, no independent judiciary, and a huge corruption problem.  That’s a pretty toxic mix.  These problems will make enforcement of any agreements difficult at best, and impossible at worst.  Adam Minter has written on several occasions about the unlikelihood of enforcement of any promises made by the Chinese delegation in Copenhagen.  Many of China’s cities are home to fetid, particulate-laden air that top the list of the world’s most polluted.  Tainted rivers run through its vast countryside.  Dust storms howl through deserts once full of lush forests.  No wonder environmental degradation tops the list of complaints from Chinese citizens of all walks of life.

Despite widespread frustration with China’s environmental problems, publicly fighting environmental degradation in China is a political act. Those who become too outspoken are charged with crimes like “endangering state security” or “subverting state power, ” or simply thrown into re-education through labor camps for up to three years without charge or trial. What other countries would imprison someone like Sun Xiaodi for trying to report a potentially deadly uranium leak, or try to silence those working to expose cadmium in the food supply.  In many of the countries meeting in Copenhagen, China’s environmental whistleblowers would be lauded as heroes.  But in China they pose a very real threat to the very stability of the CCP.  Until the U.S. and other world governments wise up to the connection between China’s human rights abuses and its environment, any agreements made are not likely to produce measurable results. (Read more after the jump)

I was saddened this morning to read (via China Rights Lawyers Concern Group) about how human rights lawyer Jiang Tianyong was dragged away from his home by four plainclothes Public Security Bureau officers in front of his crying daughter yesterday.  Jiang was here in Washington last week, courageously testifying in front of Congress on human rights violations associated with China’s One Child Policy and his experience defending blind rights advocate Chen Guangcheng.  Other rights lawyers, including Li Fangping and Li Heping, have been either detained or put under heavy surveillance (ruanjin) for the duration of President Obama’s visit to China.

Rather than celebrating the development of rule of law, the CCP seems intent on systematically harassing and locking up the very individuals who represent the best hope for innovation and civil society development in China.   It’s happening outside the legal sector too.  Environmental whistleblower Sun Xiaodi and his daughter were jailed earlier this year for reporting a potentially devastating uranium leak from a decommissioned mine.  More recently, Zhao Lianhai, parent of one of the babies affected by the tainted milk scandal and organizer of a parents' group called the “Milk Powder Group,” was detained just a few days ago in Beijing.  Aside from reporting corruption and seeking increased accountability, what exactly is Sun and Zhao’s crime?  The CCP will no doubt argue that they were “endangering state security.” (Read more after the jump)

From a Southern Weekly article translated by Danwei.org, a story emerged this week about Feng Chongyi, a noted Chinese academic, who is suing Chinese customs for confiscating books he was trying to bring into the mainland.  Feng argued that because there’s no clear public list of banned materials, Customs had no right to confiscate his property.  Lawsuits like this haven’t been successful in the past, but it does bring up an interesting question:  Is what He Qinglian calls the “Fog of Censorship” preferable to a definitive list of banned materials? 

Most people probably think that there‘s a clear line between what’s allowed and what’s not in China today, but in fact that’s not the case.  Censorship is all over the map, and inconsistently applied.  For example, a blog post mentioning Tiananmen Square may squeeze through the censors on one blogging platform, but be rejected from another on grounds that it’s “too sensitive.” (Read More)

Reports emerged early this week about the latest in a series of suspicious deaths in Chinese prisons when a 30 year old man died from starvation after 49 days in a Beijing detention center.  Prison officials (pictured at right receiving an award for their "excellence") insist that the man refused to eat, but the case highlights the need for comprehensive reform of the Chinese judicial system. 

According to Reuters, "At least seven people have been beaten to death in detention centers in China in 2009, Chinese media reported following a public outcry after one detainee's death was attributed to a game of 'hide and seek'.

"Human rights organizations and activists have routinely documented deaths and torture in Chinese police custody as well as in the extra-judicial "reeducation through labor" system."

On Wednesday, the Laogai Museum was honored by a visit from His Holiness the Dalai Lama.  We were of course overjoyed, but at the same time disappointed that President Obama did not see fit to meet with the Dalai Lama at this time.  As we saw from the press this morning, the Chinese still kicked off about the fact that the “reviled” Dalai Lama received an award in Congress. 

Obama may have thought that by not meeting with the Dalai Lama before his upcoming trip to Beijing, he would somehow gain favor with the Chinese government on other issues.  In reality, they’ll leverage this decision by pressuring the Obama administration to lower the bar even further when it comes to human rights.  Back in the spring during her trip to Beijing, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said human rights would not be allowed to “interfere” with other strategic issues like climate change or the financial crisis.  But what good is a climate change agreement in a world where the Chinese government routinely imprisons environmental whistleblowers?  And what good is a Chinese-led solution to the global financial crisis without a free press to make sure that the financial sector is transparent?