Useful Links
News-English
News-Chinese
Human Rights
US Government
International NGO
US-Sino Organizations
Religious/Spiritual
Labor
Minority Nationalities
Tibet
Uyghur
Law Reform
Media Studies
Legal Resources
Academic
|
|
|
|
Human Rights and Rule of Law - News and
Analysis
Chinese Courts Use "Secrets" Law To Sentence Tibetan Online Authors to Imprisonment
January 21, 2010
Following the wave of mostly peaceful Tibetan protests that began in March 2008 in the Tibetan autonomous areas of China, Chinese authorities have taken measures to prevent Tibetans from providing information to other Tibetans about the protests, the suppression of the protests by security forces, and the government's continuing crackdown in Tibetan areas. Security and judicial officials sometimes use vaguely worded laws on "state secrets" to punish attempts to share such information. In what appear to be separate cases, a court in Gansu province sentenced two Tibetan men on November 12, 2009, to prison terms of 15 and 5 years for allegedly violating laws prohibiting the disclosure of "state secrets." According to non-governmental organization reports and an Internet blogger based in Beijing, the cases involved using the Internet to post Tibetan-language content about the reported deaths and imprisonment of Tibetan protesters. Commission staff have not observed any Chinese government or state-run media reports on either case.
In one case, on November 12, 2009, the Gannan (Kanlho) Intermediate People's Court, located in Gannan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture (TAP), Gansu province, sentenced Konchog Tsephel, a Tibetan man who co-founded a Web site on Tibetan arts and culture, to 15 years in prison for "disclosing state secrets," according to a November 16, 2009, International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) report. Information is not available about the Criminal Law (CL) statute under which the court convicted Konchog Tsephel. The maximum sentence that CL Article 398 provides for a person who "intentionally or negligently divulges state secrets" is 7 years, but Article 111 provides a 10-year minimum sentence for a person who "unlawfully supplies State secrets" to an organization or individual outside of China. Security officials detained Konchog Tsephel on February 26, 2009, when they "ransacked" his home and confiscated his computer, cell phone, and camera, the ICT report said. A Beijing-based Tibetan writer, Woeser (Oezer, Weise), described Konchog Tsephel in a December 19 Chinese-language blog entry as a "civil servant at the Machu [Maqu] county [Gannan TAP] Animal Husbandry Bureau" and commented on the basis of the charge against him.The accusations against him are connected to essays he published on his Web site about the protests in Tibet [in 2008], and related to information he disclosed to the outside world about the suppression of Tibetans during the protests and the detention of monks at monasteries by People's Armed Police, etc. These essays on his site have already been deleted. He is charged with "divulging state secrets." In the other case, the same court on the same day sentenced Kunga Tsayang, a Labrang Tashikhyil Monastery monk, to five years' imprisonment for "disclosing state secrets," according to a November 19 Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD) report. Kunga Tsayang hailed from Guoluo (Golog) TAP, Qinghai province, wrote essays under the pen name Gangnyi (son of snowland), and engaged in amateur photography. He had "traveled widely in Tibet and photographed the environmental degradation taking place on the Tibetan plateau and its impact on the people," the TCHRD report said, as well as worked with a Tibetan environmental protection group.
Although the Gannan court announced the verdicts for Konchog Tsephel and Kunga Tsayang on November 12, according to the ICT and TCHRD reports, Commission staff have not observed any reports explicitly linking the two men or stating that judicial authorities combined their cases. Both cases were tried in closed sessions, according to the ICT and TCHRD reports, and authorities denied Konchog Tsephel access to legal counsel, a source told ICT.
China's Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) establishes specific barriers to a defendant's access to justice when a case "involves state secrets." Article 96 of the CPL requires the suspect in such a case to obtain permission from the authorities who are investigating the case before a lawyer can be appointed to advise or represent the suspect. The CPL does not impose such an infringement on a suspect's access to legal counsel in other types of criminal cases. If the investigating authorities permit the appointment of a lawyer to advise and represent a suspect in a case alleged to involve "state secrets," Article 96 bars the suspect's lawyer from meeting with the suspect unless the authorities investigating the case grant the lawyer permission to do so. Article 152 of the CPL bars public access to trials "involving state secrets."
The Commission's 2009 Annual Report in Section II¡ªFreedom of Expression provides analysis of the impediments to justice and the rule of law facilitated by China's vague laws on "state secrets." For example, a box titled Proposed Revision to State Secrets Law on p. 66 includes the following information.- In June 2009, the National People's Congress (NPC) Standing Committee reviewed a draft revision of the PRC Law on Guarding State Secrets (State Secrets Law) and the NPC released the draft for public comment, but the proposed changes do not address abuses that occur under the current state secrets legal framework. Currently, the broad and vague definition of ''state secrets'' in Chinese law and regulations gives officials wide latitude to declare almost any information a state secret.
- [Police] can declare that a case involves state secrets to deny criminal defendants basic procedural rights, including access to counsel and an open trial. Citizens cannot challenge such a determination and officials may declare information a state secret retroactively.
The Tibetan writer Woeser assessed the allegation of "state secrets" violations in the cases of Konchog Tsephel and Kunga Tsayang in a November 27, 2009, Chinese-language blog entry that a Web site in Norway, Ny Tid (New Time), published in Norwegian on December 4 and in English on December 12.
During [2008's] "Tibet incident", [Konchog Tsephel and Kunga Tsayang] themselves witnessed how their fellow countrymen of their hometown determinedly took to the streets and voiced their opposition. The two writers revealed their aspirations and discussed facts on the internet, which then unexpectedly became the reason for them becoming criminals accused of jeopardising "state security" and revealing "state secrets". In other words, one could say that the country's action of using its power to suppress the violent behaviour of the opposing masses belongs to the category of secret which is often practiced but never spoken of.
See the Commission's 2009 Annual Report and Special Topic Paper: Tibet 2008-2009 for more information on the political imprisonment of Tibetans. See the 2009 Annual Report for more information on Chinese government use of "state secrets" provisions to undermine the rule of law. See the Commission's Political Prisoner Database for more information on Konchog Tsephel, Kunga Tsayang, and other political prisoners in China.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-12-09 ) |
Posted on: 2010-02-05 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=133098 |
Government Advances Civil Society-Related Reforms in Shenzhen
February 4, 2010
The Ministry of Civil Affairs and the southern city of Shenzhen signed an agreement in July 2009 that provides for certain reforms to the local administration of civil affairs. Among other reforms, the agreement calls for the development of community-based social organizations and the establishment of a regulatory system for charities.
The Ministry of Civil Affairs (MOCA) and the southern city of Shenzhen signed the Cooperation Agreement on Pushing Forward With Integrated Reforms to Civil Affairs Undertakings (Agreement) in July 2009, which promises to advance reforms to civil affairs. The Agreement calls for Shenzhen to "take the lead in experimenting with some of MOCA's major reform projects and measures." Please visit CECC¡¯s Virtual Academy for a full English translation of the Agreement.
Shenzhen, located immediately north of Hong Kong in the Pearl River Delta region of Guangdong province, was one of the first localities to be designated as a "special economic zone" by Deng Xiaoping in 1980. It is mainland China's richest city based on per capita GDP, according to an August 2008 China Daily report.
The July 2009 Agreement outlines 34 reforms in the area of civil affairs. Five of these 34 reforms are listed below:
- "strengthen the building of grassroots democracy, research the adoption of the documentation system and other methods, vigorously develop community-based social organizations, enhance the ability of communities to self-govern" (Item 4 in section of Agreement marked "Content of Agreement").
- "Unless other regulations specify otherwise, explore establishing a system whereby civil society organizations apply and register directly with the Ministry of Civil Affairs. The Ministry of Civil Affairs shall regard this as a point for observation, tracking, and research" (Item 11).
- "Ministry of Civil Affairs will consult with relevant departments regarding the transfer of administrative and registration jurisdiction over foreign foundations with representative offices in Shenzhen to the Shenzhen municipal government, authorize the city of Shenzhen to launch a pilot project regarding the registration and management of foundations, chambers of commerce, and trans-provincial trade associations" (Item 12).
- "promote the transfer of government functions for public services that social organizations are capable of undertaking, especially newly increased public services; government procurement services, delegation or contracting of responsibilities, and other methods can be adopted¡ª[in order to] support the provision of public services by social organizations" (Item 14).
- "accelerate the establishment of a legal incorporation management system for charitable organizations, increase the public creditability of charitable organizations, explore the creation of a system that can effectively link, and to a moderate degree separate, the collection, use, and supervision of charitable funds, [and] move forward on constructing the standardization of charitable groups" (Item 27).
Under existing national laws, civil society organizations are unable to apply for registration directly with MOCA. Instead, civil society organizations first must be approved by a sponsor organization, or "leading professional unit" (yewu zhuguan danwei), which generally are limited to certain government departments and government-approved organizations. (See Article 6, Rules and Regulations on Social Organizations.) As noted in the CECC 2009 Annual Report, the requirement that civil society organizations first be approved by a sponsor organization before applying for registration with MOCA contravenes a clause of Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that governments shall place no restrictions on the freedom of association other than those "¡which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others¡"
For more information on civil society and non-governmental organizations in China, see Section III¡ªCivil Society (pp. 203-207) in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2010-01-21 ) |
Posted on: 2010-02-05 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=135081 |
Shenzhen Authorities Issue Circular Outlining Punishments for "Abnormal Petitioning"
February 3, 2010
China's petitioning system (xinfang - "letters and visits") permits citizens to seek redress for grievances by submitting petitions directly to Party and government authorities. In November 2009, local government entities in Shenzhen reportedly issued a circular that identified 14 types of prohibited "abnormal petitioning" behavior and corresponding punishments. Some observers have alleged that Shenzhen officials overstepped their authority by including specific provisions in the circular that are broader in scope than those found in relevant national regulations, and that may impose unlawful restrictions on citizens' rights to freedom of person. According to Chinese law, administrative penalties that restrict freedom of person may be established only through legislation passed by the National People's Congress or the National People's Congress Standing Committee.
Shenzhen's Intermediate People's Court, Procuratorate, Public Security Bureau, and Justice Bureau reportedly jointly issued in November 2009 the "Circular Regarding the Lawful Handling of Abnormal Petitioning Behavior," (Circular) according to a November 13 Xinhua article. The Circular identified 14 types of "abnormal" petitioning behavior that would be subject to disciplinary action, according to the Xinhua article. As of January 20, 2010, while reports of the Circular and its contents have appeared widely on line and in the state-run media, the Circular itself does not appear to be publicly available. In a drive initiated by the mainland citizen group Civil Rights and Livelihood Watch, over 1,000 people signed an open letter demanding the repeal of the Circular, according to a December 1 Boxun article. According to an article on the Shenzhen Public Security Bureau Web Site dated November 11 (via the Shenzhen City Government Web site), among the types of behaviors the Circular reportedly defines as "abnormal" and links to the "disruption of public order" are the following: "chanting slogans," "raising banners," "wearing clothes upon which grievances are written," "displaying petition statements," "handing out information on petitioning," and "holding sit-ins."
The range of behaviors identified in the Shenzhen circular as prohibited is broader than the range prohibited by the national-level State Council Regulations on Letters and Visits (2005), according to the Xinhua article. Articles 18-20 of the State Council Regulations on Letters and Visits outline the limitations on petitioner behavior and disallow petitioners from harming "the interests of the State, society or the collective," "infringing upon the lawful rights of other citizens," and committing six types of acts, including "disrupting public order." The punishments outlined in the Shenzhen circular reportedly are more severe than those outlined in the national-level State Council Regulations on Letters and Visits (Articles 47 and 48), according to an article posted by a lawyer at the Guangdong Huashang Law Firm on the Beijing Law Information Net Web site. One mainland Chinese Academy of Social Sciences scholar who has researched China's petitioning system points out in his blog that the circular does not make the behaviors "illegal" but prohibits them by calling them "abnormal." He considers the circular's expanded list of prohibited behaviors as an "arbitrary interpretation that exceeds authority and has no basis."
Public discussions of the Shenzhen circular have included questions regarding the use of the document as a basis for legal action, according to a Global Times article (via People's Daily). The Circular reportedly outlines the following specific punishments for persons deemed by authorities to be guilty of "abnormal petitioning." For cases in which "abnormal petitioning" behavior persists, punishments are to be applied in the following sequence, according to a November 12 Guangzhou Daily article:
(1) advise a first-time offender against "abnormal petitioning" and inform them that the next time, they will be given a "disciplinary warning"
(2) penalize with a "disciplinary warning" (jinggao chufa)
(3) punish through "administrative detention" (xingzheng juliu)
(4) send to "reeducation through labor" (laodong jiaoyang) according to relevant reeducation through labor (RTL) rules and regulations.
Authorities may pursue criminal liability according to relevant laws if they think ongoing behavior constitutes a crime.
Chen Tao, a member of the criminal law committee of the government-controlled Beijing Lawyer's Association reportedly stated that, while some clauses of the Circular would help to regulate petitioning, it is primarily a document to be used for reference, and not as a foundation for law enforcement, according to the Global Times article. The article posted on the Beijing Law Information Net points out that the four issuing entities do not possess the same legislative authority that the local people's congresses and local people's congress standing committees in special economic zones and larger cities enjoy; nor do they have interpretive authority. At most, government administrative entities may make concrete operational suggestions regarding the implementation of legislation, according to the article. In addition, for the intermediate people's court and the procuratorate to become involved in administrative action too early would be tantamount to stripping away procedures for supervision and redress, also according to the same article. The Xinhua article points out that locally established rules may not contradict laws or administrative regulations, and that local rules may not deprive citizens of their rights or restrict freedom of person. According to the article, this can only be done through legislation passed by the National People's Congress (NPC) or the NPC Standing Committees. Article 9 of the PRC Administrative Punishment Law states that "Administrative penalty involving restriction of freedom of person shall only be created by law." Article 7 states that "[w]here an illegal act constitutes a crime, criminal responsibility shall be investigated in accordance with law; no administrative penalty shall be imposed in place of criminal penalty."
The Shenzhen circular is not the first to identify a broad scope of prohibited behaviors or to outline detention and RTL penalties for citizens who allegedly engage in "abnormal petitioning." A November 13 Financial Times article reported that petitioners from across China contacted by the paper said that they had been warned that if local officials determined their petitions were "abnormal" they could be sent to labor camps. On July 15, 2008, the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region People's Procuratorate and Public Security Department jointly issued a document regarding the handling of "abnormal petitioning" behavior by people from the province who travelled to Beijing to air their grievances, according to a November 13 Boxun article (with a picture of the Inner Mongolia circular). Clauses 4-8 of the Inner Mongolia circular contain wording similar to the Shenzhen circular regarding the specific punishments petitioners may face for engaging in petitioning behavior local officials determine to be "abnormal," according to the article.
An official at the National "Letters and Visits (Xinfang) Bureau reportedly stated that survey results show 80 percent or more of citizens' petitions could be resolved at the local level and 80 percent are reasonable and involve real difficulties and problems that should be resolved, according to the Xinhua article. Citizens resort to "abnormal petitioning" due to obstacles that block normal access to channels for asserting their interests, according to the Xinhua article. The article asserts that, "some local governments still do not govern according to law; they may abuse their official authority, or even be in collusion with business or be shielding one another." Also according to the Xinhua article, officials in some locations see petitions as "trouble" and petitioners as "elements of instability." They "do not hesitate to allocate man power, material resources, and financial resources; utilize various methods; buy off; rope in by any means; hoodwink; or go so far as to beat or persecute petitioners" that could influence their "political points" or political career.
For additional information on petitioning (xinfang) in China, see Section III¡ªAccess to Justice (p. 238) in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2010-01-20 / English) |
Posted on: 2010-02-05 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=134999 |
All-China Women's Federation Proposes, Highlights Need for Draft Anti-Domestic Violence Legislation
February 2, 2010
The All-China Women's Federation announced in November 2009 a proposal for national anti-domestic violence legislation and called for the draft legislation to be included on the National People's Congress legislative agenda. China currently does not have specific anti-domestic violence legislation in place at the national level, leaving unclear both the definition of domestic violence and the responsibilities of various government departments and social organizations in preventing and curbing domestic violence. Treatment of domestic violence cases, therefore, varies by locality and by government entity.
On November 25, 2009, the 10th Annual International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, an official from the Party-controlled All-China Women's Federation (ACWF) announced that it had drafted proposed legislation on preventing and curbing domestic violence. The group will continue to develop the legislation and submit it to the National People's Congress, according to a November 28 Women's Watch-China (WWC) article.
The ACWF was not the first organization to put forward draft legislation. According to a November 18, 2002, Xinhua report, the China Law Society had submitted proposed anti-domestic violence legislation at a symposium the previous week. The two proposals overlap in several areas, according to a November 26, 2009, People's Daily article, which described provisions as including: a clear definition of domestic violence, clear assignment of the government's responsibility in domestic violence prevention and treatment, clear specification of what constitutes "societal aid" and "administrative interference," clear specification of the content that should be used in civil protection orders (or personal safety protection measures), new consideration for "judicial protection," and "breakthroughs in legal responsibility."
The draft anti-domestic violence legislation comes at a time when, according to a March 2009 Xinhua report (via China Daily), the problem of domestic violence is escalating and poses a "severe threat to women's rights in China." Jiang Yue'e, head of the ACWF's rights and interests department warned in this report that "conjugal violence has grown into a potential threat to social stability." ACWF statistics cited in the WWC article reveal that the ACWF receives 50,000 domestic violence complaints annually. This is an increase over the reported 40,000 per year from 2005 to 2007 and up from 20,000 in 2000 as reported in a 2008 CECC analysis. The November 28 WWC article also reported that, of the 50,000 domestic violence complaints reaching the ACWF system annually, the number of cases involving the wounding, crippling, and even killing of victims is beginning to rise. In addition, victims are beginning to report complaints of emotional abuse and sexual violence, according to the article. ACWF statistics cited in a November 27 People's Daily report disclose that domestic violence occurs in nearly 30 percent of China's 270 million households.
Despite the reported prevalence and severity of the domestic violence problem in China, several hurdles continue to impede the progress of effective prevention and treatment. According to experts cited in a January 13, 2010, Radio Free Asia article, challenges in domestic violence prevention and treatment include reluctance on the part of public security organs, the procuratorate, and courts to "interfere" in what they consider to be internal affairs of the home; insufficiently open discussion in Chinese society about actions and behavior that constitute violence against women; and a judiciary that is not independent. The November 28 WWC article also states that different local governments' regulations and policy documents provide different definitions of domestic violence, presenting an additional barrier to dealing with domestic violence consistently across locales.
Several national-level laws contain provisions to regulate domestic violence, including the revised Marriage Law (April 2001), the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Women (as amended August 2005), the Criminal Law (as amended June 2006), the Public Security Administration Punishment Law (March 2006), and the Civil Procedure Law (revised October 2007). However, these laws do not clearly define domestic violence, assign clear and concrete legal responsibilities, or outline the roles of government departments and social organizations in prevention, punishment, and treatment, as reported in a 2008 CECC analysis and in the November 28 WWC report. Twenty-seven provincial-level jurisdictions now have specific anti-domestic violence regulations and policies in place; however, in the absence of national legislation, treatment of domestic violence issues varies by locality and government entity, according to the WWC report. On July 31, 2008, the ACWF and six other government organs (the Central Propaganda Department, the Supreme People's Court, and the Ministries of Public Security, Civil Affairs, Health, and Justice) jointly issued the Opinions on Preventing and Deterring Domestic Violence which appeared to increase the government's responsibility in handling domestic violence cases, as reported in the 2008 CECC analysis. However, advocates continue to express concern regarding the growing problem and to call for national legislation on domestic violence, as reported in the November 27, 2009, article and a January 12, 2010, People's Daily article.
At an All-China Women's Federation (ACWF) meeting that opened on January 11, 2010, Deputy Director and First Member of the Secretariat of the ACWF, Huang Qingyi, announced that the ACWF would strive for the inclusion of anti-domestic violence legislation into the national legislative agenda "as early as possible," according to the January 12 People's Daily article. The National People's Congress is scheduled to hold its third plenary session in March 2010, according to a December 28, 2009, CCTV Finance report. It is unclear whether proposed legislation on preventing and curbing domestic violence will be included on the agenda.
For more information on domestic violence in China, see Section II¡ªStatus of Women in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2010-01-20 / English) |
Posted on: 2010-02-05 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=134989 |
Chinese Official Calls Chinese Internet "Open" in Response to Google Issue
January 28, 2010
Google announced in mid-January 2010 that it would no longer censor its Chinese search engine. In response, the Chinese government said that Google must comply with Chinese laws and that the Internet in China is "open." Chinese censorship of the Internet, which prevents its citizens from accessing political and religious information that the Chinese government and Communist Party deem too sensitive for public consumption, violates international standards for free expression. The Google case also has raised the question whether Internet censorship in China constitutes trade protectionism.
The Chinese government responded to Google's unwillingness to continue censoring results on its Chinese search engine by saying that Google must comply with Chinese laws and that the Internet in China is "open." At a regularly scheduled press conference on January 19, 2010, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu said, "I wish to stress that the Internet in China is open and China supervises the Internet according to law." Ma added: "Foreign-invested enterprises in China should abide by China's laws and regulations, respect the interests, culture and traditions of the general public, and assume the corresponding social responsibilities. Google is no exception."
Ma's comments came in response to a question about Google's January 12 statement saying that Google and the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists had been subject to a cyber attack originating from China. Google did not say the Chinese government was responsible for the attack. The January 12 statement said that Google was reviewing its business operations in China and that it would no longer censor results on Google.cn, the search engine it created for the Chinese market: These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered¡ªcombined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web¡ªhave led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. Chinese laws and regulations place a legal burden on Internet companies to monitor content on the Web and censor information deemed unacceptable by the government. The 2000 Measures for the Administration of Internet Information Services prohibit providers of Internet information services from disseminating content that falls into any one of a number of vaguely worded categories, including information "harming the honor or the interests of the nation," "spreading rumors," or "disrupting national policies on religion" (Article 15). Companies that fail to remove such information on their Web sites risk a government order to close (Article 23). Thus, providers of Internet content and services in China routinely filter politically sensitive information from searches on topics such as the 1989 Tiananmen protests, Falun Gong, Tibet, Xinjiang, China's leaders, and Charter 08. (See pp. 60¨C61 of the CECC 2009 Annual Report.) In August 2009, for example, Google.cn and the domestic search engine Baidu reportedly blocked searches for Xu Zhiyong, the law professor and rights defender who had been detained on charges of tax evasion, according to an August 19, 2009, China Daily article.
The Chinese government¡¯s regulation of the Internet and other electronic communications violates international standards for free expression. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to "seek, receive and impart" information "of all kinds, regardless of frontiers," through any media of one's choice. Article 19 permits restrictions on this freedom, provided they are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, or public health or morals. Chinese government practices exceed these allowances, however, because their extensive censorship of the Internet and cell phones is not limited to the removal of content such as pornography, spam, or content deemed to violate intellectual property rights, but also political and religious content the government and Communist Party deem to be politically sensitive.
For more information on Internet censorship in China, see Access to Information¡ªCensorship of the Internet and Cell Phones starting on p. 58 of Section II¡ªFreedom of Expression in the CECC 2009 Annual Report. For background on Google's decision to create a local presence in China and the issue of trade protectionism raised by Google's recent move, click on "more" below.
Background on Google in China and the Issue of Trade Protectionism
Google has said previously that its decision to create a local presence in China through Google.cn, which it began in January 2006, was prompted by difficulty Chinese users encountered accessing its Google.com site which it operated outside of China¡ªdifficulty that in part was due to Internet service providers located in China censoring the Internet as mandated by Chinese government laws and policies. As explained in a prepared statement from Elliot Schrage, Google Vice President of Global Communications and Public Affairs, before a February 2006 hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affair Committee, in 2000 Google originally began with a Chinese language-version of Google.com but discovered that service to that site for Chinese users was "slow and unreliable." Schrage said:The cause of the slowness and unreliability appears to be, in large measure, the extensive filtering performed by China's licensed Internet Service Providers (ISPs). China's laws, regulations, and policies against illegal information apply not only to Internet content providers, but also to the ISPs. China has nine licensed international gateway data carriers, and many hundreds of smaller local ISPs. Each ISP is legally obligated to implement its own filtering mechanisms, leading to diverse and sometimes inconsistent outcomes across the network at any given moment. For example, some of Google's services appear to be unavailable to Chinese users nearly always, including Google News.... According to Schrage's 2006 prepared statement, the company decided that "a speedy, reliable Google.cn service will increase overall access to information for Chinese Internet users." To address censorship concerns, Google said that its Google.cn service would notify users when information had been removed from a search result. One observer has noted that Google censored its search results less thoroughly than Baidu censored its results; Baidu is a domestic Chinese company that holds more than twice the market share of Google, according to a January 18, 2010, Washington Post article. That article quoted Rebecca MacKinnon, Open Society fellow and co-founder of GlobalVoicesOnline.org, as saying "consistently, Baidu has censored politically sensitive search results much more thoroughly than Google.cn."
Google had been under particular fire from the Chinese government over the past year. In June 2009, Chinese officials ordered Google to stop linking to sites that officials said contained pornographic content, according to a June 19 Xinhua article. In March 2009, Google reported that its YouTube site was being blocked in China after a video purportedly showing Chinese police beating Tibetans appeared on the site, according to a March 24 New York Times article.
Some international observers question whether China's Internet censorship also amounts to trade protectionism. In a January 6, 2010, op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Fredrik Erixon and Hosuk Lee-Mayiyama, director and visiting fellow, respectively, of the European Centre for International Political Economy in Brussels, said: Online censorship has become a tool of industrial policy, effectively discriminating against foreign suppliers. The Chinese search engine Baidu has been untouched by the recent crackdown, despite producing similar search results to the blocked Google and Bing Web sites. There also have been reports that users entering Google's address in their browsers have been automatically rerouted to Baidu. Licensing requirements for Web sites help Beijing control the market share of companies like smaller private-sector travel agents or Internet-telephony companies like Skype that compete with larger Chinese companies with strong relationships to Beijing.
| Source: -See Summary (2010-01-20 ) |
Posted on: 2010-02-05 |
 |
more ... |
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=134968 |
China Issues Auto Stimulus Program to Boost the Auto Sector
February 4, 2010
In 2009, the Chinese government issued two important documents concerning China's policy on development of the auto industry. The first, the Program for the Adjustment and Rejuvenation of the Auto Industry, was issued in March and is discussed below. The second, issued in August and effective in September, was a revision to the 2004 Automotive Industry Development Policy, and is discussed in the accompanying CECC analysis, "China Revises 2004 Auto Policy." It is likely the Chinese government will continue to pass legislation and new regulatory measures to achieve the goals of these two documents.
Auto Stimulus Program
In March 2009, the Chinese government issued the Program for the Adjustment and Rejuvenation of the Auto Industry ("Auto Stimulus Program" or "Program," available in Chinese on the government Web site). Though the Program ostensibly was in response to the global financial crisis, Section I acknowledges that the financial crisis was merely an early trigger for the inevitable "structural adjustment" of the industry, as envisioned in the 2004 Policy. (See, e.g., the introductory paragraph and Part 4 of the 2004 Policy, available in Chinese on the Web site of the PRC National Development and Reform Commission.) The Auto Stimulus Program covers the period from 2009 to 2011 and, in a sense, is an accelerated, truncated form of auto policy. The government's "planned targets" in the Program are very detailed, with figures for growth in sales (10 million vehicles in 2009, and a 10-percent average growth over the next three years, as provided in Part 2, Article 3(i)), market share of autos with specified engine displacement (Part 2, Article 3(iii)), and percentage of vehicles that should be new-energy vehicles (5 percent, as provided in Part 2, Article 3(vi)).
The Program stipulates that the major players in the Chinese auto industry shall be reorganized into two or three large auto enterprise groups with production and sales of over 2 million units, and four to five groups with production and sales over 1 million units (Part 2, Article 3(iv)). The program also discusses the future roles of major companies in the sector, with First Automotive Works, Dongfeng Motor Corporation, Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation Group, and Chang'an Automotive engaging in national takeovers and reorganizations, and Beijing Automotive, Guangzhou Automotive, Chery, and Sinotruk doing so on a regional basis (Part 3, Article 2).
There are several provisions in the Auto Stimulus Program concerning technology, innovation, and development of Chinese brands, including that China should "achieve independence in technology for key parts" (Part 2, Article 3(viii)), and that Chinese companies should be the "main players" in product development and should establish strategic alliances within the industry, cooperating in production, teaching, and research" (Part 3, Article 3). It is not clear whether such strategic alliances, though made pursuant to Chinese government industrial policy, would be consistent with China's Antimonopoly Law. However, the Antimonopoly Law does allow considerable discretion in the case of significant state-owned companies. (See, e.g., the Antimonopoly Law, Article 7, concerning industries in the state-owned economy and Article 15 concerning exempted monopoly agreements.) The Program strongly supports the development of Chinese proprietary brands by formulating policies for development of technology (see, e.g., Part 2, Article 3 (v) to (viii), and Part 3, Articles 3 to 6), funding government procurement, and financing channels (Part 4), and providing support for auto companies to develop their brands through "independent development, joint development, mergers and acquisitions with domestic and foreign enterprises, and other means" (Part 3, Article 6). Chinese auto companies have been working actively toward the acquisition of foreign auto manufacturers, which would allow China to acquire foreign, cutting-edge technology. According to a December 14, 2009, Wall Street Journal report, Chinese state-owned automaker Beijing Automotive entered into an agreement in December 2009 to buy Saab's technology from GM, in a deal which will allow Beijing Auto to incorporate Saab technology into Beijing Auto's own cars. According to the report, a person familiar with the deal indicated that Chinese state-owned banks will finance parts of the acquisition. In addition, listed Chinese auto manufacturer Geely has agreed with Ford to acquire Volvo. According to a December 1 Wall Street Journal report, a person close to Geely has said that Geely has lined up loans from three large Chinese government-owned banks for a possible purchase of Volvo. According to a January 20, 2010, Sina report, Geely reached an agreement with Ford in December 2009 to buy Volvo Car Corporation from Ford. These purchases pave the way for China to "leapfrog" its technological development sufficiently to build Chinese brands in foreign markets, according to a December 14, 2009, report by the Associated Press (via Yahoo!).
Part 4 of the Program provides for several government subsidies to support the auto industry, including:
- Subsidies for farmers to buy minivans or light goods vehicles (Article 2),
- Subsidies for scrapping old vehicles (Article 3),
- Allocation of 10 billion yuan from the central government for development of technology (Article 9), and
- Subsidies for a national fuel-efficient and new-energy vehicle demonstration project (Article 10).
The Program calls for a number of additional measures for various government departments, at the central to local level, to support the industry and to work to achieve the goals of the Program.
Future Developments
Reports on the growth of auto sales in China indicate that China's measures to stimulate domestic consumption are working, with sales up by 46 percent from the previous year, to 13.6 million vehicles, according to a January 12, 2010, Wall Street Journal report. The Auto Stimulus Program was set to expire at the end of January 2010, but Xinhua reported on December 12, 2009, that the Chinese government has decided to extend the program for an additional year, with some minor adjustments. There are indications that the Chinese government will continue to pass legislation and new measures to achieve the goals of these two documents. For example, the State Council issued the 2010 Measures for the Adjustment and Perfection of Economic Policy in December 2009. The measures, as reported in Chinese in Xinhua, provide in part for extension and expansion of certain subsidies and programs supporting the auto industry.
| Source: -See Summary (2010-01-21 ) |
Posted on: 2010-02-05 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=135079 |
Number of Trials for State Security Crimes in Xinjiang Increases in 2009
February 2, 2010
The number of trials involving crimes of endangering state security increased in 2009 in the far western region of Xinjiang. Such crimes can carry harsh criminal sentences and have been used across China to punish peaceful activism and dissent. The figures from Xinjiang come from a year marked by unrest in the region, but none of the trials that took place in October and December 2009 that were connected to the suppressed demonstration and rioting in July has involved crimes of endangering state security. In recent months, Xinjiang authorities have reported taking steps to increase security in the region, targeting acts including those alleged to be state security crimes.
Courts in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) completed trials for 437 cases involving crimes of endangering state security (ESS) in 2009, representing a sharp increase in such cases from the previous year, based on information from XUAR media and as reported in a previous Congressional-Executive Commission on China analysis. Rozi Ismail, head of the XUAR High People's Court, provided the figure in his January 14 work report at the XUAR People's Congress and reported that 255 people had been sentenced to prison terms of 10 years or more for ESS crimes, according to a January 15 Chinese-language Xinhua article. Crimes of ESS (also translated as "endangering national security") are defined in articles 102-113 of the PRC Criminal Law to include acts such as splitting the state, subversion, espionage, and armed rebellion. Many of the ESS crimes carry the possibility of life imprisonment and capital punishment. In a March 10, 2006, report (searchable by date on the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Web site) based on visits to China, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment noted that the "vague definition of [ESS crimes] leaves their application open to abuse particularly of the rights to freedom of religion, speech, and assembly," and recommended the abolition of such "political crimes." For more information on cases of people charged with ESS crimes, see the CECC Political Prisoner Database and several recent CECC analyses (1, 2, 3, 4). Rozi Ismail also reported that many of the ESS crimes in the XUAR were terrorism related, according to a January 15 English-language Xinhua report. As noted in the CECC 2009 Annual Report (page 246), XUAR authorities reported in 2009 on detecting terrorist cells and preventing terrorist attacks in the region, but provided limited details on the events.
The 2009 ESS figures from the XUAR come from a year marked by unrest in the region and represent an increase of 169 cases over the previous year, though none of the ESS figures appears to come from trials connected to the suppressed demonstration and rioting in July (see discussion below). As reported in a previous CECC analysis, in 2008, courts in the XUAR completed trials in a total of 268 ESS cases. Based on available data on ESS crimes nationwide and limited information on previous ESS cases in the XUAR, the number in 2008 appeared to represent an increase over previous years.
The January 15 Chinese-language Xinhua article noted that XUAR courts had handled three batches of cases related to the July 2009 unrest, but did not connect the trials to the 2009 ESS figures. A July 18 article from the Legal Daily, citing legal experts from the XUAR, had reported that suspects' alleged crimes related to events in July fell into five categories, including endangering state security, and included over 20 suspected crimes, including separatism and armed rebellion. Based on information reported by Chinese media, however, none of the trials that took place in October and December 2009 that were connected to the suppressed demonstration and rioting in July has involved ESS crimes. See recent CECC analyses (1, 2, 3) for additional information on the trials. The XUAR public security department said on January 18 that public security offices in the XUAR would increase the strength of their work in handling cases connected to events in July and in capturing criminals still at large, according to a January 19 Xinhua report.
In recent months, XUAR authorities have reported taking steps to increase security in the region, targeting acts including ESS crimes. The XUAR government allotted 2.89 billion yuan (US$423 million) for public security spending in its 2010 budget proposal, an increase of 87.9 percent over the previous year, according to information in a January 13 China Daily article, January 14 Tianshan Net report, and January 17 China Xinjiang report (noting that the XUAR People's Congress passed the 2010 budget). In Urumqi, authorities said they would increase the number of 24-hour surveillance cameras in the city to 60,000 by the end of 2010, according to a January 15 China News Net report. As of the end of November 2009, the city had installed 46,953 cameras in the city, according to the report. On December 29, the XUAR People's Congress Standing Committee made revisions to the region's Regulation for the Comprehensive Management of Social Order, effective February 1, that place prominence on "striking hard" against ESS crimes, an emphasis missing from the earlier version of the regulation. (For mention of ESS crimes in the recently revised regulation, see Articles 5, 11, 16, 25, 31, and 42.) In addition, Rozi Ismail announced in his work report that courts in the XUAR "have taken safeguarding state security and social stability as their most important and imminent task," with "striking hard against crimes of endangering state security and violent terrorism as the utmost political task," according to a paraphrasing of his remarks in the January 15 Chinese-language Xinhua article. XUAR government chairperson Nur Bekri reiterated government pledges to uphold stability in the region in his 2010 work report at the regional people's congress, according to a copy of his report posted January 18 on Tianshan Net. At a December 18 national meeting on security in China, Yang Huanning, Vice Minister of the Ministry of Public Security, called for increased steps to maintain stability in the XUAR and in Tibet, according to a copy of the remarks published in the Legal Daily (via Qinghai Peace Net, December 28). Zhou Yongkang, Standing Committee member of the Communist Party Central Committee Politburo, described at a meeting on January 26 plans for a central work forum on the XUAR to address the region's development and stability, according to a Xinhua report (via Tianshan Net, January 28). Combating "'Xinjiang independence' separatist forces" will be the most important issue at the central work forum, according to a January 24 report from Ta Kung Pao.
For more information on conditions in the XUAR, see Section IV-Xinjiang in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2010-01-15 / English) |
Posted on: 2010-02-05 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=134666 |
Liu Xiaobo Appeals Sentence; Official Abuses Mar Case From Outset
January 21, 2010
Prominent intellectual Liu Xiaobo submitted an appeal of his 11-year sentence to the Beijing High People's Court on December 29, 2009. The court will have until mid-February to make its decision, although a ruling could come at any time. As detailed below, Liu was sentenced on Christmas Day 2009 for his peaceful use of the Internet to advocate for political reforms and human rights. Liu argued in his appeal that he was exercising his constitutional right to free speech and that the court should have credited his more than six months under "residential surveillance" toward his time served.
Prominent intellectual Liu Xiaobo submitted an appeal of his 11-year sentence to the Beijing High People's Court on December 29, 2009, according to a January 4, 2010, New York Times (NYT) article. Article 196 of the PRC Criminal Procedure Law gives the high court until mid-February (one and a half months after accepting an appeal) to make its decision, although a ruling could come any time before then. Article 196 also allows the high court to extend its time to decide a case by an additional month, but only under special circumstances.
Freedom of Expression
Liu's main argument on appeal is that he was exercising his constitutional right to free speech and therefore committed no crime, according to one of Liu's lawyers, Shang Baojun, in an interview with Radio France Internationale (RFI) published on January 5, 2010. The Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court earlier found Liu guilty of "inciting subversion of state power" (a crime under Article 105, Paragraph 2, of the PRC Criminal Law). The court, citing six essays Liu wrote and his participation in Charter 08, a document calling for political reform and human rights, said that Liu had incited subversion by publishing "slanderous articles online." The court emphasized that Liu had taken advantage of the special features of the Internet, including the medium's "rapid transmission of information, broad reach, great social influence, and high degree of public attention." The court cited specific passages in Charter 08, which was circulated online, and Liu's essays that were critical of the Communist Party and supportive of democracy, and concluded without further explanation that the words amounted to slander or incitement. The court provided no evidence that Liu advocated violence in his works. Without explaining how the court distinguished words protected as free speech and words constituting incitement of subversion, the court concluded that "Liu Xiaobo's actions have obviously exceeded the freedom of speech category and constitute a crime." Human Rights in China has published an English translation of the trial court's December 25 judgment.
In his interview with RFI, Shang echoed a common concern of defense lawyers handling free speech cases in China, which is the lack of any authoritative guidance on when speech crosses the line from protected speech under Article 35 of the Constitution to the crime of inciting subversion under Article 105 of the Criminal Law. (Other recent cases where Chinese defense lawyers have raised the same concern include those of earthquake activist Tan Zuoren and land rights activist Yang Chunlin). Shang suggested that the court look to international documents for guidance, including the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, which were endorsed by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression at several sessions of the UN Commission on Human Rights in the late 1990s and 2001. The Johannesburg Principles provide that expression may be punished as a threat to national security only if a government can demonstrate that the expression is intended to incite imminent violence or is likely to incite such violence. Shang told RFI that Liu's essays advocated non-violence and posed no imminent danger. He said that no acts of violence had resulted from anyone reading Liu's essays.
The Chinese government's application of its subversion provisions, which fall under the category of crimes that endanger national security, violates international human rights standards. Both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 19) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 29) require that any restriction on free expression be limited to that which is "necessary" to protect national security, or "solely for the purpose of" protecting national security. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has said that the vague wording of China¡¯s national security crimes leaves their application open to abuse of freedom of speech (March 2006 report searchable by date on the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Web site). A 2008 study of "inciting subversion" cases by the human rights non-governmental organization Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) found that "speech in and of itself is interpreted as constituting incitement of subversion" and that "anything from calling for an end to one-party rule to criticizing corruption has been construed as 'inciting subversion of state power.'" For a summary of the content of the six essays by Liu cited in the trial court opinion, see a previous CECC analysis.
De Facto Detention Under "Residential Surveillance" Not Counted Toward Time Served
According to the January 4 NYT article, Liu argued on appeal that the trial court should have counted the more than six months he served under "residential surveillance" from December 9, 2008, to June 23, 2009, toward his 11-year sentence. Article 47 of the Criminal Law provides that time "held in custody" prior to a judgment shall count toward time served, but does not specify whether "residential surveillance" is considered being "held in custody." In the absence of clear guidance on this issue, courts in China have ruled both ways on whether residential surveillance should be counted, according to a September 8, 2009, op-ed in the Procuratorial Daily written by an employee of a prosecutor's office in Jiangsu province. In what appears to be a commentary from a district-level court in Chongqing municipality posted on the Chongqing Courts Web site on August 17, 2009, the court was considering whether time that a convicted drug dealer spent under "residential surveillance" at a drug rehabilitation clinic prior to his sentencing should be credited toward his sentence as time served. The drug dealer forcibly was confined to the rehabilitation clinic during this time. The commentary cited the 1984 Supreme People's Court Reply Regarding the Question of Whether the Period of Residential Surveillance in Accordance With Law Can Be Set Off Against Prison Term, which stated that residential surveillance, if applied legally, is not a "complete restriction" on personal freedom (criminal suspects may, for example, leave their domicile with permission), and as such should not count toward time served. The reply further noted, however, that there may be situations where authorities claim they are holding a person under "residential surveillance" but in essence are "completely restricting" the suspect's personal freedom. The reply found this was the case when authorities confined a suspect in a detention house but claimed it was "residential surveillance." In applying this rule, the Chongqing court commentary found that the drug dealer's personal freedom had been "completely restricted" by being forcibly held at a drug rehabilitation clinic and that the time should therefore count against his sentence.
Based on public reports on the conditions of Liu's "residential surveillance," it would appear that his personal freedom was "completely restricted." Instead of being confined to his home in Beijing, which Chinese law would appear to require, Liu was taken to a secret location. There is no indication that he was allowed any opportunity to leave, and officials restricted Liu's access to his lawyer, in violation of legal provisions allowing suspects under residential surveillance to meet with their lawyer without official permission. Moreover, officials kept Liu under this form of "residential surveillance" beyond the six-month legal limit, before formally arresting him on June 23, 2009. In early June, Liu's lawyer at the time, noted defense attorney Mo Shaoping, told Agence France-Presse that "basically, [Liu's] entire residential surveillance has not conformed with laws and regulations."
Following Liu's arrest, officials continued to ignore legal protections for suspects and defendants and to make it difficult for Liu to mount his defense.
- Liu was denied the right to hire the attorney of his choice. After Liu's arrest, officials barred Mo Shaoping from representing Liu because Mo was a fellow signatory of Charter 08.
- Liu's defense attorneys were denied the right to present their opinions to prosecutors before the indictment was issued, as required by law, and were not given adequate time to prepare for trial.
- Officials barred Liu's wife and foreign diplomats from attending the December 23 trial, according to a December 25 CHRD report.
- Judges reportedly limited Liu's defense lawyers to less than 20 minutes to present their arguments for Liu's innocence, according to the December 25 CHRD report. The report also said that the presiding judge cut Liu off while he was delivering his prepared statement, preventing him from finishing his remarks.
- No witnesses appeared in court, a common occurrence in China. Most criminal cases proceed solely on the basis of written witness statements for the prosecution, leaving the defense with no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and challenge such statements. (See p. 106 of the CECC 2009 Annual Report.) According to the trial court judgment, there were 11 witnesses for the prosecution, including Liu's wife. The other 10 were human rights activists who allegedly participated in Charter 08. At least one witness has denied making the statements that the prosecution had attributed to him. In a December 25 statement published on CHRD's Web site, prominent intellectual Zhang Zuhua said he never told police that Liu had published Charter 08 on overseas Web sites, pointing out that both he and Liu had been apprehended by authorities before the charter was released online. "How could I have said that 'Liu Xiaobo posted Charter 08 on foreign Web sites'? Clearly, this characterization has no basis," Zhang said. Another witness, human rights defender Teng Biao, said in a December 26 essay (via Boxun) that the statements from his police interrogation cited in the court judgment were not relevant since he had never mentioned Liu Xiaobo. Teng noted that in his experience authorities often cited family and friends as witnesses not for evidentiary purposes, but rather to sow discord among them and to raise suspicions about the moral character and integrity of the "witnesses."
Selected Responses From Chinese and International Community to Liu's Case and Recent Verdict - "We Are Willing To Share Responsibility with Liu Xiaobo" (December 10 statement from Chinese citizens who co-drafted or signed Charter 08, via Independent Chinese Pen Center)
- Online Yellow Ribbon Campaign (see December 23 Radio Free Asia article)
- "The Dirtiest of Political Trials" (December 23 statement by Ding Zilin, leader of the Tiananmen Mothers, translated by Human Rights in China)
- U.S. State Department (December 24 Statement by Mark Toner, Acting Spokesman) - "[W]e call on the Government of China to release him immediately and to respect the rights of all Chinese citizens to peacefully express their political views."
- UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay (December 25 Remarks via UN News Centre) - "The conviction and extremely harsh sentencing of Liu Xiaobo mark a further severe restriction on the scope of freedom of expression in China."
- European Union Presidency (Undated Statement on the Sentencing of Liu Xiaobo) - "The verdict against Mr Liu gives rise to concern with respect to freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial in China."
- Former Czech President Vaclev Havel (January 6 Letter to Chinese President Hu Jintao, which Havel attempted to deliver to Chinese Embassy in Prague, as reprinted in the Washington Post) - "There is nothing subversive to state security or damaging to future prosperity when citizens act guided by their own will and according to their best knowledge and conscience, when they associate among themselves to discuss and express peacefully their concerns and visions about the future development of their society."
- Joint Statement by CECC Chairman Byron Dorgan and Cochairman Sander Levin (December 23)
| Source: -See Summary (2010-01-14 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2010-02-05 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=134546 |
Jiangsu Court Affirms 10-Year Sentence of Guo Quan for Organizing Political Party Online
January 21, 2010
In December 2009, the Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court affirmed a lower court's 10-year sentence of former professor and past member of the state-approved China Democratic League, Guo Quan, after he attempted to organize the "China New Democracy Party" and used the Internet to seek members and disseminate his political views. The appellate court did not open its proceedings to the public and waited beyond the 45-day limit provided under Chinese law before handing down its decision. Chinese citizens who attempt to form independent political parties and use the Internet to organize and peacefully express their opposition to the Communist Party frequently are targeted for harassment, detention, and imprisonment by the Chinese government. In addition, abuses in the Chinese criminal justice system frequently deny criminal defendants¡ªparticularly in politically sensitive cases¡ªa fair trial.
On December 22, 2009, the Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court upheld the 10-year sentence against Guo Quan, formerly a university professor and past member of the state-approved China Democratic League, according to a copy of the court's judgment published by Boxun on January 4, 2010. In October, the Suqian Intermediate People's Court in Jiangsu handed down the sentence, which also included three years' deprivation of political rights, finding that Guo used the Internet to organize an "illegal" political party called the "China New Democracy Party," recruited members for the party, published numerous "reactionary" articles online, called for a seven-day stay-at-home boycott of the government, and sought to "overthrow" the socialist system. For these alleged activities, the court found Guo guilty of subversion, a crime under Article 105, Paragraph 1 of the PRC Criminal Law. The trial court emphasized Guo's interactions with other individuals in seeking their membership in the China New Democracy Party, and his calls for an end to one-party rule and civil disobedience, but cites no instance of Guo advocating violence.
On appeal, the Jiangsu High People's Court did not open a court session to hear the case and waited beyond the 45-day limit provided under Chinese law before handing down its decision, according to a December 23, 2009, Radio Free Asia (RFA) article. According to Article 187 of the PRC Criminal Procedure Law (CPL), an appellate court shall "open a court session to hear a case of appeal" and may decide not to open a court session only "if after consulting the case file, interrogating the defendant and heeding the opinions of the other parties, defenders and agents ad litem, the collegial panel thinks the criminal facts are clear." According to the RFA article, Guo's lawyers had argued to the court to open its proceedings. One of the lawyers, Cheng Hai, told RFA: "According to [Chinese] criminal law requirements, under normal conditions a session should be opened in an [appeal], because the point of the [appeal] is to review the legality of the original decision. Only if the facts are very clear, and only after the opinions of the parties and lawyers have been solicited can a court session not be opened. But the problem is that the dispute in this case is very large." The RFA article also noted that the appellate court accepted the case on November 2 but that a month and three weeks had passed without a decision. Under Article 196 of the CPL, the appellate court "shall conclude the trial of the case within one month, or one and a half months at the latest" from the date the case is accepted. Article 196 allows for a further one-month extension upon approval of the high people's court.
The trial court earlier had relied on procedural postponements to delay its verdict against Guo until October 16, 2009, after celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1. The case of another Chinese citizen who has called for greater democracy and human rights in China¡ªthat of prominent intellectual Liu Xiaobo¡ªalso has been marred by abuses in the criminal justice system. Liu appealed his 11-year sentence for inciting subversion on December 29, 2009, and is awaiting a decision.
For more information on Guo and Liu, please see their records of detention, searchable through the Congressional-Executive Commission on China's (CECC) Political Prisoner Database. For more information on how Chinese officials use the criminal charge of subversion or inciting subversion to punish citizens who express opposition to the Communist Party, see pp. 46-47 of the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2010-01-11 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2010-02-05 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=134265 |
Trials Continue in Xinjiang, Press Reportedly Warned Against Independent Reporting
January 27, 2010
A court in the far western region of Xinjiang handed down the death penalty to 10 people—5 with a two-year reprieve—and sentenced 12 others to prison terms in late December after finding them guilty of committing crimes during unrest in Xinjiang in July. The court reportedly gave one-day notice of some of the trials, in violation of Chinese law, and warned journalists who attended the trials not to report extensively on the event. The same court tried 13 more people in late January, sentencing 5 to death—1 with a two-year reprieve—and others to prison terms. The late December and January trials follow trials in October and early December also connected to events in July, and the sentences from those trials since have been upheld. The trials have been marked by violations of international standards for due process including judges selected for "political reliability" and curbs on independent legal defense.
Following the forceful police suppression of a demonstration by Uyghurs on July 5 and outbreaks of violence starting that day in Urumqi, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), the Urumqi Intermediate People's Court held trials on December 22 and 23 for 22 people accused of committing crimes in July, according to reports from Chinese and overseas media. The court found the defendants, who were involved in a total of five cases, guilty of crimes including intentional homicide and robbery, sentencing five to death, five to death with a two-year reprieve, eight to life in prison, and four to prison sentences between 12 and 15 years, according to a December 24 report from the Xinjiang Daily (via Bingtuan Net). Based on the names provided in the article, all of the people sentenced appear to be Uyghur. The report noted that seven of the defendants had committed the crimes "after participating in the illegal demonstration," an example of limited acknowledgment by officials that a "demonstration" took place on July 5 in addition to violent activity. Authorities initiated prosecution against the 22 people and 1 other person, involved in a total of six cases, on December 12, according to a Tianshan Net report (via Xinhua's Bingtuan Net, December 14). The Xinjiang Daily article did not discuss the status of the 23 person involved in the sixth case. On January 25, the Urumqi Intermediate People's Court tried 13 more people involved in five cases, sentencing 4 to death, 1 to death with a two-year reprieve, and the remaining defendants to prison terms including life imprisonment, according to a January 26 Xinjiang Daily report (via Xinhua). The January report did not provide detailed information on the trial and listed the names of only six of the defendants, all of whom appeared to be Uyghur. The late December and January trials follow trials in the Urumqi Intermediate People's Court in October and early December, also connected to events in July.
A report from an overseas newspaper, The Australian, indicates that authorities attempted to limit information on the late December trials. While the December 24 Xinjiang Daily article said that the trials were open to the public and attended by various spectators including the media, journalists present at one day of the trials, who were cited in a December 23 article from The Australian, said that authorities told them "not to write detailed reports or conduct their own investigations into the murders or the accused," according to a paraphrasing of their remarks. The journalists also said they were notified of the trials less than one day in advance, according to the report. Under Article 151(5) of the PRC Criminal Procedure Law, courts shall announce trials involving public prosecutions three days in advance. The controls over journalists' activities accompany broader measures in the XUAR to curb the free flow of information about events in July by blocking Web sites and limiting Internet access, international phone calls, and text messaging. Authorities announced in late December that they gradually would begin to lift the restrictions. (See, e.g., a December 28 announcement from the XUAR government information office, via Bingtuan Net, December 29, and December 30 China Daily report). As of mid-January, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) found that many Web sites from the XUAR remained inaccessible to users outside the region. A January 18 China Daily article reported that most sites from the region also remained blocked to users there, while authorities had restored limited text messaging and international phone service. While the national state-run media agency Xinhua had provided English-language reports on the earlier trials, English-language reporting on the late December and January trials appears absent from Xinhua and other Chinese media agencies. For overseas reporting on the trials based on information provided by the XUAR government and state-run media, see, e.g., a December 24 New York Times article, December 24 Reuters report, and January 26 Reuters report.
As noted in a previous CECC analysis, trials connected to the July events have been marked by violations of international standards for due process, including judges selected for "political reliability" and curbs on independent legal defense. As in the case of reports on the earlier trials, the December 24 Xinjiang Daily article reported that lawyers hired by the defendants or appointed by the court presented defense arguments at the late December trials. (The report on the January trial did not include information on legal defense.) The information on the late December trials follows news, however, that authorities in the XUAR and elsewhere had restricted lawyers' defense activities and clients' right to have independent counsel, calling into question the nature of the legal defense during the December trials and earlier court hearings. See previous CECC analyses (1, 2) for details. Recent remarks from Rozi Ismail, head of the XUAR High People's Court, underscore politicization in the judiciary and the influence of the high court over lower courts, further calling into question the likelihood of a fair first-instance trial and fair hearing on appeal based on international standards for due process. In his January 14 work report at the XUAR People's Congress, Rozi Ismail said that the high court had issued guiding opinions on cases connected to events in July and strengthened "supervision and guidance" toward lower courts to guarantee the trials took place in an "orderly" way in accordance with law, according to a January 15 Chinese-language Xinhua article. Like other officials, Rozi Ismail connected July events to the "three forces" of terrorism, separatism, and religious extremism and said courts would continue to "strike hard with maximum pressure" at the "three forces," with crimes from July as the focus. No July-related trials to date, however, have involved terrorism, separatism, or other crimes of endangering state security, according to available information on the trials from Chinese media.
Verdicts from earlier trials in 2009 have been upheld on appeal. The XUAR High People's Court heard appeals in October from the trials held that month and upheld the judgments, as CECC analyses reported (1, 2). In addition, on December 19, the Xinjiang High People's Court heard appeals in open court from eight people in seven cases tried by the Urumqi Intermediate People's Court in early December, according to a Tianshan Net report (via Bingtuan Net, December 20) and December 21 Xinjiang Daily article (available in PDF of the hardcopy article from Open Source Center, CPP20100106038009, subscription required). Lawyers for the defendants presented defense arguments at the hearings, according to the articles. The Xinjiang High People's Court upheld the lower court's judgments. The court also upheld the judgments for three other people tried in early December, upon reading their case files and questioning the relevant parties, according to the reports.
For additional information, see Section IV—Xinjiang in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2010-01-07 / English) |
Posted on: 2010-02-05 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=134110 |
China Revises 2004 Auto Policy
In 2009, the Chinese government issued two important documents concerning China's policy on development of the auto industry, one of which was a revision to the 2004 Automotive Industry Development Policy. The revised policy, which the Chinese government issued in August 2009, and which came into effect in September, is discussed below. China was required to revise the 2004 Policy in order to comply with the judgment against China at the World Trade Organization (WTO) concerning import tariffs on auto parts. In March 2009, the Chinese government issued a stimulus package for the auto industry called the Program for the Adjustment and Rejuvenation of the Auto Industry, which is discussed in the accompanying CECC analysis, "China Issues Auto Stimulus Program to Boost the Auto Sector."
Background to revision of the 2004 Policy
The 2009 revision (via China Law & Practice, subscription required) to the 2004 Automotive Industry Development Policy ("2004 Auto Policy," available in Chinese on the National Development and Reform Commission Web site) was the second change to the auto policy since China joined the WTO in December 2001, when the 1994 auto policy was in effect. (For a discussion of the first revision, see pages 18-19 of the 2006 Congressional Research Service report, "China's Impact on the U.S. Automotive Industry." For a discussion of both revisions, see the China legal update by PRC law firm, Jade & Fountain, "Customs Duty Policy Changed on Automobile Parts imported for Assembly in China.") Under Paragraph 204 of the Working Party Report on the Accession of China to the WTO, China was required to amend the 1994 policy to make it compatible with WTO principles and rules. China promulgated the 2004 Policy in part to meet this commitment. However, certain provisions of the 2004 Policy, most notably provisions concerning tariff rates applicable to the import of auto parts and assemblies, were not compliant with the WTO. The United States, European Union, and Canada challenged these provisions and their implementing legislation in DS339, DS340 and DS342 at the WTO. As reported in U.S. Trade Representative's 2009 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, the WTO dispute panel found that the provisions discriminated against imported auto parts and thus were inconsistent with WTO requirements. China appealed the panel's ruling, which subsequently was upheld by the WTO Appellate Body. Accordingly, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body requested that China bring the relevant provisions of the 2004 Policy, as well as legislation passed to implement those provisions, into conformity with China's WTO obligations. Therefore, on August 5, 2009, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and the National Development and Reform Commission issued Order Number 10 revising the 2004 Policy to delete the offending provisions applicable to tariffs on imported auto parts and assemblies.
Scope of the 2004 Policy, as revised
The only significant revision Order Number 10 made to the 2004 Policy was the deletion of the offending provisions, which were directed toward the localization of production of auto parts. The following discussion concerns the remainder of the 2004 Policy, which, except for the renumbering, is unchanged. Notwithstanding Order Number 10's limited revision, the 2004 Policy was, and continues to be, a comprehensive roadmap for development of a robust auto sector in China, covering a wide range of issues from development of technical standards to criteria and procedures for government approval of investment projects. The policy's goals, as stated in the introductory paragraph, are "to promote the adjustment and upgrading of the structure of the automotive industry, comprehensively enhance the international competitiveness of the automotive industry, satisfy the ever-increasing consumer demand for automobile products, and promote the healthy development of the automotive industry." The 2004 Policy decreed that by 2010 China would be one of the major auto manufacturing countries in the world, with the capability to produce enough cars for domestic consumption and to export cars. This is further elaborated in the Auto Stimulus Program, as discussed in the accompanying CECC analysis by that name. Key parts of the policy (as renumbered to reflect the revision) are as follows:
- Envisions the development of automotive technology, both through indigenous innovation and by studying international cutting-edge technology (Articles 7 to 12). The policy refers to support for technology to lower emissions, raise fuel-efficiency, produce hybrid and electric vehicles, use new vehicle materials, and use alternative fuels.
- Lays out a framework for the structural adjustment of the auto sector. This is done through the creation of large auto enterprise groups and alliances, and international cooperation to broaden the scope of operations and cope with globalization (Articles 13 to 16). Provides for "an exit mechanism" for companies that cannot compete (Article 17).
- Lays out detailed investment approval procedures and requirements (Articles 40 to 51). These cover government approval of various categories of auto or auto parts companies, establishment of automotive research and development centers, and foreign shareholding ratio restrictions applicable to foreign investment in the sector.
- Encourages the growth of private automobile consumption, and sets standards (Articles 56 to 69). These standards include a range of regulations to facilitate and encourage auto purchases, such as regulations on types of vehicles, toll road charges, fees, auto finance, the second-hand market, insurance premiums, and construction of parking lots.
- Additional miscellaneous provisions. These include, for example, provisions on technical standards, trademarks and branding, sales and service networks, import restrictions, and support from other industries, such as metallurgy and electronics.
Additional Developments in Auto Industrial Policy
In March 2009, the Chinese government issued the Auto Stimulus Program, which enhanced and expanded the auto policy. The implementation of these two has set the stage for a continued rapid development of China's auto sector, which has flourished in 2009. According to a December 9, 2009, Wall Street Journal report, Dong Yang, the executive vice president and secretary general of the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, expects vehicle sales to exceed 13 million in 2009, about a 40 percent increase from 2008. China is now the largest auto market in the world
| Source: -See Summary (2009-12-11 / English) |
Posted on: 2010-02-05 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=133273 |
Chinese Media Reports on Continued Demolition in Kashgar, Resettlement Numbers Vary
February 2, 2010
Authorities in the far western region of Xinjiang have continued steps to demolish and "reconstruct" the Old City section of Kashgar and relocate residents, according to reports from Chinese media. At the same time, however, one article from overseas media reported that work on the project has stalled. Officials also launched a three-month project in October 2009 to survey cultural heritage in the Old City, almost a year after authorities first started the demolition project. The project has drawn opposition from Uyghur residents and other observers for requiring the resettlement of residents and for undermining heritage protection.
Authorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) demolished over 4,700 homes in the Old City section of Kashgar city in 2009 as part of an ongoing project to demolish and "reconstruct" the nationally designated historic area, according to reports from Chinese media. As noted in a previous Congressional-Executive Commission on China analysis, XUAR authorities launched the five-year project in February 2009 with a stated aim of resettling at least 50,000 households into earthquake-resistant housing. The project has drawn opposition from Uyghur residents and other observers for requiring the resettlement of residents and for undermining heritage protection. Among recent Chinese media reports on the project, statistics on the total number of households resettled have varied, while information on the number of homes demolished appear consistent for the timeframes given in the different articles (cited below). Over 4,000 households were resettled in 2009, according to a January 4 report from China Xinjiang. A December 25 Xinjiang Daily article (via the United Front Work Department) reported that as of that time, authorities had started construction on more than 11,200 residences, and that 11,099 households had moved into new homes. A November 18 article from the Xinjiang News Net described over 700 households moving into new homes. Residents have had the option of moving into new residences that retain traditional features or moving into high rises, according to the Xinjiang News Net article, and some residents have built homes on the same site as their old residences, the Xinjiang Daily article reported. The articles did not provide details on compensation or job opportunities in new housing areas outside the Old City, issues which have drawn concern from local residents, nor did they indicate the total number of people resettled outside the Old City rather than to homes rebuilt on the same location.
While the Chinese media reports suggest demolition and resettlement work has been ongoing throughout 2009, a January 13 article from the Global Post, a non-Chinese media outlet, cited residents who reported that the project slowed following the July 2009 unrest in the XUAR, eventually coming to a halt. The article noted that authorities still continue to publicize the project, including by announcing a level of praise from the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) that the organization says it has not provided. The article said that roughly 1,000 families reportedly had been resettled to new apartments in the first six months of 2009. (Other recent reports from non-PRC-controlled media have suggested that the demolition is ongoing, but without providing specific details on the status of demolition work in recent months. See, e.g., a December 30 South China Morning Post article (subscription required, also available through Open Source Center, subscription required) and a January 6 report from The Australian.) Following events in July, an August 21, 2009, Xinjiang News Net article reported on increased funding for the project and said that the project had received UNESCO's approval.
The recent news follows a report that Kashgar authorities launched a three-month project in October to survey cultural heritage in the Old City, according to a November 1 Xinhua report. The project was intended to investigate historic homes and structures, according to the article. The report did not explain why authorities launched the preservation effort almost a year after beginning demolition work in the Old City. In the run-up to the launch of the demolition project in 2009, authorities had stressed that "few" buildings in the Old City had real preservation value and that most structures would be demolished. The statements on the number of buildings with preservation value were at odds, however, with outside assessments and earlier official evaluations of the area's cultural heritage, and subsequent reports indicated that historic buildings had been razed. See the previous CECC analysis on the Kashgar demolition and the discussion below for more information on assessments of the Old City's cultural heritage. For reports on subsequent demolitions of historic sites, see, e.g., a June 17, 2009, Radio Free Asia report and the South China Morning Post article.
Two journal articles from previous years lend insight into problems surrounding heritage preservation work and resettlement in Kashgar. A 2007 article by Zhang Qun, an official from the Kashgar Party Committee School, stressed the importance of heritage protection to developing the area's tourist industry, highlighting such problems as a lack of publicity about the city's "harmonious ethnic relations," but Zhang's critique of the tourist industry also illustrated problems in the city's existing system for cultural heritage preservation. Zhang described a failure to attach sufficient attention to heritage protection and noted that as the result of a lack of planning and lack of consciousness toward heritage protection, some areas had lost their historic character. Zhang also noted that efforts to research the area's cultural relics and historic figures were insufficient. (See Zhang Qun, "Thoughts on Developing the Tourist Industry in Kashgar, Xinjiang" [Xinjiang kashi shi luyouye fazhan de sikao], Shishi Qiushi, Number 6, 2007, available via Eastview, subscription required.) In a 2008 article describing earlier, smaller-scale steps to relocate Kashgar residents and reconstruct parts of the Old City, author Gao Xiang wrote that the majority of residents were unwilling to move into new homes and that resettled residents experienced detrimental effects on their livelihoods, which had been tied to jobs in the Old City. The article also noted that the project affected the cultural features of the Old City and that while authorities had restored some residential areas, they charged admission for entry to the renovated areas. (See Gao Xiang, Renewed Research on the Old City of Kashgar, Xinjiang [Xinjiang kashi lao chengqu gengxin yanjiu], Huazhong Architecture, Number 12, 2008, available via Eastview, subscription required.)
For additional information on conditions in the XUAR, see Section IV¡ªXinjiang in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-11-28 ) |
Posted on: 2010-02-05 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=132585 |
Government Issues Procedures on Tax Deductions for Donations to NGOs
February 4, 2010
Since 2007, the Chinese government has issued new procedures for NGOs seeking eligibility to receive tax-deductible donations. Existing regulations require NGOs to register with the government. The new procedures do not alter that requirement, but provide clearer guidance on how some types of NGOs registered with the government ("public welfare" foundations and social organizations) may become eligible to receive tax-deductible donations. At the same time, the number of NGOs meeting the eligibility requirements remains low, potentially limiting the impact of the new procedures.
Expanding on a circular issued in 2008, the central government in July issued "working guidelines" for social organizations (shehui tuanti) seeking eligibility to receive tax-deductible donations. According to a report from United States International Grantmaking, social organizations are "one of the three primary forms" of NGOs in China. The other two primary types of NGOs in China are foundations (jijinhui) and private non-enterprise organizations (minban fei qiye danwei). The Working Guidelines issued in July further clarify the standards for determining the eligibility of social organizations for tax-deductible donations. At the same time, they continue to limit the number of eligible social organizations. The working guidelines also do not alter existing regulations requiring all NGOs to register with the government.
Since 2007, central government departments have issued increasingly detailed measures for NGOs seeking eligibility to receive tax-deductible donations. In January 2007, two national-level ministries, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and the State Administration of Taxation (SAT), issued a circular on new procedures for "public welfare" foundations and social organizations (gongyixing shehui tuanti he jijinhui) seeking eligibility to receive tax-deductible donations. In December 2008, MOF and SAT issued a second circular, specifying the application procedures and eligibility requirements in greater detail. Following the December 2008 Circular, the Ministry of Civil Affairs (MOCA) issued implementation plans for "public welfare" foundations and working guidelines for "public welfare" social organizations in March and July 2009, respectively. The July 2009 Working Guidelines concerning social organizations clarify some provisions from the December 2008 Circular, and further specify what social organizations should include in their application for eligibility to receive tax-deductible donations.
Since 2008, it appears that the number of NGOs deemed eligible by the government to receive tax-deductible donations has risen. In August 2009, MOF, SAT, and MOCA published a circular with the names of 69 "public welfare" social organizations (gongyixing shehui tuanti) that the central government deemed eligible in 2008 and part of 2009. Provincial and municipal governments in 2009 have also published similar circulars. For example, Guangdong province in May 2009 issued a circular listing the names of 81 "public welfare" social organizations deemed eligible to receive tax-deductible donations. Before 2007, MOF and SAT determined the eligibility of NGOs for tax-deductible donations on a case-by-case basis, and the number of NGOs that gained eligibility was small. Between 2000 and 2007, MOF and SAT granted eligibility to fewer than 70 "national-level NGOs" (guojia ji de fei yinglixing de shehui zuzhi) , according to a China Philanthropy Times article (via jizhe.cc) published on June 17, 2009.
As noted in the Commission's 2009 Annual Report, there are thousands of NGOs that either are not registered with the government or registered as for-profit companies. Based on provisions listed in the July 2009 Working Guidelines and the December 2008 Circular, these NGOs will not be able to apply for eligibility to receive tax-deductible donations, as explained below.
The December 2008 Circular contains provisions limiting the number of NGOs from applying for eligibility to receive tax-deductible donations (see Article 4). The December 2008 Circular defines organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible donations as "public welfare social organizations" that are "in accordance with the stipulations issued by the State Council in the 'Regulations on the Management of Foundations' and the 'Regulations on the Registration and Management of Social Organizations.'" The December 2008 Circular does not refer to private non-enterprise organizations (minban fei qiye danwei) and appears to exclude them from applying for eligibility. Private non-enterprise organizations comprise 182,400 of the 413,967 NGOs in mainland China that are registered with the government, according to a September 2009 Xinhua article.
Both the July 2009 Working Guidelines and the December 2008 Circular stipulate additional requirements for "public welfare" social organizations seeking eligibility to receive tax-deductible donations. For example, Article 1 of the July 2009 Working Guidelines lists the requirements for social organizations (shehui tuanti) applying for eligibility. Among other requirements, Article 1 states that "in the three years before applying, each year's expenses on public welfare activities should be no less than 50 percent of last year's total expenditures and 70 percent of that year's general income." Article 1 of the July 2009 Working Guidelines also states that social organizations should be registered with the government for at least three years,and should not have received administrative punishment in the last three years. Social organizations passing annual inspections in the most recent year and receiving a score of 3A or higher on a government appraisal will also be eligible to apply, according to Article 1. The government appraisal listed in the July 2009 Working Guidelines is detailed in a Guiding Opinion issued in August 2007 by the Ministry of Civil Affairs. The August 2007 Guiding Opinion calls for civil affairs bureaus at the provincial level and below to assign NGOs that are registered with the government a numerical ranking from 1A to 5AAAA. The assigned ranking is based on a range of criteria, including compliance with relevant laws and regulations and the status of the Communist Party branch within the organization.
The government continues to exert control over NGOs in China. As noted in the Commission's 2009 Annual Report, national regulations issued in 1998 require that all NGOs register with the government. In order to register, all NGOs must have a government-approved sponsor organization. These requirements contravene Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides that, "No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of [the right to freedom of association] other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety..." For more information on non-profits in China, see Section III¡ªCivil Society (pp. 50-57) in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-11-17 / Chinese) |
Posted on: 2010-02-05 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=132161 |
WTO Rules Against Chinese Trade Restrictions on Books, DVDs, Music, and Films
February 4, 2010
A World Trade Organization (WTO) expert panel (Panel), in a report dated August 12, 2009, found that certain Chinese regulations that restrict foreign companies and Chinese-foreign joint ventures from importing or distributing products such as books, DVDs, and music, as well as from importing films for theatrical release, violate China's international trade obligations. The Panel also found that certain Chinese regulations discriminate against publications imported into China to the benefit of publications produced in that country, which is contrary to China's WTO obligations. The United States, which originally lodged the complaint that led to the ruling, welcomed the decision, while China expressed dissatisfaction. Both the United States and China appealed the ruling. The WTO Appellate Body upheld the Panel's conclusions in most respects, concluding that China's import and censorship system is not consistent with China's WTO commitments. The Appellate Body also held that China had the right to use an exception under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade for protection of public morals, but that the issue in this case did not qualify. The ruling did not challenge China's censorship of the content of the products in question or address China's compliance with international obligations to protect intellectual property rights.
In a report dated August 12, 2009, a World Trade Organization (WTO) expert panel (Panel) found that certain Chinese regulations restricting the ability of foreign companies and Chinese-foreign joint ventures to import or distribute (1) reading materials, (2) audiovisual home entertainment (AVHE) products, and (3) sound recordings, as well as to import films for theatrical release, were in violation of WTO rules. According to the Panel's report, reading materials include books, newspapers, periodicals, and electronic publications; AVHE products include videocassettes, VCDs, and DVDs; and sound recordings include recorded audio tapes and CDs as well as "ringtones" and "ringback tones." The Panel's report stems from a Request for Consultations filed by the United States in April 2007, according to the WTO Web site.
A summary of the Panel's findings can be found on pages 461-469 of the report. Specifically, the Panel found the following measures to violate China's WTO obligations:
- Chinese regulations that expressly prohibit foreign investment in businesses that import reading materials, AVHE products, or sound recordings, as well as regulations that give the Chinese government discretion to determine who may import reading materials, AVHE products, sound recordings, and films into China. For example, Articles X(2) and X(3) of the Catalogue of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries in the Catalogue for the Guidance of Foreign Investment Industries prohibit foreign investment in the "business of¡ importing of books, newspaper and periodical" and the "business of¡ importing of audio and visual products and electronic publications." The Panel found that these provisions violate commitments in the Chinese government's Protocol of Accession to the WTO (Protocol) and the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China (Working Party Report) that require China to permit all enterprises in China and foreign enterprises and individuals to import and export all goods (with some limited exceptions) to and from China by December 2004. In addition, the Panel found other regulations that violate commitments in the Protocol and the Working Party Report. Examples include Articles 41 and 42 of the Regulation on the Administration of Publishing, which require companies that import publications into China to be Chinese wholly state-owned enterprises, and Article 30 of the Regulations Regarding Management of Films, which gives the State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television discretionary authority to decide who can import films.
China argued that its requirement that importers of reading materials and audiovisual products be wholly state-owned enterprises is "necessary to protect public morals," a claim that the Panel rejected. According to Article XX(a) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), a country may adopt trade measures that are "necessary to protect public morals." According to the Panel's report, China argued that reading materials and audiovisual products are "cultural products" which are "of a unique kind with a potentially serious negative impact on public morals," and noted that "in the case of products to be imported it is critical that the content review be carried out at the border." Furthermore, China argued that relying solely on administrative authorities to carry out this review would create "undue delays" because of those authorities' "limited resources," and therefore it is appropriate for Chinese authorities to select "import entities" that would help conduct a content review. China contended that the "contribution of the import entities to the content review is a substantial and essential condition for an effective and efficient content review." Finally, China argued that these import entities must be wholly state-owned enterprises, because "¡the Government cannot require privately owned enterprises in China to bear the substantial cost [of conducting content review.]" In response, the United States argued that "content review can be conducted before, during, or after importation by any number of entities, with no need to give China's state-owned enterprises a monopoly on importing." The Panel found that the monopoly of Chinese state-owned enterprises on the content review and importation of reading materials, AVHE products, sound recordings and films for theatrical release was not a measure "necessary" to protect public morals as allowed under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.
Reactions to the Ruling
The United States Government and representatives of the American film industry cast the Panel's ruling as a victory, while the Chinese government expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling. In an August 12 press release, United States Trade Representative (USTR) Ron Kirk said that "[t]oday, a WTO panel handed a significant victory to America's creative industries," and that the decision will "level the playing field for American companies¡so that legitimate American products get to market and beat out the pirates." In addition, according to an August 17 Reuters article, a U.S. official has said that because the ruling means that the state-run China Film can no longer be a monopoly importer of films into China, other channels for importing films would open up. In an August 12 press release, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) quoted Chairman and CEO Dan Glickman as commenting on the WTO's findings that China's "film import monopoly as well as the barriers that keep U.S. firms from importing and distributing DVDs in China" violated China's international trade obligations. Glickman said, "The Chinese system for distributing U.S. films to Chinese audiences is amongst the most restrictive and burdensome in the world. This decision, coupled with the recent announcement from the State Council that the Chinese government intends to lower market access thresholds for the cultural industry, may be an opening we have been seeking." He also noted that the Panel's conclusions will aid in the film industry's fight against piracy in China. An August 14 Variety article quoted Independent Film and Television Alliance President and CEO Jean Prewitt as saying that "China will benefit from increased investment in its distribution infrastructure and enjoy a wider range of entertainment programming resulting from a more competitive and open marketplace." The Reuters article noted, however, that the ruling does not change the cap on the number of blockbuster foreign films allowed into China per year. China's Schedule of Specific Commitments to the GATS (available via the WTO Services Database) stipulates that 20 foreign films shall be imported annually on a revenue-sharing basis, and this measure was not at issue in the dispute. Chinese Ministry of Commerce spokesman Yao Jian said at a press conference on August 17 that it was "inappropriate" for the Panel not to reject the U.S. complaint and that China had "not eliminated the possibility of appealing," according to a Xinhua article (in Chinese) of the same date. China filed a notification of an appeal on September 23, 2009. The United States filed a notification of an appeal on October 6, 2009. Both China and the United States appealed aspects of the Panel's findings, and the WTO Appellate Body circulated its report to the public on December 21, 2009. As reported in China Trade Extra (subscription required), the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's conclusions in most respects, concluding that China's import and censorship system is not consistent with China's WTO commitments. Further, the Appellate Body did find that China had the right to use the exception for protection of public morals provided in Article XX(a) of the GATT, but that the measures at issue in this case did not qualify. The Dispute Settlement Body adopted the report of the Appellate Body on January 19, 2010. Although there are few details as to how China will comply with the WTO decision, according to an article in the December 22, 2009, Reuters, "China is expected to set up a more formal import approval system for cultural products...."
Neither the Panel's ruling nor the report of the Appellate Body dealt with other barriers to market access, including intellectual property rights (IPR) violations. Non-Chinese producers of cultural products, including those which are able to export their products to China, face rampant IPR violations in China. This was the subject of a separate WTO challenge against China, on which the United States prevailed earlier this year. For more information on IPR in China, see Section III¡ªCommercial Rule of Law¡ªIntellectual Property in the Commission's 2008 and 2009 Annual Reports. Similarly, neither the Panel ruling nor the report of the Appellate Body affect the Chinese government's restrictions on political and religious content in publications and other media, nor do they affect the requirement that anyone wishing to publish a book, newspaper, or magazine in China obtain a license from the government, each of which violates international human rights standards for free expression. (See Section II¡ªFreedom of Expression¡ªRegulation and Censorship of the News Media and Publishing, in the Commission's 2009 Annual Report.)
| Source: -See Summary (2009-08-27 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2010-02-05 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=129022 |
Beijing Court Sentences Liu Xiaobo to 11 Years
January 5, 2010
The Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court sentenced prominent intellectual Liu Xiaobo on December 25, 2009, to 11 years in prison for "inciting subversion of state power," a crime under Article 105, Paragraph 2, of the Criminal Law. The court also sentenced Liu to two years' deprivation of political rights upon his release. Human Rights in China released an English translation of the court's verdict on December 30, 2009. The court cited essays Liu had written critical of the Communist Party and China's political system and his participation in Charter 08. The court highlighted Liu's use of the Internet, including his posting of essays online and his e-mailing of the charter and its signatures to overseas Web sites. Liu submitted his appeal of the decision to the Beijing High People's Court on December 29, according to a January 4, 2010, New York Times article.
Additional Commission Resources on Liu Xiaobo:
| Source: -See Summary (2010-01-05 ) |
Posted on: 2010-01-08 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=133838 |
The Trial of Liu Xiaobo - Joint Statement by CECC Chairman Byron Dorgan and Cochairman Sander Levin
December 23, 2009
Following the trial of Mr. Liu Xiaobo in Beijing on the morning of December 23, China once again is at an important crossroads, and seems to be turning in the wrong direction. We call on the Chinese government to release Mr. Liu, and to respect the rights of all Chinese citizens to peacefully express their political views and desires for universally-recognized fundamental freedoms.
Mr. Liu has been detained and tried for exercising internationally-recognized rights to free expression and association; his case should be dismissed, and he should be released. The trial of Mr. Liu demonstrates again the Chinese government¡¯s failure to uphold its international human rights obligations and also its failure to abide by procedural norms and safeguards that meet international standards. The apparent violations of Chinese legal protections for criminal defendants that have marred Mr. Liu¡¯s case from the outset are numerous and well-documented. Serious concerns have been raised over matters such as the failure of Chinese prosecutors to consult defense lawyers and the speed with which they acted in indicting Mr. Liu and bringing him to trial, effectively denying his lawyers sufficient time to review the state¡¯s evidence and to prepare for his defense. Mr. Liu¡¯s wife, Liu Xia, has been harassed relentlessly and prevented by officials from attending the trial, in which she reportedly had hoped to testify on behalf of her husband. Mr. Liu's lawyers reportedly have been ordered by state judicial authorities not to grant interviews.
All nations have the responsibility to ensure fairness and transparency in judicial proceedings. The effective implementation of basic human rights and the ability of all people in China to live under the rule of law depend on careful attention to, and transparent compliance with, procedural norms and safeguards that meet international standards. Instead of signaling its intent to uphold international standards, the Chinese government thus far in its treatment of Liu Xiaobo has demonstrated callous disregard for those standards.
All Chinese citizens deserve unconditional protection of their internationally-recognized rights to free expression and free association. Those in China, like Mr. Liu, who have penned thoughtful essays or signed Charter 08 seek to advance debate on ¡°national governance, citizens¡¯ rights, and social development¡± consistent with their ¡°duty as responsible and constructive citizens.¡± Their rights must be protected. As stated in this Commission¡¯s recently-released 2009 Annual Report, the development of a stable China firmly committed to the rule of law and citizens¡¯ fundamental rights is in the national interest of the United States. Those rights include the freedoms of speech, assembly, association and other rights protected under China¡¯s Constitution and laws or under China¡¯s international human rights obligations.
The verdict in Mr. Liu¡¯s case reportedly may be announced on December 25. We call on China¡¯s judiciary to signal genuine commitment to the rule of law and fundamental rights by dismissing the case against Liu Xiaobo, and in so doing to recognize the serious procedural flaws and substantive violations of his rights that have taken place. We call on Chinese officials to release Mr. Liu, and in so doing to demonstrate through action the Chinese government¡¯s commitment to developing the rule of law and to upholding international human rights standards.
Additional Commission Resources on Liu Xiaobo:
Contact for CECC Chairman Byron Dorgan: Charlotte Oldham-Moore 202-226-3798
Contact for CECC Cochairman Sander Levin: Doug Grob 202-226-3777
| Source: -See Summary (2009-12-23 ) |
Posted on: 2010-01-08 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=133614 |
Lead Poisoning in Children in Hunan Triggers Protests by Parents and Raises Questions About Governmental Accountability
January 6, 2010
The suspicion of lead poisoning in hundreds of children caused by industrial pollution prompted protests by parents in Hunan province in August 2009. The heavy metal pollution case raises questions about governmental accountability; the plant linked to the lead pollution did not have approval to operate from local environmental authorities. In addition, parents of ill children expressed reservations about the results of lead poisoning tests conducted locally, and also reported that some hospitals would not conduct the tests. The case also raises questions about freedom of expression; local officials reportedly intimidated and warned parents not to talk to the media.
Lead Poisoning in Children Triggers Protests by Parents
On August 8, 2009, approximately 1,000 residents in Wugang city, Hunan province blocked a street, overturned a car, and clashed with 200 officials and police officers during a protest against the Wugang Fine-Processed Manganese Smelting Plant, according to an August 20 New York Times article. The residents reportedly alleged the plant's pollution was linked to lead poisoning in as many as 1,354 children. As reported in an August 20 Xinhua article, when children became sick in July, parents suspected the pollution from the smelter. The plant reportedly had opened in May 2008 without the approval of environmental protection authorities and at least one resident reported smoke and dust pollution whenever the plant was in operation, according to Xinhua. The Hunan case follows another instance of lead poisoning in children in Shaanxi province, which involved hundreds of children. (See previous CECC analysis for more information on the Fengxiang county, Shaanxi province lead poisoning case). The Hunan, Shaanxi and other recently discovered cases of lead poisoning in children are part of a more widespread lead poisoning problem in China. For example, according to a September 4 Wall Street Journal article, the director of Yunnan province's lead prevention office for children, Liu Dakun, said that in Yunnan's mining areas, 50 to 60 percent of children under 14 years old are victims of lead poisoning.
Local Officials Investigate Protesters Alleged Links to Falun Gong
Officials reportedly detained 15 parents who participated in the August 8 protests in Wugang, Hunan province, according to a September 3 Guardian report citing an Associated Press story. Authorities reportedly "accused" the parents of being Falun Gong practitioners or being "influenced" by Falun Gong, a spiritual movement, banned by the Chinese government as being a "cult organization." A September 4 Global Times article reported that the chief of the Wugang Public Security Bureau (PSB) denied detaining parents, saying that "No parents were detained. There were indeed 15 people who participated in the protest and gave themselves up to the police after the protest. ...We just asked them to explain what happened that day and set them free." The same article noted that the chief of the PSB also stated that police were investigating the involvement of Falun Gong adherents in the August 8 protest.
Officials Response to Protests, Intimidate Citizens, and Restrict Free Expression; Some Hospitals Reportedly Refuse to Provide Tests
City officials allegedly suspended operations of the smelter on July 31 according to the August 20 Xinhua article. Residents reportedly protested three times before the local government issued the order to close down the smelter, according to a September 26 Financial Times article (registration required). The August 20 Xinhua article noted that local city officials ordered the immediate closure of the plant on August 13, after the large-scale protests of August 8 had taken place. According to an August 28 Xinhua article (via NetEase), the Hunan and Shaoyang city environmental protection bureaus determined that the manganese smelter was linked to the pollution causing the lead poisoning on August 11. According to the same article, officials detained two of the smelter's executives, and the plant's legal representative, who had fled, turned himself in on August 27.
Wugang officials stated they would provide testing for children affected by the heavy metal pollution, according to an August 18 Southern Metropolis Daily article. Nevertheless, one resident reported that there appeared to be a limited number of "permission slips" available that could be presented for free individual tests, according to an August 26 Radio Free Asia (RFA) article. In addition, residents apparently suspecting government influence over local hospitals, doubted the objectivity of tests conducted locally. Some reportedly took their children instead to a county in Guangxi province for testing, according to the Southern Metropolis Daily article. One resident reported that "...hospitals have been bribed by someone, so the parents never see the correct results," according to the RFA article. The RFA article noted that some residents reported hospitals would not test their children for elevated blood lead levels. One resident who traveled to southern Guangxi province to obtain a test for her two-year-old reported being turned away after revealing she was from Wugang, according to the RFA article. "They knew about the lead poisoning cases in Wugang and they asked if I was from there," RFA reported her as saying.
In late September, officials reportedly said that the soil and water were safe and "declared the problem solved," according to the Financial Times article. The same article reported that hospitals treated 17 children and then released them. Despite the August 11 finding by the Hunan and Shaoyang city environmental protection officials that the manganese smelter was linked to the pollution causing the lead poisoning, Wugang officials reportedly told the Financial Times that children were not showing symptoms of serious industrial lead poisoning. Officials instead assigned blame for the children's high blood lead levels on gasoline residue or pencil lead. One official said that the fevers experienced by children who were treated at a hospital in Changsha were not related to lead; "[m]aybe it's H1N1 [swine flu] from England."
Furthermore, some villagers recounted official intimidation to keep silent about the lead poisoning, according to a September 2 CNN article. A government notice explaining a compensation scheme reportedly cautioned villagers not to "spread rumors" or cause trouble. Parents said hospital officials requested they sign forms agreeing not to discuss the blood poisoning incident with reporters. In addition, a CNN journalist reported being followed while investigating the story.
For more information on government accountability and environmental protection, see Section II¡ªClimate Change and Environment (p. 190) of the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-12-30 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2010-01-08 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=133403 |
Prosecutors Indict Liu Xiaobo; Trial To Take Place December 23
December 22, 2009
Prosecutors indicted prominent intellectual Liu Xiaobo on December 10, 2009, and a Beijing court will hold his trial on December 23. Charged with the crime of "inciting subversion," Liu faces up to 15 years in prison for essays he wrote critical of the Chinese government and political system and for participating in Charter 08. Liu's case has been marred from the beginning by apparent violations of Chinese legal protections for criminal suspects. Both the United States and European Union recently called for Liu's release.
The Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court will conduct the trial of prominent intellectual Liu Xiaobo on December 23, 2009, according to a December 21 Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) article. Prosecutors indicted Liu on December 10, according to a December 11 Radio Free Asia (RFA) article. Mo Shaoping, a defense lawyer whose law firm is handling Liu's case, told RFA that the prosecution's indictment alleges that Liu drafted and organized Charter 08, a document originally signed by more than 300 Chinese citizens and which calls for political reform and greater protection of human rights in China. Liu was taken into custody on December 8, 2008, a day before the charter was released. The charter was posted on the Internet and additional persons have signed the document via e-mail. CHRD reported on December 10 that about 80 percent of the charter's more than 10,000 signers live in mainland China. Authorities have harassed signatories and censored the charter from the Internet. Mo said that the indictment also cites six essays written by Liu from 2005 onward that were posted on overseas Web sites including "Guancha" (Observerchina.net) and the British Broadcasting Corporation. Based on the titles of the essays as reported by RFA, Commission staff located copies of the essays on the Internet: - "The Chinese Communist Party's Dictatorial Patriotism" (October 3, 2005, posted on Epoch Times' Web site) - Liu argues that the source of a nation's sovereignty is its people and that the government and ruling party are servants of the nation. Therefore, Liu argues, in order for a government to be truly patriotic, it must respect its people and their right to peacefully criticize and oppose their government. Dictatorships, however, according to Liu, pay lip service to patriotism but do not respect or love the main component of a nation—its people.
- "Can It Be That the Chinese People Are Only Suited To Accepting 'Party-ruled Democracy'?" (January 6, 2006, posted on Observechina.net) - Liu critiques the 2005 government white paper Building of Political Democracy in China (via Xinhua) and criticizes its claim that it places authority in the people; instead Liu coins the term "party-ruled democracy" to describe the Chinese Communist Party's dictatorship and approach toward democracy. Liu also discusses recent history including the Chinese government's violent suppression of the 1989 Tiananmen protests.
- "Changing State Power Through Changing Society" (February 26, 2006, posted on Observechina.net) - Liu discusses how societal changes in the post-Mao era in the relationship between citizens and the state has improved prospects for political reform and urges a gradual, non-violent approach in the pursuit of a liberal democracy.
- "The Multi-faceted Dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party" (March 13, 2006, originally on Observechina.net, posted on Epoch Times' Web site) - Liu discusses how the Communist Party has maintained political control, despite the sudden decline in the popularity of the Party's ideology after the events of June 1989, by appealing to the economic self-interests of elites, business people, and officials and entangling them in corruption, bribery, and tax evasion which "autocrats" can use to punish them at any time.
- "The Negative Effects of the Rise of the Chinese Communist Party on Democratization in the World" (May 6, 2006, posted on Epoch Times' Web site) - Liu calls the Chinese Communist Party one of the largest obstacles to democratization around the world for, among other things, using the prospect of energy cooperation to build closer relations with Iran and other countries that oppose the United States and the West, using "dollar diplomacy" to extract political concessions from free countries in Europe, and pressuring American companies to restrict freedom of expression to gain access to the Chinese market.
- "Continuing Questions with Regard to the Black Kiln Child Slave Incident" (July 16, 2007, posted on Human Rights in China's Web site) - Liu questions the official handling of a 2007 scandal in which children were sold to work in brick kilns in Shanxi province, calling officials "cold-blooded and brazen."
None of the language in the essays advocates violence and, as indicated above, one essay specifically calls for non-violence. In China, citizens who peacefully criticize the Chinese government and political system and disseminate such views over the Internet can face imprisonment for inciting subversion, a crime under Article 105, Paragraph 2, of the Criminal Law. Courts typically acknowledge, but give little or no protection to, the right to freedom of speech found in Article 35 of China's Constitution. Such government restriction on freedom of expression violates international human rights standards. (See Section II—Freedom of Expression (p. 46–47) in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.)
One of Liu's defense lawyers said that prosecutors acted unusually fast in indicting Liu, and Mo Shaoping said prosecutors violated Chinese law by not seeking the opinion of defense lawyers before indicting. Shang Baojun told RFA that prosecutors indicted Liu on December 10, only two days after informing the defense that they had begun reviewing the case for prosecution. Mo told RFA that, under Chinese law, in order to ensure that defense lawyers carry out their legal professional duties during the criminal process, the prosecution must solicit the opinion of defense lawyers during their review to decide whether to indict. Article 139 of the Criminal Procedure Law provides that "[w]hen examining a case, the People's Procuratorate shall interrogate the criminal suspect and heed the opinions of the victim and of the persons entrusted by the criminal suspect and the victim." The failure of the prosecutors to consult defense lawyers is the latest in a string of violations of legal protections for criminal suspects that have marred Liu's case from the beginning. Liu was taken into custody on December 8, 2008, and placed under residential surveillance. But instead of confining Liu to his home in Beijing, as required by Chinese law, officials kept Liu at an undisclosed location in Beijing. Officials also limited Liu's access to his lawyer, despite provisions under Chinese law that give a person under residential surveillance the right to meet with his lawyer without permission. Officials kept Liu under residential surveillance beyond the six-month legal limit and did not formally arrest him until June 23, 2009.
Liu's defense lawyers also requested postponement of the trial, concerned that there was too little time to review the voluminous case file and prepare their defense, according to the December 21 CHRD report. The court rejected this request. CHRD also reported that officials denied Liu's wife a permit to attend the trial because she was listed as a prosecution "witness." CHRD said that officials had warned numerous Chinese activists and supporters of Liu not to express support for Liu on the Internet or attempt to attend the trial.
Following news of Liu's indictment, both the United States and European Union called for Liu's release, a move China rejected. On December 14, U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly urged the Chinese government to "release Liu Xiaobo immediately and to respect the rights of all Chinese citizens who peacefully express their desire for internationally recognized freedoms, including the right to petition one¡¯s government," according to the State Department's Web site. In a December 14 declaration, the European Union called on the Chinese government "to unconditionally release Mr. Liu Xiaobo and to end the harassment and detention of other signatories of Charter 08." On December 15, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Jiang Yu said "these accusations are unacceptable. China is a country of rule of law. The fundamental rights of Chinese citizens are guaranteed by the law," according to a December 15 Reuters article.
Additional Commission Resources on Liu Xiaobo:
| Source: -See Summary (2009-12-22 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2010-01-08 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=133497 |
Authorities Sentence Rights Activist Huang Qi to Three Years in Prison
December 18, 2009
In late November 2009, a court in Chengdu city, Sichuan province, sentenced rights activist Huang Qi to three years in prison for illegal possession of state secrets. Huang had used his Web site to advocate on behalf of parents who lost children in school collapses during the May 2008 Sichuan earthquake.
The Wuhou District People's Court in Chengdu city, Sichuan province, sentenced rights activist Huang Qi on November 23, 2009, to three years in prison for illegal possession of state secrets, according to a New York Times (NYT) article of the same date. Authorities detained Huang in June 2008 after he used his human rights Web site to advocate for parents who lost children in school collapses during the May 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Boxun, a U.S.-based Chinese news Web site, posted a copy of the court's judgment on December 1. The court gave Huang the maximum sentence for violating Article 182, Paragraph 2, of the Criminal Law. The judgment said the "confidential" documents Huang was found to have possessed were two city-level documents and a document from the Central Political-Legal Committee of the Communist Party. One of Huang's lawyers said the documents were publicly available and that the charges were fabricated.
Background
Huang's detention in June 2008 came as Huang was using his Web site, Tianwang Human Rights Center (64Tianwang), to raise awareness about parent demands following the May 2008 Sichuan earthquake. According to NYT, Huang had posted an article about five grieving parents who were seeking compensation for their children's deaths in the collapse of a middle school in Hanwang township, Sichuan province. The article also noted that the parents wanted officials to investigate the school's construction. A July 21, 2008, Reporters Without Borders article said that Huang posted articles on his site "criticising the way the relief was being organized." Following the earthquake, which officially left 68,712 dead, including 5,335 schoolchildren, and 17,921 missing, parents of the children grew frustrated with officials' unwillingness to investigate fully the role that shoddy construction and corruption may have played in the school collapses, many of which occurred while other nearby buildings remained standing. Officials responded by forcefully breaking up protests, offering parents money in exchange for silence, ordering some parents to serve reeducation through labor, refusing to hear lawsuits filed by parents, and preventing parents from traveling to Beijing to petition the central government (see previous CECC analysis). In a November 23, 2009, report, the human rights organization Chinese Human Rights Defenders said it believed that Huang's imprisonment also was related to interviews he gave to foreign reporters about protests by the parents.
"State Secrets" in Question
The court's judgment said police discovered in September 2007 that two "confidential documents" ("jimi wenjian") from a city in Jiangsu province had been posted on Huang's Web site. Police later searched Huang's home and found a portable hard drive that contained both of the city documents as well as a document marked "confidential" ("jimi") from the Central Political-Legal Committee of the Communist Party. The Washington Post reported on November 23 that both Huang's wife and one of his lawyers called the charges a fabrication. The lawyer, well-known defense attorney Mo Shaoping, described the documents as rules for government agencies on dealing with citizen petitions and said they were available to the public because newspapers had published them and they were easily accessible on the Internet. The Chinese government has considerable discretion to declare almost any matter of public concern a "state secret." In recent months the government has considered revising the State Secrets Law and Chinese media have urged the government to narrow the scope of its power in this area. A June 23, 2009, China Daily editorial said "[t]he 1989 State Secrets Law is obsolete and deserves to be transformed. It is a one-sided legislation under which citizens have only obligations. In theory, government institutions, should they choose to do so, have the authority to label everything as State secrets. And, citizens, once prosecuted on the ground of violating State secrets, can expect no legal relief."
Court Refuses To Provide Copy of Judgment to Huang's Family; Obstructs Appeal
Human Rights in China (HRIC) reported that court officials made it difficult for Huang's family and lawyers to obtain a copy of the court's judgment and for Huang to file his appeal. HRIC reported on November 25 that Huang's lawyers sent a letter to the court requesting that the court mail them a copy of the judgment. The court had refused to do so and told the lawyers they had to pick up a copy in person, which would require the lawyers to travel from Beijing at great expense. HRIC reported on December 1, that the presiding judge "berated" Huang's mother and refused to give her and Huang's wife, Zeng Li, a copy of the verdict on November 23. On December 1, one of Huang's lawyers was able to obtain a copy of the verdict in person from the court, but family members were still refused a copy. As noted in a letter from Huang's lawyers to the court (posted by HRIC), Article 182 of the Supreme People's Court Interpretation of Questions Regarding Implementation of China's Criminal Procedure Law requires that once a judgment has been announced, a copy shall be immediately delivered to the defendant's lawyers and family, among other parties. HRIC also reported on December 1 that authorities were obstructing Huang's attempts to file an appeal. The report, citing Zeng Li, said officials were refusing to allow Huang to mail out his appeal or to allow one of Huang's lawyers to carry the appeal out of the Chengdu Detention Center during a visit with Huang. One of Huang's lawyers, Ding Xikui, reportedly relayed these difficulties to the court, noting that the 10-day period to file an appeal was about to expire in two days. Article 180 of the Criminal Procedure Law provides that a "defendent shall not be deprived on any pretext of his right to appeal." Radio Free Asia reported on December 4, that Huang's appeal apparently had been delivered to the court, but that Zeng Li had not received any confirmation from the court. The report said Zeng and Ding Xikui were having difficulty making phone contact with anyone at the court. Ming Pao reported on December 2 (via Sina.com.hk) that Zeng also had requested that authorities release Huang on bail for medical treatment. Huang reportedly suffers from two tumors in his abdomen, hepatitis B, an irregular heartbeat, and two lumps in his left breast.
The maximum sentence for violating Article 282, Paragraph 2, of the Criminal Law for "illegally possessing" state secrets is three years. In handing down the maximum sentence in Huang's case, the court cited the legal provision providing for a heavier sentence in cases where the person has committed a crime punishable by fixed-term imprisonment within five years of completing his sentence for another crime punishable by fixed-term imprisonment (as provided for in Article 65 of the Criminal Law, one of the provisions governing "recidivists"). Huang previously served a five-year sentence from 2000 to 2005 for "inciting subversion of state power." The court in that case cited articles Huang posted on his Web site, Tianwang Human Rights Center, dealing with topics such as "democracy," "June 4," and "Falun Gong."
For more information about official efforts to suppress public criticism of the collapse of schools and schoolchildren deaths following the May 2008 Sichuan earthquake, see p. 47 in Section II—Freedom of Expression in the CECC 2009 Annual Report, as well as a previous analysis on Huang's August 5 trial and the trial of another earthquake activist, Tan Zuoren, who called for an independent investigation into the school collapses and was charged with inciting subversion.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-12-17 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2010-01-08 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=133274 |
Ministry of Health Ranks HIV/AIDS Deadliest Infectious Disease in China, Government Harassment of Advocates Continues
December 18, 2009
December 1, 2009, marked the 22nd annual World AIDS Day. HIV/AIDS was first officially reported in China in 1985, but reached epidemic proportions in rural areas in the early to mid-1990s due in part to tainted blood transfusions conducted at makeshift blood and plasma donation stations set up by enterprising businessmen and government officials. Medical procedures in these facilities reportedly were deficient: needles and tubes reportedly were reused, blood from multiple donors was mixed, and once plasma had been removed, re-injected into donors of the same blood type. Such practices reportedly resulted in the spread of blood-borne diseases including HIV. HIV/AIDS continues to spread throughout China today through a variety of channels. Many who provide assistance to or who advocate on behalf of people living with HIV/AIDS in China face government pressure, including harassment and other forms of abuse, as detailed below.
Current statistics
In February 2009, the Ministry of Health (MOH) announced that HIV/AIDS had become the deadliest infectious disease in China. The MOH and UNAIDS estimate the number of people living with HIV in China to be between 560,000 and 920,000, and the number of people living with AIDS to be between 97,000 and 112,000, according to a November 24 MOH report. These estimates far exceed actual statistics cited in the same report. UNAIDS reported in November that "it is estimated that fewer than one in three people living with HIV in China have been diagnosed." While problems surrounding diagnosis¡ªincluding general social stigma, fear, and discrimination¡ªdiscourage individuals from getting tested (see UNAIDS China Stigma Index) and may obstruct statistical accuracy, "under-reporting" of cases in China also is a major problem, according to a February 28 article in the international medical journal, The Lancet.
Transmission of HIV/AIDS in China
HIV/AIDS is spreading today in all of China's 31 provincial-level jurisdictions through a variety of channels, according to international AIDS charity AVERT's Web site. Dr. Gao Yaojie, Chinese gynecologist and whistleblower of the 1990s HIV/AIDS epidemic in rural China, suggested in her written statement for a December 3, 2009, Commission roundtable that "rampant" underground "blood trading" may be the main avenue of HIV/AIDS transmission in China. This mode of transmission, however, is not mentioned in the UNAIDS November AIDS Epidemic Update. The report instead charges that "heterosexual transmission has become the predominant mode of HIV transmission," and that a low rate of condom usage in the sex industry plays a key role in HIV/AIDS transmission in the region. According to the report, "In China, 60% of female sex workers do not consistently use condoms with their clients." Other key modes of transmission mentioned in the report include needle-sharing among intravenous drug users, unprotected sex between men who have sex with men (MSM), unsafe practices in the migrant worker population, and mother-to-child transmission. According to a May 1 address by Joanne Csete, Director of the HIV/AIDS and Human Rights Program at Human Rights Watch, government harassment of potential HIV/AIDS advocates makes it difficult to obtain an accurate picture of the epidemic in China. Csete remarked that "the government consistently has sought to suppress the history of massive HIV infection through state-run blood plasma collections, of which we are likely never to know the true scale and the true cost in lives. This history has made HIV even more taboo in public discourse, as though sex and drugs didn't make it taboo enough."
Government Response to Civil Society Action
While non-governmental organizations and individual activists play an important role in HIV/AIDS education, prevention, and treatment in China, official treatment of them often is harsh and repressive. According to the Commission's 2009 Annual Report (p.203), the Chinese government continues to exert control over advocates' right to associate with strict requirements that limit organizations' ability to legally function independently from the government. Individual HIV/AIDS activists also continue to face serious obstacles in their work, including arbitrary detention, harassment, surveillance, intimidation, restrictions on travel, and other violations of their fundamental human rights. Examples of HIV/AIDS activists who have been subjected to such government pressure in the past year include:
- In February 2009, authorities attempted to prevent Dr. Gao Yaojie from meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to Dr. Gao's written statement for a December 3 Commission roundtable. Authorities cut her telephone line in May following news that she was to receive a French human rights award for women, according to a November 29 ChinaAid statement. Dr. Gao left China for the United States in August, hoping to find a "peaceful environment" in which to finish her three books and reveal "the truth about the AIDS epidemic in China," according to the statement.
- On August 4, Asia Catalyst reported that Chinese police seized the passport of an unnamed Chinese AIDS advocate and prevented him from leaving the country to attend the International Conference on AIDS in Asia and the Pacific, to which he was invited by UNAIDS. According to the report, he was warned that if he spoke to the media and international organizations, he would "face the same fate as Hu Jia."
- HIV/AIDS advocate Hu Jia continues to serve a three-and-a-half year prison sentence for "inciting subversion of state power." He is expected to be released on December 17, 2011. On November 17, 2009, Hu's wife Zeng Jinyan reported on her blog that she and her daughter were still under "soft detention" in their home, and were being monitored by seven or eight domestic security protection officials sitting outside the building.
- On December 2, Chinese Human Rights Defenders reported that Beijing authorities detained Henan activist Tian Xi, who reportedly was infected with HIV in 1996 through a hospital blood transfusion, after he unfurled a banner outside of the Ministry of Health on November 19. Officials then forcibly returned him to his home in Gulu township, Xincai county, Henan province, where he remains under 24-hour surveillance, according to the report.
For additional information on the spread of HIV/AIDS in China and government pressure on advocates, see Section II¡ªPublic Health in the Commission's 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-12-11 / English) |
Posted on: 2010-01-08 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=133285 |
Authorities Begin New Incentive Initiative To Continue Population Control in Xinjiang
December 11, 2009
The central government has launched a series of initiatives in the far-western region of Xinjiang to strengthen the region's population control work, including through monetary rewards to residents in designated areas who have fewer births than allowed under the region's population planning requirements. The reward program, started in fall 2009 and mainly directed at ethnic minorities, is part of broader efforts throughout China to control population growth using both punitive measures and incentives to promote compliance. Citizens who expose abuses in official implementation of population planning policies have faced repercussions including harassment and detention, as a recent case from Xinjiang illustrates.
New Initiative in Xinjiang Rewards Fewer Births, Focuses on Ethnic Minorities
The central government has launched a series of initiatives in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) to strengthen the region's population control work, including through monetary incentives for families who have fewer children than allowed under the region's population planning requirements, according to Chinese government and media reports. On October 31, the National Population and Family Planning Commission (NPFPC) signed an agreement with the XUAR government to launch the initiatives, including "special rewards" (teshu jiangli) for families in 26 poor and border counties who have fewer children, according to a November 6 report from the NPFPC (via the State Ethnic Affairs Commission Web site). According to a November 2 Xinhua article, the new reward policy mainly targets rural ethnic minority households who already have two children and have "been certified" (lingzheng) as voluntarily forgoing a third birth [shengyu liang tai hou zhudong fanqi di san tai]. Under Article 15 of the XUAR's Regulation on Population and Family Planning, rural ethnic minority families are permitted to have a maximum of three children. The Xinhua report does not indicate how households prove that they will not have a third child. Some local governments elsewhere in China have launched incentive programs that reward couples who voluntarily undergo sterilization or abortion procedures, and policies launched in previous years also have rewarded certain couples beyond childbearing age (see below). The families in the XUAR who forgo a third birth will receive 3,000 yuan (US$439) as a one-time payment, and each member of the couple will receive an annual payment of 720 yuan (US$105) starting the following year. Under the latest initiatives, authorities also will continue a reward policy already in place in three southern XUAR districts (see a February 3 Xinhua report for more details), provide services including free prenatal health screenings for "better births" in the southern XUAR, and arrange yearly technology training and training for grassroots cadres, according to the NPFPC article. Authorities also will continue "preferential policies" in the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC or bingtuan), an apparent reference to policies there that also reward fewer births. (See, e.g., a May 4 Bingtuan News Net article describing a preferential policy to reward households with one child.)
The recent initiatives build on previous efforts in the XUAR to control population growth by targeting communities designated as ethnic minorities and by focusing on programs that reward fewer births. As noted in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2009 Annual Report, earlier in 2009, authorities stressed strengthening population planning in southern XUAR, which is a predominantly non-Han area, and central and XUAR authorities pledged to increase investment in 2009 to meet the population control targets mandated by the central government. In 2008, the government reported that the XUAR had achieved 65,000 fewer births in 2007 under policies of providing rewards to families who had fewer children than legally permitted, as reported in the CECC 2008 Annual Report. A 2006 Xinhua article reported that the XUAR's population planning policy had taken the "first steps" in moving from "emphasis on punishing multiple births" to "emphasis on encouraging and rewarding fewer births." Since first beginning reward policies in the XUAR in 2006, the number of "certified families" who have given birth to fewer children has increased, according to the November 2 Xinhua report, including 109,000 households in the first nine months of 2009. In the XUAR and throughout China, however, authorities continue to enforce regulations that punish non-compliance with population planning requirements at the same they implement systems to reward fewer births. See below and see Section II—Population Planning in the CECC 2009 Annual Report for additional information.
Citizens Who Expose Abuses Face Repercussions, Uyghur Man Detained
Citizens who expose abuses in official implementation of population planning policies have faced repercussions including harassment and detention, as a recent case from the XUAR illustrates. On July 2, authorities in Yining (Ghulja), Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture, within the XUAR, detained Tursunjan Hesen, a 67-year-old Uyghur man, for reportedly revealing state secrets and endangering state security, according to a village head and neighbor cited in an October 30 Radio Free Asia article. Tursunjan Hesen had given interviews to overseas media about a case involving his daughter, Arzigul Tursun, according to the article. In 2008, authorities had planned to subject her to a forced abortion while she was six months pregnant with her third child, but canceled the plans following international advocacy on her behalf. An official had said Arzigul Tursun "should undergo an abortion" because she violated population planning requirements by becoming pregnant with a third child. As noted, rural ethnic minority couples may give birth to three children, but under the XUAR Regulation on Population and Family Planning, urban ethnic minority couples are permitted to give birth to two children, and where one member of the couple is an urban resident—as was the case in Arzigul Tursun's marriage—urban birth limits apply. The official's statement calling for an abortion, however, has no basis under XUAR population planning regulations. Although those in violation of the policy are required to pay "social compensation fees," there is no stipulation that pregnancies must be terminated if the fee cannot be paid. Both national law and XUAR legal regulations provide sanctions for government officials who infringe on citizens' rights or abuse their power in carrying out population planning requirements, but it is unclear if local authorities faced penalties for their plans to subject Arzigul Tursun to a forced abortion.
Xinjiang Initiative Part of Population Planning Controls Throughout China
Central and local authorities throughout China continue to strictly control the reproductive lives of women in China through an all-encompassing system of family planning regulations in which the state is directly involved in the reproductive decisions of its citizens. As noted in Section II—Population Planning in the CECC 2009 and 2008 Annual Reports, violators of population planning policy are routinely punished with fines, and in some cases, subject to forced sterilization, forced abortion, arbitrary detention, and torture. In addition to punishing non-compliance with population planning requirements, some local governments offer monetary incentives and other benefits to couples who voluntarily undergo sterilization or abortion procedures. Authorities also have provided financial rewards under other circumstances (see, e.g., the CECC 2005 Annual Report and a previous CECC analysis). The utilization of financial incentives reflects an emerging national pattern, but thus far incentives for compliance have only been implemented in addition to, rather than in place of, longstanding coercive measures. Additionally, many provinces connect job promotion with an official's ability to meet or exceed population planning targets, thus providing a powerful incentive for officials to use coercive measures in order to meet population goals.
Population Planning Policy Violates International Standards
China¡¯s population planning policies in both their nature and implementation violate international human rights standards, as described in the 2009 Annual Report. Although implementation tends to vary across localities, the government¡¯s population planning law and regulations contravene international human rights standards by limiting the number of children that women may bear and by coercing compliance with population targets through heavy fines. For example, the PRC Population and Family Planning Law is not consistent with the standards set by the 1995 Beijing Declaration and the 1994 Programme of Action of the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development. Controls imposed on Chinese women and their families and additional abuses engendered by the system, from forced abortion to discriminatory policies against "out-of-plan" children whose births were not authorized, also violate standards in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, all of which the Chinese government has ratified.
For more information on conditions in the XUAR and on population planning policy, see Section II—Population Planning and Section IV—Xinjiang, in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-12-07 ) |
Posted on: 2010-01-08 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=132951 |
New Regulation in Xinjiang Appears To Expand Controls Over Children's Religious Freedom (Includes Update)
December 11, 2009
A new regulation on the protection of minors, adopted by the Xinjiang government and effective December 1, 2009, appears to expand formal legal controls over children's freedom of religion and parents' right to impart religious teachings. The regulation reportedly addresses the "negative impact" various religious activities have on minors. While the full text of the regulation is unavailable, an earlier draft version of the regulation expanded upon restrictions in force in Xinjiang that already prohibited parents or guardians from letting children engage in religious activities, adding more specificity to earlier restrictions and stipulating obligations for government offices and other entities to intervene in certain cases. The prohibition, unseen elsewhere in China, appears to have no basis in Chinese law and also contravenes international protections for freedom of religion. [See the end of this analysis for an update based on a copy of the regulation made available on December 25.]
A new regulation that took effect in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) on December 1, 2009, includes provisions addressing the "negative impact" various religious activities have on minors, according to a November 19 Xinhua report. Although the full text of the XUAR Regulation on the Protection of Minors appears to be unavailable on the Internet and in legal databases, if the final version retains provisions included in the draft regulation considered for deliberation in June, it will expand existing legal controls over children's right to freedom of religion in the XUAR and parents' right to impart religious teachings. The June draft reportedly retains an earlier restriction in force in the XUAR (see below for discussion) stating that parents or guardians "may not permit minors to be engaged in religious activities." The draft also states that "no organization or individual may lure or force minors to participate in religious activities or use religion to obstruct minors' compulsory education," adding "lure" to a similar provision already in force. In addition, the draft states that where minors are "lured" or "forced" into such activities, they "can ask for protection from schools, neighborhood committees, village committees, offices for the protection of minors, or public security organs," and such "organizations or work units receiving requests for help must take measures in a timely manner and not refuse or shift responsibility." According to a June 8 report from Legal Daily (via the Ministry of Commerce's China Market Order Net) on the June draft, the provisions "are directed at the phenomenon in some places in Xinjiang of parents or other guardians forcing minors to believe in a religion or participate in religious activities." The Xinhua article reported that the legislative process included 10 drafts of the regulation but did not specify if any revisions were made to the version considered in June. Recent work on the regulation dates to early 2008, and the drafting process included three study trips inside and outside the XUAR, four sessions to solicit input from each district and municipality, two scholarly forums, and survey work, according to the article.
The new stipulations would add to a restriction previously in force in Article 14 of the XUAR's 1993 Implementing Measures for the Law on the Protection of Minors that prohibited parents or guardians from "permitting minors to be engaged in religious activities," which alone appeared to amount to a total ban on children's religious activities. Article 30 also stated that "no organization or individual may force minors to participate in religious activities" or "use religion to obstruct minors' compulsory education." As noted in an earlier CECC analysis, the earlier prohibition in Article 14 barring parents from permitting children to engage in religious activities was unseen among other regulations in China and appeared to have no basis in national Chinese law. The PRC Law on the Protection of Minors is silent on the matter of religion, and the national Regulation on Religious Affairs is silent on the issue of children's freedom of religion and parents' right to impart religious teachings to their children.
The legal restrictions in the XUAR also contravene international human rights protections for freedom of religion. Article 18 of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which China has signed and pledged to ratify, provide that everyone has the right to freedom of religion. The ICCPR also stipulates "the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions." Under the ICCPR, freedom of religion "may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others," and General Comment Number 22(8) to this article of the ICCPR notes that "the liberty of parents and guardians to ensure religious and moral education cannot be restricted." Article 14 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which China has ratified, specifies that "States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." In addition, "States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child."
The formal legal restrictions, combined with policy directives and the individual interpretations of implementing officials, have translated into harsh controls in practice over children's freedom of religion. See previous Commission analyses (1, 2) for additional information. Authorities identify "illegal religious activities" and "religious extremism" as threats to the region's security and target religion in broader security measures and anti-separatism campaigns. In past years, XUAR media and local government Web sites provided detailed information on implementation of legal measures and policies on religion, including measures affecting children. Such information has been limited this year as Web sites from the XUAR have remained inaccessible to users outside the region since July. For more information on conditions in the XUAR, see Section II¡ªFreedom of Religion¡ªIslam and Section IV¡ªXinjiang in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
UPDATE, January 7, 2010:
On December 25, the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council posted the full text of the XUAR Regulation on the Protection of Minors on its Web site (available via the CECC). The text differs from the reported version of the June draft in that it excludes the previous provision stating that parents or guardians "may not permit minors to be engaged in religious activities." The regulation retains, however, other language from the earlier draft that leaves wide latitude in restricting children's religious activities. It also includes obligations for government offices and other entities to intervene in certain cases.- Article 34 includes language similar to that reported in the June draft, stating that "no organization or individual may lure or force minors to participate in religious activities" and that they "may not use religion to carry out activities to obstruct compulsory education." The regulation lacks criteria for determining what acts constitutes "luring" or "force," leaving latitude to interpret the terms in a manner that conflicts with "the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions," as defined in the ICCPR.
- Article 48 also contains language similar to that in the June draft, stating that where minors are "lured" or "forced" into such activities, they "can ask for protection from schools, neighborhood committees, village committees, offices for the protection of minors, or public security organs," and such "organizations or work units receiving requests for help must take measures in a timely manner and not refuse or shift responsibility."
- Article 53 contains the regulation's final mention of religion. It stipulates that where "any organization or individual lures or forces a minor to participate in religious activities" in violation of Article 34, the controlling agency will give "criticism and education" and "order the situation to be amended." In addition, public security organs will give administrative punishment "in accordance with law" in cases of violations of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law, which includes the possibility of short-term detention. The 1993 XUAR Implementing Measures for the Law on the Protection of Minors did not specify penalties for violations of its religion-related provisions.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-11-27 ) |
Posted on: 2010-01-08 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=132578 |
Human Rights Day 2009 - Joint Statement by Chairman Byron Dorgan and Cochairman Sander Levin
December 9, 2009
Last year, on the eve of Human Rights Day, which is observed each year on December 10th, 303 Chinese citizens¡ªincluding scholars, writers, lawyers, and activists¡ªissued on the Internet Charter 08, a document calling for political reform and greater protection of human rights in China. Liu Xiaobo, a prominent intellectual and dissident who signed Charter 08, was detained the night before the document was released. In June 2009, authorities formally arrested Liu for "inciting subversion." Earlier this month, the police forwarded the case to prosecutors, almost a year after he was taken into custody. Many of the other original signers of Charter 08 (which has since garnered over 10,000 signatures within and outside China) have been subjected to harassment, surveillance, and unlawful house arrest. Chinese authorities have blocked Charter 08, and any reference to it, on the Internet.
Human Rights Day commemorates the anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly's adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. China voted to adopt the UDHR in 1948, and the current Chinese government has committed itself to protecting the fundamental human rights that are enshrined in the UDHR through international agreements and its own domestic law. In April 2009, the Chinese government reaffirmed this commitment in its first-ever National Human Rights Action Plan.
As detailed in this Commission's 2009 Annual Report, there were many setbacks for rule of law and human rights in China during this past year. In addition to the crackdown on Charter 08 signers, the persecution of human rights lawyers, including Jiang Tianyong and others, reached an unprecedented level; authorities have revoked or suspended the licenses of numerous human rights lawyers and many face ongoing persecution and harassment. Ten months after his disappearance, lawyer Gao Zhisheng remains missing. Petitioners continue to be detained and abused in illegal "black jails." The trials of people¡ªmostly Uyghurs¡ªcharged with crimes committed during unrest in Xinjiang in July have been marked by violations of international standards for due process including judges selected for "political reliability" and curbs on defendants' right to independent counsel. The Chinese government continues to suppress civil society initiatives and freedom of expression. For their efforts to advocate peacefully for parents of schoolchildren killed in the May 2008 Sichuan earthquake, authorities put Huang Qi and Tan Zuoren on trial for endangering national security; Huang Qi recently was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of three years for "illegal possession of state secrets." The cases of over 1,200 of the many political and religious prisoners who are being held in China's jails and prisons today are documented in the Commission's publicly accessible Political Prisoner Database.
On Human Rights Day 2009, this Commission calls on the Chinese government to cease the harassment, control, and arbitrary detention of Chinese citizens who engage in peaceful advocacy for their rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other international human rights instruments, and China's own Constitution and laws.
Human Rights Day 2008
| Source: -See Summary (2009-12-09 ) |
Posted on: 2009-12-10 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=133153 |
Beijing Police Transfer Liu Xiaobo's Case to Prosecutors
December 9, 2009
In early December 2009, Beijing police transferred the case of prominent intellectual Liu Xiaobo to prosecutors, who will now decide whether to take the case to trial. Liu has been charged with inciting subversion for essays he wrote in support of democracy and for his support of Charter 08, a document calling for political reform and greater protection of human rights in China.
Beijing police have concluded their investigation against prominent intellectual and Charter 08 signatory Liu Xiaobo and transferred his case to prosecutors in early December 2009, according to a December 10 Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) article and December 9 articles by the Associated Press (via Washington Post) and New York Times. The New York Times reported that "Mr. Liu¡¯s lawyer, Shang Baojun, said in a telephone interview Wednesday that the police had sent to the prosecutors a report accusing Mr. Liu of inciting subversion by posting online essays favoring democracy and by helping to draft Charter 08." The Charter was released online on December 9, 2008, and signed by thousands of Chinese citizens. It calls for political reform and greater protection of human rights in China and led to official harassment of numerous signers. Liu was taken into custody on December 8, 2008, a day before the Charter was released, and placed under residential surveillance. Police formally arrested him on the charge of "inciting subversion of state power" on June 23, 2009.
Under Article 138 of the Criminal Procedure Law, prosecutors have up to one-and-a-half months (which includes a half-month extension) to decide whether to initiate a prosecution. In that time, they may also decide to send the case back to police for supplementary investigation, a move that would restart the clock on the time limit for the prosecution's review of the case (Article 140).
Liu's case has been marred by police abuses and violations of procedural law. After Liu's arrest in June, police barred prominent defense lawyer Mo Shaoping from representing Liu, reportedly because Mo was a fellow signatory of Charter 08. In the months after taking Liu into custody, officials kept Liu in residential surveillance under conditions that violated Chinese laws, including denying Liu access to counsel and keeping him at an undisclosed location beyond the legal time limit for residential surveillance.
Liu could face a sentence of as much as 15 years in prison if convicted. Article 105, Paragraph 2, of the Criminal Law provides for the crime of inciting subversion and "ringleaders and the others who commit major crimes" face a sentence of no less than five years. Article 45 caps fixed-term imprisonment at 15 years. According to the December 10 CHRD article, the police report labeled Liu's alleged involvement in Charter 08 as a "major crime."
Chinese officials have frequently relied on the "inciting subversion" charge to punish citizens who publicly criticize the government and express support for human rights and democracy, often in writings appearing on the Internet. (See, e.g., Guo Quan, Tan Zuoren, Yang Chunlin, Hu Jia, Lu Gengsong).
For more information on restrictions on freedom of expression in China, including official abuse of the subversion charge and suppression of Charter 08, see Section II¡ªFreedom of Expression in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-12-09 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2009-12-09 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=133112 |
The U.S. and China Held the 20th Meeting of the JCCT in Hangzhou, China
December 2, 2009
The 20th meeting of the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade was held in Hangzhou, China on October 28 to 29, 2009. The JCCT, which was established in 1983, is a high-level forum for the United States and China to address concrete trade issues. The meeting achieved certain outcomes, especially in the areas of agricultural trade, market access, and intellectual property rights.
The Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), a high-level trade forum between the United States and China, met in Hangzhou, China on October 28 to 29. The JCCT is focused on concrete trade issues with a set of "deliverables," unlike the other annual dialogue on economic issues, the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), which is focused on the broader, economic U.S - China relationship. In its fact sheet of October 29, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) reported results of discussions at this year's JCCT, including outcomes on agricultural trade, market access for wind turbines, Chinese government procurement, intellectual property rights (IPR), medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and travel and tourism.
The JCCT was founded in 1983 as a dialogue between the U.S. and Chinese commerce departments. Starting in 2004, the JCCT assumed an elevated role as a vehicle for addressing trade and business issues that arose after China's accession to the WTO, and was co-chaired on the U.S. side by the U.S. Trade Representative and Secretary of Commerce, and the Chinese delegation led by the Vice Premier, as described by Hank Levine in his blog, "Behind the Curtain." Mr. Levine was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Asia Pacific at that time. Since 2004, the annual JCCT meetings, like this year's meeting, have invariably included intellectual property rights, agricultural trade, and market access, as well as other relevant trade issues. (For details on commitments at earlier JCCTs, see U.S.-China Business Council, "China's JCCT Commitments, 2004-09.") The specific commitments are determined and outcomes negotiated in the several weeks leading up to the JCCT meeting itself.
According to an October 29 report by China Trade Extra (subscription required), "In advance of the meeting, informed sources said that Chinese officials were refusing to engage to show their dissatisfaction with President Obama's imposition of safeguard tariffs on Chinese tire imports¡" At the same time, another informed source reportedly indicated that the decision on tires did not have a significant impact on the talks. October 29 press releases by the U.S.-China Business Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, were not inconsistent with this view. USTR reported concrete outcomes in its October 29 fact sheet, including most notably the following:
- Agriculture. China said it would allow imports of U.S. pork and live swine. These had been banned starting in May 2009 because of swine flu. It is not clear how great an impact this commitment will have on U.S. exports to China which, according to industry, as reported in the October 30 Wall Street Journal, had been growing before the ban. Since the ban was imposed the Chinese have ramped up the domestic industry.
- Clean tech. Access to China's market for foreign wind turbines had been largely restricted for foreign manufacturers. China agreed to allow greater access by removing a 2007 local content requirement for wind turbines, according to an October 30 China Daily report. This commitment was somewhat overshadowed by news of a large wind energy project in Texas that, according to a report in the November 1, 2009 New York Times, will use wind turbines manufactured in China, providing roughly 2000 jobs for Chinese workers.
- Government procurement. China made some commitments concerning government procurement, which has been largely closed to foreign companies as well as companies in China that have foreign investors. China agreed to treat products of these foreign-invested companies the same as products of domestically-owned companies. Further, China agreed to submit a revised offer to join the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) by early in 2010. The 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 JCCTs had also included commitments concerning China's joining the GPA.
- IPR. Every JCCT since 2004 has included commitments by China to improve its IPR protection in light of rampant piracy in China. These commitments have ranged from the general, such as China's commitment at the 2004 JCCT to significantly reduce levels of infringement and make greater use of criminal penalties, to the specific, such as the 2005 commitment to post an IPR ombudsman at the Chinese embassy in Washington DC. This year, according to the USTR fact sheet, the Chinese gave some general assurances concerning Internet piracy and encouraging the protection of certain types of publications at public libraries, and agreed to work with the U.S. to address certain IPR issues.
According to the fact sheet, China also made commitments, or agreements to cooperate, concerning medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and travel and tourism.
A November 6 article by the Hong Kong Trade Development Council characterized the meeting's achievements as "modest progress." Nonetheless, the JCCT continues to be an important forum for addressing the rules, regulations and policies that hinder free trade or serve as barriers to China fully meeting its WTO commitments.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-11-19 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2009-12-09 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=131919 |
CECC Chairman Byron Dorgan Calls on China to Reveal Whereabouts of Gao Zhisheng
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Congressional-Executive Commission on China
www.cecc.gov
July 28, 2009
Contact for CECC Chairman Byron Dorgan: Charlotte Oldham-Moore 202-226-3798
Contact for CECC Cochairman Sander Levin: Doug Grob 202-226-3777
###
CECC Chairman Byron Dorgan Calls on China to Reveal Whereabouts of Gao Zhisheng
(Washington, D.C. ¨C July 28, 2009) ¨C Senator Byron Dorgan, Chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC), made the following statement on the disappearance of Chinese human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng:
Mr. DORGAN.
I am Chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. The Commission examines human rights and rule of law developments in China. Recently, it has noted the increasing harassment of China¡¯s human rights lawyers. Some of these lawyers have been disbarred and their law firms closed. Others have been physically harassed or beaten. What do these lawyers share in common? They have the tenacity and courage to take on politically sensitive cases.
I want to say a few words today about China¡¯s most famous human rights lawyer, a very courageous man named Gao Zhisheng
It is 174 days since Mr. Gao was last seen being taken from his bed by more than 10 men.
His captors ¨C apparently the ¡°national defense¡± unit of China¡¯s public security agency according to the renowned China expert Jerome Cohen¨C had threatened to kill the young lawyer during previous detentions marked by horrific torture.
What was his transgression? Mr. Gao agreed to take politically sensitive cases, and represented some of the most vulnerable people in China.
He sought to use the law to battle corruption, overturn illegal property seizures, expose police abuses and defend the religious freedom of persecuted Christians, members of Falun Gong and others.
In October 2005, Gao wrote an open letter to the President of China detailing the torture of Falun Gong members by authorities. A month later, authorities shut down his law firm and revoked his license to practice law. In 2006, Gao was convicted of ¡°inciting subversion of state power.¡± He was placed under ¡°home surveillance¡± which was harsher than prison, not only for Gao and but for his family.
In 2007, public security officers abducted Gao again, and he was brutally tortured for 50 days. His abduction was apparently prompted by the publication of an open letter he wrote to us, members of the US Congress. In that letter, Gao alleged widespread human rights abuses in China and described the government's harsh treatment of him and his family.
His captors called him ¡°a traitor¡±. They also warned him that he would be killed if he told anyone about being abducted and tortured.
Once released, he was placed again under ¡°home surveillance¡±. His family faced constant police surveillance and intimidation. His daughter was barred from attending school and lost hope.
The treatment became so brutal that the family decided that their survival depended on escaping from China. But Gao was too closely monitored and could not think of leaving with them without placing his family at great risk.
And so, last January, Gao¡¯s wife, 6-year-old son and teenage daughter were smuggled out of China and then travelled onto the United States. After his family fled China, Gao was abducted from his home. No one has seen him alive since.
We know that his situation is extremely grave. I have met with his wife who fears he may have been killed. The Chinese government has not let anyone see him despite the repeated appeals by UN agencies, our government and other foreign governments, NGOs, and the media.
The Chinese government has signed or ratified many international human rights commitments that require it to come clean about Mr. Gao.
We call on the Chinese government to allow Mr. Gao access to a lawyer and to his family, and to publicly state and justify the grounds for his continued abuse.
The right to speak freely and the right to challenge the government - all of these are enshrined in China's Constitution. Yet, it appears that the Chinese government and Communist Party seem intent on upholding the violation of these rights in the case of Mr. Gao.
What has the Chinese government done to Mr. Gao? How do they justify it? And, when will they allow his family to see him? The government¡¯s continued refusal to produce Mr. Gao makes his case resemble those of ¡°disappeared¡± in Latin American dictatorships.
American law has the practice of habeas corpus. It is the legal action through which a person can seek relief from the unlawful detention of himself or another. Nothing similar to America's habeas corpus exists in China¡¯s legislation or practice. But the UN Conventions against Torture, which China ratified twenty years ago, obligate it to come clean about Gao. I urge government of China to disclose Gao's whereabouts and to justify the grounds for his continued detention.
I yield the floor.
###
| Source: -See Summary (2009-07-28 ) |
Posted on: 2009-12-09 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=133127 |
Top Official Emphasizes Party's Dominance Over Media on Journalists' Day
November 24, 2009
In a November 2009 speech, top Party official Li Changchun marked Journalists' Day in China by reminding reporters of their obligations to serve the Party's interests. Because they remain subject to the control of the Communist Party, Chinese journalists and news media do not enjoy freedom of the press.
In a speech to mark Journalists' Day in China on November 8, 2009, top Communist Party official Li Changchun continued to emphasize the Party's dominance over the nation's news media, according to a transcript of Li's remarks published by People's Daily. Li, a member of the Party's Politburo Standing Committee, told journalists to "persist in strengthening and improving the Party's leadership over news propaganda work" and "persist in the Party's management of the media." He also said that "guiding power over news propaganda work" should remain "firmly in the hands of those devoted to the Party and the people." According to a November 8 Agence France-Presse article (via Google) on the speech, Li is fifth in the hierarchy of China's leaders and "is seen as the country's propaganda and ideology chief."
The word "Party" appears 48 times in the speech. Li refers to the Party in various contexts, including:
- calling on journalists to follow the "correct" political orientation and to maintain complete consistency with the Party's Central Committee.
- noting that in the past 60 years China's news media has played an important role in supporting the Party as it led China through socialist revolution and socialist modernization.
A journalist from the Chinese newspaper Southern Metropolitan Daily compared the speech with a similar one Li gave last year (available here via the People's Daily Web site) and found that language regarding citizens' rights to know, participate, express, and monitor had been downgraded, according to a November 9 posting on the China Media Project Web site.
News media in China do not enjoy freedom of the press in accordance with international human rights standards. Top Chinese officials continue to treat the news media as a tool of the Communist Party. In a major June 2008 speech on the role of the news media, President and Party General Secretary Hu Jintao said journalists should "promote the development of the causes of the Party and the state" and that their "first priority" is to "correctly guide public opinion." The Party's Central Propaganda Department issues frequent directives informing publishers and editors what stories can and cannot be covered and how to cover certain topics. Recent examples include two June 2009 directives. One of the directives ordered media not to criticize a government plan to require the "pre-installation" of filtering software on all computers sold in China. The other banned commenting on the Iranian government's response to unrest following Iran's June 12 presidential election. Propaganda officials such as Li also set broad propaganda goals for the media. In January, Li outlined a propaganda agenda for the year that focuses on safeguarding economic development and social stability.
For more information on the Party and government's control over the Chinese domestic news media and propaganda directives from the past year, see Section II—Freedom of Expression (pp. 50–57) of the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-11-24 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2009-12-09 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=132226 |
Lead Poisoning Incident in Shaanxi Leads to Protests, Rights Infringements Reported
November 30, 2009
The discovery of lead poisoning in children, due to heavy metal pollution from a metal smelter, led to protests by hundreds of residents in Shaanxi province in August 2009. The case highlights ongoing lax compliance with environmental laws and policies, government accountability gaps, and insufficient protection for citizens' environmental rights, including that of access to environmental information in China. In response to the highly visible and contentious Shaanxi lead poisoning case and the wave of other lead poisoning cases in several provinces, the central government announced a provisional plan to better manage heavy metal pollution across China without making details of the plan public.
One of several recent cases in China of lead poisoning in children that occurred in Fengxiang county, Shaanxi province garnered national and international attention after citizens protested in August 2009. During the incident, parents of affected children first utilized institutionalized channels to seek remedies for their children's environmental health problems, but then resorted to street protests. The case highlights ongoing lax compliance with environmental laws and policies, government accountability gaps, and insufficient protection for citizen's environmental rights, including rights of access to environmental information in China. In spring 2009, tests revealed that several children living near the Dongling smelter had above-standard blood lead levels and on August 15, authorities concluded that pollution from the Dongling Smelter in the Changqing Industrial Park was linked to elevated blood lead levels in 851 children out of 1,016 tested, according to an August 21, 2009, Beijing News article (via China Law Information Net). In April, one of the parents of an affected child informed the management committee within the Changqing Industrial Park about the lead poisoning but reported that up until August 6, no action had been taken by the committee, according to the same article. In response, residents surrounded the smelter gate on August 3-4, 2009, as reported by the Beijing News article. The Baoji city Environmental Protection Bureau finally issued an order on August 6 for the smelter and an associated coking workshop to shutdown, but the coking workshop did not comply with the order, according to a Jinyang Net article (via Pai'an Net¡ªShaanxi Legal Net).
Hundreds of residents staged a sit-in for two days outside the local government building beginning on August 15, but officials remained unresponsive, according to a September 13, 2009, Times of London article. On August 17, hundreds of angry residents surrounded the smelter, tore down segments of a wall, ransacked some offices, stoned coal delivery trucks, and destroyed machinery at the smelter, according to the Times article. An August 19, Associated Press article (via Food Manufacturing), citing Xinhua reported that protesters were angry because the company had continued to defy the August 6 order to stop production. It is unclear if citizens were aware that the Ministry of Environmental Protection also had issued a directive to shut down the smelter's operations on August 16, 2009, as described below, which reportedly was implemented the next day. In response to the protests, thousands of police and security personnel encircled the area, and according to a source cited in the Times article, "hundreds of young men ran away to escape arrest." It remains unclear if officials eventually detained or formally arrested residents involved in the protests.
Authorities Warn Against Talking to Journalists, Restrict Blood-Level Tests
After the protests, Shaanxi officials suppressed citizens' freedom of expression and denied residents access to medical tests. After the protests in Fengxiang, police and plainclothes toughs reportedly hassled international reporters trying to cover the story and warned local citizens they would face repercussions if they talk to the media, according to the Times article. According to an August 21, 2009, article on the China Media Project Web site, the Chinese media outlet, Xinhua, a "mouthpiece" of the Communist Party, "[took] the initiative" in reporting about and guiding public opinion domestically regarding the Fengxiang case, which included criticizing the company involved. The article asserted that China's commercial media largely remained silent on the Fengxiang case, allowing Xinhua Online to control the discourse or "grab the megaphone." The Times article reported that officials were restricting doctors from conducting tests for lead poisoning to babies brought in by officials in order to stem citizen protests. One doctor reportedly told journalists that officials had ordered hospital staff not to send blood lead test samples to a nationally recognized lab in Xi'an as had been normal practice; instead, staff reported "...(w)e were told that if anyone must be tested they should be sent for a less reliable test at a local health centre."
Authorities and Polluting Enterprise Did Not Inform Public About Pollution
Authorities infringed upon citizens' legal right of access to information by not informing the public about instances of above-standard pollution emissions from the smelter. An August 19, Xinhua article (via China Youth Daily) reported a local citizen as saying the Dongling Smelter had not made public instances when its pollution levels were above standard, although according to the Beijing News article, the Dongling Smelter's pollution levels exceeded standards in three instances between July 2008 and July 2009. According to Articles 11 (13), 20, and 21 of the Environmental Open Government Information Regulation, a list of enterprises whose released pollutants exceed national or local standards shall be made public by environmental departments and the relevant enterprises should within 30 days of the list's issuance release "the names of major pollutants, their methods of discharge, the toxicity and amount of discharge....and the amount in excess" [of standards] to "major media outlets."
Smelter Long-term Source of Citizen Grievances
The Dongling Smelter had been the subject of citizen grievances in 2003 amid plans to construct the smelter and again in 2006 after it was implicated in a water pollution incident. In 2003, the proposed construction of the Dongling Smelter led citizens in nearby villages to voice a variety of grievances about the amount of land given to the company building the smelter, about the amount of compensation for farm land, and about the coercive measures used by officials to obtain the land, according to the Beijing News article. The same news article reported that according to a 2004 environmental impact assessment report, residents within one kilometer of the smelter should have been moved, however, only 156 households out of 581 were moved. The article cited one resident who recalled that people were worried about the pollution problems from the plant during its construction. In 2006, pollution from the smelter, which had just opened operations, seeped into nearby water wells making them putrid, as described by one resident. In response, citizens surrounded the smelter for several days in protest, according to the report. The report cites sources who said that each year after the plant was operational, the Dongling company sent teams of workers to be treated because of lead poisoning. As reported by the Times article, Chinese domestic journalists who investigated the 2009 lead poisoning cases had discovered that local officials had needed the smelter's revenue to meet their economic targets, so they made a pact with the company.
Authorities Respond as Public Attention Grows
After the lead poisoning cases garnered attention, the Fengxiang county government reportedly "adopted a more positive attitude" toward addressing citizen grievances, according to the Beijing News article. On August 18-19, 2009, local officials considered emergency plans to move remaining residents away from the area around the smelter, according to the same article. An August 18, 2009, Xinhua article (via the Central People's Government of the PRC Web site) reported that the Ministry of Environmental Protection issued the order to shut down production at the Dongling Smelter on August 16, which the company reportedly executed the next day, including shutting down the coking workshop associated with the smelter. As reported by the Beijing News article, on August 19, the Baoji city vice mayor announced that work to shut down the smelter would be completed by August 21. The Shaanxi and other lead poisoning cases, which also led to citizen protests, prompted national environmental officials to promise new measures to address heavy metal pollution, and the Ministry of Environmental Protection in cooperation with other ministries recently passed a provisional plan in line with this goal, as reported by a September 4, 2009, Wall Street Journal article (subscription required). The plan is still pending approval by the central government. According to the article, authorities did not release the plan or many of its details to the public.
Some Chinese citizens have faced repercussions for drawing attention to environmental problems. See a prior Commission analysis. For background information on climate change and environmental governance, see Section II¡ªClimate Change and Environment in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-11-19 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-12-09 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=132273 |
Jiangsu Court Sentences Guo Quan to 10 Years for Organizing Political Party
December 4, 2009
In October 2009, a court in Jiangsu province sentenced Guo Quan to 10 years in prison for his attempts to organize the "China New Democracy Party" and to use the Internet to seek members and disseminate his political views. Chinese citizens who attempt to form independent political parties and use the Internet to organize and peacefully express their opposition to the Communist Party frequently are targeted for harassment, detention, and imprisonment by the Chinese government.
The Suqian Intermediate People's Court in Jiangsu province on October 16, 2009, sentenced Guo Quan, formerly a university professor and a past member of one of the few state-approved "democratic" parties allowed in China, to 10 years in prison for "subversion of state power," according to a Human Rights in China (HRIC) press release of the same date. The court found that Guo used the Internet to organize an "illegal" political party called the "China New Democracy Party," recruited members for the party, published numerous "reactionary" articles online, called for a seven-day stay-at-home boycott of the government, and sought to "overthrow" the socialist system, according to the court judgment (English translation prepared by Dui Hua Foundation, Chinese). Authorities detained Guo on November 13, 2008, arrested him on December 19, and held his trial on August 7, 2009. Guo appealed the verdict on October 23, but authorities reportedly told one of Guo's lawyers, Guo Lianhui, that he could not represent Guo during the appeal and should not accept foreign media interviews, according to an October 23 Radio Free Asia article.
China's Communist Party does not allow Chinese citizens to form independent political parties. In handing down its subversion verdict, the court in this instance cited Guo's attempts to organize a political party, the "China New Democracy Party", calling the party "illegal" but providing no legal reasoning for this conclusion. Guo's lawyers argued Guo's activities were legal based on the right to freedom of association provided for in Article 35 of China's Constitution. His lawyers also argued that he was only promoting democratic ideals and there was no evidence that he sought to overthrow China's socialist system. According to the HRIC press release, Guo Quan is a former member of the state-approved China Democratic League, but was expelled in late 2007. Under China's political system, officials have permitted eight political parties in addition to the Communist Party, but such parties operate "under the leadership" of the Communist Party, according to the White Paper on China's Political Party System published by the State Council Information Office (via China Internet Information Center). In addition to Guo, other Chinese citizens imprisoned for subversion for similar activities include Xie Changfa, who was recently sentenced to 13 years in prison, according to a September 1 HRIC press release, and Wang Rongqing, who was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment in January 2009 for subversion, according to a January 7 Chinese Human Rights Defenders report. (See the CECC 2009 Annual Report for more information on Chinese Democracy Party members sentenced for inciting subversion and subversion (pp. 46-47) and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and "multiparty cooperation" between the Communist Party and the state-approved parties (p. 210)).
As is typical of subversion (or inciting subversion) cases reviewed by the Commission, the court did not assess the harm Guo's activities caused to national security or provide evidence that Guo advocated violence in pursuit of his aims. Subversion is a crime under Article 105 of the Criminal Law. The court emphasized Guo's interactions with other individuals in seeking their membership in a political party, and his calls for an end to one-party rule and civil disobedience, but cites no instance of Guo advocating physical harm to anyone. Nevertheless, the court rejected Guo's argument that his actions were protected under China's constitutional provisions for freedom of speech and association (Article 35 of the Constitution), saying that "the Constitution also clearly stipulates that citizens shall not damage the interests or security of the state in exercising those rights" (an apparent reference to Article 51 of the Constitution, which states that "(t)he exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens"). Despite acknowledging that both Article 51 and Article 35 are found in the Constitution, the court made no attempt to explain why in this instance Article 51 trumped Guo's constitutional rights to free speech and association or to indicate whether it gave any weight to Guo's rights. The court also relied heavily on written statements of individuals who did not appear in court and thus could not be cross-examined by the defense.
Postponements that the court justified on procedural grounds delayed the verdict until October 16, 2009, after celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1. The court accepted the case on June 10 and, under China's Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) Article 168, would have had to issue a judgment within one and one-half months of that date (late July). The court received approval to extend this time period by an additional month (to late August), which Article 168 allows. According to the judgment, the court then granted the prosecution's request for supplementary investigation. The court resumed hearing the case on September 16, meaning that, at the earliest, the court granted the prosecution's request for supplementary investigation on August 16 (Article 166 of the CPL limits such investigations to one month). This means that the prosecution's request was granted after the trial took place on August 7. The legal basis for this post-trial postponement is unclear. Article 162 of the CPL provides that after the defendant makes his final statement, the chief (or presiding) judge shall adjourn the case and then the court shall issue its judgment, making no mention of the possibility of a supplementary investigation by the prosecution. A copy of Guo's final statement (via Chinese Human Rights Defenders) and an August 7 Radio Free Asia article appear to indicate that Guo made his final statement at the August 7 trial. At least one expert on Chinese criminal law has stated that the law does not allow the prosecutor to request a supplementary investigation after the courtroom hearing has concluded (see pp. 490-491 of Andrea J. Worden, "A Fair Game"? of Law and Politics in China, and the "Sensitive" Case of Democracy Activist Yang Jianli, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Volume 40, Number 2, Winter 2009). When the court resumed the hearing on September 16, the time limit for the court's consideration of the case started anew (Article 168 of the CPL), giving it at least another month to issue the verdict.
The court also emphasized Guo's use of the Internet to engage in his activities, including publication of his "Herald of Democracy" series on the Web sites of the Epoch Times, Boxun, and Radio Free Asia, among others. The court cited as evidence the public security bureau's records of the e-mail activity and cell phone text messages of Guo and individuals with whom he corresponded. For more information on the risk Chinese citizens face when disseminating critical views of the Communist Party and Chinese government on the Internet, as well as how Chinese public security officials monitor the Internet activities of its citizens, see Section II¡ªFreedom of Expression, in the Commission's 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-11-17 ) |
Posted on: 2009-12-09 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=131154 |
Party Official Adds More Preconditions Before Dalai Lama Dialogue Can Resume
A senior Communist Party official has made statements in an interview with a European magazine indicating that the Party has introduced what appear to be additional preconditions that it expects the Dalai Lama to meet before the Party will resume discussions ("dialogue") with the Dalai Lama's representatives. The preconditions seek to force the Dalai Lama to accept responsibility for the dialogue stalling in late 2008, and pressure him to curtail his international travel. The introduction of the new preconditions is concurrent with increasing Chinese government demands that governments of other countries should bar the Dalai Lama from entering their countries if those governments wish to develop or maintain good relations with China.
The current series of discussions between the Party's United Front Work Department (UFWD) officials and the Dalai Lama's representatives began in September 2002 and stalled in November 2008 after the eighth round of formal dialogue. (Statements by the Dalai Lama¡¯s Special Envoy, Lodi Gyari, following rounds of dialogue in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, July 2008, and November 2008 are available on the Tibetan government-in-exile Web site.) In July 2008, during the seventh round of dialogue, UFWD Head Du Qinglin laid out a series of preconditions¡ªthe "four no supports" and the "three stops"¡ªthat attempt to hold the Dalai Lama personally accountable for Tibetan views and activities that he does not support and that contradict his policies and guidance, and that pressure the Dalai Lama to take on the role of an active proponent of Chinese government political objectives.
Zhu Weiqun, Executive Deputy Head of the UFWD, who has served as one of the principal contacts with the Dalai Lama's representatives since the second round of dialogue in 2003 (see the statements linked above), described the apparent additional preconditions during a two-hour September 22, 2009, interview in Beijing with a German magazine, Focus. On October 5, Focus published a German-language summary of the interview that is approximately 200 words when translated into English (OSC, 6 October 09). On October 16, China's state-run media objected to the brevity of the Focus article, asserting that Zhu had granted the interview on the condition that Focus would print "the main contents of the interview," and published an approximately 6,600 word English-language transcript of the interview in Xinhua and a Chinese-language transcript in People's Daily (translated in OSC, 17 October 09). In addition to reiterating previous accusations and preconditions, Zhu added two apparent new preconditions on the Dalai Lama, based on the Xinhua and People's Daily transcripts of his statements.- Zhu claimed that the Dalai Lama broke off talks with China twice in November 2008 and demanded an explanation before talks could resume. "If the Dalai Lama side really intends to continue talks, he must first well explain why he cut off the talks twice last year, especially what they did on the second occasion." Zhu's remark about "the second occasion" refers to an unusual meeting of Tibetan political, religious, educational, cultural, and community leaders living outside of China. The meeting was convened in India to "hold an extensive discussion and debate with regard to the Tibetan cause in the light of recent emergency events in Tibet and the international scenario," according to a November 22, 2008, Tibetan government-in-exile (TGiE) report. The meeting participants adopted a set of recommendations urging, among other things, that Tibetans "follow the guidance of His Holiness the Dalai Lama based on the prevailing situation." The recommendation also observed that "views to stop sending envoys and to pursue complete independence or self-determination if no result comes out in the near future were also strongly expressed," the TGiE report said. The Dalai Lama's Special Envoy, Lodi Gyari, a meeting participant, referred to the eighth round of dialogue that had concluded on November 5 and said, "As far as our task is concerned, it has certainly come to a crucial stage. We did not even talk about future meetings," according to a November 21 Reuters report. The Commission has not observed any reports of statements by the Dalai Lama or his representatives asserting that they had "cut off the talks." [See Special Topic Paper: Tibet 2008-2009 for information on the current status of discussions between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama's representatives.]
- Zhu asserted that the Dalai Lama should restrain his international travel because "such activities . . . disturbed the central government and were detrimental to friendly relations between China and relevant countries." Zhu's demand that the Dalai Lama curtail international travel is consistent with recent Party and government statements pointing to what Chinese state-run media has described as an emerging "China doctrine" (China Daily, 12 March 09) that would pressure countries "cultivating ties with China" to deny entry to the Dalai Lama. The China Daily article referred to a March 7, 2009, news conference where, according to a China Central Television report the same day (translated in OSC, 10 March 09), Minister of Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi said: "In handling their relations with China, no country in the world should allow Dalai to pay visits or use their territory to engage in separatist activities. That should be within the norms of international relations, not a so-called special favor to China." [See Special Topic Paper: Tibet 2008-2009 for information on the Chinese government's shift toward a more aggressive international policy on the Tibet issue.]
Zhu stated in the Focus interview that UFWD officials told the Dalai Lama's representatives during the November 2008 eighth round of dialogue that the Chinese government would refuse to discuss the contents of a memorandum summarizing Tibetan positions that the representatives provided to UFWD officials during the round of dialogue, according to the October 16, 2009, Xinhua and People's Daily transcripts. The "Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People" (available on the Tibetan government-in-exile Web site), however, for the first time described the area that the Dalai Lama and his representatives wish to discuss as "all the areas currently designated by the PRC as Tibetan autonomous areas." By proposing that discussions focus on the areas of China that the Chinese government already has designated as areas of Tibetan autonomy, the Dalai Lama and his representatives have created an unprecedented opening for progress in dialogue with Chinese leaders. [See Special Topic Paper: Tibet 2008-2009 for information on the "Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People" (available on the Tibetan government-in-exile Web site).]
| Source: -See Summary (2009-11-03 ) |
Posted on: 2009-12-09 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=131381 |
Chinese Authorities Block Chinese Citizen Li Jianhong from Returning to China
As the Commission noted in its 2009 Annual Report, Chinese authorities continue arbitrarily to deny some Chinese citizens the right to return to their country in contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In mid-October 2009, the Chinese government blocked freelance writer and activist Li Jianhong (a.k.a. Xiao Qiao) from returning to her home in Shanghai after a stint in Sweden as the "Guest Writer of Stockholm" with the International Cities of Refuge Network (ICORN). Chinese officials in Shenzhen twice refused Li entry into mainland China from Hong Kong. Hong Kong authorities would not permit Li to remain in Hong Kong, and thus she had no choice but to fly back to Sweden, where she is today.
Writer and activist Li Jianhong suspects that Chinese authorities blocked her from re-entering China in mid-October because she had signed Charter 08, a document calling for political reform and greater protection of human rights in China, and because she wrote several articles in connection with the 20th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen protests this year, according to an article published in the South China Morning Post (SCMP) (subscription required) on October 23. The article quoted Li Jianhong as saying that "[i]n July, several police officers told my parents in Shanghai that I would probably not be allowed back to the motherland for my alleged persistent anti-Communist and anti-socialist stance." Li told SCMP that mainland immigration officials explained to her "that they were simply following orders" when they refused to let her enter China.
By refusing Li, a Chinese citizen, entry into China, the Chinese government is acting in contravention of Article 13 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." In addition, Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which China has signed but not yet ratified, states: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."
Background
In 2002, Li Jianhong co-founded an independent Web site, Enlightenment Forum (Qimeng Luntan), which subsequently was shut down in 2004, according to an October 15 statement issued by the Independent Chinese PEN Center (ICPC) (in Chinese, in English via China Free Press). Li then created the Free China Forum (Ziyou Zhongguo Luntan), which the PEN American Center (American PEN) reports also is blocked. According to American PEN, Li "has been subjected to intense police harassment since January 2005 for her critical writings published online and peaceful dissident activities." Li has experienced repeated instances of home confinement, brief detentions outside her home, and interrogations. (Li's account of her arbitrary detention and mistreatment at the hands of Shanghai public security officers (domestic security protection unit) during 2007 is available in an English translation here (via American PEN).) On one occasion in 2007, Shanghai police detained Li, a member of the ICPC, in order to prevent her from attending an ICPC dinner party in Beijing, at which she was to receive the Lin Zhao Memorial Award. When the Shanghai public security authorities finally granted Li permission to leave China for Sweden in 2008, they told her that once she left, she would not be permitted to return, according to an October 15 Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) report. On April 28, 2008, the day of her departure to Sweden, Li was "escorted" to Shanghai's Pudong International Airport by two government vehicles.
Li in Stockholm as Guest Writer; Blocked From Returning Home to China
Li had been in Sweden since April 2008 serving as the Guest Writer of Stockholm city with the International Cities of Refuge Network (ICORN), according to an ICORN news report. Originally a year-long stint, according to a Radio Free Asia article, the Stockholm city government subsequently extended her invitation to remain in the city. Li sought to extend her Chinese passport which was due to expire in late October 2009, but the Chinese Embassy in Sweden rejected her application. Consequently, Li left Sweden ahead of schedule, and traveled to Hong Kong on October 10. Li attempted to enter mainland China twice from Hong Kong, first on October 15 (when some of her books were confiscated), and then again on October 17, and was blocked both times (see CHRD's reports 1 (October 15), 2 (October 17), and ICPC's October 15 statement). Hong Kong authorities would not permit Li to remain in Hong Kong, according to an October 18 Ming Pao article. ICORN's report, posted on its Web site around October 23, stated that Li had returned to Stockholm, and with "the help of Stockholm's City of Refuge coordinator," Li was "permitted to enter the country despite the fact that her passport and her Swedish visa" expired the next day. Professor Perry Link, discussing Li Jianhong's case in his October 21 post on the New York Review of Books Blog, wrote: "Chinese who are critical of their government have long grown accustomed to the regime's use of the national border as a thought-test. You criticize us? All right, if you are inside the country, we might not let you out. If you are outside the country, we might not let you in." Professor Link mentioned that a friend of his, a well-known Chinese dissident who is abroad on a year-long fellowship, decided to rush home to China after hearing what had happened to Li. His friend's view was that "if he was going to be trapped, [he] would rather be trapped inside China than outside."
The Chinese government has, for many years, refused to renew passports of Chinese citizens abroad whom it deems to be "troublemakers," or otherwise barred them from returning to China, thereby forcing them into exile. (See Human Rights in China/Human Rights Watch 1995 report; Dui Hua Foundation's August 2007 discussion of Yang Jianli and the right to return, and a May 13, 2009, New York Times article regarding 1989 student leader Zhou Yongjun's case.) The Chinese government's "use of the national border as a thought-test"¡ªto use Professor Link's formulation¡ªappears to have taken on a new twist: Chinese citizens who currently reside in China, whom the Chinese government views as "troublemakers," but nonetheless permit to travel abroad for fellowships, vacation, or other purposes, travel overseas at their own peril. Another Shanghai-based Chinese citizen, Feng Zhenghu, who has repeatedly been denied entry back into China following a trip to Tokyo this summer wrote in a September 2009 letter (via CHRD) to President Hu Jintao:
That I have been arbitrarily prohibited from returning to China and my home after traveling abroad¡ªthis is a threat to all Chinese citizens. My misfortune is something that every Chinese person could experience. In the past, others have experienced this misfortune, now it is my turn; if there is someone the leaders are dissatisfied with, then tomorrow that person will meet the same fate. Moreover, based on my experience of having tried seven times to return to China, I've realized this: the Chinese government's unlawful measures in prohibiting its own country's citizens from returning home not only harm Chinese citizens, but in the end, the Chinese government's own dignity and reputation is also harmed.
For more information see Section II¡ªFreedom of Residence¡ªLiberty of Movement in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-11-02 ) |
Posted on: 2009-12-09 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=131324 |
China Requires Real Names, Identification Numbers To Post Comments Online
China's State Council Information Office reportedly issued a secret directive in July 2009 ordering Chinese news Web sites, many of which now allow users to post comments on news items, to require new users to provide identifying information before posting comments. Although government officials denied a report about the directive, news portals appear to be complying with the new policy. The Chinese government has punished citizens who have used the Internet to, among other things, peacefully criticize the Communist Party and the Chinese government. By making it easier for officials to identify the source of such comments, the new policy may lead to self censorship. Internet companies operating in China and Chinese Internet users have expressed opposition to similar policies in the past.
The State Council Information Office (SCIO) reportedly issued a secret directive in late July 2009 ordering news Web sites in China to require new users wishing to post a comment to provide their real name and identity card number, according to a September 5 New York Times (NYT) report. The Commission could not locate the government directive on the Internet, but found that several news portals, including Sohu, Netease, and MSN, appeared to be complying with the directive. The NYT report said that major news portals such as "Sina, Netease, Sohu and scores of other sites" began implementing the requirement in early August, citing "top editors" at two of the news portals and a staff member at Sina. The requirement did not apply to "blog hosts, forums or government news sites like People's Daily or Xinhua" and did not appear to affect users already registered with the sites, according to NYT. The report did not specify why the requirement did not apply to certain sites or why current users were not affected. The NYT report said that in the past users had been able to post comments more anonymously on many of the affected sites and often did not need to register. According to NYT, Chinese officials can already trace comments to an Internet protocol address. Internet companies are also required by Chinese regulations to maintain records of the online activity of a user.
Newspapers reportedly pulled coverage of the directive or said they were warned not to cover it, according to the NYT report. The Hong Kong-based newspaper Ta Kung Pao first reported on the directive in early August but removed the story from its Web site days later. (Duo Wei News Net reprinted the story; China Digital Times translated it into English.) The NYT article said a Chinese newspaper tried to follow up on the Ta Kung Pao story, but was "forced to abort their article because they were warned that the order was a state secret," according to editors at the paper. In a September 11 Beijing International Herald Leader article (via the government Web site of Huilai county, Guangdong province), SCIO reportedly refuted the NYT article and the existence of a "real name system," but acknowledged that users must register to post comments.
Internet users in China say real name requirements raise free speech and privacy concerns and discourage citizens from exposing official corruption. After officials in Hangzhou city, Zhejiang province, attempted to impose a real name requirement that would have taken effect in May 2009, a large online survey by QQ found that 78 percent of people polled did not support the regulation, according to a May 26 China Daily article. The Hangzhou regulation, which was issued in April 2009, was reportedly "shelved," according to a May 19 Xinhua report. One Internet user cited in the China Daily article said the regulation could "violate our privacy and freedom of speech, as well as discourage online supervision over political corruption." Chinese officials have in recent years violated the right to freedom of expression of citizens such as Yang Chunlin, Hu Jia, Lu Gengsong, Zhang Qi, Chen Daojun, Wang Rongqing, and Yuan Xianchen, by detaining or sentencing them for using the Internet to peacefully express their views, including criticizing the Communist Party or Chinese government, calling for political reforms or democracy, or spotlighting issues considered sensitive by the Party or government. (For more information on these cases see the CECC's Political Prisoner Database.) Another Internet user mentioned in the China Daily article criticized the Hangzhou regulation's vagueness, saying "It prohibits spreading rumors online, but the question is how to define rumor. Faced with dangerous situations, people will naturally take precautions and send warnings to their friends. Can information spread that way really be called rumor?" In October 2009, 15 Chinese intellectuals issued the Internet Human Rights Declaration, in which they stated that "Netizens' [Internet users'] freedom of speech encompasses a right to express themselves anonymously. Anonymity enables some authors to express their opinions in ways that best suit their needs." (For information on Internet whistleblowers and the government's application of the "spreading rumors" provision in Article 25 of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law, see Section II—Freedom of Expression in the Commission's 2009 and 2007 Annual Reports.)
The NYT article noted that the idea for a real name registration system dates back to 2003, when the government ordered Internet cafes to require that customers show identification. Other examples of attempts to introduce real name requirements in recent years include:
- In 2005, authorities in Shenzhen municipality, Guangdong province, began requiring Internet chatrooms, bulletin boards, news groups, and instant messaging systems to implement a real name system as part of an Internet "purification and rectification" initiative.
- As noted in the Commission's 2007 Annual Report, the Internet Society of China, a think tank affiliated with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, attempted to implement a policy that would have required all bloggers to register with their real names. The government backed away from the plan after Internet companies resisted the plan, arguing that the system would be impossible to implement. According to a May 22, 2007, Xinhua article, a Chinese blogger said that the risk of being identified would discourage bloggers from reporting the truth.
The most recent real name directive was introduced during a period of increased attempts to censor the Internet, as Chinese officials were preparing to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 2009. Before October 1, officials reportedly stepped up efforts to block Web sites and online tools that allow Chinese citizens to circumvent China's Internet restrictions, according to a September 25 PCWorld article. The Chinese government also attempted to require all computers sold in China after July 1 to be packaged with government-approved "Green Dam" censorship software. According to an August 13 Xinhua article, an official later announced that the requirement would not be imposed on all computers. Officials also reportedly issued an order that Internet service providers install "Blue Shield" censorship software on their servers by a September deadline, according to a September 13 Apple Daily article (in Chinese).
For more information about Internet censorship in China and how officials punish citizens for using the Internet to peacefully express their views, including criticizing the Communist Party or Chinese government, calling for political reforms or democracy, or spotlighting issues considered sensitive by the Party or government, see Section II—Freedom of Expression in the Commission's 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-11-10 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2009-12-08 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=130744 |
Xinjiang Government Issues Internet Regulation, Keeps Strict Controls on Information
Authorities in the far-western region of Xinjiang have passed a new regulation on "informatization" promotion that includes provisions against using the Internet to incite ethnic separatism, threaten state security, or spread false information. While the ban is similar in some respects to prohibitions found elsewhere in China, Xinjiang authorities also have stressed the importance of the regulation in upholding stability following demonstrations and outbreaks of violence in the region in July and September. The regulation follows earlier efforts in Xinjiang to limit and punish people for online activity.
Internet Regulation Targets Online Separatism
On December 1, a new regulation will go into effect in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) that includes provisions that prohibit the use of the Internet to incite ethnic separatism, threaten state security, or spread false information, among other acts. The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Informatization Promotion Regulation, adopted on September 25, also contains general provisions to promote and regulate Internet technology, similar to regulations elsewhere in China, some of which also prohibit certain online activity. The XUAR regulation comes as authorities have stated concern about the role of the Internet in events on July 5, when Uyghurs organized a demonstration in Urumqi and outbreaks of violence also occurred. A member of the XUAR People's Congress Legal Committee described the new measures as partly a response to the Internet having been used to "spread rumors, incite ethnic separatism, and provoke disturbance" in the lead-up to events on July 5, and to spread "false reports and information to confuse public opinion" after July 5, according to a paraphrasing of his remarks in a September 23 Xinjiang Dushibao article. The regulation also comes after authorities issued a notice that called for punishing the intentional spread of false information following reports of syringe attacks in September. This recent focus on regulating Internet use in the XUAR follows the shutdown of Internet access in the region soon after July 5. Internet access in the region reportedly remains limited. (See, eg., an October 29 Reporters Without Borders report, an October 29 Radio Free Asia report, an October 23 Agence France-Presse report (via Google), an October 23 IDG News Service report (via PC World), and a September 28 China Daily report.)
The new XUAR regulation aims to promote information technology and infrastructure in the region, but also strengthens oversight of "information security," including by prohibiting several categories of Internet conduct. Article 40 of the regulation prohibits using the Internet to: (1) endanger state security or harm national and social interests; (2) destroy ethnic unity, incite ethnic separatism, or endanger social stability; (3) endanger the safety of the Internet and information systems; (4) violate intellectual property rights, trade secrets, or the lawful rights and interests of individual privacy, citizens, corporations, or other groups; (5) furnish, produce, or disseminate false or harmful information; (6) produce or disseminate information that is obscene, pornographic, violent, terrorist, homicidal, or that instigates crime; and (7) carry out other acts prohibited in laws and regulations. Article 41 of the regulation specifies penalties for violating the prohibitions. (Article 8(4) of the PRC Legislation Law states that only national laws (falu) may be enacted relating to crimes and criminal sanctions. As a regulation (tiaoli), the XUAR legislation does not directly criminalize online activity. It stipulates that authorities are to pursue criminal responsibility for certain violations of the regulation.) Article 41 of the XUAR regulation specifies that for violations involving the first two types of prohibited conduct, which include using the Internet to endanger state security, destroy ethnic unity, or incite ethnic separatism, public security organs will "strike hard" against the activity, and judicial organs will "thoroughly and swiftly investigate criminal responsibility." Individuals and work units that engage in any of (3) through (6) above, including using the Internet to spread false information, will be subject to fines. In addition, Article 34 of the regulation requires Internet service providers and related administrators to "establish and perfect" an "inspection and control" system for Internet security, and Article 43 specifies fines and the possibility of criminal responsibility for violations of Article 34.
National Measures, Provincial Regulations Contain Some Similarities to Xinjiang Regulation
Previous national measures on Internet use and those from other localities in China also have addressed state security, separatism, ethnic unity, and the spread of rumors. Articles 4 and 5 of the Measures for the Administration of Security Protection of Computer Information Networks With International Connections, issued in 1997 by the Ministry of Public Security, prohibit use of the Internet that "endangers state security" and specify that work units and individuals must not use the Internet to "produce, duplicate, look for, or disseminate" information that "incites separatism" or "ethnic hatred," "destroys the unity of the nation" or "ethnic unity," or "spreads false information," among other acts. Articles 20 and 22 of these national measures also specify fines for violations and stipulates that criminal responsibility will be pursued for serious violations. See related provisions directed at Internet news and information services work units in Article 15 of the Measures for the Administration of Internet Information Services and Article 19 of the Provisions on the Administration of Internet News Information Services. At least two local regulations, the Hangzhou Municipality Computer Information Internet Safety and Protection Management Regulation (Article 23), and the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region Regulation on Computer Information Systems Security Protection (Article 17), both issued this year, contain detailed lists of prohibited acts similar to the above national measures and to the relevant articles of the XUAR regulation, as well as stipulations on pursuing criminal responsibility for some violations (Articles 42 and 33, respectively). In the past two years, other areas of the country have issued informatization promotion regulations, including Beijing, Tianjin, Shandong, and Yunnan, which are similar to the new XUAR regulation in their general aims of information promotion. They do not contain the same detailed list of prohibited Internet activity, but some of the regulations contain prohibitions on endangering state security or other acts and penalize violations. (See Articles 36 and 47 in the Beijing regulation and Article 38 of the Shandong regulation.)
International human rights standards permit restrictions on free expression in order to protect public interests such as state security, but Chinese officials exceed such allowances by using regulations such as the one recently passed in the XUAR to target expression that the Communist Party deems to be a threat to its own, as opposed to the public's, interests. For more information, see Section II¡ªFreedom of Expression¡ªCensorship of the Internet and Cell Phones in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
Xinjiang and Beijing Authorities Detain Internet Posters, Bloggers
The XUAR regulation indicates the government has placed a renewed emphasis on regulating and punishing certain types of Internet activity following events in July, but XUAR authorities have punished people for similar activity in the past. In March 2009, Chinese state media reported that authorities initiated prosecution against a man identified only as "Ya" after he allegedly "spread rumors" and fabricated information on the Internet about a clash in Shayar County, Aqsu district, between Uyghurs and Han. A XUAR media report said that Ya's articles were used by foreign Web sites that aimed to "disrupt ethnic unity" and "influence social stability." In a case involving both sharing information overseas and posting it on the Internet in China, in December 2007, authorities in Turpan detained Ekberjan Jamal after he took audio footage of shopkeepers' demonstrations, sent it to foreign media outlets, and published the media outlets' news on his own Web site. The Turpan Intermediate People's Court sentenced him in February 2008 to 10 years in prison for splittism and revealing state secrets. (See previous CECC analysis for more information on the cases of "Ya" and Ekberjan Jamal.)
In a case outside of the XUAR but connected to events in Urumqi on July 5, Beijing authorities detained Uyghur scholar Ilham Tohti around July 8 after an official within the XUAR alleged Ilham Tohti's blog contributed to incitement of rioting on July 5. After holding Ilham Tohti in a hotel and within his home, authorities released him without charges on August 22, according to an August 24 Radio Free Asia report. Earlier in the year, Ilham Tohti had said that he had been repeatedly interrogated by police and informally accused of separatism. In a more recent case with an apparent connection to Internet use and events in July, XUAR authorities detained Dilshat Perhat (Dilixiati Paerhati), editor of the Web site diyarim.com, on August 7, according to an October 22 Amnesty International press release. Specific details about his current detention are not available, but authorities had earlier questioned him about events in Urumqi in July, the press release reported.
For more information on conditions in the XUAR, see Section IV¡ªXinjiang in the CECC 2009 Annual Report. For more information about Internet censorship generally in China, see Section II¡ªFreedom of Expression in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-10-13 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-12-08 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=130352 |
Three Provinces Issue New or Amended Regulations on Religion
The Chinese government has taken steps in recent years to pass more legislation to regulate religion. Since the central government implemented a national regulation on religion in 2005, a number of provinces have followed suit with their own regulations, including three provinces which passed new or amended regulations this summer or fall. Such regulations provide a measure of protection for some religious activities, but such protection is limited in scope and applies only to state-sanctioned religious communities. In addition, while the new pieces of legislation, which incorporate national requirements, lend a measure of transparency and consistency to government regulation of religion, they also articulate tighter controls in a number of areas, as compared to the older regulations they amend or replace.
Three provincial governments have issued new or amended regulations on religious affairs to take effect in the summer and fall of 2009, continuing a trend in issuing revised or new provincial-level legislation on religion since the State Council Regulation on Religious Affairs (RRA) entered into force in March 2005. The new or amended pieces of legislation are the Jiangsu Province Regulation on Religious Affairs (Jiangsu RRA, amending the 2002 regulation via a decision on May 20, 2009, effective July 1), the Hubei Province Regulation on Religious Affairs (Hubei RRA, adopted July 31 and effective October 1, nullifying a 2001 regulation), and the Hainan Province Provisions on the Management of Religious Affairs (Hainan provisions, adopted September 25 and effective December 1, nullifying a 1997 regulation.) Since the national RRA entered into force in 2005, the governments of Shanghai, Shanxi, Henan, Zhejiang, Anhui, Beijing, Chongqing, Hunan, Liaoning, Sichuan, Tibet Autonomous Region, Hebei, Jiangxi, and Shaanxi also have reported issuing new or amended regulations on religious affairs.
As noted in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2009 Annual Report, the Chinese government uses law as a tool to restrain, rather than protect, the right of all Chinese citizens to freedom of religion. Chinese government regulations on religion provide a measure of protection for some religious activities, but such protection is limited in scope and applies only to state-sanctioned religious communities. The regulations also impose tight controls and oversight over various religious activities. At the same time, recent efforts to legislate on religion have lent some formal transparency and consistency to government regulation of religion. The new regulations and provisions from Jiangsu, Hubei, and Hainan bring the provinces' legal regulation of religion up to date with national requirements and lend more clarity to the governments' regulation of religion. Both the Hubei RRA and Hainan provisions are roughly double in length over the regulations they replace, and all three new or amended pieces of legislation introduce more precision and some new explicit protections for religious communities. At the same time, more detailed stipulations also translate into more explicit controls over some aspects of religious practice. Some of the legislation also contains innovations apparently unseen in other recent regulations on religion.
Key features of the Jiangsu RRA, Hubei RRA, and Hainan provisions include:- Recognizing a "Positive Role" for Religious Communities. The amended Jiangsu RRA states in Article 1 that the regulation was drafted in part to "bring into play the positive role of public figures from religious circles and lay believers in the promotion of social and economic development," apparently the first regulation to include such language since high-level Communist Party officials and statements began to articulate a "positive role" for religious communities. Article 5 of the Hubei regulation also includes similar language. Despite articulating a "positive role" for religious communities, authorities have used the sentiment to bolster support for state goals more so than to accept and protect religious life within Chinese society. See the CECC 2009 Annual Report for more information.
- China's Five Recognized Religions. Article 2 of the Jiangsu RRA, retained under the amendments, defines religion to mean only the five religions recognized by the Chinese government: Buddhism, Catholicism, Daoism, Islam, and Protestantism. The article is similar to provisions in some other provincial-level regulations. Like the national RRA, neither the older 2001 Hubei regulation, the new Hubei RRA, nor the Hainan provisions include specific mention of the five groups, which conceivably could create space for local innovations in accommodating other religions. See CECC analyses on other provincial-level regulations (1, 2) for more information.
- Religious Activities in the Home. Similar to other recent regulations, Article 14 of the Jiangsu RRA states that religious activities are to be held at registered venues, and Article 19 of the Hubei RRA states that "in general" they are to be held in such venues. Article 11 of the Hainan provisions similarly provides that religious citizens can carry out religious activities in registered venues but also stipulates that they can "live a religious life within one's home," language on worship at home similar to a number of other recent regulations on religious affairs. Language on worship at home carries potential significance for groups of people who want to gather in private residences, outside of state-controlled venues, to hold worship services. As discussed in the CECC 2007 Annual Report, the Chinese government states there are no registration requirements for religious gatherings within the home, but continues to target some private religious gatherings for closure. For more information, see CECC analyses of other provincial-level regulations (1, 2).
- Property Protections. Compared to the 2002 version of the regulation, the amended Jiangsu RRA appears to refine and possibly increase property protections for venues for religious activities. Article 32 (revised from Article 30 in the 2002 regulation) lends more specificity to the circumstances in which local governments may demolish religious property and adds more specificity to the process for compensating religious groups. In addition, newly added Article 43 outlines steps including the possibility of criminal liability for people who violate Article 32 and demolish religious property without permission.
- More Specificity, New Deadlines for Official Actions. Some provisions in the new or amended pieces of legislation add specificity to older provisions or clarify them by specifying time limits for officials to make decisions that affect religious communities. See, e.g., Articles 19 and 23 (previously Article 22) of the Jiangsu RRA. Articles 14 and 15 of the Hubei RRA lend more specificity, consistent with the national RRA, to the process of establishing and registering venues for religious activity. For various provisions in the Hainan provisions (some without counterparts in the older regulation) that add time limits for official decisions, see, e.g., Articles 5, 6, 8, 9, and 13.
- Increased Controls. By introducing more clarity, the regulations also articulate more explicit controls in some cases. For example, the older Hubei regulation provided only a limited number of restrictions on the activities of religious personnel (See Article 7). The new regulation, in contrast, contains 6 articles (Articles 30-35) governing a wider scope of their activities. Some articles include new benefits—like the provision of insurance (Article 34)—but taken as a whole, the articles spell out more controls over the activities and qualifications of religious personnel. The Hainan provisions similarly articulate limits on religious personnel's cross-provincial movement (Article 10) missing from the older regulation.
- Penalties Changed. Article 41 (previously Article 38) of the Jiangsu regulation adds to and refines a list of activities that may meet with official sanction, such as religious personnel leading religious activities before their status has been put on file. Whereas under the 2002 regulation such activity could be fined, however, the new revisions only specify that religious affairs bureaus order the activities to stop. (Other articles in the amended Jiangsu RRA continue to specify fines and other penalties.) The 1997 Hainan regulation lacked provisions on liability. In contrast, the new provisions spell out both penalties for officials who abuse their power (Article 21) as well as for citizens or religious organizations that violate the provisions (Articles 22-27).
For more information on recent provincial regulations on religion, see CECC analyses of the Shanghai, Shanxi, Henan, and Zhejiang regulations, amendments to the Anhui RRA, amendments to the Beijing RRA, and new regulations from Chongqing and Hunan. See also the written statements of Eric Carlson, Bob Fu, and James Tong, from the CECC 2006 roundtable China's National and Local Regulations on Religion: Recent Developments in Legislation and Implementation, for their analyses of regulations. For additional information on religion in China, see Section II—Freedom of Religion in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-08-05 ) |
Posted on: 2009-12-08 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=127976 |
Chinese Professor Sues Customs Officials for Confiscating Books at Border
November 25, 2009
Chinese officials do not allow persons entering mainland China to bring in books considered by officials to "attack the Communist Party" or "harm China's politics," among other things. Thus, persons who obtain books in Hong Kong, Taiwan, or any other place, run the risk of having them confiscated at the Chinese border. One Chinese citizen, the noted professor Feng Chongyi, sued a customs office in Guangdong province for confiscating several books he purchased in Hong Kong, including books on political topics such as democracy in China and former Party general secretary Hu Yaobang. A court began hearing the case in mid-October 2009. Feng argued that in applying a policy of confiscating books at the border on the basis of vague categories and a list of banned books that is not publicly available, Chinese officials violated Article 4 of the PRC Administrative Punishment Law, which requires administrative penalties to adhere to "principles of fairness and openness," and failed more generally to adhere to fundamental principles of the rule of law.
Feng Chongyi, a noted Chinese professor, has filed a lawsuit against a Chinese customs office located in Guangdong province near Hong Kong after officials there confiscated 11 of his books, according to an October 22, 2009, Southern Weekend (SW) article (in Chinese, English translation provided by Danwei). According to the SW article, as Feng was entering China through Guangzhou city in Guangdong on June 5, 2009, officials at the Tianhe Station Customs Office confiscated the books during an inspection. The officials claimed the books had been banned. The books, described as "scholarly works purchased in Hong Kong" in the SW article, included a collection of essays discussing the roots of the Chinese Communist Party's power and the prospects for democracy in China (according to a description of the book on the Hong Kong Book City Web site), and two books relating to former Party general secretary Hu Yaobang. Hu's death in 1989 was followed by the student demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. The Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court reportedly began consideration of Feng's lawsuit on October 14.
Feng argued to the court that, because Chinese customs officials' actions were based on rules that were not published, they violated rule of law principles, according to the SW article. Feng cited Article 4 of the PRC Administrative Punishment Law, which requires administrative penalties to adhere to "principles of fairness and openness." Feng said the customs office failed to publish either a list of banned books or concrete standards for determining which books may be prohibited from entering China. The SW, citing its own sources, explained that customs officers at major inspection rooms have an internal list of banned printed materials, which they keep secret from both the general public and even customs officers in other departments. The Tianhe Station Customs Office argued that the books fell within the list of prohibited items under the Measures for Overseeing the Import and Export of Printed Materials and Audio-Visual Materials Through Customs and the List of Prohibited Items for Import and Export. Feng noted that while the List of Prohibited Items for Import and Export includes a prohibition on materials "harmful to China's politics, economy, culture, or morals," the public would not know how to abide by the law without a more specific list of banned books. The SW article said Feng's experience of having books confiscated at the border was a common one for persons going through Chinese customs.
Besides Feng, other Chinese persons have sought to challenge the actions of Chinese customs offices in the past, with limited success. According to the SW article, seven years ago customs officials at the Beijing Capital Airport confiscated the book, How the Red Sun Rose: The Origin and Development of the Yan'an Rectification Movement, from a Beijing lawyer returning from Hong Kong. In what was considered the first lawsuit challenging customs' confiscation of printed materials in China, the lawyer Zhu Yuantao won on appeal before the Beijing High Court. Among its findings, the court found that China's central customs agency, the General Administration of Customs, had not acted in accordance with the PRC Customs Law and other relevant laws and regulations, because the agency based its decisions on a list of banned items developed internally as opposed to a published list that had been confirmed by the State Council. Two months later, however, the court changed its decision and affirmed the actions of the customs office, according to the SW article. (For an English account of the lawsuit and Zhu's attempt to obtain the confiscated book, see an October 23, 2003, Shanghai Star article via China Daily). In a case from 2008, according to the SW article, customs officials in Fuzhou city, Fujian province, seized copies of a book being sent to Fujian author Chen Xiwo from Taiwan. The book was the traditional-character edition of a book Chen had written and which already had been published in China. The ten stories featured in the book also had been published in well-known literary magazines in China. Chen lost both the original suit and the appeal, and both courts held closed proceedings because the case allegedly "involved state secrets."
The Chinese government's measures that prohibit entry of books and reading materials the content of which officials deem unacceptable fail to comply with international human rights standards. Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which China has signed but not yet ratified, provide for a right to freedom of expression, including the right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas...regardless of frontiers." Both the UDHR and ICCPR allow governments to impose restrictions on this right, but only if the restriction is "provided by law" (Article 19 of the ICCPR) or "determined by law" (Article 29 of the UDHR). As illustrated in the Feng case, the overly vague categories of prohibited content suggest that the Chinese government's restrictions in practice are not determined by law, and are not clearly provided by law. Article 4 of the Measures for Overseeing the Import and Export of Printed Materials and Audio-Visual Materials Through Customs, for example, provides a list of 12 categories of prohibited content, including content that "harms the honor or the interests of the nation," "attacks the Chinese Communist Party or slanders the government of the People's Republic of China," or "propagates evil cults or superstition," or "other content prohibited by laws, administrative regulations or provisions of the State." In addition, under both the UDHR and ICCPR, a government may restrict freedom of expression only to the extent "necessary" for (Article 19 of the ICCPR) or "solely for the purpose of" (Article 29 of the UDHR) protecting specific public or private interests, including national security, public order, or an individual's reputation. Chinese officials, however, use the law to restrict citizens' access to reading materials that contain political content that is merely unacceptable to the Communist Party or Chinese government, and that does not pose a threat to one of the specific public or private interests set forth in the UDHR and ICCPR.
For more information on the Chinese government's regulation of domestic publications, see Section II¡ªFreedom of Expression¡ªGovernment Regulation of the News Media and Publishing, in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-11-19 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2009-12-08 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=131524 |
Chinese Activist Feng Zhenghu Living at Narita Airport, Blocked by Chinese Authorities From Returning Home
December 3, 2009
Chinese authorities have prevented Chinese citizen Feng Zhenghu from returning home to Shanghai from Tokyo, in contravention of the right to return to one's own country set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since November 4, Feng has been living at Tokyo's Narita Airport, refusing to enter Japan and demanding his right to return to China. Feng has become a cause celebre -- a symbol for the right to return home; he is receiving food, daily necessities, and moral support from the Chinese diaspora as well as mainland Chinese.
Introduction
Feng Zhenghu, a 55-year-old Shanghai-based Chinese citizen, who holds a valid Chinese passport, is currently engaged in a peaceful protest at Tokyo's Narita Airport, after having been refused re-entry into China eight times since June 2009, according to a November 16 Sound of Hope report, a November 14 Financial Times (FT) article (registration may be required), and Feng's own account. According to a November 16 FT report (registration may be required), Feng's eighth attempt to return to Shanghai on November 4 ended with his forcibly being put on an All Nippon Airways (ANA) flight back to Tokyo by Shanghai police and an ANA employee. Although Feng holds a valid Japanese work visa, which permits him to travel freely to Japan, he refuses to enter Japan. Feng told the Financial Times that "[f]or a Chinese to be kidnapped and taken to Japan like this is a humiliation for me and a humiliation for China."
Feng has become a symbol for the right of Chinese to return to China. Various Chinese groups around the world (including some Chinese activists who similarly have been forced into exile) have mobilized on Feng's behalf to provide him with food, supplies, and technical support to enable him to use Twitter to post updates about his current situation using his mobile phone, according to Feng's essay, entitled "Feng Zhenghu's Twitter," the Sound of Hope report, and the November 16 FT article. Chinese citizens within China also are expressing support for Feng (see, e.g., appeals to help Feng issued by a group of Shanghai petitioners (here), and a group of Sichuan writers, activists, and others (here). As with the recent case of Li Jianhong (aka Xiao Qiao), the Shanghai writer whom Chinese authorities forced into exile in Sweden by blocking her from re-entering China, the Chinese government's actions in prohibiting Feng from entering China contravene Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." In addition, Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which China has signed but not yet ratified, states: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."
Background
Feng Zhenghu, who holds a master's degree from Shanghai's Fudan University, is a human rights activist, writer, and signer of Charter 08. From 2001 to 2004, Feng served a three-year prison sentence for "illegal business activities" related to his independent publication of a book about Japanese companies in China, according to a statement issued by PEN Canada (PEN) and an Associated Press (AP) article (via Guardian). Following Feng's release from prison in 2004, he began to petition for his innocence and collect accounts of cases of injustice in the Shanghai court system, according to PEN and a June 6, 2008, Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) report. In recent years, Feng has become well-known for assisting petitioners to protect their rights, according to two Radio Free Asia (RFA) articles (on November 4 here, and November 12 here). Earlier this year, during the "sensitive period" leading up to and including the annual March meeting of the National People's Congress in Beijing, Feng spent over a month in a black jail in Shanghai. According to Feng's account (via CHRD) and a March 16 CHRD report, on February 15, 2009, Shanghai authorities and unofficial personnel kidnapped Feng in Beijing while he was walking en route with petitioners to a meeting with a lawyer, and forcibly returned him to Shanghai, where he was detained illegally in a black jail. On April 1, 2009, about a week after his release from the black jail, Feng traveled to Japan¡ªwhere he had lived and studied from 1991 to 1998¡ªin order to rest and recuperate, according to an article about Feng in the September 2009 issue of Dongxiang (Trends) Magazine (via New Century Net).
Feng Attempts To Return to Shanghai From Tokyo
Feng's first attempt to return to Shanghai from Tokyo was on June 7, 2009, but Shanghai authorities blocked his entry into China, thus leading him to where he is today: living in the south wing of Terminal 1 at Narita Airport. According to the AP report (via Guardian), Feng has attempted to return to Shanghai eight times: four times he made it to Shanghai's Pudong Airport but was refused entry and sent back to Japan; the other four times he was prevented from boarding flights in Tokyo headed to Shanghai. On his eighth attempt to return to Shanghai on November 4, Feng arrived at Pudong Airport, but forcibly was put on an ANA flight back to Tokyo. The November 16 FT article (registration may be required) reports that ANA told the FT that "its staff had needed to use 'just a little bit' of force to ensure Mr. Feng was on the flight, since it was already an hour late and Shanghai authorities had made it clear it could not depart until he was on board." Feng told the FT that he would only agree to enter Japan if ANA promised to take him back to China. Feng has filed several lawsuits in Japan against the airlines (Air China International and Northwest Airlines) that prevented him from boarding Tokyo-to-Shanghai flights, according to a November 4 RFA report. In late October 2009, well-known human rights lawyer Mo Shaoping filed a lawsuit in Shanghai against the border control authorities at Pudong Airport on behalf of Feng. Mo told RFA: "If the airport authorities bar the entry of a Chinese citizen, they have to present a formal written notice detailing the legal basis for their action. But up until now, Feng Zhenghu never received any formal document to explain why he cannot return. Thus this banning is not a just and legal action." As of November 18, the Chinese government still had not given Feng any reason for its refusal to let him return to China, according to an article in the Los Angeles Times (LAT).
Overseas Chinese and Citizens in China Mobilize To Support Feng
Chinese activists around the world have mobilized to send food, supplies, and moral support to Feng, and to publicize his cause. For example, Chinese democracy activists in Canada and Denmark have gone to the international airports in Vancouver and Copenhagen to ask passengers heading to Tokyo to support Feng by bringing him food and other necessities, according to a November 12 report in RFA, and the Sound of Hope article. Chinese students from Hong Kong and Taiwan have made special trips to Narita to bring Feng food and supplies (see the November 18 LAT article, and press releases dated November 12 and November 19 from the U.S.-based non-governmental organization Initiatives for China). In addition to the open letters calling for support for Feng from groups of Chinese citizens in Shanghai and Sichuan mentioned above, Feng has received telephone calls, letters, tweets, and other support from Chinese citizens in mainland China. Famous artist and blogger Ai Weiwei, for example, has visited Feng and is making a video about him, according to a Canwest News Service article, and Feng's post on Google Docs. As of December 1, more than 5,000 people were following Feng on Twitter.
For more information on restrictions on movement in China, see Section II¡ªFreedom of Residence¡ªLiberty of Movement in the CECC 2009 Annual Report, and for more background information on Feng, the CECC Political Prisoner Database for a record of Feng's detentions in 2008 and 2009.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-11-19 ) |
Posted on: 2009-12-08 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=132290 |
Authorities Raid Unregistered Church in Shanxi, Beat and Detain Leaders
December 7, 2009
Since mid-September 2009, authorities in Shanxi province have forcefully suppressed a local unregistered Protestant congregation through beatings and detention of church leaders and demolition of the church facility. Several church leaders have since been sentenced to prison terms or ordered to serve reeducation through labor. National regulations on religious affairs require Protestant groups and other recognized religious communities to register with the government and affiliate with a "patriotic religious organization" that oversees their affairs on behalf of the government. Many refuse to register, as registered congregations are subject to state monitoring of church members, interference in clergy appointments, mandatory political study sessions for pastors, and restrictions on theology and topics for preaching. Police raids against unregistered congregations and forced closure and demolition of their churches persist in many localities.
In the early morning hours on September 13, 2009, Fushan county authorities in Shanxi province led over 400 public security officers in a violent raid against an unregistered Protestant church called the Shanxi Linfen Christian Church, according to eyewitness accounts reported by ChinaAid on September 15, AsiaNews Italy (ANI) on September 17, and Radio Free Asia (RFA) on September 21. The raid lasted for several hours and reportedly involved the use of two bulldozers to raze the factory building that served as a meeting place for the church. Linfen municipal officials characterized the raid as an effort to "ban illegal buildings," according to the RFA report.
Police conducting the raid reportedly used force against members of the congregation who were sleeping in the building at the time. One eyewitness indicated that police used blunt instruments such as bricks, iron bars, and garden hoes to strike church members (ChinaAid, 9/15 and 11/13). At least 100 individuals were wounded in the raid, several lost consciousness, more than 10 were described as "bleeding heavily," and several required hospitalization (ChinaAid 9/15; ANI, 9/17). The raid reportedly reduced the building to rubble, and police destroyed, and in some cases confiscated, various other kinds of church property (ANI, 09/17). Eyewitnesses told ChinaAid on October 18 that a force of 80 police officers and 10 police cars continue to guard the former church site to prevent the congregation from accessing the area.
Authorities have detained several members and leaders of the Linfen Christian congregation in the weeks following the raid and taken punitive measures against another unregistered church in the area. According to ChinaAid reports from September 22 and October 18, public security officials seized a young church member named Shan Yongchang on September 17 and held him in detention for 23 days for sending text messages describing the raid to friends and family living outside the area. On September 25, local authorities detained pastors Wang Xiaoguang and his wife Yang Rongli, along with at least six other church leaders for attempting to petition central government authorities for redress. On October 11, public security officials reportedly raided the homes of several church members, leading to the detention of an additional 10 members (ChinaAid, 10/18). A few days after the raid, authorities disconnected the electricity, water supply, and telephone services to the Jindeng Church in apparent retaliation for assistance it provided to victims of the raid against Linfen Christian Church (ChinaAid, 9/22). Members of the Linfen Christian Church remain under constant police surveillance. Officials have reportedly intervened to prevent adult church members from receiving wages due to them and barred their children from attending school (ChinaAid, 11/13).
Local officials have targeted Pastor Yang Rongli for the most severe treatment, and according to the October 10 Detention Notice (via ChinaAid, 11/13), authorities have formally charged her with "illegally occupying agricultural land and gathering a mob to disturb traffic." On September 27, the Linfen Municipal Bureau of Ethnic and Religious Affairs issued an official statement outlining the alleged "illegal activities" that Yang had engaged in. Among other things, Yang was accused of having "illegally held religious activities" and "illegally shared the Gospel" with youth. On November 2, a judge from the Linfen Municipal Intermediate Court reportedly instructed the families of five church leaders in detention, including Yang's husband, to obtain counsel quickly for an upcoming trial, according to a November 13 ChinaAid report. However, authorities have prohibited attorneys from seeing Yang and transferred her to the Taiyuan Municipal Detention Center in the capital of Shanxi province (ChinaAid, 11/13). ChinaAid reported on November 25 that the Yaodu District People's Court tried Yang and Wang Xiaoguang, along with three other church leaders, on November 25, and sentenced them that day. Yang was sentenced to seven years in prison for "illegally occupying farm land" and "gathering a mob to disturb traffic." Wang Xiaoguang, Yang Xuan, and Cui Jiaxing received sentences of three years, three and a half years, and four and a half years, respectively, for the first charge, and Zhang Huamei received a four-year sentence for the second charge. In addition, authorities ordered church leaders Li Shuangping, Yang Hongzhen, Yang Caizhen, Gao Qin, and Zhao Guoai to serve two years of reeducation through labor on November 30, according to a December 1 ChinaAid report. Authorities said the five people had "gathered people to disturb public order" after they organized a prayer rally on September 14.
Two official reports posted in August 2009 on the Web site of the Linfen Municipal People's Government foreshadowed the crackdown against unregistered churches, as the reports featured statements from top Communist Party leaders calling for tighter control of religious activities. According to one of the reports, dated August 18, Ding Wenlu, the local head of the Party's United Front Work Department, inspected the municipality's religious affairs work on June 16 and urged officials to recognize the "high degree of political sensitivity" surrounding their work. Ding issued a "clear demand" that officials must "pay close attention to¡ and promptly dispose of¡illegal religious activities according to the law." At a government meeting on "safeguarding stability" held in Linfen on June 25, reported in an August 18 article, Xie Hai, the Secretary of the Municipal Party Committee, emphasized the need to "strengthen management of religious and ethnic affairs work," which he characterized as "having extraordinarily important significance for safeguarding the overall stability of the entire city." Xie called for officials to "go a step further to strengthen punishment of illegal religious activities and strike hard against those who wear the cloak of religion and use religion to conduct various divisive sabotage activities."
For more information on the government's suppression of unregistered Protestant churches in particular and its regulation of religion more broadly, see Section II¡ªFreedom of Religion¡ªProtestantism in the CECC's 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-11-19 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-12-08 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=132274 |
Ministry of Public Security Cracks Down on Abduction and Sale of Women and Children
November 24, 2009
In April 2009, the Ministry of Public Security launched a nationwide campaign to combat the abduction and sale of women and children. As of October 28, over 6,000 victims reportedly had been rescued through the campaign. The growing problem of human trafficking in China has been linked to, among other issues, imbalanced gender demographics resulting from the government's one-child policy and a traditional preference for male offspring, and continued demand for inexpensive labor.
The Ministry of Public Security (MPS) announced (via Chinanews.com) on November 5, 2009, that it had rescued more than 6,000 victims (2,169 children and 3,851 women) during a nationwide anti-trafficking campaign that began in April. According to a separate November 5 announcement on the official MPS Web site, as part of the campaign, the MPS set up a national DNA database to help identify missing children and match them with their biological parents. The MPS posted 60 photos of children who could not be identified on a special Web site dedicated to the campaign, and as of October 27, 2009, 3 of the unidentified children had been reunited with their parents, according to the site.
Lack of reporting and investigation of cases, as well as official and parental complicity in child abduction remain challenges in the Chinese government's fight against human trafficking. According to an October 29 China daily article, 30,000 to 60,000 children are reported missing every year. "Many, if not most" cases of abduction in China are not formally registered or investigated as authorities are "unwilling or unable to investigate crimes that involve crossing provincial borders," according to an October 29 Ottawa Citizen report. According to a September 20 Los Angeles Times article, parents in China have reported that their children were "taken away by coercion, fraud or kidnapping—sometimes by government officials who covered their tracks by pretending that the babies had been abandoned." The Associated Press and CNN (via Google) reported on October 23 and 29 respectively that returning children to their parents can be problematic as some children were sold by their parents.
Reports link the growing problem of human trafficking in China to, among other issues, imbalanced gender demographics resulting from the government's one-child policy and a traditional preference for male offspring, as well as continued demand for inexpensive labor. According to Lu Dongxiao, a judge at the Shouguang City People's Court in Shandong province, referenced in a May 2 China Daily article, the demand for male heirs is one factor driving trafficking in children. The BBC reported on October 28 that baby boys sometimes sell for as much as US$6,000, while girls are sometimes sold for just US$500. An October 28 Telegraph (UK) article noted that abducted women and girls are often sold as wives in regions where men outnumber women. According to the aforementioned September 20 LA Times article, some Chinese parents of abducted children believe the money adoptive parents pay to orphanages may be incentivizing family planning officials to abduct and sell the children of parents who exceed quotas outlined in the population planning policy.
The Ministry of Public Security's campaign against the abduction and sale of women and children addresses only certain aspects of the problem of human trafficking as defined by international standards. As noted in the Commission's 2009 Annual Report, the legal definition of trafficking under Chinese law is narrower in scope than the definition provided in Article 3 of the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, which China has not yet signed. Chinese authorities' anti-trafficking efforts are focused disproportionately on the abduction and sale of women and children while giving less attention to other forms of trafficking¡ªsuch as trafficking for forced labor and for commercial sexual exploitation. This narrow focus has negative implications for anti-trafficking work in China, including the government's prosecution efforts, protection of victims, and funding.
For more information on human trafficking in China, see Section II¡ªHuman Trafficking in the Commission's 2009 Annual Report.
For more information on the Chinese government's population planning policy and its impact on Chinese society, see Section II¡ªPopulation Planning in the Commission's 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-11-24 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-12-08 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=132227 |
Authorities Execute 9 After Trials in Xinjiang Marked by Due Process Violations
November 30, 2009
Authorities have executed nine men, mostly Uyghurs, found guilty by a court in the far-western region of Xinjiang of committing violent crimes during unrest in Xinjiang in July. Amid controls over the free flow of information from Xinjiang, available information indicates the trials were marked by violations of international standards for due process including judges selected for "political reliability" and curbs on defendants' right to independent counsel. Authorities also reported in recent months on steps to detain and initiate prosecution against other people for acts connected to events in July.
Following the forceful police suppression of a demonstration by Uyghurs on July 5 and outbreaks of violence starting that day in Urumqi, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), authorities executed nine men in November found guilty of committing crimes in July, according to a November 10 China Daily report and November 10 Xinhua report (via 163.com). The men executed, apparently 8 Uyghurs and 1 Han, were among 21 people sentenced on October 12 and October 15 for crimes including intentional homicide, arson, robbery, and property damage. Authorities sentenced 12 of the 21 men to death, but gave a two-year reprieve to 3 of them. The XUAR High People's Court reviewed all the verdicts, 15 of which had been appealed, and upheld the original judgments on October 30. (See a previous CECC analysis, with updated information at the end of the analysis, for information on the October trials and appeal.) The executions followed a mandatory review of the death sentences by the Supreme People's Court (SPC) of China, according to the reports, a practice which the SPC resumed in January 2007 and that is stipulated under Article 199 of the PRC Criminal Procedure Law. (See Section II¡ªCriminal Justice in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2009 Annual Report for more information on death penalty review.) Amid continued controls over the flow of information from the XUAR, available information indicates trials were marked by violations of international standards for due process including judges selected for "political reliability" and restrictions on defendants' right to have independent legal defense during the trials. Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which China has signed and pledged to ratify, provide for fair trials including through an "independent and impartial tribunal." Article 14 of the ICCPR also provides for the right to legal assistance of one's choice. General Comment Number 13 to this article provides, "Lawyers should be able to counsel and to represent their clients in accordance with their established professional standards and judgement without any restrictions, influences, pressures or undue interference from any quarter."
Politicized Courts
Official reports from state media indicate political considerations guided the trials, undermining the possibility that defendants had fair trials based on international standards for due process. Initial reports from official media stressed that XUAR authorities had selected judges for the trials who had "political reliability" and "high proficiency in policy." (See, e.g., an article from the Legal Daily (via Gansu Daily, July 16), and a July 28 Xinhua Xinjiang report.) The judges participated in training on issues including the "relevant national and XUAR policies and laws concerning the 7-5 [July 5] incident," according to the Xinhua report. In addition, personnel throughout the XUAR court system received training on state policy toward events on July 5. The Party Committee of the XUAR High People's Court distributed a "Propaganda Education Manual on the Truth about the Urumqi '7-5' Incident" and "guided and educated" personnel to "strengthen their political awareness and ability to discern political matters," according to an August 3 report from Xinjiang News Net. A Xinjiang Daily report (via Xinjiang News Net, October 14) about a meeting of XUAR officials and legal scholars said the participants described the October 12 trial as the "outcome of proper leadership by the Communist Party, State Council, and XUAR Party Committee and government," also calling into question the likelihood of fair trials free from political influence.
State Places Curbs on Independent Legal Defense
Authorities have provided limited information on legal defense. Official media quoted authorities who stated all defendants tried in October had lawyers, but earlier reports indicated lawyers faced barriers to representing clients free from state interference. Of the 21 people announced on September 25 to go to trial, 4 had retained their own lawyers, and 17 had lawyers appointed by the court, according to a procuratorate official cited in an October 12 People's Daily article. The 7 people tried on October 12 were all represented by lawyers at trial, who were the same ethnicity as the defendants they represented, according to a XUAR Party school professor and Xinjiang Lawyers Association official quoted in the same article. Lawyers for the defendants also presented defense arguments (bianhu yijian) during the court hearing on October 14, according to an October 15 Xinhua article, and during the court hearing for the XUAR High People's Court's review of the cases, according to a Xinhua report (via Sina, October 30).
The statements follow information that authorities in the XUAR and elsewhere had restricted lawyers' defense activities and clients' right to have independent counsel, calling into question the nature of the legal defense during the October trials. In July, Beijing authorities issued orders dictating the terms upon which lawyers could be involved in cases related to events on July 5, and Beijing authorities are reported to have separately warned human rights lawyers against taking the cases. Li Fangping, a human rights lawyer in Beijing, said he was not aware of any Beijing lawyers who were representing defendants in the Xinjiang trials, according to an Agence France-Presse article (via Bangkok Post, October 17). In July, authorities in the XUAR also reportedly ordered lawyers not to take cases on their own initiative and instead let authorities "arrange" all defense efforts. The same month, the Xinjiang Lawyers Association reported that the XUAR Justice Department would arrange criminal defense for suspects who go to trial, selecting Uyghur lawyers and giving them training in criminal law, raising questions about the lawyers' background in criminal law and whether the training would be used to enforce political agendas. See a previous CECC analysis for additional information.
Detentions Continue, "Strike-Hard" Campaign Launched
The October trials came amid news of ongoing steps to detain and initiate prosecution against other people in connection to events in July. Authorities launched a 100-day campaign in September to "capture suspects" in relation to the July events, and as of mid-October, more than 200 people had been detained, according to Chen Qibiao, a legal scholar and director of the legal division of the XUAR Party School, as cited in a Xinjiang Daily report (via Xinhua, October 16). Authorities also launched a "strike hard" campaign in the region starting in November, which will be used in part to continue detaining people in connection to events in July, according to November 2 Xinhua reports (English, Chinese via Sohu). As noted by the CECC in a previous analysis, official Chinese reports on detention numbers connected to events in July have been inconsistent in some cases, and some overseas media reports have suggested that the number of people held in some form of custody exceed detention numbers reported at different times by official Chinese sources. In an October report, Human Rights Watch documented 43 cases of forced disappearance outside the formal protections of Chinese criminal law. Among people officially reported to be detained, Xinhua reported that the Urumqi procuratorate initiated prosecution on November 9 against 20 additional people in 10 cases. (See the Chinese-language report via Net Ease, October 10, and the October 9 English-language report).
UPDATE, December 4, 2009:
In verdicts announced on December 3 and December 4, the Urumqi Intermediate People's Court found 20 more people guilty of crimes committed in early July, including intentional homicide, arson, robbery, carrying out explosions, and intentional injury, according to Xinhua reports from December 3 (English, Chinese) and December 4 (English, Chinese). On December 3, the court sentenced five people to death, two people to life imprisonment, and six to prison terms between 10 and 20 years, all for crimes committed on July 5. All of the people sentenced who were identified in the December 3 Chinese-language report appeared to have Uyghur names. The following day, the court sentenced three people to death, one to life imprisonment, and three to prison terms between 10 and 18 years for crimes committed on July 5, 6, and 7. Based on the names provided in the December 4 Chinese-language Xinhua report, two of the defendants, including one sentenced to death, appeared to be Han and the remainder Uyghur. According to the articles, the trials took place in the languages of the defendants and included interpretation. Lawyers retained by the defendants and court-appointed lawyers presented their legal defense during both trials, which were attended by "hundreds of people," according to the reports, including regional and municipal people's congress representatives, reporters, and family members of defendants and victims at the December 4 trial, according to the December 4 Chinese-language report.
For additional information on conditions in the XUAR, see Section IV¡ªXinjiang in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-11-12 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-12-08 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=131859 |
Demonstrations Take Place Again in Xinjiang Following Reported Syringe Attacks
Demonstrations--primarily by Han Chinese--took place in Urumqi, capital of the far western region of Xinjiang, in early September. The demonstrations came roughly two months after a demonstration by Uyghurs on July 5 and outbreaks of violence in the city starting that day. In the September demonstrations, participants protested the government response following events on July 5 and following reports that people had randomly attacked Urumqi residents with syringes. Crowds of people reportedly attacked some bystanders or people believed to have committed the syringe attacks, and police reportedly clashed with some protesters. Officials announced that five people died during one day of the demonstrations. Within a short period of time after the September demonstrations, authorities tried and convicted several people charged with syringe attacks.
Demonstrations--primarily by Han Chinese--took place in Urumqi, capital of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), in early September, following almost two months after a demonstration by Uyghurs on July 5 and outbreaks of violence in the city starting that day. During the September demonstrations, participants protested the government response following events on July 5 and after reports that primarily Han residents of Urumqi alleged that persons they believed to be Uyghurs had randomly attacked them with syringes. Following gatherings on September 2, according to Xinhua, the demonstrations swelled on September 3, and additional demonstrations and gatherings continued into the following days. (See, e.g., September 3 Agence France-Presse (AFP) (via The Free Library) and Reuters reports, September 4 reports from the Associated Press (AP) (via Toronto Star) and Xinhua (1, 2), a September 5 Xinhua report (via China Daily), and a September 7 Reuters report.) Urumqi deputy mayor Zhang Hong said on September 4 that 5 people died and 14 were injured during demonstrations on the previous day, and 2 of the dead had been "confirmed as innocent civilians," according to the second September 4 Xinhua report. During the demonstrations, protesters reportedly called for the resignation of XUAR Party secretary Wang Lequan, according to the Reuters and AP reports. Authorities have blamed "separatist forces" for the syringe attacks and strife in the region (see below for details), but also removed Urumqi Party secretary Li Zhi and XUAR public security department director Liu Yaohua from their positions on September 5, following the start of the September demonstrations. They have been replaced with other officials from within the XUAR Party apparatus and government. (See a September 5 Xinhua report, via CCTV.)
Authorities Disperse Crowds With Tear Gas, Impose Ban on Demonstration
Authorities used tear gas on crowds and reportedly beat some protesters, while media reported on cases of crowds beating bystanders or people believed to have committed syringe attacks. A journalist from Hong Kong described being among a crowd of people on September 4 whom police tear gassed, detained, and beat. The reporter was released from detention, along with two photographers, that day, according to a September 4 South China Morning Post (SCMP) article (subscription required, searchable through the archive). (In addition, see information on the use of tear gas in the September 5 Xinhua report via China Daily. See a September 7 SCMP article on reporters from Hong Kong detained again in Urumqi as they attempted to carry out interviews of people who had been tear gassed.) The Xinhua report said "victims sought revenge" on two alleged syringe attackers, and that public anger after police isolated the alleged attackers led police to use the tear gas. The AFP and September 7 Reuters reports cited sources who said Uyghurs had been beaten by crowds. A September 4 Xinhua report said crowds had beaten "suspects" who had been "caught...when attacking members of the public." Authorities issued a ban against unlicensed demonstrations on September 4 (see September 4 Xinhua reports in English and translation of the Chinese text from the China News Service in Open Source Center, subscription required), following an earlier ban issued after the July 5 demonstration. According to the Chinese text of the September ban, authorities may use force to disperse crowds.
Syringe Attacks Attributed to "Three Forces"
Official media and government portrayals of the July and September demonstrations have pinpointed activities by Uyghurs as the root of conflict and have downplayed Uyghur sources of grievances. In contrast, while authorities clamped down on the September demonstrations by Han Chinese, government authorities and official media appear to have taken a sympathetic stance toward the sentiments stoking those demonstrations. Urumqi deputy mayor Zhang Hong said that Uyghurs had carried out the syringe attacks, according to the September 5 Xinhua report (via China Daily). A September 5 Xinhua report described obtaining drug money as the motivation of one threatened syringe attack and robbery. Authorities more broadly attribute the attacks to "separatists." Minister of Public Security Meng Jianzhu described the syringe attacks as a continuation of attacks instigated by "ethnic separatist forces" on July 5 (Xinhua, via China Xinjiang Net, September 7), and Zhang Hong attributed the syringe attacks to the "three forces" of terrorism, separatism, and religious extremism (Xinhua, September 4). The government similarly attributed events on July 5, a day when Uyghurs demonstrated to protest government handling of a reported attack on Uyghur factory workers and when acts of violence also occurred, to the "three forces" and to U.S.-based Uyghur rights advocate Rebiya Kadeer in particular. Zhang Hong was paraphrased as attributing the source of the September demonstrations to "panic and resentment from the public" caused by the syringe attacks. (Syringe attacks have been reported in the past in China, and in some cases, the extent of the threat appears to have been magnified by rumors and fear of HIV transmission, amid tight government controls over the flow of information. See a July 31, 2002, Kyodo article (via bnet) and February 20, 2002, Chicago Tribune article (via Aegis).) In Urumqi, as of September 4 "local authorities had confirmed 531 victims of hypodermic syringe stabbings in Urumqi, 171 of whom showed obvious syringe marks," according to a September 13 Xinhua report. Military medical specialists who examined cases of needle attacks found no evidence of viruses or chemicals, according to the report.
Reports Detail Punishment for Syringe Attacks, Launch Ideological Campaigns
In the days following the demonstrations, authorities carried out measures to curb the demonstrations and described steps to punish people for the syringe attacks and directives aimed also at punishing acts such as spreading rumors about the attacks. A September 6 notice (described in Xinhua, via the Hebei News Net) issued jointly by the Urumqi Intermediate People's Court, municipal procuratorate, and public security bureau, said needle attacks involving syringes filled with poison or discarded drug needles could result in punishments including death. Attacks involving clean needles or pins also will be subject to criminal punishment, as will intentionally spreading false information about the attacks, according to the notice. A September 7 notice (described in Xinhua, via China News Net) from the XUAR public security department also states that those involved in syringe attacks and intentionally alleging false syringe attacks will face punishment. According to a government spokesperson discussing the notice at a September 8 press conference (via Xinhua Xinjiang, September 9), authorities will punish attacks involving any type of tool, including tacks or pins, because the instances of syringe attacks are "a continuation of our battle with the enemy" after July 5 and are not "ordinary acts of harm, but...criminal acts that seriously harm social order and state security." Xinhua reported on September 9 that authorities had picked up 45 people and held 12 of them in detention. In addition, authorities sent eight people "for forced isolation of drugs," an apparent reference to forced drug detoxification. The public security bureau arrested 4 people on September 7, according to a September 8 Xinhua Xinjiang report. China Daily and Xinhua (via China Daily) reported on September 16 that 75 people to date had been taken into custody. In a rapid progression of the criminal process, three people were sentenced on September 12 to prison terms between 7 and 15 years for crimes related to needle attacks or threatened needle attacks, according to September 13 Xinhua (via China Daily) and September 14 China Daily reports. Four more people received prison sentences between 8 to 15 years on September 17, according to Xinhua reports (English, Chinese) from that day. According to the reports, one of the people sentenced on September 12 and the four sentenced on September 17 had been charged with the crime of "spreading false toxic substances" (Article 291 of the PRC Criminal Law as amended in 2001).
Following the September demonstrations, XUAR Party secretary Wang Lequan also described efforts to dispatch 7,000 officials to "explain policies and solve disputes" in connection to recent strife, according to a September 7 Xinhua report. Wang said the steps will build off of earlier measures after July 5 where officials carried out "a great deal of face-to-face educational work in communities and [maintained] social order." Earlier, Urumqi's mayor reported on August 6 that "stability work teams" dispatched after July 5 had done on-site investigations of 636,000 households and interviewed 1,491,000 people, according to a Xinjiang City News report (via China Xinjiang, August 7).
For more information on events in the XUAR starting July 5, see previous Commission analysis (1, 2, 3, 4). For background information on conditions in the XUAR, see Section VI--Xinjiang in the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-09-05 ) |
Posted on: 2009-11-06 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=129323 |
Sichuan-Tibet Railway Work To Start, Impact May Far Surpass Qinghai-Tibet Railway
The Chinese government has announced the start of construction of a railroad that will link Lhasa, the capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), with Chengdu, the capital of densely populated Sichuan province. Commission analysis shows that the potential scale of demographic, economic, and environmental impact that the Sichuan-Tibet railway could have on the TAR and other Tibetan autonomous areas of China may far surpass the impact of the Qinghai-Tibet railway, which began operation in 2006. See the Commission's Special Topic Paper: Tibet 2008-2009 for more information on the Sichuan-Tibet railway.
The Chinese government has announced the start of construction of a railroad that will link Lhasa city, the capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), with Chengdu city, the capital of Sichuan province. Congressional-Executive Commission on China analysis shows that, based on comparisons of population and economic data, the potential scale of demographic, economic, and environmental impact that the Sichuan-Tibet railway could have on Tibetan autonomous areas in China could far surpass the impact of the Qinghai-Tibet railway, which began operation in July 2006 after a five-year construction period. Reports in China¡¯s state-run media on August 31 (Xinhua, reprinted in China Tibet Online) and September 1, 2009 (China Daily), stated that work would begin in September on the Sichuan-Tibet railway. On September 2, however, Xinhua reported that unidentified Ministry of Railways (MOR) officials refuted the China Daily report that work on the railway would start in September, and that a construction timetable had not yet been established. The September 2 article did not report that MOR officials challenged any of the other details that the previous reports disclosed about the railway.
Table 1 below provides data showing that the Sichuan-Tibet railway will link the TAR to a Sichuan province population that is 17 times larger than the Qinghai province population that the Qinghai-Tibet railway linked to the TAR, based on official Chinese census data for 2000. Table 2 (column 2) below provides data showing that the Sichuan-Tibet railway will link the TAR to a Sichuan provincial economy that includes nearly 23 times more industrial enterprises that generate at least 5 million yuan in revenue from principal business than the Qinghai provincial economy that the Qinghai-Tibet railway linked to the TAR, according to China Statistical Yearbook 2008 data available on the National Bureau of Statistics of China Web site.
A direct comparison between TAR and Sichuan province population and economic data reveals a far greater disparity than a comparison between the TAR and Qinghai province shows. In 2000, Sichuan had more than 31 times the population of the TAR, according to official census data (Table 1), and approximately 107 times as many industrial enterprises that generated at least 5 million yuan from principal business, according to China Statistical Yearbook 2008 data (Table 2).
Table 1: Comparison of Provincial and Municipal-Level Populations Linked Directly
by the Qinghai-Tibet Railway or the Planned Sichuan-Tibet Railway |
Provincial-Level Area | Municipal-Level Area | Population (2000 Census)
| Tibet Autonomous Region | | 2,616,329 | Qinghai province | | 4,822,963 | Sichuan province | | 82,348,296 | | . | | Tibet Autonomous Region | Lhasa municipality, TAR | 474,499 | Qinghai province | Xining municipality, Qinghai province | 1,849,713 | Sichuan province | Chengdu municipality, Sichuan province | 11,108,534 |
Source: Tabulation on Nationalities of 2000 Population Census of China, Department of Population, Social Science, and Technology Statistics, National Bureau of Statistics, and Department of Economic Development, State Ethnic Affairs Commission (Beijing: Ethnic Publishing House, September 2003), Table 10-1. |
The difference between the size and makeup of the industrial economies in Sichuan province and the TAR could prove to be of even greater significance than the difference in the size of population in shaping the Sichuan-Tibet railway's impact on the TAR and other Tibetan autonomous areas. An official Chinese media report on August 31, 2009, stated that the railway "will boost economic growth along its way such as the development of mineral and tourist resources" and "open China's gateway to south Asia for bilateral economic and trade cooperation." If the railway functions as planned, it will facilitate swift, efficient transport of passengers, manufactured goods, and raw or semi-processed natural resources between the TAR¡ªChina's bottom-ranking industrial economy¡ªand Sichuan's robust economy. [See Table 2 below for information on industrial indicators and national ranking. See Special Topic Paper: Tibet 2008-2009 for information on the railway's potential to promote the expansion and acceleration of Chinese government exploitation of Tibetan forestry resources.]
Table 2 below provides China Statistical Yearbook 2008 data on the industrial business economy in Sichuan and Qinghai provinces and in the TAR, and indicates for each type of data the ranking among China¡¯s 31 provincial-level administrative areas. The table compares data from three of the yearbook's tables: the number of industrial enterprises in a provincial-level area with revenue over 5 million yuan from principal business (Table 13-4); the number of state-owned and state-holding industrial enterprises (Table 13-8); and the number of private industrial enterprises (Table 13-12). Data in the tables show that the TAR ranks last (31st) in each measure of industrial productivity, and Qinghai ranks between 28th and 30th. Data on Sichuan province, in comparison, shows strength¡ªespecially in the private industrial enterprise sector (Table 13-12). Sichuan's "gross industrial output value" and revenue earned from principal business both ranked 8th in the nation. China Statistical Yearbook 2008 in "Explanatory Notes on Main Statistical Indicators," defined "gross industrial output value" as "the total volume of final industrial products produced and industrial services provided during a given period. It reflects the total achievements and overall scale of industrial production during a given period."
Table 2: Comparison of Provincial-Level Economies Linked Directly
by the Qinghai-Tibet Railway or the Planned Sichuan-Tibet Railway |
. | Table 13-4, Main Indicators of Industrial Enterprises Above Designated Size by Region
(Yuan expressed in 100 million) | Table
13-4
Rank
(of 31) | Table 13-8, Main Indicators of State-owned and State-holding Industrial Enterprises by Region
(Yuan expressed in 100 million) | Table
13-8
Rank
(of 31) | Table 13-12, Main Indicators of Private Industrial Enterprises by Region
(Yuan expressed in 100 million) | Table
13-12
Rank
(of 31) | Sichuan province | . | . | . | . | . | . | Number of enterprises | 10,709 | 10 | 878 | 7 | 5,672 | 11 | Gross Ind. Output Val. | 11,047.04 | 9 | 3,849.12 | 14 | 3,117.72 | 8 | Total assets | 11,690.21 | 11 | 6,325.71 | 11 | 1,684.51 | 10 | Rev. from principal bus. | 10,611.52 | 10 | 3,926.09 | 15 | 2,899.17 | 8 | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | Qinghai province | . | . | . | . | . | . | Number of enterprises | 471 | 30 | 138 | 28 | 161 | 29 | Gross Ind. Output Val. | 822.72 | 29 | 610.67 | 28 | 101.49 | 29 | Total assets | 1,645.94 | 28 | 1,321.99 | 28 | 147.19 | 29 | Rev. from principal bus. | 785.91 | 30 | 587.23 | 28 | 86.06 | 29 | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | Tibet Autonomous Region | . | . | . | . | . | . | Number of enterprises | 100 | 31 | 53 | 31 | 15 | 31 | Gross Ind. Output Val. | 41.36 | 31 | 18.06 | 31 | 6.67 | 31 | Total assets | 172.18 | 31 | 125.24 | 31 | 14.38 | 31 | Rev. from principal bus. | 36.73 | 31 | 16.31 | 31 | 6.23 | 31 |
Passengers departing from Chengdu will complete the 1,629 kilometer journey to Lhasa in only eight hours on an electric railway capable of operating at speeds above 200 kilometers per hour, according to the August 31 Xinhua report (reprinted in China Tibet Online) and the September 1 China Daily report. The eight-hour travel time between Chengdu and Lhasa, however, appears to allow no time for stops or for sub-maximum speeds while traveling through mountainous terrain. The train would complete the 1,629 kilometer journey in eight hours and nine minutes only if it maintained an average speed of 200 kilometers per hour for the entire journey. [See Special Topic Paper: Tibet 2008-2009 for information on the railway's route and principal stops.]
For information on the impact of Chinese government development policies on the Tibetan culture and heritage, see the Commission's Special Topic Paper: Tibet 2008-2009; Section V¡ªTibet of the CECC 2009 Annual Report; Section V¡ªTibet of the CECC 2008 Annual Report; Section IV¡ªTibet: Special Focus for 2007, in the 2007 Annual Report; Section VIII¡ªTibet, in the 2006 Annual Report; and Section VI¡ªTibet, in the 2005 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-09-02 ) |
Posted on: 2009-11-06 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=129250 |
Chengdu Courts Hold Trials of Earthquake Activists
On August 5 and August 12, 2009, courts in Chengdu city, Sichuan province, held separate trials in the cases of Tan Zuoren and Huang Qi, both of whom sought to help parents of children who died in school collapses following the May 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Although officials originally pledged to investigate the collapses, they instead suppressed attempts by parents to seek redress and blocked media and citizens from independently investigating the role played by shoddy construction. Tan organized an independent investigation into the cause of the collapses, while Huang publicized the parents' demands on his human rights Web site. Officials charged Huang and Tan with endangering national security, Huang for possessing state secrets and Tan for various activities including writing about and commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen protests. In both cases, the trials reportedly were marred by procedural irregularities and official misconduct.
Tan Zuoren Case
August 12 Trial, Defense Not Permitted To Call Witnesses and Present Evidence, Witness and Parents of Quake Victims Held in Custody, Reporters Barred and Harassed
The Chengdu Intermediate People's Court conducted the trial of writer and environmental activist Tan Zuoren on August 12, 2009, on the charge of inciting subversion of state power, according to an August 13 China Daily article and an August 13 Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) article. The conduct of the trial reportedly was marred by official abuses and procedural violations, including:
- The court reportedly rejected requests by Tan's lawyers to call three witnesses, including Ai Weiwei, a noted artist and blogger who helped design the Beijing Olympics' Bird's Nest Stadium and was investigating the deaths of students in the quake, according to the China Daily article, a second August 13 CHRD article, and an August 12 Human Rights in China (HRIC) report. Ai told various news agencies that he planned to still watch the trial but that police came to his hotel and prevented him and 10 other volunteers from leaving until after the trial ended (see, e.g., August 12 Reuters article, August 12 Guardian article). Ai also indicated that police had used force in the process, including striking him in the face.
- Tan's lawyers, Pu Zhiqiang and Xia Lin, reported that the judge frequently cut them off during the trial and that their request to show video evidence was not accepted, according to the China Daily and second CHRD articles.
- Parents of earthquake victims attempting to attend the trial were detained, according to an August 13 Global Times article.
- The court did not allow reporters into the court, according to the China Daily article. Police reportedly searched the hotel rooms of two Hong Kong reporters attempting to cover the case, claiming that they were acting on reports that the journalists possessed drugs, and did not free them until seven hours later, according to an August 13 Agence France-Presse article (via The Australian).
- Police barred hundreds of supporters from entering the courtroom saying the supporters needed passes, even though court officials earlier had told them that no passes were necessary, according to an August 12 CHRD report.
Tan's Alleged Crimes, Earthquake Activism
The procuratorate's indictment, dated July 17 (translation posted by China Digital Times), said Tan was charged with inciting subversion because he (1) committed libel against the Communist Party by distorting its handling of the 1989 protests in a 2007 online essay, (2) agreed to a telephone interview with the overseas "enemy" radio station "Voice of Hope" in June 2008 and commemorated the 1989 protests that year by making a blood donation, (3) contacted a prominent 1989 student leader now in the United States (i.e., Wang Dan) about holding a global Chinese blood drive to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the protests, and (4) gave interviews to international media after the earthquake in which he severely harmed the image of the Party and Chinese government. According to the defense pleading (in Chinese) posted on CHRD's Web site, Tan's lawyers argued that the inciting subversion crime for which Tan was charged (Article 105(2) of China's Criminal Law) belongs to the category of crimes of endangering national security but that no legislative or judicial interpretation existed in China to define this crime (inciting subversion). Tan's lawyers sought to provide guidance by making reference to the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, which were drafted under the direction of Article 19, a non-governmental organization (NGO) advocating for free expression, and endorsed by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression at several sessions of the UN Commission on Human Rights in the late 1990s and 2001. Specifically, the lawyers noted that Principle 6 provides that expression may be punished as a threat to national security only if a government can demonstrate that the expression is intended to incite imminent violence or is likely to incite such violence. Tan's lawyers said that none of Tan's language in the case incited violence and that his motives were not only peaceful but intended to protect national security as opposed to endangering it.
Following the earthquake, Tan had been active in calling for the government to investigate the cause of the large number of school collapses. Shortly after the quake, Tan, who worked for Green River, a Chengdu-based environmental NGO, was cited in a May 27, 2008, South China Morning Post (SCMP) article (subscription required) as saying "the government and the public must work together to find an answer" to why so many schools collapsed, and urged local governments to inspect other school buildings for shoddy construction. Prompted by his frustration that local governments and education and building officials had not fully investigated the matter, in February 2009, Tan issued a proposal over the Internet calling on volunteers to travel to Sichuan to compile lists of students killed in the quake, to research the treatment of parents, and to conduct an independent investigation into the quality of school buildings, according to an April 1 CHRD article (in Chinese) and a May 4 CHRD article. In March, Tan and his partner issued a preliminary version of the report (in Chinese, via the CHRD Web site), which Tan hoped to complete by the quake's first anniversary, according to the May 4 CHRD article. The report criticized officials for failing to follow through on a commitment to fully investigate the role that shoddy construction played in the collapses and local officials for being unable to deal with parents' demands. The preliminary report found that problems with the quality of the construction of school buildings were a contributing factor in some of the students' deaths, which according to their tally numbered 5,522 students, with another 78 missing. The tally was incomplete, according to the May 4 CHRD article. In a March 19 SCMP article (subscription required), Tan said that before the earthquake, an inspector had noticed cracks at a middle school that may have made it vulnerable to the quake. Authorities detained Tan on March 28, three days after the report was published, according to the August 12 HRIC report.
Huang Qi Case
August 5 Trial, Kidnapping of Witness
The Chengdu Wuhou District People's Court held a closed trial of rights activist Huang Qi on August 5, 2009, on suspicion of "illegal possession of state secrets," according to an August 5 Human Rights in China (HRIC) article. The underlying activity giving rise to the state secrets charge is unclear but shortly before he was detained on June 10, 2008, Huang had traveled to the earthquake zone and written about parents who lost children in the disaster and their demands for an investigation and compensation (see previous CECC analysis). Huang posted the writings on his human rights Web site, Tianwang Human Rights Center. Huang's lawyer said that during Huang's detention authorities questioned him about interviews he conducted during visits to areas affected by the quake as well as undisclosed issues relating to the state secrets charge. Chinese officials have considerable discretion to declare information a state secret and their power to use such a charge to deny defendants access to counsel and an open trial is subject to few limitations.
At trial, authorities continued to obstruct the ability of Huang's lawyers to make their case. According to HRIC, four police officers kidnapped Pu Fei, a volunteer for the Tianwang Human Rights Center, to prevent him from testifying on Huang's behalf. In February 2009, the district court violated China's Criminal Procedure Law by giving only one day's notice of the trial, and then postponed the trial. Late last year, Huang's lawyers criticized their lack of access to police evidence and case files.
The HRIC article said 40 to 50 supporters had gathered outside the trial, including "farmers who had lost land, evicted petitioners, and other rights defenders that Huang Qi had helped in the past."
Huang's Medical Problems
Huang suffers from numerous medical conditions, but authorities reportedly have refused to treat him. The conditions include two tumors in Huang's abdomen, hepatitis B, an irregular heartbeat, and two lumps in his left breast, according to an August 5 Associated Press article (via Newsday) and an August 5 National Public Radio story. Officials have also denied requests to allow Huang to visit with his seriously ill father, according to the HRIC report.
Huang previously served a five-year sentence from 2000 to 2005 for "inciting subversion of state power." The court in that case cited articles Huang posted on his Web site dealing with topics such as "democracy," "June 4," and "Falun Gong."
Background on Earthquake and Parents' Demands
On May 12, 2008, a magnitude 8.0 earthquake struck Sichuan province, which an official said left 68,712 dead and 17,921 missing, according to a May 8, 2009, People's Daily article. High-level officials traveled quickly to the scene and initially allowed media relatively more freedom to report. The collapse of a large number of schools while nearby buildings continued to stand, however, raised questions of shoddy construction and corruption. (See May 30, 2008, Washington Post report and September 4 New York Times (NYT) report, in which officials acknowledged that poor construction of schools may have contributed to their collapse.) Officials initially pledged to punish anyone responsible for shoddy construction (see, e.g., May 27 SCMP article, subscription required), but parents of the thousands of children who died grew frustrated at officials' unwillingness to fully investigate the school collapses. Officials responded instead with suppression and harassment, using riot police to break up protests and offering parents money in exchange for silence (NYT, Sept. 4), ordering parents to serve reeducation through labor, keeping parents under surveillance, and stopping them from holding memorials (Radio Free Asia, Oct. 8), refusing to hear a lawsuit filed by a group of parents seeking an apology and compensation (Associated Press via ABC News, Dec. 31), and preventing parents from traveling to Beijing to petition the central government (NYT, Jan. 8, 2009). In addition, in the month after the quake, restrictions on the media were tightened, with reporters from less-tightly controlled media forced to leave the quake zone and publications that called into question the construction quality of schools facing criticism, according to a May 12, 2009, NYT article.
Officials did not release the death toll for students until one year later, putting the number at 5,335 (People's Daily, May 8). Associated Press (AP) said at the time in a May 7 article (via AOL News) that "[s]o far no one has been held responsible or punished" and noted that the head of Sichuan's construction department continued to maintain that "[a]ccording to our investigations and samples we have taken, we have not found any case of buildings that collapsed in the earthquake zone mainly because of construction quality." In the AP report, Ai Weiwei expressed disappointment with the death toll announcement, saying officials "didn't give any names or any other information on where they died, which schools or which classes they were in."
CECC Recommendations
Call on the Chinese government to: - Protect Huang Qi's and Tan Zuoren's rights to freedom of speech, expression, and association. Based on the published reports about these cases, Huang and Tan engaged in peaceful activities that are guaranteed under China's Constitution and international law. Specifically:
- China's Constitution guarantees the rights to freedom of speech and association (Article 35) and the right to criticize officials (Article 41).
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which China has signed and expressed an intent to ratify, guarantee all individuals the right to freedom of expression (Article 19) and association (Article 22 for ICCPR, Article 20 for UDHR).
- Allow parents, concerned citizens, and the news media to conduct their own investigations into the role shoddy construction may have played in the school collapses, free from harassment and official interference. China has pledged to protect such activities in its National Human Rights Action Plan of China (2009-2010), which says "the state will guarantee citizens' rights to criticize, give advice to, complain of, and accuse state organs and civil servants, and give full play to the role of mass organizations, social organizations and the news media in supervising state organs and civil servants." Furthermore, the plan calls for specific measures to guarantee human rights in areas hit by the earthquake, including "respecting earthquake victims" and "registering the names of people who died or disappeared in the earthquake and made [sic] them known to the public."
- Increase transparency regarding the government's own investigations into the school collapses by releasing the details of such investigations and information about victims, including students who died. The Regulations on Open Government Information require government agencies to disclose information that involves the vital interests of citizens (Article 9(1)).
| Source: -See Summary (2009-08-14 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2009-11-06 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=128566 |
Authorities Impose Restrictions on Lawyers Defending Xinjiang Suspects Amid Official Announcements on Arranging Legal Defense
In the aftermath of the forceful police suppression of a demonstration held by Uyghurs in the far western region of Xinjiang on July 5 and outbreaks of violence starting that day, authorities in Xinjiang and Beijing have taken steps to restrict lawyers' activities defending people accused of committing crimes on July 5. The steps come as authorities continue to detain and formally arrest suspects in connection to events on July 5 and prepare for trials. The Xinjiang Justice Department has said it will arrange lawyers for the suspects, but has left many details unclear. Against a backdrop of systemic barriers to adequate legal defense in China, the developments raise questions about the likelihood suspects will receive fair trials. The developments also raise questions about the effectiveness of the recently revised Lawyers Law.
Following the forceful police suppression of a demonstration by Uyghurs on July 5 and outbreaks of violence starting that day in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) capital of Urumqi, authorities in Xinjiang and Beijing have taken steps to restrict lawyers' activities defending people accused of committing crimes on July 5. The steps precede an announcement in late July that the XUAR Justice Department will select and train lawyers to provide criminal defense to suspects alleged to have links to crimes committed on July 5 when they go to trial. Chinese media reports on the nature of the legal defense are inconsistent, however, and a number of details remain unknown. The announcement comes as authorities continue to report on detentions, arrests, and preparations for trials in connection to events on July 5. For more information on the detentions and arrests, see a related CECC analysis. For more information on the curbs imposed on lawyers and the link between the restrictions and recent amendments to the PRC Lawyers Law, see below.
Xinjiang and Beijing Authorities Impose Curbs on Lawyers; Xinjiang Authorities Announce Plans To Organize Legal Defense
Authorities in at least two localities, Xinjiang and Beijing, have taken steps to prevent lawyers from independently accepting legal defense cases connected to alleged crimes committed on July 5. As also discussed in a previous Congressional-Executive Commission on China analysis, on July 8, the Beijing Municipal Judicial Bureau issued a notice on its Web site (copy available on the Chinese Human Rights Defenders Web site) calling on justice bureaus, the Beijing Municipal Lawyers Association, and law firms in Beijing to "exercise caution" in representing cases related to events in the XUAR. Characterizing events on July 5 as a "typical, premeditated, organized beating, smashing, looting, and burning incident organized overseas and executed at home," the notice calls on lawyers to stand on the side of protecting "national integrity and ethnic unity" and stresses as motivation for the notice factors including "establishing a good image for Beijing lawyers." The notice specifies that before accepting cases, partners in law offices should look into the issue, "report the matter," and "take initiative to accept supervision and direction from judicial organs and the lawyers association." While the language in the notice does not explicitly bar lawyers from accepting cases related to July 5, according to sources cited in a July 10 Amnesty International press release, authorities warned some law firms employing human rights lawyers that those lawyers were not to work on cases related to events in the XUAR.
In addition, the Xinjiang Lawyers Association reportedly ordered lawyers not to take cases on their own initiative and instead let authorities "arrange" all defense efforts, according to a July 14 Radio Free Asia report and July 15 report from the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group. The news precedes an announcement, reported in a July 24 English-language report from the Global Times, that the XUAR Justice Department will arrange criminal defense efforts for suspects who go to trial in connection to events on July 5. The report quotes Mao Li, general secretary of the Xinjiang Lawyers Association, as saying that "[t]he Department of Justice in Xinjiang will choose dozens of Uygur lawyers from local law offices to act as free criminal-defense attorneys." The lawyers chosen will receive three to five days of training in criminal law, according to Mao, suggesting the XUAR Justice Department may be including lawyers without extensive experience in criminal defense and it is unclear whether authorities are using the opportunity to appoint and train lawyers to enforce political agendas during the criminal process.
It is not clear whether authorities have informed suspects of the stated availability of defense counsel, especially in light of Chinese-language reports that differ from the Global Times account of the defense efforts. According to August 5 CCTV and Xinhua reports, XUAR Government Information Office spokesperson Hou Hanmin said that criminal suspects and defendants "can receive legal assistance and defense in accordance with the law," but that to date, no criminal suspects or defendants or their families had made any requests for legal assistance or defense. In addition, it is unclear how far in advance of the trial the state-appointed lawyers will be made available to meet with suspects and whether suspects could retain their own lawyer or other legal defender if state-appointed lawyers are not provided until the trial stage. The Global Times article paraphrased authorities as saying that the legal defense "will be given to all those suspected of participating in the Xinjiang riots when they face trial" (emphasis added). Elsewhere in the article, Mao is paraphrased as noting that formal arrests will begin soon and that "judicial departments promised to ensure that each suspect is represented by a lawyer," which may indicate representation earlier in the process. In response to questions including whether suspects could hire lawyers on their own, Hou said in the CCTV article that "China's judicial organs will, in strict accordance with laws and regulations, fully ensure [criminal suspects and defendants'] various procedural rights," according to the CCTV report.
Under Article 96 of the PRC Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) (English text, Chinese text), suspects may hire a lawyer after their first police interrogation or from the day when compulsory measures [such as a summons or detention] are first taken against them. Suspects must receive approval to appoint a lawyer where cases involve state secrets. Lawyers may meet with suspects, though advance approval is necessary for cases involving state secrets, and all meetings may be monitored by investigating organs. According to Article 33, criminal suspects have the right to entrust a defender (youquan weituo bianhuren) from the day a case is transferred to the procuratorate for review for prosecution, and the procuratorate must notify them of this right within three days from receiving the case record for examination. In addition, under Article 33 of the recently revised PRC Lawyers Law (see discussion below on the relationship between the CPL and Lawyers Law), a lawyer entrusted to a case, based on her or his lawyer's practice certificate, law office certificate, and power of attorney or official legal aid letter, has a right (youquan) to meet with a criminal suspect as of the first police interrogation or from the day when compulsory measures are first taken. Under this article, the lawyer meeting with a suspect is not to be monitored (bubei jianting). Chinese law also guarantees pro bono legal defense, but only if the defendant is a minor, faces a possible death sentence, or is blind, deaf, or mute. In other cases in which defendants cannot afford legal representation, courts may appoint defense counsel or the defendant may apply for legal aid. (See Articles 33-34 of the CPL and Articles 11-12 of the Regulations on Legal Aid.)
Amid conflicting reports from Chinese media, questions also remain about the languages to be used in trial and the availability of qualified lawyers and personnel who could speak or interpret into the languages of the defendant. (Han Chinese are among those formally arrested, according to an August 4 Xinhua report, but the Global Times report cited above suggests most suspects are Uyghur.) Under Chinese law, citizens are guaranteed the right to use their own language in court proceedings. (See, e.g., Article 9 of the CPL and Article 47 of the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law.) According to a February 7, 2006, report from Tianshan Net, however, personnel shortcomings in XUAR courts have meant that "there is no way to guarantee the use of ethnic minority languages to carry out litigation." (See also a November 22, 2007, report from Legal Daily, reprinted in Xinhua Xinjiang.) According to August 14 and October 18, 2007, reports from Xinhua, out of 4,552 judges in the XUAR--where non-Han ethnic groups comprise approximately 60 percent of the total general population according to official Chinese statistics--1,948 (43 percent) of judges were ethnic minorities, and as of September of that year, 380 lawyers, or 17 percent of the total number in the region were ethnic minorities. The reports did not identify the lawyers' language capabilities. An August 23 report from China Daily (via People's Daily) said, "More than 170 Uygur and 20 Han lawyers have been assigned to the suspects; the trials will be carried out in their native languages," but XUAR government authorities later refuted the report, which also said trials would begin that week and listed the number arrested as higher than previously reported. See August 25 reports from the Global Times and New York Times.
Restrictions Contravene Domestic and International Protections for Lawyers and Criminal Suspects
The orders issued by the Beijing Municipal Judicial Bureau and the Xinjiang Lawyers Association, whether explicit or indirect, contravene both domestic law and international protections for lawyers and criminal suspects. Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which China has signed and pledged to ratify, provides for fair trials including through legal assistance of one's choice. General Comment Number 13 to this article provides, "Lawyers should be able to counsel and to represent their clients in accordance with their established professional standards and judgement without any restrictions, influences, pressures or undue interference from any quarter." The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers promotes "effective access to legal services provided by an independent legal profession." (See also Articles 1 and 16.) Article 28(3) of the PRC Lawyers Law specifies that lawyers may represent suspects in criminal cases, and Article 33, as discussed above, gives lawyers entrusted to the case the right to meet with suspects and defendants as of the first instance of interrogation or from the day compulsory measures are taken. (In addition, see above for discussion of other legal provisions on hiring lawyers and retaining legal defense.)
Revised PRC Lawyers Law Continues To Face Barriers to Effective Implementation
The July 5 demonstration and subsequent outbreaks of violence in Urumqi came approximately one year after the Chinese government undertook legal reforms designed to reduce barriers to the work of defense attorneys. In June 2008, revisions to the Lawyers Law took effect, and in August 2008, the Legislative Affairs Commission of the National People's Congress Standing Committee said that where provisions of the Lawyers Law differ from ("alter," xiugai) CPL provisions, the provisions in the Lawyers Law are to be followed. (See a copy of the Legislative Affairs Commission statement on the All China Lawyers Association Web site.) As discussed in the CECC 2008 Annual Report, the Lawyers Law was revised largely to address the "three difficulties" (san nan) faced by defense attorneys: gaining access to detained clients, reviewing the prosecution's case files, and collecting evidence. An April 2008 Human Rights Watch report, also citing broader problems in China's legal system, including a lack of judicial independence, noted that courts and police often created obstacles to defense attorneys by claiming that a particular case was "exceptional" or "especially complicated." In addition, the report also found, "Only a fraction of criminal suspects are able to meet their counsel before they are charged. In some cases, lawyers have been entirely unable to secure even a single meeting before the trial takes place." Despite the reforms formally implemented in the past year, the effectiveness of enforcement remains unclear, as does the impact of the NPC Standing Committee statement on conflicts between laws. In addition, many criminal suspects continue to lack defense attorneys, and attorneys working on sensitive issues in particular continue to face harassment. (For more information, see, e.g., a June 18 report from China Youth Daily and July 17 New York Times report.) The continuing problems suggest that in addition to shortcomings criminal suspects in the XUAR may face through government-organized legal defense, broader systemic problems within China's legal system also hinder the likelihood of a fair criminal trial.
Restrictions in Xinjiang Follow Efforts To Block Legal Defense in Tibetan Trials
The actions taken by XUAR and Beijing authorities continue a wider trend in hindering criminal defense efforts especially in cases deemed to involve sensitive issues in ethnic minority areas. After the March 2008 Tibetan protests and riots, the government denied criminal suspects the right to independent counsel, as discussed in the CECC 2008 Annual Report and a March 9, 2009, Human Rights Watch report. A July 20, 2009, Radio Free Asia article quotes defense attorney Li Fangping, who traveled to Gansu province after being hired by the families of two Tibetan monks to represent them in a criminal case, as saying, "The authorities not only refused my request to meet those two men, they also refused my involvement in the case by saying they already had lawyers. They effectively denied the families' rights to independently hire attorneys." The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which examined the Chinese government's compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in August 2009, "[noted] with concern reports on the harassment of defense lawyers taking up cases of human rights violations, especially those introduced by members of ethnic minorities." (August 28 concluding observations available via download from Web site of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.)
For more information on events in the XUAR starting July 5, see previous Commission analysis (1, 2). For more information on conditions in the XUAR, see Section IV--Xinjiang in the CECC 2008 Annual Report. For more information on lawyers in China, see Section II--Rights of Criminal Suspects and Defendants, as well as Section III--Access to Justice in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-08-12 ) |
Posted on: 2009-11-06 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=128444 |
Xinjiang Authorities Continue Detentions, Announce Arrests Connected to July 5 Incident
Following the forceful police suppression of a demonstration held by Uyghurs in the far western region of Xinjiang on July 5 and outbreaks of violence starting that day, Xinjiang authorities have reported on continuing detentions and arrests in connection to events on July 5. Some reports from official media on people detained or arrested have been inconsistent, and a number of details remain unknown. The procuratorate initiated prosecution in a first group of cases in September. A court in Urumqi has begun preparing for trials and has selected adjudicators with "high proficiency in policy" to try upcoming cases.
Following the forceful police suppression of a demonstration by Uyghurs on July 5 in Urumqi, capital of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), and outbreaks of violence starting that day, Chinese media continue to carry reports from XUAR officials on detentions and arrests in connection to events on July 5, as well as a first batch of cases to be prosecuted. Official Chinese media's English-language and Chinese-language services have differed in some cases in their coverage of the detentions and arrests, and some details about the detentions and arrests, including the total number of people in custody, remain unclear. Reports have used varying terms to describe the detentions. The formal term for "detention" that appears in the PRC Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) (English text, Chinese text) is juliu (also frequently rendered in reports more specifically as "criminal detention" (xingshi juliu), which distinguishes it from other formal types of detention, such as administrative detention). The term in the CPL for "arrest" (which requires procuratorate approval) is daibu. Media reports also have used imprecise and informal terms that do not suggest formal criminal detention for the initial act of taking someone into custody, including phrases like "capturing" (zhuahuo) or "catching" (zhuabu) someone. Such people taken into custody may later be placed under formal criminal detention.
Against the backdrop of a criminal law system in which authorities use criminal charges to cast free expression as a crime, a XUAR official stated authorities had held in custody people who were peaceful protesters, and official media reports suggest that some acts of peaceful protest or expression will be subject to formal criminal charges. (See below for details.) While acts of violence during the week of July 5 were reported to have been committed by both Uyghurs and Han, based on wording in the sources cited within this analysis, Chinese authorities appear to have focused on pursuing prosecution of alleged crimes committed on July 5--the day Uyghurs demonstrated and also when acts of violence were primarily reported to be committed by Uyghurs--without explicitly clarifying whether prosecution efforts will extend to criminal acts committed by Han in the days following July 5. An article from official media indicated that Han are among people reported to be formally arrested, but did not provide additional details. (See information below on the first group of arrests for details.) A court in Urumqi has begun preparing for trials and has selected adjudicators with "high proficiency in policy" to try upcoming cases.
The information on detentions, arrests, and trial preparations comes amid reports of steps taken by authorities in the XUAR and in Beijing to curb independent criminal defense activities. The Xinjiang Justice Department has said it will arrange counsel for the suspects, but has left many details unclear. See a related CECC analysis for more information.
Authorities Report Detentions and Arrests; Some Official Media Accounts Contain Discrepancies
Recent reports of detentions and arrests, as of September 11, and information on a first group of cases to be prosecuted, include:- The procuratorate has approved the arrests (pizhun daibu) of a total of 237 people in 139 cases, and public security officials also have sought approval to arrest 295 people involved in 175 cases, based on information in a September 11 English-language China Daily report and Chinese-language Xinhua report. The procuratorate has initiated prosecution of 51 people in 14 cases, according to the reports, which appears to clarify information reported the previous week (see below) on cases transferred for review for prosecution. Based on the reports, 956 cases in total have been filed for investigation.
- The procuratorate has approved the arrests (pizhun daibu) of 196 people in 121 cases related to July 5, and 14 cases involving 51 people have been transferred by public security organs to the procuratorate for review for prosecution, according to the text of a September 4 Chinese-language Xinhua report citing the XUAR government information office. A September 4 English-language Xinhua report (via China.cn) states, in contrast to the Chinese-language report, that authorities have "prosecuted" the cases. (See Articles 136-149 of the Criminal Procedure Law for general information on reviewing cases and initiating prosecution.) Public security officials have sought approval to arrest an additional 239 people involved in 140 cases, and 825 people are being held in criminal detention (xingshi juliu), according to the reports. The numbers represent the second official statement on arrest figures, following information on a first group of arrests reported in August (see below). The September reports do not clarify whether the 196 arrests include the earlier numbers reported in August.
- Authorities have approved arrests (pizhun daibu) of 83 people in connection to crimes on July 5, according to August 4 English-language and Chinese-language reports from Xinhua. The English-language article said the information was the first official announcement on arrests from Urumqi authorities. The article reported that XUAR procurator Otkur Abduraxman "said those arrested will face charges including murder, intentional injury, arson and robbery." According to the Chinese-language report, however, those arrested are also suspected of "destroying vehicles, gathering crowds to disrupt social order, picking quarrels and making trouble, and inciting ethnic hatred and discrimination," in addition to the crimes listed in the English-language report. The Chinese-language report noted those arrested included both Uyghurs and Han. According to a July 18 report from the Legal Daily, citing a XUAR Party official, suspects' alleged crimes fall into five categories, including endangering state security, and include over 20 suspected crimes, including splittism and armed rebellion.
- Following the report of the 83 arrests, an August 23 English-language report from the China Daily (via People's Daily) said over 200 people had been formally arrested and that trials would begin that week, appearing to cite an unnamed Urumqi procuratorate official as the source of the information. The report said charges included splittism and inciting splittism. Hou Hanmin, a spokesperson for the XUAR government called the China Daily report "totally untrue" in an August 25 Global Times report, and another XUAR government official also denied the report, according to an August 25 New York Times report.
- The head of the Urumqi Public Security Bureau reported that 718 suspects had been placed under criminal detention (xingshi juliu) as of August 4, according to a Chinese-language report that day from Xinhua. See also a report of the detentions in an August 4 English-language Xinhua report. A PRC official later reiterated to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that 718 remained in detention and that those who "committed minor offences have been dealt with leniently and released," according to an August 10 Agence France-Presse report (via Yahoo). It is unclear, however, if all other people earlier held in connection to July 5 were outside of some form of custody or oversight as of that date, especially in light of comments from XUAR government chairperson Nur Bekri (below) indicating that some peaceful protesters may remain in a form of unofficial custody or under surveillance. According to an August 6 Xinhua report (via China Daily), "Authorities also admitted that some of the detained suspects in connection with the riot have been released as their offences were minor. But they didn't provide the exact number of those who were released."
- According to August 2 English-language and Chinese-language Xinhua reports, public security officers said they had detained (zhuahuo) 319 people in addition to 253 detentions reported earlier. The detentions (zhuahuo) of 253 "prime suspects" were reported in a July 29 Chinese-language Xinhua report, which also noted that a batch of suspects turned themselves in. A July 29 English-language Xinhua report on the detentions said they were "in addition to the more than 1,000 suspects detained by July 6."
- Xinhua reported in a July 10 Chinese-language article that authorities detained (zhuahuo) 190 people in a series of four operations on July 9 and July 10, in connection to events on July 5. This news appears to have been unreported in official English-language media.
- Xinhua's English-language service reported on July 7 that authorities had "arrested" 1,434 people--1,379 men and 55 women--in connection to events on July 5. The use of the term "arrests" appears to be an incorrect reference to the initial detention of these individuals. (Formal arrests (daibu) of over 1,400 people two days after alleged criminal activity would be unlikely given the usual progression of the criminal process, including the requirement under the CPL that the procuratorate approve all arrests. This terminology is also inconsistent with Chinese reporting. See, e.g., a July 7 Xinhua article (via Nanfang Daily), noting that police had "caught" (zhuabu) 1,434 people.) Some of the detainees "might be released if no serious criminal records were found," according to a paraphrasing of Urumqi Party Secretary Li Zhi's remarks in the English-language article.
- XUAR police chief Liu Yaohua initially reported early on July 7 that officials had detained roughly 700 people and continued to pursue "about 90 other key suspects," according to a July 7 English-language Xinhua report.
Overseas media have cited sources reporting on widespread security sweeps and mass detentions, including reported mass round-ups of Uyghur men, and some reports indicate detention numbers that would exceed those reported by the Chinese government and Chinese media. Some of the people reported to have been detained appear to have no involvement to either acts of protest or violent activity on July 5. (For more information, see, e.g., a July 6 Radio Free Asia article, a July 11 Telegraph article, July 19 New York Times article, and July 19 Financial Times article.)
Authorities have provided limited information on a small number of detainees or suspects (see, e.g., articles cited above and a list of suspects published in a July 30 Chinese-language Xinhua report), but detailed information about most of the people officially said to remain in detention, including the specific grounds for their detentions, appears to remain unreported. In addition, Chinese media have reported information on the arrest of one man "who allegedly spread rumors used to trigger the Urumqi riots on July 5." According to a July 6 Xinhua report (via China Daily), Kurban Khayum "was arrested for exaggerating the death toll of a factory unrest involving Uygurs in Shaoguan, Guangdong province in June." The article reports that Kurban Khayum was a member of the World Uyghur Congress (WUC)--an organization headed by U.S.-based Uyghur rights advocate Rebiya Kadeer and blamed by Chinese authorities for events on July 5--and that after the WUC told him to "gather intelligence on separatist activities in China by Uygurs and people of other ethnic groups ... in order to carry out activities to split China," he fabricated a report on the number of people killed in Shaoguan. Kurban Khayum wrote to the WUC that "a massive protest should be staged to let the world know about this bloody incident," according to the article. See also an August 6 report from the Beijing Times (via People's Daily). For additional information which challenges the facts of the case as reported by Chinese media, see an August 20 report from the East Turkistan Information Center.
Urumqi Party Secretary Li Zhi said at a press conference on July 8 that authorities would use the death penalty for crimes connected to events on July 5. The Supreme People's Court said in late July that the government and court will take steps to reduce the amount of death sentences in China, according to a July 29 Xinhua report.
For additional information, see a July 13 XUAR Public Security Bureau notice (via Xinhua Xinjiang) on "reporting and exposing criminals" connected to events on July 5.
Official Describes Taking Measures Toward Peaceful Protesters
Although authorities and official media largely refer to all events on July 5 as a "riot" or "violent criminal incident of beating, smashing, looting, and burning," a limited number of sources have reported that a demonstration took place, and a XUAR official appeared to acknowledge that some participants had protested peacefully. (See source cited below. See also a July 19 English-language Xinhua report, via China Daily, citing XUAR government chairperson Nur Bekri referring to a "student demonstration" on July 5.) Some participants may have been detained and subjected to surveillance or possibly arbitrary detention after being released from formal police custody. Nur Bekri said on July 24 that people "unaware of the truth" who "took part in the demonstrations but did not join in the beating, smashing, looting, and burning," along with those "not deeply involved," had been returned to their "work unit," "community," or "permanent place of residence" for "further assistance and education," following "education" while in detention and after they "pledged to repent," according to a July 24 Xinhua report via Ta Kung Pao (cached page) and translation of the Xinhua report via Open Source Center (subscription required). The reference to returning people to work units or communities and subjecting them to "assistance and education" suggests such people may remain under surveillance or supervision, or possibly a form of arbitrary detention. Other protesters, including organizers of the demonstration, may remain subject to criminal punishment. Chinese President Hu Jintao and members of the Communist Party Politburo's Standing Committee met on July 8 and issued a statement on July 9 that the government would "firmly crack down on serious crimes" and target "[i]nstigators, organizers, culprits and violent criminals" involved in the "riot," according to a July 9 Xinhua report, while "[t]hose taking part in the riot due to provocation and deceit by separatists, should be given education." During an August 4 visit to the Urumqi procuratorate, Zhu Hailun, standing committee member and secretary of the politics and law commission in the XUAR Party committee, called for "digging deeply to ferret out the organizers, masterminds, conductors, and core members in these cases," according to an August 12 Xinjiang Daily report (via PDF of hardcopy and translation in Open Source Center, subscription required).
Trials Initially Reported to Begin Mid-August, Adjudicators with "High Proficiency in Policy" Chosen
Although later reports indicated that no trial date had been set as of late August, a July 31 China Daily report paraphrased a source as saying trials would start in mid-August, and that the Urumqi Intermediate People's Court "has been preparing for the hearings." See also a Chinese-language July 28 Xinhua Xinjiang report. Under Article 20 of the PRC Criminal Procedure Law, intermediate people's courts have jurisdiction as the court of first instance over counterrevolutionary cases, cases of endangering state security, "ordinary criminal cases punishable by life imprisonment or the death penalty," and cases involving non-PRC citizens. According to the Xinhua report, the XUAR High People's Court has already selected from courts within the XUAR adjudicators who have "a high proficiency in policy" and "professional spirit." The adjudicators are currently undergoing training on state and XUAR policies and regulations toward events on July 5, as well as on the PRC Constitution, Criminal Law, and other relevant laws, according to the report.
Following the July 5 demonstration in Urumqi, the Party leading group in the Urumqi Intermediate People's Court launched anti-separatism education in the court, as well as in eight district courts in the municipality. The Party leading group called for cadres and police in the courts to carry out the policy deployments of the Party central committee and XUAR government, according to a July 25 People's Court Daily article (via Xinhua Xinjiang).
UPDATE (2009-10-30): Chinese media reported in late September and mid-October on prosecutions and trials related to events in July. For more information, see the following articles:- 21 Suspects Involved in Urumqi Riot Prosecuted (Xinhua, September 25. Click here for Chinese-language reporting from Xinhua.)
- 108 Stand Accused in Urumqi Riot (China Daily, October 9. Click here for Chinese-language reporting from Xinhua and Yangzi Evening News, via Sanming Information Net.)
- Six Sentenced to Death over Xinjiang Riot (Xinhua, October 12. Click here for Chinese-language reporting from Xinhua.)
- Legal Scholars and Procurator Answer Reporters' Questions about Trial Conditions in Three Major Criminal Cases from "7-5" Incident (People's Daily, October 12, in Chinese. Includes background information, including limited details on legal defense.)
- China Sentences Six to Death over Xinjiang Riot (Xinhua, October 15. Click here for Chinese-language reporting from Xinhua.)
- Court Upholds Penalties to Xinjiang Riot Convicts (Xinhua, October 30. Click here for Chinese-language reporting from Xinhua, via Sina.)
For other news reports, see, e.g.:For more information on events in the XUAR starting July 5, see previous Commission analysis (1, 2). For background information on conditions in the XUAR, see Section VI--Xinjiang in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-08-11 ) |
Posted on: 2009-11-06 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=128326 |
Gansu Authorities Order Environmental Activist Sun Xiaodi and His Daughter to Serve Reeducation Through Labor
Authorities in Gansu province ordered environmentalist Sun Xiaodi to serve 2 years and his daughter to serve 18 months in reeducation through labor (RTL) detention centers in June for "illegally providing state secrets overseas" and "rumor mongering." Sun Xiaodi had recently reported to central authorities that local officials had exaggerated evidence of earthquake damage from the 2008 Sichuan earthquake in order to obtain earthquake relief funds. Sun also reported on pollution problems and expanded production at a local uranium mine. Authorities first criminally detained Sun, but it is unclear why officials later ordered Sun and his daughter to serve RTL, a form of administrative detention outside the criminal justice system.
On July 9, 2009, The RTL Management Committee in the Gannan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Gansu province, ordered Sun Xiaodi, a Gansu environmental activist who reportedly exposed pollution problems and illegal activities at a mine in Diebu County, Gansu to serve two years of reeducation through labor (RTL) for "illegally providing state secrets overseas" and "rumor mongering," according to a July 17, 2009, Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) news release. Authorities in Gannan also ordered Sun's daughter, Sun Haiyan (also known as Sun Dunbai) to serve 18 months of RTL for the same activities according to CHRD. The RTL committee asserted that Sun "stole" information about the No. 792 Uranium Mine in Diebu County, according to a copy of the RTL decision available in a July 16, 2009, Human Rights in China article. (Chinese-language version of the decision available via Boxun). The RTL decision also stated that Mr. Sun Xiaodi provided to foreign media the location of the uranium mine, production data, and information about the grade of uranium mined and had "spread rumors" about "fake earthquakes," "pollution from the uranium mine," and "human rights violations."
Sun Xiaodi's wife, Hu Jianhong, stated Sun Xiaodi had recently told the central government and human rights groups that Diebu county officials had exaggerated evidence of earthquake damage in the county from the 2008 Sichuan earthquake in order to obtain earthquake relief funds, according to a June 25, 2009, CHRD article. The CHRD report also noted that Sun's longstanding activities exposing and complaining about pollution, health risks, and contamination from the mine had drawn ongoing harassment from authorities. Sun's wife reported that authorities did not allow her to hire a lawyer due to the "political" nature of the case, according to a July 17, 2009, Agence France-Presse article. In addition, according to a July 20-26, 2009, CHRD briefing, Sun's wife reported being threatened by authorities who warned her not to contact "illegal" human rights organizations. Sun Xiaodi is currently serving his RTL sentence at the Lanzhou Anning District RTL detention center and had filed for an administrative reconsideration of the case, according to the CHRD briefing. The Gansu Public Security Department rejected the request for administrative reconsideration and RTL detention center officials prohibited Sun's wife from visiting her husband because Sun's case involved "special" circumstances, according to an October 8, 2009, CHRD article.
Given the seriousness of the state secrets allegations and because Sun was first criminally detained, as reported in a CHRD June 25, 2009, article, it is unclear why officials ultimately ordered Sun and his daughter to serve reeducation through labor—a form of administrative punishment usually given to "minor offenders"— instead of seeking criminal prosecution and following established criminal legal procedures. According to a 2009 China Rights Forum article written by Fu Hualing, frequently, RTL "is used as an alternative punishment for people who are suspected of having committed a serious offense that the police are unable to prove." The RTL system operates outside of the judicial system and the Criminal Procedure Law, and enables law enforcement officials to detain Chinese citizens for up to four years without a trial. See page 99 of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2009 Annual Report for additional information on RTL. In addition, it is unclear how Sun's actions violated Chinese law, especially in light of legal protections for people who report on environmental pollution. According to Article 6 of the PRC Environmental Protection Law "all units and individuals shall have the obligation to protect the environment and shall have the right to report on or file charges against units or individuals that cause pollution or damage to the environment" and Article 3 of the Regulations on Letters and Visits states "no organization or individual may retaliate against letter-writers or visitors." ("Letters and visits system" refers to China's complaint management, or xinfang, system.)
Background on Harassment of Sun Xiaodi for His Complaint Activities
Sun Xiaodi began to make complaints about the No. 792 Uranium Mine in 1988 because of its alleged illegal resale of radioactive contaminated mining equipment, illegal mining, and illegal disposal of untreated radioactive water, according to a January 2, 2007, Human Rights in China press release. An article by Ren Chong reported that Sun had complained about elevated radiation levels in shops and in the soil along the roadways. Sun had also documented cases of hazardous working conditions, increased rates of cancer among people living near the mines, and improper disposal of radioactive waste and equipment.
According to the article, mine leaders and local government officials harassed Sun Xiaodi for years for his environmental advocacy efforts (p. 31-33). Government officials were reportedly unresponsive to Sun's complaints about the mine and in 1994, mine leaders fired him. Mine leaders also assigned his wife, who also worked at the mine, to heavy manual labor. In addition, their home was vandalized. The government closed the mine in 2002 but employees stated production actually continued and mine leaders even expanded the mine pit. On April 28, 2005, also according to the China Rights Forum article, while in Beijing to petition national-level authorities about the mine's pollution, and shortly after Sun met with foreign journalists, unidentified individuals abducted Sun from the street. The article reported that authorities held him for eight months without informing his family of his whereabouts. After authorities released him in December 2005, they confined him to his home. According to a January 2, 2007, Human Rights in China press release, official harassment of Sun Xiaodi intensified after he received the Nuclear-Free Future Award in December 2006 for his nuclear safety advocacy efforts; on several occasions rocks reportedly were thrown at his door and windows. Upon reporting the attacks, local state security officers allegedly told him "you are free to leave if you want to."
For more information regarding RTL and environmental activism, see the CECC 2009 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-07-22 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-11-06 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=126995 |
Macau Government Passes Controversial National Security Law
On February 25, 2009, the Macau Special Administrative Region (SAR) passed a new National Security Law that includes provisions regarding treason, secession, subversion, sedition, theft of state secrets, and acts by foreign political organizations or Macau groups deemed to endanger state security. The law incorporates select citizen and legislator suggestions but because the final law leaves several terms undefined, it potentially has negative implications for Macau citizens' freedoms of expression and association. The extent to which the Chinese government will extend its framework for protecting state secrets to Macau, remains unclear. Provisions in the law related to state secrets may allow for diminished transparency in the way some aspects of the "one country, two systems" relationship between the mainland and Macau will be handled.
The Macau Special Administrative Region (SAR) passed a new National Security Law on February 25, 2009, as it was required to do under Chapter II, Article 23 of the Basic Law of the Macau Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China that was adopted in 1993 and went into effect in 1999. The new law includes provisions detailed below regarding treason (Article 1), secession (Article 2), subversion (Article 3), sedition (Article 4), theft of state secrets (Article 5), and acts by foreign political organizations or Macau groups that endanger state security (Articles 6 and 7). The length of prison terms for state security crimes include 10 to 25 years for treason, secession, and subversion, 1 to 8 years for sedition, and 2 to 15 years for stealing, collecting (citan), procuring, or making public state secrets. According to a July 9, 2003, New York Times article, the proposal of a similar law in Hong Kong led to demonstrations by approximately 500,000 people on July 1, 2003, after which the Hong Kong government withdrew the bill.
Macau's National Security Law reflects some attention to public suggestions made on the initial bill during a 40-day consultation period and legislators comments on the revised bill (Chinese¡ªrevised bill shown side by side with original version in the Consultation Report of the National Security Law [draft], pp. 53-68). However, the final law leaves several terms undefined¡ªwith possible implications for Macau citizens' freedoms of expression and association. Moreover, as described below, concerns remain over the law's failure to clarify the extent to which the mainland's framework for state secrets will extend to Macau. Finally, the law includes in its definition of state secrets, "other related matters having to do with the relationship between central authorities and the Macau SAR as set forth in the Basic Law of the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China." It is unclear what implication this wording will have on the transparency with which the "one country, two systems" relationship between the mainland and Macau will be handled (under the Basic Law of the Macau Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, this relationship is to remain in effect until 2049).
Implications for Freedom of Expression and Association
While recognizing the need for national security legislation, citizens also expressed concern that the law's unclear definitions could impinge upon the freedoms of association and expression in Macau, according to the summary of suggestions and comments in the Consultation Report of the National Security Law [draft] compiled by the Macau SAR government (p.18). For example, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), in its November 29, 2008, submission to the Macau government during the public comment period, expressed apprehension that the law could contravene the International Labor Organization's conventions 87 and 98. In particular, it could be in breach of Article 3 of Convention 87, regarding the right to organize activities and the right of non-interference by public authorities, as well as Article 11, regarding the obligations by members of the ILO to "take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that workers and employers may exercise freely the right to organize." The ITUC submission pointed out that in articles 2 and 3 regarding respectively secession and subversion, the terms "other serious unlawful means" and "acts against the security of transport and communications" are not clearly defined. The group argued the ambiguity would allow officials to charge citizens with subversion or sedition, as they are on the mainland, when citizens engage in peaceful, mass demonstrations that temporarily disrupt traffic flows.
In a June 11, 2009, public statement, Amnesty International stated it was concerned that no state raised the issue of Macau's National Security Law during the Universal Periodic Review Working Group review of China, noting that the law's provisions are "vague and broad" and could be used to "imprison individuals merely for exercising their rights to freedom of expression and association."
In addition, according to a February 6, 2009, Xinhua article, reprinted in the People's Daily, an October 23, 2008, China Post article, and a January 5, 2009, Xinhua story (via Sina.com), some lawmakers and citizens in Macau expressed concern regarding the clarity of the definition of "preparatory acts," which are criminalized in the provisions related to treason, secession, and subversion. The China Post article quotes one lawmaker as saying that "if officials don't like what they see, they may consider it 'preparation'...there isn't a clear definition."
State Secrets and Their Determination, and the Macau SAR-Mainland Relationship
Article 5 of the law criminalizes the act of stealing, collecting (citan), procuring, or making public state secrets, which "endangers or harms the independence, unity, or integrity of the state or its internal or external security interests." Article 5 defines "state secrets" as "documents, information, or objects" meeting two general requirements. The first is that "it has already been confirmed" that the document, information, or object "should be given state secret [status]." The second is that the document, information, or object must "involve national defense, foreign relations, or other related matters having to do with the relationship between central authorities and the Macau SAR as set forth in the Macau SAR Basic Law."
The language of Article 5 appears to limit "matters having to do with the relationship" between the Chinese central government and Macau that would be considered a state secret to only those matters associated with national defense or foreign relations, and the stealing, collecting, making public, or procuring of which would "harm the independence, unity, or integrity of the state or its internal or external security interests," as a Macau scholar points out in a November 2008 article (pp. 12-17). Article 5 does not, however, specify what matters would be considered "related" to national defense or foreign relations. Nor does the article define the terms in the phrase "harms the independence, unity, or integrity of the state." The concern is that officials could interpret "related" and other terms broadly to restrict the public's access to information regarding relations between Macau and the central government. Therefore, the implications of Article 5 on the transparency with which the "one country, two systems" relationship between the mainland and Macau will be managed is unclear.
In addition, the new law appears to introduce ambiguity regarding the authority to issue certification of state secrets in relation to document(s), information, or objects, which raises questions about the extent to which the mainland's framework for state secrets will extend to Macau. Article 5 stipulates ¡°if needed, judicial organs may obtain from the [Macau] Chief Executive, or may go through the [Macau] Chief Executive to obtain from the Central People¡¯s government, a document that will certify whether an aforementioned document, information, or object was previously classified as a state secret." The law does not indicate when the Chief Executive or when Beijing will be responsible for issuing certification of a state secret, which seems to call into question the extent to which the mainland's framework for state secrets will extend to Macau. As a Macau scholar points out in a November 2008 article (p. 13), Macau does not currently have its own state secrets law.
Amnesty International asserted in a March 2, 2009, press release that if Beijing uses the same criteria for determining state secrets in Macau as it does on the mainland, the practice could impact the rights of Macau citizens, including the right to free expression. According to a June 2007 Human Rights in China report, the state secrets framework on the mainland is opaque, definitions of state secrets are vague, and state secret designations have been used to keep human rights and political cases away from public view.
Prohibitions Against Acts by Macau and Foreign "Political Organizations" That Harm National Security
Article 6 criminalizes the behavior of "foreign political organizations or groups," if that behavior is found to endanger national security. Article 7 criminalizes the establishment of links by Macau political organizations and groups with foreign political organizations and groups for the conduct of acts found to endanger national security. "Links" in this provision include, among others, "the receipt of instructions, orders, money, or valuables from foreign organizations or their agents," and "the collection, preparation, or public dissemination of false or clearly distorted news." Terms in the provisions including, "endangering national security," "political organizations or groups," and "dissemination of false or clearly distorted news," remain undefined. In its submission to the consultative process, ITUC stated its apprehension that Articles 6 and 7 [in the final law] could be utilized by Macau authorities to prohibit Macau individuals or groups from associating with labor unions, international organizations, and foreign civil society groups. Authorities could also invoke these provisions to prohibit Macau organizations or groups from associating with human rights group or accepting democracy or rule of law assistance.
In addition, Article 8 allows for daily fines to be levied against sentenced organizations (for crimes outlined in Articles 3 through 7), which could have the effect of bankrupting civic groups. The fines are levied on a daily basis, i.e., Macau patacas $100 (US$12) to $20,000 (US$2,550) a day for a minimum of 100 days and a maximum of 1,000 days (Article 8).
More information on China's state security provisions can be found in the CECC 2009 Annual Report and the 2008 Annual Report. For more information on the attempt to pass a National Security Bill in Hong Kong, see Section VIII¡ªRecent Developments in Hong Kong, in the CECC 2003 Annual Report. More information on the Universal Periodic Review of China may be found on the CECC Web site.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-04-06 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2009-11-06 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=131402 |
Congressional Executive Commission on China Releases Annual Report on State of Human Rights in China
(Washington, D.C.)¡ªThe Congressional-Executive Commission on China released its 2009 Annual Report on human rights and the rule of law in China on October 16, along with a PDF containing case records of 1,279 political prisoners currently detained or imprisoned in China.
¡°We are deeply concerned about continued human rights abuses and stalled rule of law reform documented in the Commission's 2009 Annual Report. Many Chinese government policies designed to address social unrest and bolster the Communist Party's authority are resulting in a period of declining human rights for Chinese citizens,¡± said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Chairman of the Commission in a joint statement with Representative Sander Levin, Co-Chairman of the Commission.
¡°The Chinese Government has made economic development a priority, and has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But, Chinese government policies and practices continue to violate the rights of Chinese citizens and fall far short of meeting international standards,¡± said Dorgan and Levin in a joint statement.
"The Report documents the challenges and opportunities that exist for China to create a more open society with greater respect for human rights, including workers rights, and the rule of law. Holding the Chinese government accountable to its international commitments, including trade, fundamental rights, and the rule of law is an essential element for securing progress.
"A stable China firmly committed to the rule of law and fundamental rights is in the national interest of the United States. Those rights include the right to speak freely, the right to organize into independent unions, and to practice the religion of one's choosing. To ensure a positive U.S.-China relationship, it is vital that China¡¯s leaders demonstrate genuine commitment, not just in words but in deeds, to prioritizing fundamental rights in no lesser measure than they have prioritized economic development," added Dorgan and Levin.
The Commission consists of nine members of the House of Representatives, nine Senators and five senior Administration officials appointed by the President. The Commission¡¯s Annual Report is among the most comprehensive, public examinations of the state of human rights and the rule of law in China produced by the US government.
Statements by Members of the Commission:
Sen. Sam Brownback
| Source: -See Summary (2009-10-16 ) |
Posted on: 2009-10-19 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=130525 |
Ahead of Sensitive Dates, Lhasa Officials Add "Strike Hard" to Crackdown
Officials in Lhasa city, the capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), have implemented a "strike hard" anti-crime campaign running from mid-January until late March 2009¡ªa period of time that brackets a series of dates that many Tibetans consider to have a high level of cultural and political sensitivity. The campaign aims to "strike hard according to law against all kinds of illegal criminal activity and to vigorously uphold the city's social order and stability," according to a January 23 report (in Chinese) published in the Communist Party-run Lhasa Evening News (LEN).
The "strike hard" campaign took effect as Lhasa residents entered the 11th month of a well-entrenched security crackdown that People's Armed Police (PAP) and public security officials established following the cascade of Tibetan protests that began in Lhasa on March 10, 2008, and by April had reached across the TAR and Tibetan autonomous areas located in Qinghai, Gansu, and Sichuan provinces. Tibetan protesters resorted to rioting on March 14-15 in Lhasa and other nearby locations. The Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) reported in its 2008 Annual Report that as a result of the Chinese government crackdown on Tibetan communities, monasteries, nunneries, schools, and workplaces following the wave of Tibetan protests, Chinese government repression of Tibetans' freedoms of speech, religion, and association had increased to what may be the highest level since approximately 1983, when Tibetans were able to set about reviving Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and nunneries. (See International Campaign for Tibet (ICT), "Tibet at a Turning Point, 6 August 08, for more information on the crackdown.)
LEN reported that the "strike hard" campaign during its first week deployed a substantial amount of security resources¡ªa force certain to attract residents' notice¡ªbut information in the report shows that "strike hard" personnel detected relatively little alleged criminal activity. More than 600 personnel using more than 160 vehicles were mobilized by January 21, according to the January 23 LEN report. On January 25, LEN reported (in Chinese) that in the first week security officials conducted checks on a total 8,424 persons at 3,813 rented residences, 33 hotels and guest houses, 56 bars and Internet cafes, and 30 residential courtyards. Police detained a total of 51 of the 8,424 persons (0.6 percent) on suspicion of criminal activity, including 30 on suspicion of theft, burglary, and prostitution. Two of the detainees had "reactionary discussion" and "reactionary songs" on their cell phones, the LEN report said.
"Strike hard" officials checked whether or not each of the 8,424 persons they examined had a permit to be in Lhasa¡ªonly 148 persons (1.8 percent) did not. NGOs and media organizations have reported that officials have intensified such checks since the early stages of the crackdown (see, e.g., China Digital Times, 30 April 08; Radio Free Asia (RFA), 5 November 08; and ICT, 13 November 08). Persons visiting Lhasa for as little as four days must register with public security officials, according to a January 23 Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy report.
The "strike hard" campaign will be in force during a 70-day period that brackets a series of dates that Tibetans regard as sensitive. The campaign will not expire until March 29 if measured from the January 18 launch date announced in the LEN report, or until March 31 if measured from a January 20 "comprehensively launched" date that LEN provided in a second January 23 report (in Chinese). The campaign will be active during the following observances and anniversaries.- Tibetan New Year (Losar), February 25, 2009. Some Tibetans living in Tibetan autonomous areas of China intend to express in a passive manner their discontent with developments over the past year, including the death and imprisonment of Tibetan protesters, by foregoing the usual celebration of Losar. Reuters reported from Lhasa on February 12 that "many Tibetans" are boycotting Losar celebrations "in quiet defiance of the crackdown." A February 11 Xinhua report said that Nyima Tsering, Vice Chairman of the TAR People's Congress Standing Committee (TAR PCSC), at a February 10 press conference in Lhasa urged Tibetans to continue with Losar celebrations "in response to an underground campaign by some secessionists to boycott the festival." "Tibetan people are enjoying a good life now," Nyima Tsering said, "there is no reason for them to forgo celebrating their traditional holiday this year." If Chinese government officials choose to characterize Tibetan non-celebration of the New Year as an expression of "splittism," a crime under Article 103 of the Criminal Law, then authorities could pressure Tibetans to choose between celebrating Losar or facing the possibility of punishment that could include criminal prosecution.
- Fiftieth anniversary of March 10, 1959, the date when tens of thousands of Tibetans in Lhasa gathered outside the Dalai Lama's Norbulingka residence because they feared a People's Liberation Army plot to harm him. The Dalai Lama escaped from Lhasa a week later and fled into exile. On March 10 of every year since 1960 the Dalai Lama has made a formal statement to the Tibetan people. (See the Web site of the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama for a chronology, biographical information on the Dalai Lama, and an archive of March 10 statements.)
- First anniversary of March 10, 2008, the start of the wave of Tibetan protests. The protests resulted in a large number of Tibetan deaths, detentions, and disappearances according to reports by media and NGOs, but Chinese government measures to prevent information from leaving China have prevented a complete and accurate accounting of the consequences. Chinese officials blamed "the Dalai Clique" for "masterminding" the 2008 protests and rioting, and did not acknowledge the role of rising Tibetan frustration with Chinese policies. (See the CECC 2008 Annual Report for information on the Tibetan protests and their consequences. See Tibet: Special Focus for 2007 of the 2007 Annual Report, and Section VIII¡ªTibet of the 2006 Annual Report for additional information on Chinese government and Communist Party policies that deprive Tibetans of rights and freedoms nominally protected under China's Constitution and legal system.)
- First observance of "Serfs Emancipation Day", March 28, 2009. The TAR People's Congress established the holiday on January 19, 2009, to commemorate the March 28, 1959, Chinese government decree that dissolved the Dalai Lama's Lhasa-based Tibetan government. Legchog (Lieque), the Chairman of the TAR PCSC, said on January 16, 2009, that Serfs Emancipation Day would "strengthen Tibetans' patriotism," according to a January 16 Xinhua report. RFA reported on January 16 that TAR prefectural and county officials had met to "ensure that all people mark the occasion with festivities." Chinese government measures to pressure Tibetans into celebrating the end of the Dalai Lama's government (and, by association, the departure of the Dalai Lama), have already provoked protests. For example, about 300 Tibetans, including monks, protested on January 10 in Jiangda (Jomda) county, Changdu (Chamdo) prefecture, TAR, in an attempt to dissuade local officials from sending a Tibetan dance troupe to Lhasa to participate in Serfs Emancipation Day celebrations, according to a February 9 Phayul report. Officials forced the dance troupe to depart for Lhasa on January 15 and authorities detained at least seven monks on January 24, the report said.
A Lhasa government official and the Dalai Lama have said in separate statements that current tensions could result in further protests. Lhasa Deputy Mayor Cao Bianjiang referred to the Dalai Lama at a February 10 press conference in Lhasa and said that "some people . . . do not want to see the peaceful development of Lhasa's economy," according to a Reuters report that day. "So it cannot be entirely avoided that some people continue to cause disturbances," Cao said. The Dalai Lama said on February 11 while visiting Germany that there is "too much anger" in Tibet and that "[a]t any moment an outburst could happen," according to Telegraph (U.K.) and Voice of America reports the same day.
According to information accessible by the public in the CECC Political Prisoner Database (PPD) as of February 17, 2009, security officials detained 24 Tibetans during January 2009 for political protest activity¡ªmore than during January in any other year since Tibetans resumed political activism in September 1987. The average number of political detentions of Tibetans during January in the years 1988 through 2008 was 3.7, based on information accessible by the public in the PPD. The increase in 2009 is consistent with statements anticipating a sustained increase in Tibetan protest activity noted above. The January 2009 detentions also are noteworthy for several other reasons.- The actual number of detentions during January may continue to increase beyond what has been reported thus far as additional information continues to come to light.
- The Jiangda county protest was forward-looking, focusing on March 28 "Serfs Emancipation Day" ceremonies, rather than reactive, such as Tibetan protests against anti-Dalai Lama and "patriotic education" campaigns.
- All 24 of the January 2009 detentions recorded in the PPD took place in Changdu prefecture or Ganzi (Kardze) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture (TAP), Sichuan province. The two prefectures border each other, with the Yangzi River forming a boundary.
- January has concluded only recently¡ªthe actual number of January protests and detentions may surpass what has been reported so far.
International media organizations have reported that Chinese authorities are closing Tibetan areas to foreign travelers in advance of the sensitive dates. According to a February 18 Telegraph (U.K.) report, officials in the TAR told tourist agencies not to accept tour groups for an unspecified period of time expected to last at least until the end of March. According to a February 12 Associated Press (AP) report (reprinted in Washington Post), several unidentified foreign journalists reported being expelled from unspecified Tibetan-populated areas of China during the week preceding the report. A tourism official in Gannan (Kanlho) TAP said that Gannan would be closed to foreigners until late March, according to the same report. Officials had closed parts of Ganzi TAP that had been open in late January, and only 3 counties (of 18) in the prefecture would remain open, AP said.
Ganzi and Gannan TAPs have been especially active protest areas since March 2008, based on information available in the CECC PPD. Ganzi TAP has been the site of more detentions of Tibetan protesters (not rioters) than any other prefectural-level Tibetan area during the period of protest that began on March 10, 2008. None of the 12 county-level areas where China's state-run media reported Tibetan rioting are located in Ganzi TAP (see Section V¡ªTibet, CECC 2008 Annual Report, endnote 6). As of February 23, 2009, the PPD contained information on 528 Tibetan protesters detained on or after March 10, 2008. Security officials detained 213 (40 percent) of the 528 protesters in Ganzi TAP. Authorities detained the next largest number of Tibetan protesters¡ª82 persons¡ªin Gannan TAP. PPD information on the detention of Tibetan protesters since March 10, 2008, is far from complete. Chinese government efforts to prevent information about the detention and imprisonment of Tibetan protesters from leaving China have prevented a complete and accurate accounting of the cases.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-02-25 ) |
Posted on: 2009-08-30 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=117365 |
Xinjiang Authorities Train, Seek to Regulate Muslim Women Religious Figures
The Chinese government strictly regulates religious practice in China, and controls over religion in the Muslim-majority western region of Xinjiang, where Uyghurs and other ethnic groups live, are especially tight. As this analysis shows, in recent months, some local governments in Xinjiang have described steps to include Muslim women religious figures in state-led political training programs for religious personnel. Information on training sessions for the women, along with a proposal to strengthen official oversight of the women, stress the women's role in disseminating Party policy on religion and in fighting "infiltration" of the region by "hostile enemy forces." Some reports also stress the importance of women refraining from wearing veils and call for steps to rein in their religious activities. The reports on training the women and on curbs over their religious practices come during a period of heightened controls over religion in Xinjiang.
In recent months, two local governments in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) published reports on the government and Communist Party-led political training of Muslim women religious figures known as b¨¹wi. (B¨¹wi is a Uyghur word transliterated in the Chinese-language reports cited here as buwei. See the next paragraph for more information on the term.) According to an April 24 report on the Peyziwat (Jiashi) county (Kashgar district) government Web site, government and Communist Party officials in Y¨¦ngi Mehelle (Yingmaili) township gathered the b¨¹wi of 10 local villages for training in government and Party policy toward religion and to sign a pledge to "uphold stability." Based on the pledge, the women will refrain from "wearing veils or long dresses, teaching religious texts to students, and forcing other individuals to participate in religious activities." As part of efforts to train all religious figures in rotation over a four-year period, the Bayangol Mongol Autonomous Prefecture in the XUAR already has provided training to 100 b¨¹wi, according to a June 4 report on the prefectural government Web site.
Some of the Chinese reports (including the Bayangol report discussed above as well as reports in the following paragraphs) define b¨¹wi as women who wash corpses and perform religious rites at the homes of the deceased. The term also broadly encompasses Muslim women with a level of religious knowledge who are able to read the Quran and provide religious instruction. (Information based on CECC staff interview. See also basic definitions in the Yulghun dictionary.) For a description of b¨¹wi specifically as "Women Sufi ritualists," see an article on the "Music of the Uyghurs" by scholars Rachel Harris and Yasin Muhpul, posted on the Web site of the London Uyghur Ensemble.
The recent information on training b¨¹wi follows a proposal from the 2nd meeting of the 10th XUAR People's Political Consultative Conference (XUAR PPCC), initiated by the Vice-Chairwoman of the XUAR Women's Federation and dated December 23, 2008, on bringing b¨¹wi under government and Party management, according to a copy of the proposal posted April 2, 2009, on the XUAR PPCC Web site. The proposal states that b¨¹wi have existed in a "no-man's land" without state oversight and calls for taking advantage of the women's social status to spread the Party's religious and ethnic policies among Muslim women. The proposal also states that failing to capitalize on b¨¹wi's status to disseminate Party policy could permit "hostile elements within and outside of [China's] borders" to use religious and ethnic customs to "carry out infiltration activities among women." The proposal adds that in some ethnic minority areas, where "a religious atmosphere is comparatively strong," women believers are devout and their thinking is "ignorant, lacking common sense and reason," thus making them vulnerable to infiltration by the "three forces" of terrorism, separatism, and religious extremism. It also cites cases of such forces "using" b¨¹wi to carry out "illegal sermonizing activities." In addition, the proposal expresses concern that in some areas, some ethnic minority women "still" wear face coverings and clothing with a "pronounced religious hue." Moreover, many rural women believers have "limited social interaction," "relatively weak capacity for distinguishing right from wrong," and are susceptible to being "incited" or "misled" by "bad people."
The proposal lists four measures to address the "problem" of lack of oversight of b¨¹wi and risks of "infiltration" by hostile forces. First, it calls for drawing b¨¹wi under official supervision so that b¨¹wi can aid in activities such as "educating women to differentiate lawful religious activities" from illegal ones and to differentiate "the bounds of ethnic social customs and religious activities." In addition, b¨¹wi working in this capacity can report on religious activities and the state of women¡¯s thinking to Party authorities and help curb cases of women¡¯s participation in "illegal religious activities" and "underground sermonizing activities." Second, the proposal recommends a system whereby b¨¹wi voluntarily apply for training and under which applications are vetted by the state-controlled Islamic associations at local levels. Under this system, preferred applicants are to be "politically reliable" and possess a "definite level of culture and knowledge of religious texts." Third, the proposal calls for organizing an administrative body under the lead of the United Front Work Department--the Communist Party organization that among other things oversees religious communities in China--and including offices such as the public security bureau, women¡¯s federations, Islamic associations, and ethnic and religious affairs offices. Finally, the proposal outlines the content of training, which includes studying such texts as "Definitions of 23 Types of Illegal Religious Activities" and conveying information on appropriate procedures for Muslim funerals. (See a copy of the "Definitions of 23 Types of Illegal Religious Activities" posted February 2, 2008, on the Chinggil (Qinghe) county, Altay district, Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture government Web site.) (See also a condensed text similar to the proposal on b¨¹wi submitted as a suggestion at the 2nd meeting of the 10th XUAR PPCC, posted January 12, 2009, on the Web site of the XUAR PPCC.)
Although political consultative conferences have an advisory function and their proposals do not carry binding legislative force, the XUAR PPCC proposal may reflect a trend in increasing efforts to regulate the activities of b¨¹wi in the XUAR. (See a description of the national Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), posted March 4 on the China Daily Web site, and an undated introduction on the Web site of the National Committee of the CPPCC for background information on CPPCC proposals.) The proposal also underscores the role that women¡¯s federations have played in serving as a bridge for government and Party policy in areas such as religious oversight and anti-separatism campaigns. See, for example, an April 7 report from Toqsu (Xinhe) county, Aqsu district (via Xinjiang Peace Net), describing "outstanding problems" in "bizarre" women's apparel and noting that an expert invited by the XUAR Women's Federation provided a "correct interpretation" of the Quran's views toward women's clothes. See also information in a previous CECC analysis on the role of a prefectural women¡¯s federation in carrying out anti-separatism activities among women.
The Commission also has found reports of steps to train or supervise b¨¹wi and other people described as corpse washers prior to the late 2008 and 2009 proposal and reports. See, for example, 2007 reports from Chira, Lop, and Niye (Minfeng) counties, all within Hoten district (reports all via the Hoten district government Web site), describing steps by women's federations through which female party cadres engage in "talks" with female corpse washers. Also in 2007, Yopurgha (Yuepuhu) county in Kashgar district trained 38 b¨¹wi and other personnel who wash corpses to inform villages about "legal" religious behavior and the Party's religious policy, according to a report that year from the Yopurgha government Web site. In June 2007, the Maytagh (Dushanzi) district government in Qaramay city included corpse washers in classes about the "reactionary nature" of the "Islamic Liberation Party," according to a report that month from the district government Web site.
The late 2008 and 2009 reports on the training of b¨¹wi come during a period of heightened controls over religion in the region implemented as part of broader security and anti-separatism campaigns. See previous Commission analysis (1, 2) for details. For more information on conditions in the XUAR, see section IV--Xinjiang, in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-06-30 ) |
Posted on: 2009-08-20 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=125102 |
CECC Chairman and Cochairman Call on China to Abide by Commitments to Protect Human Rights and Promote the Rule of Law in Xinjiang
(Washington, D.C. ¨C July 9, 2009) ¨C Senator Byron Dorgan, Chairman and Representative Sander Levin, Cochairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) made the following statement on the Chinese government¡¯s response to demonstrations in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region of China:
¡°We are deeply saddened by recent reports of deaths and injuries in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region of China, and express our heartfelt sympathy to Uyghur and Han Chinese individuals and their families who have suffered.
¡°We note with great interest that Chinese and foreign media are present in the region, which is an important development. We continue to hear reports, however, of restrictions on reporters¡¯ activities and of other controls over the free flow of information. These restrictions hamper reporting on these important events, and a number of details about the demonstrations remain unknown.
¡°We call on the Chinese government, when addressing recent events in Xinjiang, to abide by its domestic and international commitments to protects citizens¡¯ human rights and promote the rule of law. We also urge the Chinese government to address the longstanding grievances of the Uyghur people that in part gave rise to the recent demonstrations.
¡°Specifically, we call on the Chinese government to:
- Honor the Chinese Constitution's guarantees for the freedoms of speech and association, distinguish between acts of peaceful protest and acts of violence, and not treat peaceful protest as a crime.
- Allow international observers and journalists immediate and unfettered access to the Xinjiang.
- Provide details about each person detained or charged with a crime, including each person's name, the charges (if any) against each person, the name and location of the prosecuting office and court handling each case, and the name of each facility where a person is detained or imprisoned.
- Ensure that security officials fulfill their obligations under Articles 64(2) and 71(2) of China¡¯s Criminal Procedure Law to inform relatives and work places where detainees are being held.
- Allow access by diplomats and other international observers to the trials of people charged with protest-related crimes.
¡°As we in the United States well know, ethnic, racial and cultural diversity is a tremendous national asset. We urge China to draw strength from its own diversity, and to fully implement its own laws and policies that protect the rights of all citizens equally."
| Source: -See Summary (2009-07-09 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-08-19 |
 |
more ... |
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=128705 |
First Joint Meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue
The first joint meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) was held in Washington, DC from July 27-28, 2009. The meetings focused on addressing the challenges and opportunities that both countries face on a wide range of bilateral, regional, and global areas of immediate and long-term strategic and economic interests. This first meeting also set the stage for intensive, ongoing and future bilateral cooperative mechanisms. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton hosted, and were joined by their respective Chinese Co-Chairs, State Councilor Dai Bingguo and Vice Premier Wang Qishan.
Online Resources on the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue:
- Joint Press Release on the First Round of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue; Washington, DC (7/28/09)
- Memorandum of Understanding to Enhance Cooperation on Climate Change, Energy and the Environment (7/28/09) (Also see pdf of original, signed document)
- Signing Ceremony for the U.S.-China Memorandum of Understanding to Enhance Cooperation in Climate Change, Energy, and the Environment (7/28/09)
- U.S. Fact Sheet: First Cabinet-level Meeting of Economic Track of U.S.-China S&ED (7/28/09) (pdf version)
- The First U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue Economic Track Joint Fact Sheet (7/28/09)
- Fact Sheet: U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED)
- Closing Remarks for U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (7/28/09)
- Joint Press Availability With Treasury Secretary Geithner and Secretary of State Clinton (7/28/09)
- Remarks at Closing Dinner by Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State (7/28/09)
- Strategic Track Discussion Session II (7/28/09)
- Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner's Strategic and Economic Dialogue Closing Statement (7/28/09)
- Timothy F. Geithner Economic Track Opening Session Statement (7/28/09)
- Remarks at Plenary Session of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue; Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State (7/27/09)
- Special Background Briefing on U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue; Washington, DC (7/27/09)
- Op-Ed by Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State and Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury: "A New Strategic and Economic Dialogue with China;" The Wall Street Journal (7/27/09)
- Secretary Geithner S&ED Opening Ceremony Statement (7/27/09)
- Press Release: U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue To Be Held July 27-28, 2009, in Washington, DC (7/13/09)
- Joint Statement by Secretary of the Treasury Geithner and Secretary of State Clinton (6/02/09)
- U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner Names Additions to Economic and Financial Leadership Team for China (6/01/09) (Photo)
- Speech by Secretary Geithner - The United States and China, Cooperating for Recovery and Growth (5/31/09)
- State Department-Treasury Department Joint Statement (4/01/09)
- EcoPartnerships.gov
- S&ED Pictures
| Source: -See Summary (2009-08-05 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-08-06 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=127997 |
China Restricts Reporting on Internet Filtering Plan, Iran Protests, Other Topics
Chinese propaganda officials often respond to events deemed politically sensitive with directives limiting domestic media coverage and online public discussion. In recent months, Chinese officials reportedly issued a number of directives restricting press coverage of politically sensitive topics. Among these were two June 2009 directives, one in response to public criticism of a government plan to require the "pre-installation" of filtering software on all computers sold in China, and another in response to protests in Iran following that country's June 12 presidential election. These and other directives violate international standards for freedom of expression because they have no clear basis in law and are intended to shield the government and Party from criticism.
Propaganda officials issued two separate directives in June 2009 ordering newspaper editors, journalists, and Web sites to avoid criticism of the government's decision to require "pre-installation" of filtering software on all computers sold in China after July 1 and to downplay coverage of protests in Iran following the contested June 12 presidential election, according to a June 11 Radio France Internationale (RFI) article (in Chinese) and a June 20 South China Morning Post (SCMP) article (subscription required).
Directive Relating to Filtering Software Plan
The RFI article said that the Party's Central Propaganda Department issued the directive concerning the filtering software on June 10. According to RFI, the notice ordered all media not to "publish discussion questioning or criticizing" the government's plan, but instead to "expand positive guidance." It said media could organize experts and parents to make statements in support of the plan. The notice also ordered all media to remove comments attacking the plan from discussion spaces on their Web sites, according to the RFI article. The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) made the plan public on June 9, posting a circular on its Web site requiring all computers sold in China after July 1 to be packaged with a single brand of government-approved "pre-installed" filtering software called "Green Dam-Youth Escort." Officials said the purpose was to protect young people from pornography and violence, but citizens raised concern that the policy would threaten privacy and free expression and was overly broad. Citizens also questioned the legality and transparency of the government's selection of the companies providing the software. On June 30, 2009, the MIIT announced it was delaying implementation of the plan.
Media outlets under the direct control of the Communist Party and central government issued articles supporting the plan after the release of the directive. A June 11 People's Daily article (in Chinese), for example, featured the responses of two experts on youth psychology and youth Internet usage supporting the plan during an online chat with Internet users. A June 12 Xinhua article (in Chinese) defended the plan by pointing out measures regulating Internet content in the United States, Japan, and Taiwan. Other domestic media, however, continued to criticize the policy. A June 11 editorial in the China Daily, an official English-language newspaper, questioned the obligatory nature of the software and its potential threat to freedom of expression, while a June 22 Chinese-language article in Caijing, a more independent financial magazine, said the move lacked "sufficient moral and legal ground."
Directive Relating to Protests Following Iran Presidential Election
The SCMP article said that propaganda officials issued the notice concerning the Iranian election protests on June 19. According to the SCMP, the notice banned editors and columnists from "criticising or commenting on the Iranian government's latest measures to control the disorder." The notice also prohibited Web site administrators from highlighting reports, presenting special pages, or conducting interviews in connection with the Iranian protests. Only reports from Xinhua and People's Daily were allowed to be published, according to the article. A June 27 Washington Post article reported that tens of thousands of comments regarding Iran were deleted in the weeks following the June 19 notice, and only comments supporting the Chinese government's acknowledgement of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory were allowed to remain. The Congressional-Executive Commission on China observed that Party-controlled media alleged "Western" involvement in the protests and "Western" support for the opposition movement. A June 24 article in the Guangming Daily said that "Western" powers "fueled the flames" of the protests in Iran, while a June 28 article in the Global Times characterized the "West" as hoping for a "color revolution" to occur in Iran.
In recent months, Chinese officials reportedly issued a number of other directives restricting press coverage of politically sensitive topics.
- In March, Internet supervision departments issued an internal notice prohibiting Web sites from reporting on or commenting on an environmental impact report relating to the Guangdong Nansha oil refinery and petrochemical project, according to a March 18 China Digital Times report.
- In March, the Central Propaganda Department banned domestic media from republishing or reporting on an article on China's U.S. stock holdings and ordered Web sites to remove the article, according to a March 9 Ming Pao report (via Open Source Center, subscription required). The article was originally published by a Shanghai newspaper and included comments from an academic questioning China's use of foreign exchange reserves to invest in stock. The ban occurred during the annual sessions of the National People's Congress and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.
- In February, propaganda officials in Beijing ordered Web sites to delete blogs and discussion groups about a fire at a hotel under construction on the grounds of China Central Television's headquarters. The officials also ordered Chinese media not to publish photos, videos, or in-depth reports about the fire, and to run only official stories issued by Xinhua instead of their own reports.
The directives from propaganda officials in China effectively restrict freedom of expression and have no clear legal basis. Article 19 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which China signed and has committed to ratify, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), provide "everyone" with a general right to freedom of expression. Both the ICCPR (Article 19, paragraph 3), and the UDHR (Article 29) allow officials to limit this right, but only if such restrictions are "provided by law" (ICCPR), or "determined by law" (UDHR), and "necessary" for (ICCPR), or "solely for the purpose of" (UDHR), respecting the rights or reputations of others or protecting national security, public order, public health or morals, or the general welfare. The propaganda directives violate the ICCPR and UDHR in at least two respects. First, officials impose the restrictions to further government policies and shield the Party from criticism, among other politically motivated reasons, rather than to respect or protect one of the rights or interests set forth in the ICCPR or UDHR. Second, the directives have no clear basis in law. The directives do not meet the international human rights requirement that they be "provided by law" or "determined by law" in part because they are issued by a Party entity rather than according to China's Legislation Law, which governs the issuance of laws, regulations, and other legally-binding rules by governmental entities in China.
For more information on the Chinese government and Party's censorship of Chinese media, see Section II - Freedom of Expression, in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-07-09 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2009-08-06 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=125914 |
Authorities Pledge Crackdown Following Xinjiang Demonstration and Clashes
Authorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) have continued to enforce tight security measures in the region following a demonstration by Uyghurs on July 5 and violent clashes in the XUAR capital of Urumchi (Urumqi). The measures are a stated effort by the government to safeguard stability and "strike hard" against people who officials say incited unrest. The Chinese government has provided limited updates on developments in the region and has permitted limited access by foreign media; however, the government also has continued to enforce controls over the free flow of information on events. Violence also was reported after July 5, including when Han Chinese carrying weapons took to the streets of Urumchi. Official Chinese reports on recent events, however, refer largely to what authorities have termed the "'7-5' [July 5] Serious Violent Criminal Incident of Beating, Smashing, Looting, and Burning" or simply the July 5 "riot." Chinese sources continue to report on detentions, injuries, and death tolls specifically in connection to events on July 5.
See below for more information and see a previous Commission analysis and update for details of events starting July 5.
Authorities Call for Stability Above All and Invoke "Ethnic Unity"
High-level officials from the central government pledged in recent days to take steps to secure stability, mete out punishments, and promote "unity" in the XUAR.- Chinese President Hu Jintao and members of the Communist Party Politburo's Standing Committee met on July 8 and issued a statement that the government would "firmly crack down on serious crimes" and target "[i]nstigators, organizers, culprits and violent criminals" involved in the "riot," according to a July 9 Xinhua report. "Cadres and the public in Xinjiang should stick to the principle that stability overrides everything," according to the statement as quoted in the Xinhua article.
- Politburo Standing Committee member Zhou Yongkang visited the region and called for measures to promote stability and promote Party policy. A July 10 Xinhua report paraphrased Zhou as saying, "All CPC members should fan out to communities and villages in the autonomous region to publicize the Party's policies, in order to ensure the region's social stability," and "Every household and every community in Xinjiang should contribute to the ethnic unity in the region." During his trip, Zhou Yongkang traveled to Kashgar and Hoten districts on July 11 and met with security forces there, according to a report that day from Xinhua. Urumchi Party Secretary Li Zhi had said some of the "criminal elements" involved in "beating, smashing, looting, and burning" came from Kashgar and Hoten districts, and that there was organization and pre-planning involved, according to a July 12 article from CCTV (via People's Daily).
In the days after the July 5 demonstration and violence that followed, domestic and overseas media have reported on a heavy security presence and tight security measures in the region. Xinhua reported on July 13 (via the China Internet Information Center) that all residents in the city "were ordered [July 12] to always carry their identity cards or driver's licenses for police checks when they go out in Xinjiang's capital city of Urumqi." Sources reported to Radio Free Asia on security measures in Urumchi as well as other cities in the XUAR, including house-to-house searches in Kashgar and detentions in several cities, according to a July 9 report from Radio Free Asia. For other reports, see, e.g., a July 8 New York Times report, July 9 Associated Press article (via the Examiner), July 9 South China Morning Post article (subscription required), and July 12 Reuters report (via National Post).
Detentions Continue, Official Pledges Death Penalty for Perpetrators
High-level officials continue to pledge to punish people who committed crimes on July 5, including through use of capital punishment, and authorities have reported on continuing detentions in the region. Xinhua reported in a July 10 article that authorities detained 190 people in a series of four operations on July 9 and July 10, in connection to events on July 5. The report follows an announcement by Urumchi Party secretary Li Zhi on July 7 (via Xinhua) that authorities had detained 1,434 people--1,379 men and 55 women--in connection with events on July 5, some of whom "might be released if no serious criminal records were found," according to a paraphrasing of Li's remarks in the Xinhua article. The region's police chief reported early on July 7 that officials had detained roughly 700 people and continued to pursue "about 90 other key suspects" (see a July 7 Xinhua article). The head of the XUAR Public Security Department said on July 9 that "many" criminal suspects already had started to provide details on alleged criminal activity and that police had "found" and "sorted through" cases involving over one hundred suspects, according to a July 10 CCTV report (via Chongqing News Net).
In a July 11 Legal Daily article referring to events in the XUAR, Wang Shengjun, president of China's Supreme People's Court (SPC), called on courts of all levels to be united in their thinking with the judgments and policies of central authorities. Wang called for "striking hard in accordance with law" against "plotters, organizers, and key members" of the "serious violent criminal incident of beating, smashing, looting, and burning," along with perpetrators of serious violent crimes. Wang called for carrying out "education management work" toward ordinary people who had been "hoodwinked." XUAR procuratorates have deployed staff to work with public security organs, and the XUAR High People's Court said all courts in the region would prioritize "striking hard" at crimes that endanger state security as well as crimes of violent terrorism, according to a July 11 China Daily article referring to incidents on July 5.
Urumchi Party Secretary Li Zhi said at a press conference on July 8 that authorities would use the death penalty for crimes connected to events on July 5. "To those who have committed crimes with cruel means, we will execute them." (See the quote from Li Zhi in, e.g., a July 8 New York Times article and July 9 Telegraph article.) As noted in the CECC 2008 Annual Report, as of January 1, 2007, the SPC has resumed reviewing all death penalty cases in China, and the SPC has since overturned some sentences handed down by lower courts. Former SPC President Xiao Yang reported at the National People's Congress session in March 2008: "The SPC has been working to ensure that the capital punishment only applies to the very few number of felons who committed extremely serious, atrocious crimes that lead to grave social consequences." Current SPC president Wang Shengjun created a controversy during his first few months in the post when he stated that one of the factors that should be weighed in deciding whether a convicted defendant should be sentenced to death is popular will. (See the CECC 2008 Annual Report for detailed analysis.)
Beijing Authorities Issue Notice on Lawyers' Handling of Xinjiang-Related Legal Cases
The Beijing Municipal Judicial Bureau issued a notice on its Web site on July 8 calling on justice bureaus, the municipal lawyers association, and law offices in Beijing to "exercise caution" in representing cases related to events in the XUAR. The notice specified that before accepting cases, partners in law offices should look into the issue, "report the matter," and "take initiative to accept supervision and direction from judicial organs and the lawyers association." (See also reports on the notice in a July 13 article from Chinese Human Rights Defenders and July 14 Associated Press article (via Yahoo).) In a July 10 press release, Amnesty International cited sources in China as saying that authorities warned some law firms employing human rights lawyers that the lawyers were not to work on cases related to events in the XUAR.
Additional Demonstration, Sporadic Outbreaks of Violence Reported, "Illegal Assembly" Banned
Following the demonstration on July 5 and violence on July 5 and July 7, media continued to report on occasional outbreaks of violence later in the week as well as another demonstration. As of July 8, a traffic curfew had been suspended, "and a strengthened military force, aided by helicopters clattering overhead, kept streets largely calm," according to a July 8 New York Times article. The article also noted "a few reports of violence" on July 8. (See also a July 9 South China Morning Post article (subscription required).)
Worshipers for Friday prayers on July 10 challenged the government's orders to close mosques early, and about 40 Uyghurs attempted to march the same day, according to a July 10 Associated Press report (via Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). (For more information on reports of the government closing mosques in Urumchi, see also a July 10 Agence France-Presse report, via France 24, and July 10 Radio Free Asia report.) According to a July 11 report from the State Administration for Religious Affairs, "some imams proposed that religious believers need not collectively gather and worship in mosques during sensitive periods and could worship at home." The report said some mosques in Urumchi stayed open and also reported on mosques that were open in other cities in the XUAR.
The Urumchi Public Security Bureau issued a notice on July 11 banning "illegal" assembly, marches, and demonstrations, according to a July 11 Xinhua report. The notice forbids demonstrations without police permission and says police may use "necessary means" to disperse crowds, according to the report. The report also noted that "there are still sporadic illegal assemblies and demonstrations in some places." The report said police issued the order "to maintain public order and ensure the security of lives and property."
Xinhua reported on July 13 that police attempting to stop three Uyghurs from attacking another Uyghur shot two of the alleged attackers to death and injured the other. According to two people who said they saw the incident, cited in a July 13 Agence France-Presse report, the three Uyghurs were attempting to target security forces.
Authorities' Reactions to Han Chinese Reported to Vary
Authorities' action toward Han Chinese who took to the streets starting on July 7 reportedly has varied. After the July 5 demonstration by Uyghurs and violence that day, Xinhua reported on July 7 that "[s]everal thousand protesters, mostly Han Chinese, marched" in the streets of Urumchi that afternoon. Xinhua reported that the "protesters, holding clubs, knives, axes, hammers and various types of tools that could be used as weapons, shouted 'protecting our home, protect our family members.'" The report said the protests "gradually dispersed in about 40 minutes." Police used tear gas on the crowd, according to a July 7 report from Agence France-Presse (via Bangkok Post).
Elsewhere, a reporter for the Telegraph wrote in a July 9 entry on his blog for the newspaper, regarding "the huge number of Han who took to the streets with their clubs and other weapons to show their anger over what they say was effectively an anti-Han pogrom carried out by thuggish Uighur elements on Sunday night," that "the Han crowds on Tuesday effectively were allowed to go round and round in circles, exhausting themselves in the hot sun while never actually being allowed to reach the objects of their anger." Other reports indicate that some Han Chinese who took to the streets starting July 7 did not stay within set areas and that some carried out attacks on Uyghurs. (See, e.g., a July 7 Reuters report and see sources cited in the next paragraph.)
Xinhua published an article on July 9 stating that authorities helped people regardless of ethnicity. The article detailed how public security officers from the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC) aided three ethnic minority students returning from an exam who ran into a "crowd of Han Chinese demonstrating" (youxing) and "ran away due to a psychology of fear." After "verifying the situation described" by the three students, the XPCC officers decided to take protective measures to "avoid their being hurt by the emotionally agitated Han crowds," according to the report. Uyghurs in Urumchi said government authorities were less strict with Han Chinese who committed attacks on Uyghurs, according to a July 9 Radio Free Asia report. See also information in a July 9 Straits Times article and July 12 New York Times article.
Official Death Toll, Number of Injuries Rise
Authorities said on July 10 that the number of deaths in connection to events on July 5 had increased to 184 people, according to a July 10 New York Times article and July 11 Washington Post article. The government had reported on July 7 that 156 people had died, according to a July 7 Xinhua article, and reported a day earlier that "at least three civilians and an armed police officer" died on July 5, according to a July 6 Xinhua report. Authorities also reported late July 5 that "three ordinary people of the Han ethnic group" died, according to a July 6 Reuters report. Official sources have not clarified the details and dates of each death. Xinhua reported on July 11 that the Urumchi government would give a 200,000 yuan (US$29,300) bereavement payment and 10,000 yuan (US$1,500) for funeral expenses to the family members of the "innocent" who died in connection to events on July 5.
The figures released July 10 were the first since the July 5 report to note the ethnicities of those killed. 137 of the dead were reported to be Han, 46 Uyghur, and 1 Hui, according to the New York Times and Washington Post articles. Other than the initial report of one police casualty and three "civilians," similar details about other people who died remain unreported. Uyghur sources from Urumchi and overseas have disputed the official number killed in the clashes and estimated higher death tolls, especially for Uyghurs, the Washington Post reported.
"The number of people injured in the Urumchi violence on July 5 has risen to 1,680" as of July 12, Xinhua reported (via the China Internet Information Center) on the same day. Based on wording from the article, it appears likely the figure does not include injuries that occurred after July 5. Official sources have not clarified the details and date of each injury.
Chinese Authorities Allege US Support for Alleged Uyghur Terrorism
Chinese authorities have continued to cast blame on U.S.-based Uyghur rights advocate Rebiya Kadeer for events on July 5 and called on the international community to use the same standard to oppose terrorism. On July 9, China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson "said the Chinese government had evidence that the people suspected of inciting the riot had received training from terrorist organizations abroad," according to a July 9 Xinhua report. "The government said it has evidence to prove that the separatist World Uyghur Congress (WUC) led by Rebiya Kadeer had incited and organized the riot," according to the report. A July 8 Xinhua article (via People's Daily) also cast blame on some Members of the U.S. Congress and on the National Endowment for Democracy for supporting and funding the WUC.
The reports have singled out one of the three human rights organizations that Rebiya Kadeer heads. Since her release to the U.S. on medical parole in 2005 following political imprisonment in China, Rebiya Kadeer has taken up leadership of two organizations--the Washington, DC-based Uyghur American Association and Munich-based WUC--and established another Washington, DC-based organization, the International Uyghur Human Rights and Democracy Foundation. See the Web sites of each organization for more information (1, 2, 3).
Nur Bekri Calls for Heightened Political Consciousness at Colleges, Students Reported To Be Locked Within Campus
Reports indicate that college students were involved in the demonstration that began on July 5 and that had been organized earlier through the Internet. (See, e.g., a July 5 press release by the Uyghur American Association.) Some reports also have indicated that authorities prevented students on some campuses from leaving school grounds on July 5 to prevent their participation in the demonstration. (See, e.g., a July 5 Radio Free Asia article and a July 12 report from Xinhua, discussed below.) The government has reported that some of the people detained in connection to events on July 5 are students, according to a July 8 New York Times article.
The South China Morning Post reported on July 9 (subscription required) that students at the Kashgar Teachers College had been held on campus since early July 5, in an effort to stop the students from participating in protests. (The article noted that many of the Uyghur factory workers in Shaoguan had come from Kashgar district and protestors in Urumchi included people who traveled to the capital city from Kashgar.) Radio Free Asia's Uyghur service earlier reported in a July 5 article on the Urumchi demonstration that sources said not many students had participated in the Urumchi demonstration because they had been confined to school campuses for the past three days.
Xinjiang Medical University reported that students and teachers acting under direction from the school effectively had guarded the campus following the July 5 incident, according to a July 12 report from Xinhua. No one from the university participated in the July 5 incident, according to the report. The report said the school learned on July 5 that "extreme speech" was circulating on the Internet about events on June 26 in Shaoguan, Guangdong province, and that a call was circulating on the Internet for ethnic minority students to gather and demonstrate at 8pm on July 5. The school's Party committee decided to take "timely measures," apparently to curb students' participation. The article also described beating back an attack by "thugs" on July 7 and said armed riot troops secured the campus's safety. A source reported to Radio Free Asia on strife between Han and Uyghur students at the university, according to a July 9 report.
XUAR government chairperson Nur Bekri, speaking July 6 at Xinjiang University in Urumchi, called on students and teachers at colleges throughout the region to "further raise their political consciousness," according to a July 7 Xinhua article. He stressed five points: mobilizing Communist Party committees within colleges for tasks such as "understanding students' ideological situation" and "correctly" guiding them; strengthening supervision of students' education and implementing "political and ideological work"; strengthening propaganda education to increase students' and teachers' "conviction in upholding social harmony and stability"; mobilizing "model" ethnic minority cadres and teachers; and "mastering the bounds of policy and isolating and attacking enemies to the largest degree."
Controls Over Flow of Information Continue, Blogger Believed To Be Detained
While media have had access to Urumchi, reports indicate ongoing incidents to curb full access to reporting from the XUAR and to curb reporters' capacity to interview XUAR residents freely.
Noting that the number of Uyghurs injured in attacks by Han Chinese was unclear, the Associated Press reported in a July 11 article (via Maclean's) that its "reporters were not allowed to interview the injured Uighurs in hospitals." Kyodo reported (via Japan Today, July 11) that authorities in Urumchi detained a reporter and cameraman from Japan, along with reporters from the Netherlands and Spain, on July 10. The Japanese reporter said on July 11 that he had since been released, according to the report. Authorities confined to her hotel room a reporter who contributed to Radio Free Asia, according to a July 12 report from RTHK Radio 3 Online (via Open Source Center, subscription required) and July 13 press release from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). The reporter later returned to Hong Kong, according to the RTHK report. CPJ also reported that Kashgar authorities detained two Agence France-Presse reporters and an Associated Press photographer on July 10 before expelling them from the city and that Urumchi authorities were reported to have detained for a period of hours at least four journalists from overseas.
Authorities in Kashgar ordered foreign reporters to leave the city on July 10 for stated safety reasons, according to an Agence France-Presse report (via Straits Times, July 10). Authorities had said that a demonstration in the city had been peacefully dispersed earlier in the week and denied an overseas report of killings in the city, according to a July 10 South China Morning Post article (subscription only). Kashgar "welcomes foreign reporters to cover news in the area in accordance with related laws and proper procedures," a Kashgar official said on July 10, as cited in a Xinhua article (via CCTV, July 10). As of 10:30 that morning, the Kashgar district government's information office had not received applications to carry out reporting, according to the article.
Controls over the Internet also remain in force. "We cut Internet connection in some areas of Urumqi in order to quench the riot quickly and prevent violence from spreading to other places," according to a Party official quoted in a July 7 Xinhua report. The Congressional-Executive Commission on China was unable to access news and government Web sites, as well as discussion sites, after July 5, and blocks on access to such sites appeared to remain in force, according to Commission monitoring of Web sites through July 13.
Amid news of tightened controls over the Internet, reports indicate that authorities appear to have detained Ilham Tohti (Toxti), founder of the Web site Uyghur Online (Uyghur Biz). Ilham Tohti reported on July 8 that he had received notice that he would be detained, according to a July 9 Associated Press article (via Washington Post). Associates reported his whereabouts unknown after that time. Days earlier, XUAR government chairperson Nur Bekri alleged that Ilham Tohti's Web site contributed to incitement of rioting in Urumchi on July 5, according to the report. Ilham Tohti's Web site addressed issues of ethnicity in China, and Ilham Tohti had criticized government policy in the XUAR on the Web site and elsewhere. Authorities had closed the Web site on multiple occasions in the past and had earlier interrogated Ilham Tohti, accusing him of separatism.
Security Tight in XUAR Before July 5 Demonstration
The July 5 demonstration, ensuing conflict, and calls for tight security measures come during a period of heightened security controls already in place within the region. Authorities increased security controls in 2008 amid preparations for the Olympic Games, as part of intensified anti-terrorism campaigns in the region, and in response to protests by Uyghurs and Tibetans in China in early 2008. In the aftermath of these events, authorities continued throughout fall 2008 to enforce harsh security measures and widespread ideological campaigns, efforts which continued into late 2008 and 2009. Security measures in the region have targeted acts including peaceful expressions of dissent and independent religious activity.
CECC Recommendations:
Call on the Chinese government to - Abide by the guarantees for freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association contained in the Chinese Constitution, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; distinguish between acts of peaceful protest and acts of violence; and not treat peaceful protest as a crime.
- Allow international observers and journalists immediate and unfettered access to the XUAR.
- Provide details about each person detained or charged with a crime, including each person's name, the charges (if any) against each person, the name and location of the prosecuting office ("procuratorate") and court handling each case, and the name of each facility where a person is detained or imprisoned.
- Ensure that security officials fulfill their obligations under Articles 64(2) and 71(2) of China¡¯s Criminal Procedure Law to inform relatives and work places where detainees are being held.
- Allow access by diplomats and other international observers to the trials of people charged with protest-related crimes.
See the CECC 2008 Annual Report for other recommendations for addressing human rights abuses in the XUAR.
For more information on conditions in the XUAR, see Section IV--Xinjiang in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-07-09 ) |
Posted on: 2009-08-06 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=125931 |
Xinjiang Authorities Forcefully Suppress Demonstration, Restrict Free Flow of Information
Uyghurs in the city of Urumchi, capital of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), gathered on July 5, 2009, to protest authorities' handling of a reported attack on Uyghur factory workers by Han factory workers in late June in Guangdong province, and to protest government policy toward Uyghurs. Reports indicate the demonstration began as a peaceful protest and later turned violent as protesters clashed with police, who used tear gas and stun batons against the protesters, and later were reported to fire on the crowds. Official Chinese media sources described the demonstration as a riot orchestrated by U.S.-based Uyghur rights activist Rebiya Kadeer, and reported that the incident left at least 156 people dead and over 1000 people injured. Demonstrations also are reported to have occurred in other cities in the XUAR, and demonstrations and outbreaks of violence were reported again in Urumchi on July 7. Sources including overseas media have reported that violence in the region has included both Uyghurs' attacks on Han Chinese and Han attacks against Uyghurs. A number of details about the incidents remain unknown, and the Chinese government has instituted controls over the flow of information on the events.
See below for more information and see the end of this analysis for detailed recommendations.
Details of the July 5 Demonstration
Uyghur protesters began to demonstrate in Urumchi's People's Square around 5 p.m. Urumchi time on July 5 [equivalent to 7 p.m. in the XUAR according to the time standard used by the government and official sources], and after being suppressed there, the demonstration spread to other parts of the city, according to a July 5 report (in Uyghur) from Radio Free Asia (RFA). Organizers had used the Internet to mobilize support for the demonstration, which according to the RFA Uyghur-language report and another July 5 RFA report (in English), was planned as a peaceful protest against the government's response to a reported attack on Uyghur factory workers in late June in Guangdong province. (See below for details of the June incident.) Protesters initially numbered roughly 1000 people and grew to nearly 10,000, according to a second July 5 RFA report (in Uyghur). According to the report, the protesters made calls that they would "oppose brutality, not fear threats, not stay silent to oppression, and struggle for freedom." Police first used stun batons and tear gas on protesters, according to the first Uyghur-language report. The protests turned violent after police fired on crowds and demonstrators attacked police and nearby stores, according to the second Uyghur-language article. For additional initial reporting on the demonstration by overseas sources, see, e.g., a July 5 New York Times article and a July 5 press release from the Uyghur American Association (UAA). (Reports of the number of demonstrators, as cited in the reports, vary.) Demonstrators included young people, according to the RFA reports, but the first RFA report cited sources who said many students had not participated because they had been confined to school campuses for the past three days.
Reporting on the incident from official Chinese sources portrayed it as a riot, but official media sources also indicate that violence did not break out until a few hours after protesters gathered. According to one July 6 Xinhua report, "People began to gather in the Urumqi People's Square at 6:20 p.m. Sunday, and some started smashing and looting at about 8 p.m." A July 7 Xinhua article (via China Daily) reported that the "riot began around 8 p.m., when rioters started beating pedestrians and smashing up buses." By late Sunday evening, authorities "had sent more than 20,000 armed police, special police, firefighters and troops to quell Sunday's unrest" according to a source cited in a July 7 report from Xinhua. According to the source, the authorities used "tear gas grenades, stun grenades, and high-pressure water guns" to stop the demonstrators. Official Chinese media reports cited people who said rioters attacked bystanders in the streets. See, e.g., July 6 and 7 reports from Xinhua.
Chinese authorities reported the death toll at 156, with 1,080 injured in July 7 Xinhua reports (1, 2). The reports did not provide extensive details on the deaths, though one noted 129 of the dead were men and 27 were women, and authorities did not note the ethnicities of those who died. Rebiya Kadeer, speaking at a news conference in Washington, DC, cited sources at Xinjiang University as saying up to 400 people had died, but said the number could not be confirmed, according to a July 6 RFA report.
In addition to the Urumchi demonstration, a July 6 New York Times report said that a smaller protest occurred in the city of Kashgar on July 6, but was reported to be broken up quickly by authorities. Xinhua also reported on a gathering of people in Kashgar in a July 7 report. In a July 6 statement, UAA president Rebiya Kadeer reported that demonstrations occurred in both Kashgar and Hoten. See also a July 6 report from RFA describing the protest in Kashgar.
Uyghurs Protest Detentions
Following widescale detentions in the aftermath of the July 5 demonstration (see below for details), Uyghur women marched on July 7 in protest, calling for the release of family members, according to the July 6 New York Times report. See also a July 7 account from Xinhua.
Han "Protesters" Gather on July 7, Violence Continues
After the July 5 demonstration, reported as a "riot" by Chinese media, Xinhua reported on July 7 that "[s]everal thousand protesters, mostly Han Chinese, marched" in the streets of Urumchi that afternoon. Xinhua reported that the "protesters, holding clubs, knives, axes, hammers and various types of tools that could be used as weapons, shouted 'protecting our home, protect our family members.' The report said the protests "gradually dispersed in about 40 minutes." Police used tear gas on the crowd, according to a July 7 report from Agence France-Presse (via Bangkok Post). See also July 7 reports (1, 2) from RFA for more information. The Associated Press reported in a July 7 article (via Time) that groups of Han and Uyghurs separately continued to attack bystanders in the city.
Authorities Pursue Arrests, Heighten Security Measures
Authorities in the XUAR have heightened security measures in the aftermath of the demonstrations and have reported carrying out widescale detentions. After the region's police chief reported early on July 7 that officials had detained roughly 700 people and continued to pursue "about 90 other key suspects" (see a July 7 Xinhua article), a Communist Party official reported later in the day that authorities had detained 1,434 people--1,379 men and 55 women--in connection with the incident. The official said some "might be released if no serious criminal records were found," according to a paraphrasing of the official's remarks in a July 7 Xinhua report. XUAR Party Secretary Wang Lequan "said all Party members should take the strongest measures to deal with the enemies' attempt at sabotage and keep regional stability," according to another July 7 Xinhua report. The police chief said authorities had set up security checkpoints both in the city and in a neighboring district and prefecture "to prevent the rioters from fleeing," according to a description of the police chief's remarks in a July 6 Xinhua article. The Urumchi municipal government also instituted traffic restrictions in the area, according to a government announcement published July 6 on the Xinhua Xinjiang Web site. Traffic restrictions remained in place on the evening of July 6, according to a July 7 Xinhua report, and authorities implemented traffic restrictions and a curfew on July 7, according to a Xinhua report from that day. A shopkeeper cited in a July 6 Agence France-Presse report (via World News Australia) said authorities have ordered stores to close for three days.
RFA reported in several July 6 articles (1, 2, 3) that authorities had implemented tight security measures in cities throughout the XUAR, including armed vehicles in Ghulja and house-by-house searches in Kashgar, as well as similar searches and widescale detentions of Uyghur men within Urumchi.
Authorities Blame Uyghur Rights Activist Rebiya Kadeer, World Uyghur Congress
XUAR authorities have attributed the demonstration to instigation by U.S.-based Uyghur rights activist Rebiya Kadeer and the Munich-based World Uyghur Congress, which Rebiya Kadeer heads. XUAR Communist Party Secretary Wang Lequan "said Monday the riot in Urumqi revealed the violent and terrorist nature of the separatist World Uyghur Congress leader Rebiya Kadeer," according to a July 7 Xinhua report. Another July 7 report from Xinhua described the World Uyghur Congress as a "separatist" group that "masterminded" the riot. A July 6 report from Xinhua quoted XUAR government chairperson Nur Bekri as describing the demonstration as an incident of "beating, smashing, looting, and burning" directed by forces outside China's borders. He stated that "ethnic unity" in the region remained "as solid as a rock."
The accusations against Rebiya Kadeer follow other efforts to cast the Uyghur rights activist and former political prisoner as a terrorist aimed at instigating separatism in the region. In May 2009, a XUAR public security official said terrorists "are still actively plotting new sabotage activities" and included Rebiya Kadeer and the World Uyghur Congress among "terrorist forces¡actively expanding their room for maneuver," according to a May 22 China News Service report (via Open Source Center, subscription required.) Local government authorities also have incorporated harsh rhetoric against Rebiya Kadeer in recent propaganda campaigns. Since Rebiya Kadeer's release from prison in 2005, authorities have harassed her family members remaining in the XUAR, culminating in prison sentences given to two of her sons, Alim and Ablikim Abdureyim, in 2006 and 2007. See the CECC Political Prisoner Database for additional information. For more information on longstanding government measures to harass and discredit Rebiya Kadeer and her family, see also the box titled "The Chinese Government Campaign Against Rebiya Kadeer" in Section IV--Xinjiang, in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
Government Blocks Information Flow
Although Chinese sources have reported extensively on the demonstration, they have taken steps to control the flow of information and block unofficial reports and discussion of the demonstration. An Urumchi Communist Party official said on July 7, "We cut Internet connection in some areas of Urumqi in order to quench the riot quickly and prevent violence from spreading to other places," according to a July 7 Xinhua report. Authorities also appeared to block nationwide access to the social networking cite Twitter and video sharing site Youtube, remove comments about the protests from Web sites, and filter Internet searches for information. See e.g. July 6 reports from Agence France-Press (via Google), IDG News Service (via PC World), Reuters, and the BBC, and a July 7 report from Agence France-Presse (via Inquirer). RFA reported difficulty accessing the XUAR via telephone in a July 6 report. On July 6 and 7, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China was unable to access several Web sites based in the XUAR or that deal with Uyghur issues, including the media outlet Tianshan Net, the Web site of the Urumchi government, and several popular Uyghur-language Web sites, including diyarim.com and the bulletin-board service (BBS) on xabnam.com.
Xinhua reported on July 7 that "about 60" foreign journalists were in the XUAR "on a reporting trip arranged by the Information Office of the State Council, the Chinese Cabinet." Another July 7 Xinhua report said over "60 overseas media have sent journalists to" Urumchi, and cited a Communist Party official who said, "We disclosed information shortly after the incident. We welcome domestic and overseas journalists to come and see what happened." The official did not discuss what restrictions apply or the role of officially arranged reporting trips, but said, "As long as security can be guaranteed, we will try our best to arrange interviews," according to the article. A July 7 New York Times report said the government set up a media center for arriving reporters and took them on a tour of one of the neighborhoods most affected by violence. The report noted, however, that the journalists "were explicitly barred from conducting any interviews without government minders present, and television journalists who sought to wander on their own were reported to have been stopped by police or paramilitary officers who demanded that they turn over their film."
Official Accounts of Guangdong Factory Incident Inconsistent
Uyghurs demonstrating in Urumchi were protesting government handling of a reported attack on Uyghur workers in late June by Han workers at a factory in Shaoguan, Guangdong province, also described in Chinese sources as a brawl among the workers. According to a June 29 report from Xinhua (via china.org.cn), a "mass brawl" broke out on June 26 after a factory worker upset over not being rehired for a job posted what Xinhua described as a fake rumor on the Internet claiming six men from the XUAR had raped two women at the factory. Police took the factory worker into detention for posting the rumor, Xinhua reported. "Police found no rape cases at the Xuri Toy Factory," according to the article, which also reported that two workers from Xinjiang had died and 118 were injured in the brawl. A Uyghur factory worker who was an eyewitness to the event reported than Han factory workers instigated the attack when they entered a dormitory for Uyghur workers, according to a July 5 RFA report. Following the attack, authorities sequestered Uyghur factory workers, according to the report. (See also a June 29 RFA report for additional information.) A June 30 China Daily article said that roughly "600 Uygur workers were sent from the factory to temporary accommodations after the incident." A Guangdong provincial official pledged to pursue the people who had murdered the two Uyghur workers, according to a June 26 report on Nanfang Net, though no information was immediately available on the investigation. Overseas Uyghur rights organizations have criticized the government for failing to take steps to stop the attack and for its lack of transparency in handling the matter. See, e.g., a June 29 press release from the Uyghur American Association and July 1 press release from the World Uyghur Congress. A public security official from Shaoguan reported on July 7 that authorities detained 13 people--including "three natives of Xinjiang"--for their role in the "massive fight," according to a Xinhua report from that day. In addition, authorities detained two people for "spreading rumors on the Web that Xinjiang employees had raped two female workers," according to the report.
Following the July 5 Urumchi demonstration, Xinhua reported that XUAR government chairperson Nur Bekri attributed the July 26 Shaoguan incident to a Uyghur worker's attack of a Han Chinese worker. "The fight was triggered by the sexual assault of a female Han worker by a Uygur coworker, [Nur Bekri] said," according to a July 6 Xinhua report. In a July 6 Chinese-language Xinhua report (via Ta Kung Pao), Nur Bekri said a female factory worker entered a dormitory for workers from the XUAR and was teased by the residents. After she reported the incident to her co-workers, the workers went to the Xinjiang workers' dorm, where "emotions became agitated" and a "fight broke out," according to the report.
Demonstration Comes Amid Period of Heightened Repression, Illustrates Ongoing Labor Abuses
The demonstration comes during a period of heightened repression in the region since early 2008. See Section IV--Xinjiang in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) 2008 Annual Report and recent CECC analyses (1, 2, 3) for more information. Details of the demonstration and the incident in Guangdong also shed light on ongoing labor rights abuses in the region. The Uyghur factory workers in Guangdong were part of government-organized programs to send laborers in the XUAR to factory jobs in the interior of China, as reported in the June 30 China Daily article. As noted in the CECC 2008 Annual Report, government authorities maintain programs that send young ethnic minorities to work in factories in China's interior, where some workers have reported abusive labor conditions. Overseas sources have reported cases of local authorities coercing participation and of factories mistreating workers. In a series of reports from Radio Free Asia in Spring 2009, some girls and women in the program continued to report on abusive labor practices including the use of coercion by local officials to gain their participation and abusive working conditions. (See, e.g., March 5 and March 20 Uyghur-language reports and a May 12 English-language report. For Chinese reporting on labor issues in the region, including participation in government-sponsored programs, see, e.g., a January 12 report from Tianshan Net. For additional information, see also a July 6 report from China Labor Watch and February 8, 2008 report from the Uyghur Human Rights Project.
Additional Resources
For more information on conditions in the XUAR, see Section IV--Xinjiang, in the CECC 2008 Annual Report. See also the following recent Commission analysis:CECC Recommendations:
Call on the Chinese government to - Honor the Chinese Constitution's guarantees for the freedoms of speech and association, distinguish between acts of peaceful protest and acts of violence, and not treat peaceful protest as a crime.
- Allow international observers and journalists immediate and unfettered access to the XUAR.
- Provide details about each person detained or charged with a crime, including each person's name, the charges (if any) against each person, the name and location of the prosecuting office ("procuratorate") and court handling each case, and the name of each facility where a person is detained or imprisoned.
- Ensure that security officials fulfill their obligations under Articles 64(2) and 71(2) of China¡¯s Criminal Procedure Law to inform relatives and work places where detainees are being held.
- Allow access by diplomats and other international observers to the trials of people charged with protest-related crimes.
See the CECC 2008 Annual Report for other recommendations for addressing human rights abuses in the XUAR.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-07-06 ) |
Posted on: 2009-08-06 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=125582 |
Beijing Think Tank Faults Domestic Policies, Issues for March 2008 Tibetan Rioting
A Beijing-based think tank released a report in May 2009 that rejected the Chinese government's principal assertion about the cause of Tibetan protests and rioting in March 2008. The report, titled "An Investigative Report Into the Social and Economic Causes of the 3.14 Incident in Tibetan Areas," concluded that the protests and rioting were not the exclusive result of external influence by the Dalai Lama and organizations that the Chinese government associates with him (i.e. "masterminded by the Dalai Lama's clique," Xinhua, reprinted in People's Daily, 22 March 08), but were also the result of domestic ("internal") issues. See English translation of the report (via International Campaign for Tibet) and original Chinese-language version (via Google Docs). The Open Constitution Initiative (OCI, Gongmeng) which issued the report, uses the term "3.14 incident" in a manner consistent with Chinese government, Communist Party, and state-run media use: a collective reference to Tibetan protests and rioting that began on March 14, 2008, in Lhasa, and spread in the following days to other locations in the ethnic Tibetan area of China. (See Section V¡ªTibet of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) 2008 Annual Report for information on the March 2008 Tibetan protests and rioting.)
A June 5, 2009, New York Times (NYT) article referred to the study as "the first independent investigation" into causes of the Tibetan protests and described OCI as "a group of prominent Chinese lawyers and legal scholars" that "seeks to promote legal reform in China." As an example, the NYT article pointed out that OCI lawyers attempted to file lawsuits on behalf of families whose infants or children had become ill as a result of consuming products made with tainted milk powder (see, CECC 2008 Annual Report, 59, 157-158, 165, for more information). A May 26 Time Magazine report described OCI as "a six-year-old NGO run by Chinese lawyers" and quoted one of the group's founders, Xu Zhiyong, saying that OCI seeks to be objective: "On questions like Tibet, human rights, and so forth, the Chinese government has a standpoint, foreign governments and foreign media have a standpoint. But it's also important to have an independent look at the problems." Xu said, according to Time, that OCI had been able to post the report on the group's Web site, but he doubted that "printed copies will ever be permitted to circulate on the mainland."
The OCI report identified policy-driven factors underlying the protests and rioting and expressed findings in a manner that suggests the authors hope that Chinese government officials will review the document:The research panel discovered that the 3.14 incident was caused by the confluence of many factors, including psychological loss created by development, discontent among economic classes, the question of migrants, influences from abroad, religious sentiment, and on-scene "mass reactions," which cannot be simply reduced to "splittist violence." The OCI panel conducted field research in two county-level locations in each of two Tibetan autonomous areas:- Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR): Lhasa city, the TAR capital; and Naidong (Nedong) county, the location of Zedang (Tsethang), the capital of Shannan (Lhoka) prefecture;
- Gannan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture (TAP), Gansu province: Hezuo (Tsoe) city, the Gannan capital; and Xiahe (Sangchu) county.
Lhasa and Gannan TAP were locations of alleged Tibetan protests and rioting that resulted in more than 4,400 detentions, according to state-run media reports in March, April, and June 2008. More than 3,000 of the 4,400 Tibetans were later released, according to the reports. The OCI report did not include research or analysis on the eastern Tibetan area that Tibetans know as "Kham," which includes Ganzi TAP in Sichuan province. Political detention of Tibetans in Ganzi accounted for 271 of the 630 political detentions of Tibetans (43 percent) during the period beginning March 10, 2008, based on information available in the CECC's Political Prisoner Database (PPD) as of July 6, 2009. It is certain that PPD documentation of Tibetan political detention since March 10, 2008, is incomplete. Naidong is the only one of OCI's four county-level research locations on which Commission staff observed no reports of Tibetan protests or rioting in March 2008.
The OCI report provided nine policy recommendations that, like the report's findings, appear to be directed toward the Chinese government. The recommendations, summarized briefly in the order that they appear, follow.- Listen to the views of ordinary Tibetans and adjust policies in Tibetan areas on the basis of respecting and protecting the Tibetan people¡¯s rights and interests.
- Guide economic development so that Tibetans acquire ample benefits, and reduce the discrepancy between urban and rural income.
- Increase central government supervision over local governments in order to reduce local corruption and dereliction of duty, and to speed up the process of democratizing power structures.
- Treat the education of Tibetans as the key to the long-term resolution of "the question of Tibetan areas"; improve educational opportunities available to young Tibetans, especially farmers and herders; develop appropriate content on Tibetan history and culture.
- Respect and protect Tibetan "freedom of religious belief," including recognizing the importance of religion to Tibetans; allow the resumption of "normal religious activities" such as Buddhist teaching, monastic travel to attend Buddhist teaching, and "the transmission of Tibetan Buddhism." (The latter is a reference to the Tibetan Buddhist belief that some Tibetan Buddhist teachers reincarnate, a tradition that the Chinese government seeks to control through regulations issued in 2007.)
- Seek to "reduce inter-ethnic prejudice, ignorance, and injury"; when "sudden incidents" occur, seek the support of "positive forces," such as religious figures, to help resolve them.
- Promote the rule of law in Tibetan areas by encouraging the introduction of "laws and regulations" at the local level; regulate the ownership and exploitation of natural resources; encourage experts to participate in policy discussions.
- Build up ethnic unity by "propagandizing" the success of the reform and opening up policy in Tibetan areas, and avoid depicting the Tibetan past as "serfdom." Along with highlighting the "vitality" of development, admit the "social problems facing Tibet."
- Handle crisis situations by first determining whether a problem is social, economic, or religious, and use different methods for handling each type. The central government should function as an "arbiter" and keep itself distinct from "local officials' inappropriate conduct."
OCI's third and ninth recommendations refer to what may be the report's least known or widely understood area of inquest: the rise of a "new aristocracy" made up of ethnic Tibetan government officials who exploit a "blindspot in power supervision in nationality areas" by pointing to perceived threats such as "Tibet independence" or "foreign forces" to serve as "fig leaves to conceal their mistakes in governance and to repress social discontent." The report observes that the "new aristocratic class" is "even more powerful" than the former Tibetan aristocracy that the Party brought to end in the years following the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. Phuntsog Wanggyal (Pingcuo Wangjie), a retired government official, researcher, and a founder of the Party's Tibet branch, referred to the Tibetans who make up the new elite and told OCI researchers that such officials "eat the food of anti-splittism," "consolidate their positions and interests," and "accumulate even more power and resources."
Prior to the publication of the OCI report, a Tibet issue expert, Tseten Wangchuk, Senior Research Fellow with the University of Virginia's Tibet Center and Senior Editor with the Voice of America's Tibetan Language Service, addressed a March 2009 CECC roundtable and called attention to what he described as a powerful Tibetan "interest group."In the past 20 years in China, the people who manage Tibet . . . have really gained power. Their economic interests and everything else are built on this power. They blame everything that goes wrong in Tibet . . . on the Dalai Lama, or on Tibetans in exile. . . . Sometimes it looks as though we are seeing only the truly top-level of China¡¯s state leadership, and we assume such high-ranking views are the only reason for what is happening. [If] you look at the details, there's a messy political process going on. In that process, there are people who have political and economic self-interests playing a role in this particular policy. The OCI report is noteworthy not only for the analysis and recommendations that it included, but also for the topics that the authors chose to avoid or minimize. For example, the report mentioned the Dalai Lama only three times: one instance acknowledged that the "3.14 incident" had "external causes" that included "the influence of the Dalai Lama abroad"; another instance included the name as part of a book title; the final instance noted that in the late 1980s "calls for dialogue with the Dalai Lama . . . were repeatedly frustrated." (The third example appears to refer to a 1989 invitation from the Chinese government-regulated Buddhist Association of China to the Dalai Lama to attend a funeral ceremony for the 10th Panchen Lama. The Dalai Lama did not accept the invitation. See, Agence France-Presse, reprinted in World Tibet Network, 27 August 03.)
The OCI report authors did not mention the Dalai Lama's stature among Tibetans or refer to his objective of achieving "genuine autonomy" for the Tibetan areas of China through dialogue with the Chinese government. Raising politically sensitive issues with international implications could have resulted in heightened Chinese government unwillingness to review the OCI report¡ªand perhaps exposed the Beijing-based drafters to government accusations of being sympathetic toward "foreign" or "splittist" entities. Instead, by treating the Tibetan protests and rioting as the result of problems that can be addressed through Chinese government action on issues that include governance, economic development, education, employment, religion, and cultural expression, the OCI report focused on established areas of Chinese domestic policy and law.
UPDATE: According to a July 17, 2009, New York Times report, officials from the Beijing Civil Affairs Bureau shut OCI down on July 17. Xu Zhiyong, one of OCI's founders, said the officials claimed that OCI was not registered as a non-governmental organization (NGO). Xu said that OCI did not need registration as an NGO because it is a charity organization functioning under the properly licensed Gongmeng Company. Xu characterized the shutdown of OCI as "unreasonable" and said, "We'll continue to be conscientious and help those who need help."
For more information on Chinese government policy toward Tibetans and the dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama, see Section V¡ªTibet of the CECC 2008 Annual Report, and Tibet: Special Focus for 2007 of the 2007 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-07-04 ) |
Posted on: 2009-08-06 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=125374 |
Chinese Government Delays Pre-Installation of Censorship Software on Computers Sold in China
China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) said on June 30, 2009, that it would delay a requirement that all computers "leaving the factory and sold" in China after July 1 must have government-approved censorship software "pre-installed." An MIIT spokesperson reportedly told journalists on June 30 that "recently, a number of companies have said that the workload is heavy, the time is sudden, and preparations are insufficient. In light of the practical situation, pre-installation can be delayed," according to a June 30 Xinhua article (in Chinese). The spokesperson did not indicate how long the delay would last. Xinhua also reported the announcement in a June 30 English-language article.
The spokesperson said MIIT issued the requirement to "protect minors to avoid receiving influence from obscene, pornographic, or other harmful information online," according to the Xinhua (Chinese) article. Tests have shown, however, that the software also filters political and religious content. The policy has been widely criticized both in and outside of China.
The spokesperson said that MIIT would continue pursuing the policy and would be seeking suggestions on how to pre-install the software, known as "Green Dam-Youth Escort," on computers, according to the Xinhua (Chinese) article. The spokesperson said that MIIT would continue to offer free downloads of the software online, and continue to install the software in computers located at elementary and middle schools, Internet cafes, and "other public places."
A June 30 New York Times article reported that some companies already had begun to comply with the directive. The article reported that Acer, a Taiwanese company, had said it would pre-install the software, and that vendors in Beijing said the software had been installed in some computers made by Lenovo, a Chinese company that is the top seller in China.
Commission Resources:
| Source: -See Summary (2009-06-30 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2009-08-06 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=125073 |
Chinese Government Requires Censorship Software To Accompany Computers Sold After July 1
Chinese official censorship of the Internet is not limited to the removal of content such as pornography or content deemed to violate intellectual property rights, but also includes the removal of content the government and Communist Party deem to be politically sensitive. As such, Chinese censorship practices violate international standards for freedom of expression. Officials now have announced a plan to extend the reach of government control over Internet use by requiring all computers sold after July 1 to be packaged with a single brand of government-approved "pre-installed" filtering software. The stated aim is to protect youth from pornography, but tests show the software also filters political and religious content, and could be used to monitor computer users' Internet activity. The move has raised concerns that officials are further tightening control over the free flow of information. The short notice and lack of transparency with which the policy was introduced and its potential to restrain competition and free trade also has raised concerns over China's compliance with commercial rule of law norms.
On May 19, 2009, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) issued the Circular Regarding the Pre-Installation of Green Browsing Filter Software on Computers (Circular), which requires that computers sold within mainland China after July 1 must come "pre-installed" (yu zhuang) with the government-approved "Green Dam-Youth Escort" Internet browsing filtering software. The policy set forth in the Circular marks the first time the government has required computer manufacturers to include filtering software vetted by the government with all computers sold in China. The circular says MIIT, along with the Communist Party's General Office of the Central Guidance Committee on Ethical and Cultural Construction, and the Ministry of Finance (MOF), put the software through comprehensive tests and have spent public funds to purchase the rights to offer "Green Dam-Youth Escort" to the public for one year of use at no charge. The Circular states the purpose of the policy is to "establish a green, healthy, and harmonious" Internet and to "avoid harmful information on the Internet influencing and poisoning young people." Tests conducted by several outside sources, however, found the software also filters political and religious information, including references to Falun Gong.
The U.S. government has called on Chinese officials to revoke the mandatory pre-installation. The request came in a joint letter from U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to their counterparts at MIIT and China's Ministry of Commerce, according to a June 24 press release posted on the Office of the United States Trade Representative's Web site. The letter "points out that the proposed new rule raises fundamental questions regarding regulatory transparency and notes concerns about compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, such as notification obligations," the release said. "China is putting companies in an untenable position by requiring them, with virtually no public notice, to pre-install software that appears to have broad-based censorship implications and network security issues," Locke said. "Protecting children from inappropriate content is a legitimate objective, but this is an inappropriate means and is likely to have a broader scope. Mandating technically flawed Green Dam software and denying manufacturers and consumers freedom to select filtering software is an unnecessary and unjustified means to achieve that objective, and poses a serious barrier to trade," Kirk said.
The Circular says the requirement applies to both Chinese and foreign companies selling computers in China. In the first three months of 2009, the Chinese company Lenovo topped the market, selling 26.7 percent of the units shipped during the period, according to a June 8 Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article, citing statistics provided by the IDC research firm. U.S.-based companies Hewlett-Packard and Dell sold 13.7 percent and 8.1 percent, respectively, of the units during the period. There were nearly 40 million computers sold in China in 2008, second only to the United States, the article said.
Impact on Freedom of Expression
The Chinese government already implements a system of censorship of the Internet that violates international human rights standards for freedom of expression. (See "Internet Censorship" in Section II - Freedom of Expression, in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2008 Annual Report.) Chinese laws require Internet service and content providers to remove politically sensitive content. The government blocks Web sites, including the Congressional-Executive Commission on China's Web site, and filters content containing politically sensitive information. Recently, for example, authorities reportedly blocked access to social networking and video-sharing Web sites such as Twitter and Flickr, just before the 20th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests on June 4. In an apparent move to protest Internet censorship at this time, numerous domestic Web sites shut down to undergo "maintenance." (For more information see, e.g., June 2 New York Times (NYT) article, June 4 Guardian article).
The new requirement, however, would extend the reach of government censorship and monitoring of citizens' Internet activities, according to foreign experts who have tested the software. A June report published by Open Net Initiative (ONI) found that the policy would "increase the reach of Internet censorship to the edges of the network, adding a new and powerful control mechanism to the existing filtering system." ONI is comprised of researchers from the University of Toronto, Harvard Law School, University of Cambridge, and Oxford University. In describing how the Green Dam software works, ONI said: Not only does it block access to a wide range of Web sites based on keywords and image processing, including porn, gaming, gay content, religious sites, and political themes, it actively monitors individual computer behavior, such that a wide range of programs including word processing and email can be suddenly terminated if content algorithm detects inappropriate speech. Researchers in the Computer Science and Engineering Division at the University of Michigan also found that the Green Dam software blocks both "obscenities and politically sensitive phrases (for example, references to Falun Gong)," according to a June 11 analysis.
The ONI report found that the software could be modified to monitor "personal communications and Internet browsing behavior" and that the scope of content that the software filters could be changed without any notification to the user. According to the June 8 WSJ article, the software, developed by the Jinhui Computer System Engineering Co. with assistance from Beijing Dazheng Human Language Technology Academy Co., operates by linking to an external database of sites that are to be blocked. Jinhui's founder, Bryan Zhang, told WSJ that the company would compile and maintain the list of blocked sites and would send updates of new blocked addresses to users' PCs. Zhang claimed that the list would be limited to pornographic sites, but that the software was capable of blocking other types of content, although Jinhui would have no reason to do so. Users will not, however, be able to see the list of "pornographic or violent" sites that the company has decided to block, according to a June 8 Reuters article.
The reports by ONI and the University of Michigan researchers also found that the software went much broader than what was necessary to protect children and that flaws in the software's design subjected the user to security risks, including infringement on personal privacy, hacking, and spam. The government has ordered Jinhui to fix recently discovered security vulnerabilities, according to a June 15 China Daily report.
The software's censorship of politically sensitive information and the broad scope of the pre-installation requirement violate international human rights standards for freedom of expression. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) sets forth certain exceptions for when a government may impose a restriction on freedom of expression. These are limited to protecting the "rights or reputations of others," "national security, public order, or public health or morals." Article 19 also requires that the scope of the restriction be limited to that which is "necessary" to protect the interest. In this case, the government has provided a "public health or morals" justification for the restriction but, as tests have shown, the software also filters out political and religious content. Furthermore, the government has not shown why it is necessary to require that the software be "pre-installed" in all computers if the intent is to protect youth (see extended discussion and analysis of the "pre-installation" requirement below). Also as indicated below, citizens have suggested more limited ways that the government can achieve its aim.
Public Response in China
The MIIT's announcement sparked widespread criticism and discussion in China, including over the policy's impact on freedom of expression and its broad scope: - Wei Yongzheng, a professor at Hong Kong Shue Yan University, and Zhou Ze, an associate professor at China Youth University for Political Sciences, said in a letter to the State Council that although the MIIT's stated purpose is to protect youth, in practice the requirement could restrict Internet users from accessing other information, in violation of freedom of expression provisions in the ICCPR and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, according to a June 11 Caijing article (in Chinese). The two scholars noted that Chinese laws do not clearly delineate what constitutes "harmful information" to be censored on the Internet. "The filtering system only needs to be installed in computers that youth may use, and their guardians can take responsibility," they said.
- A June 9 Caijing editorial (in Chinese) also raised questions about what constitutes "harmful information." "Is there a transparency mechanism for the determination of the 'blacklist' and a free-flowing channel for corrections and remedies? How do they make sure this does not become a 'back door' for abuse of authority?" the editorial said.
- In a June 11 editorial titled, "Questionable Move," the state-run English-language China Daily questioned why the government was requiring every computer to install the software when taxpayers' money could have been used to sponsor a Web site offering the software on a voluntary basis. The editorial also raised concerns about who would decide what content to block and the criteria for blocking. "Are software developers qualified to do that? How is citizens' freedom of expression or right to know to be balanced against the need to filter 'unhealthy' content?" read the editorial.
- Online surveys conducted by four popular Chinese Web portals showed that more than four in five respondents indicated they will not use the software or will uninstall it, according to a June 15 China Daily article.
- On June 22, Reuters reported that Internet users in China were calling for a boycott of the Internet on July 1 to protest the government policy.
Confusion Over Pre-Installation Requirement
Although the Circular does not require the computer user to use the software, many users may end up utilizing the software by default. The government has not clarified whether computer manufacturers must pre-install the software on the computer or whether they may fulfill the "pre-installation" requirement by merely providing a CD version of the software with the computer. The extent to which users will have the choice to manually activate the software if pre-installed in the computer will also impact how widespread use of the software will be.
The Circular appears to indicate that providing a CD-version of the software alone would be sufficient, although Article 2 of the Circular also requires that the software "be included in the recovery partition" in the computer as a backup file. Another June 15 China Daily report quoted an unnamed MIIT official as saying, "The PC makers only need to save the setup files of the program on the hard drives of the computers, or provide CD-ROMs containing the program with their PC packages." NYT, however, reported on June 18 that it could not obtain official confirmation of the unnamed official's interpretation that providing a separate CD alone would be sufficient. According to the NYT article, "[t]he directive makes clear that the government intends to ensure universal use of Green Dam on new computers in China." Other provisions in the Circular suggest that the government expects computer manufacturers to include filtering software beyond the one year it is available to the public for free. Article 5 requires computer manufacturers to report the number of computers shipped with filtering software on a monthly basis in 2009 and on a yearly basis starting in 2010.
Questions Over Transparency, Short Preparation Time, Government Procurement, and Intellectual Property Rights
Although the Circular is dated May 19, the MIIT did not post the directive on its Web site until June 9, less than a month before computer manufacturers are expected to comply. When the WSJ first reported the story on June 8, it said that the circular had not yet been publicized by state media. A June 25 WSJ article said that officials in China gave notice of the requirement to manufacturers in May. Officials from foreign companies said they were given little time to properly test the software. "The lack of transparency, the shortness of time for implementation, and the incredible scope of the requirement that is not matched anywhere around the world present tremendous challenges to the industry," an unnamed official told WSJ in the June 8 article. On June 16, 19 trade associations representing companies from the United States, Europe, Japan, and Canada sent a letter to the MIIT calling on China to reconsider the July 1 pre-installation requirement and to instead engage "in meaningful dialogue on the topic of parental controls," according to the June 17 issue (subscription required) of Inside US-China Trade.
In response to the Circular, Chinese citizens have filed requests with government agencies for more information, according to a June 15 Caijing article (in Chinese, shorter June 17 English version). On June 11 and June 12, Beijing lawyers Li Fangping and Liu Xiaoyuan filed separate open government information requests with the MIIT and MOF seeking information about the software and its procurement. Li told the Globe and Mail in a June 20 article that he was seeking the information because citizens "have no idea how this software would affect users' internet safety, the safety of their information, and right to privacy."
Chinese citizens also have questioned the legality of the government's endorsement of one product as part of a consumer's computer purchase. In their letter to the State Council, professors Wei and Zhou said the move violates Article 7 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which says that governments "may not abuse their administrative powers to restrict others to buying the goods of operators designated by them." They also said the government had restricted competition in violation of the Anti-Monopoly Law (Arts. 8, 32, and 37), and had violated product quality and consumer protection laws, according to a June 12 CBN (Diyi Caijing) article. A June 10 editorial in the Beijing News questioned the fairness of the bidding process under the Government Procurement Law. The editorial noted that the bid went to two relatively unknown companies, despite the presence of a large number of Chinese and foreign companies with experience as well as reports that some well-known Internet security companies had not participated in the bidding. The June 8 WSJ article, citing material from Jinhui and Dazheng's Web sites, notes that the companies have ties to China's Ministry of Public Security and the People's Liberation Army.
An American company has alleged that the software violates intellectual property rights. The software company Solid Oak alleges that "Green Dam-Youth Escort" contains codes copied from the company's own parental control software and has sent "cease and desist" letters to U.S. companies to prevent them from shipping PCs with the software to China, according to a June 19 Financial Times article. Jinhui's founder denied the allegation.
Background
The Circular refers to an earlier government campaign begun in January 2009 to remove "vulgar content" on the Internet. The campaign's primary target appeared to be pornography, but employees at Web sites attempting to carry out the government's directive at the time noted increased pressure to control political content as well. In mid-January, the Beijing Municipal Government's Information Office reportedly ordered the closure of the blog hosting Web site Bullog (www.bullog.cn) after the site failed to remove large amounts of "harmful information" relating to current events and politics. The CECC noted increased blocking of foreign- and Hong Kong-based Web sites taking place in December 2008. The sites included the Chinese-language sites for the BBC, Voice of America, and Deutsche Welle, YouTube's Hong Kong and Taiwan sites, and the Web sites for the Hong Kong-based news organizations Ming Pao, Asiaweek, and Apple Daily. Google's YouTube video sharing Web site has been blocked in China since March, according to a June 20 WSJ article.
UPDATE: The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology announced a delay of the plan on June 30, 2009, a move the Commission reported on here.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-06-22 ) |
Posted on: 2009-08-06 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=124386 |
Beijing Police Formally Arrest Liu Xiaobo on Inciting Subversion Charge
Chinese public security officials formally arrested prominent intellectual Liu Xiaobo on June 23, 2009, on the charge of "inciting subversion of state power," according to the Xinhua News Agency (as reported by Singapore Lianhe Zaobao on June 24). The Commission has not been able to locate the original Chinese-language Xinhua article through a publicly available source online, although numerous media and NGO reports in Chinese have quoted directly from it. (See, e.g., June 24 BBC report, June 24 Chinese Human Rights Defenders report). The Commission was able to locate an English-language Xinhua report (via China Daily), dated June 24, which quoted a statement from the Beijing Public Security Bureau as saying: "Liu has been engaged in agitation activities, such as spreading of rumors and defaming of the government, aimed at subversion of the state and overthrowing the socialism system in recent years."
Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD), an NGO that monitors human rights developments in China, also said that Beijing police have barred prominent defense lawyer Mo Shaoping from representing Liu, according to a June 24 report. CHRD reported that authorities said it was because Mo was a fellow signatory of Charter 08, a document calling for political reform and greater protection of human rights in China.
The underlying basis for the charge against Liu is unclear, but officials took Liu into custody on December 8, 2008, a day before Charter 08's release. More than 300 Chinese citizens released the charter on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then, more than 8,000 persons have signed the document, a substantial majority of whom reside in China.
In the months after taking Liu into custody, officials kept Liu in residential surveillance under conditions that violated Chinese laws, including denying Liu access to counsel and keeping him at an undisclosed location beyond the legal time limit for residential surveillance.
The charge of "inciting subversion" refers to a crime under Article 105 of China's Criminal Law. Article 105, Paragraph 2 makes inciting others "by spreading rumors or slanders or any other means to subvert the State power or overthrow the socialist system," a crime punishable by up to five years in prison, or no less than five years for "ringleaders and the others who commit major crimes." Chinese officials have frequently relied on the "inciting subversion" crime to punish citizens who publicly criticize the government, often in essays appearing on the Internet. (See, e.g., Yang Chunlin, Hu Jia, Lu Gengsong).
The 53-year old former university professor has been an outspoken critic of the Chinese government. According to a June 24 Associated Press report (via Google), "in [Liu's] writings, most published only on the Internet, Liu has called for civil rights and political reform, making him subject to routine harassment by authorities." In 2008, Liu was detained on the anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen protests and prevented from meeting Members of the U.S. Congress. In 1996, he was sentenced to 3 years' reeducation through labor for his writings on political reform, and in 1989 he was detained for 20 months after the 1989 Tiananmen Democracy protests. For more information, see Liu Xiaobo's record in the Commission's Political Prisoner Database.
For more information, see CECC analysis of officials' extension of Liu's residential surveillance beyond the legal time limit, CECC analysis of official harassment of Charter 08 signers, censorship of Charter 08 on the Chinese Internet, and the legality of Liu's residential surveillance, and CECC analysis of the Charter 08 document and initial reports of Liu's detention.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-06-24 ) |
Posted on: 2009-07-02 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=124556 |
Circular Regarding the Pre-Installation of Green Browsing Filter Software on Computers (CECC Full Translation)
On May 19, 2009, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) issued the Circular Regarding the Pre-Installation of Green Browsing Filter Software on Computers, which requires that computers sold within China after July 1 must come "pre-installed" (yu zhuang) with the government-approved "Green Dam-Youth Escort" Internet browsing filtering software. Testing by outside sources has found that the software filters pornography, but it also filters specific political and religious content. Chinese citizens and media have criticized the requirement as exceeding the scope necessary to achieve the Circular's stated purpose (the protection of minors). They have raised concerns about privacy and who would determine what content is to be filtered by the software, and argued that the choice to install should be an individual one. In addition, questions have been raised both in China and outside of China as to whether the Circular is consistent with China's commercial rule of law reforms, and whether it complies with international norms related to freedom of expression and international trade. The following is a translation of the Circular prepared by the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. The Chinese text was retrieved from the MIIT Web site on June 9, 2009.
Circular Regarding the Pre-Installation of Green Browsing Filter Software on Computers
To Relevant Work Units:
In order to establish a green,1 healthy, and harmonious online environment, and to avoid harmful information on the Internet influencing and poisoning young people, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the General Office of the Central Guidance Committee on Ethical and Cultural Construction,2 and the Ministry of Finance, in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Government Procurement Law, have utilized central authority financial funds to purchase one-year usage rights and services for the "Green Dam-Youth Escort" green online filtering software (hereinafter referred to as "'Green Dam-Youth Escort' software"), which is to be supplied to the society as a whole for use free of charge. Through comprehensive testing and application in pilot settings, this software product has been shown to filter harmful words and images on the Internet effectively, and already has satisfied requirements for pre-installation by computer manufacturers.
To consolidate further the gains of the Special Operation to Rectify the Trend of Vulgarity on the Internet,3 continue to combine punishment and prevention, protect the healthy growth of minors, and promote the healthy and orderly development of the Internet, in accordance with the overall scheme of the Nationwide Special Operation to Rectify the Trend of Vulgarity on the Internet, provided herewith is notification of the specific requirements for the pre-installation of green online filtering software in computers, as follows: - Computers manufactured and sold domestically should have the newest version of the "Green Dam-Youth Escort" software pre-installed when leaving the factory. Imported computers should have the newest version of the "Green Dam-Youth Escort" software pre-installed before being sold domestically.
- The "Green Dam-Youth Escort" software should be pre-installed on the computer's hard drive or on a CD that accompanies the computer. It also should be included in the recovery partition and on the system restore CD as a backup file.
- Suppliers of the "Green Dam-Youth Escort" software should take steps proactively to support the computer manufacturing industry in launching the pre-installation.
- The computer manufacturing and sales industries should complete pre-installation tests of the "Green Dam-Youth Escort" software and other related work by the end of June 2009. Computers leaving the factory and sold after July 1, 2009, should have the "Green Dam-Youth Escort" software pre-installed.
- In 2009, computer manufacturers and suppliers of the "Green Dam-Youth Escort" software every month should file a report with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's Software Service Industry Department showing the numbers of computers sold and filtering software pre-installed in the previous month, along with any suggestions. Beginning in 2010, the previous year's numbers should be reported before the end of February each year.
For those that fail to pre-install by the deadline, fail to report on schedule, send false reports, or refuse to report, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology will order the filing of a supplementary report or corrections within a specific time period.
May 19, 2009
1 CECC Note: According to a June 8, 2009, Wall Street Journal article, the Chinese word for "green" in this context refers to an Internet free of "pornography and other illicit content."
2 CECC Note: This is an entity of the Communist Party in China.
3 CECC Note: According to a January 5, 2009, China Internet Information Center (China.com) article, the State Council Information Office, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Culture, State Administration for Industry and Commerce, State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television, and General Administration on Press and Publication, launched the Special Operation to Rectify the Trend of Vulgarity on the Internet on January 5, 2009.
¹¤ĞŲ¿Èí[2009]226ºÅ
Óйص¥Î»£º
Ϊ¹¹½¨ÂÌÉ«¡¢½¡¿µ¡¢ºÍгµÄÍøÂç»·¾³£¬±ÜÃ⻥ÁªÍø²»Á¼ĞÅÏ¢¶ÔÇàÉÙÄêµÄÓ°ÏìºÍ¶¾º¦£¬¹¤ÒµºÍĞÅÏ¢»¯²¿¡¢ÖĞÑëÎÄÃ÷°ì¡¢²ÆÕş²¿°´¡¶Õş¸®²É¹º·¨¡·ÓйØÒªÇó£¬Ê¹ÓÃÖĞÑë²ÆÕş×ʽğÂò¶Ï¡°Â̰Ó-»¨¼¾»¤º½¡±ÂÌÉ«ÉÏÍø¹ıÂËÈí¼ş£¨ÒÔϼò³Æ¡°¡®Â̰Ó-»¨¼¾»¤º½¡¯Èí¼ş¡±£©²úÆ·Ò»ÄêʹÓÃȨ¼°Ïà¹Ø·şÎñ£¬¹©È«Éç»áÃâ·ÑʹÓ᣾×ۺϲâÊÔºÍÊÔµãÓ¦Ó㬸ÃÈí¼ş²úÆ·¿ÉÓĞЧ¹ıÂË»¥ÁªÍø²»Á¼ÎÄ×ÖºÍͼÏñÄÚÈİ£¬ÒѾ߱¸¼ÆËã»ú³§ÉÌԤװÌõ¼ş¡£
Ϊ½øÒ»²½¹®¹ÌÕûÖλ¥ÁªÍøµÍË×Ö®·çרÏîĞж¯³É¹û£¬¼á³Ö³Í·À½áºÏ£¬ÇĞʵ±£»¤Î´³ÉÄêÈ˽¡¿µ³É³¤£¬Íƶ¯»¥ÁªÍø½¡¿µÓĞĞò·¢Õ¹£¬¸ù¾İÈ«¹úÕûÖλ¥ÁªÍøµÍË×Ö®·çרÏîĞж¯µÄ×ÜÌ岿Êğ£¬ÏÖ½«¼ÆËã»úԤװÂÌÉ«ÉÏÍø¹ıÂËÈí¼şµÄ¾ßÌåÒªÇó֪ͨÈçÏ¡£
¡¡¡¡Ò»¡¢ÔÚÎÒ¹ú¾³ÄÚÉú²úÏúÊ۵ļÆËã»ú³ö³§Ê±Ó¦Ô¤×°¡°Â̰Ó-»¨¼¾»¤º½¡±Èí¼ş×îĞÂÊÊÓð汾£»½ø¿Ú¼ÆËã»úÔÚ¹úÄÚÏúÊÛǰӦԤװ¡°Â̰Ó-»¨¼¾»¤º½¡±Èí¼ş×îĞÂÊÊÓð汾¡£
¶ş¡¢¡°Â̰Ó-»¨¼¾»¤º½¡±Èí¼şÓ¦Ô¤×°ÔÚ¼ÆËã»úÓ²ÅÌ»òËæ»ú¹âÅÌÄÚ£¬ÇÒÔÚ»Ö¸´·ÖÇøºÍ»Ö¸´¹âÅÌÖĞ×÷Ϊ±¸·İÎļş¡£
¡¡¡¡Èı¡¢¡°Â̰Ó-»¨¼¾»¤º½¡±Èí¼şÌṩÕßÓ¦²ÉÈ¡»ı¼«´ëÊ©£¬Ö§³Ö¼ÆËã»úÉú²úÆóÒµ¿ªÕ¹Ô¤×°Ïà¹Ø¹¤×÷¡£
ËÄ¡¢¼ÆËã»úÉú²ú¼°ÏúÊÛÆóÒµÓ¦ÓÚ2009Äê6Ôµ×Íê³É¡°Â̰Ó-»¨¼¾»¤º½¡±Èí¼şÔ¤×°²âÊÔµÈÏà¹Ø¹¤×÷£¬2009Äê7ÔÂ1ÈÕºó³ö³§ºÍÏúÊ۵ļÆËã»úӦԤװ¡°Â̰Ó-»¨¼¾»¤º½¡±Èí¼ş¡£
Îå¡¢¼ÆËã»úÉú²úÕߺ͡°Â̰Ó-»¨¼¾»¤º½¡±Èí¼şÌṩÕßÔÚ2009ÄêÄÚÓ¦°´ÔÂÏò¹¤ÒµºÍĞÅÏ¢»¯²¿Èí¼ş·şÎñҵ˾±¨ËÍÉÏÔ¼ÆËã»úÏúÊÛÊıÁ¿¡¢¹ıÂËÈí¼şÔ¤×°ÊıÁ¿¼°¹¤×÷½¨Ò飬×Ô2010ÄêÆğÓÚÿÄê2Ôµ×֮ǰÉϱ¨ÉÏÒ»Äê¶ÈÊı¾İ¡£
¶ÔÓÚÓâÆÚδԤװ¡¢²»°´Ê±Éϱ¨¡¢Ğé¼ÙÉϱ¨ºÍ¾Ü²»Éϱ¨µÄ£¬¹¤ÒµºÍĞÅÏ¢»¯²¿½«ÔğÁîÆäÏŞÆÚ²¹±¨»ò¸ÄÕı¡£
¶ş©–©–¾ÅÄêÎåÔÂÊ®¾ÅÈÕ
| Source: Ministry of Information Industry (2009-05-19 / Chinese / Free) |
Posted on: 2009-07-02 |
 |
more ... |
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=123365 |
Shenzhen Rights Defense Lawyer Liu Yao Released From Detention: In Final Appeal, Liu Sentenced to an 18-month Prison Term, Suspended for 2 Years
Attention to the challenges faced by China's rights defense (weiquan) community has spiked with the recent news that authorities have not renewed the lawyers' licenses of some of China's most prominent human rights lawyers. The case of Shenzhen lawyer Liu Yao, discussed below, is an example that shows that the difficulties Chinese lawyers face for taking on sensitive cases are not new. Rather, they constitute a long-standing and persistent problem for China's continued development of the rule of law.
On April 16, 2009, the Heyuan Intermediate People's Court in Guangdong province sentenced Shenzhen rights defense lawyer Liu Yao to 18 months in prison, suspended for 2 years, in the second appeal and final hearing in his case, in connection with his representation of villagers from his hometown in Dongyuan county, Heyuan municipality, whose land was reportedly illegally seized for the purpose of building a new hydroelectric station, according to a Radio Free Asia (RFA) article and a Human Rights in China (HRIC) report, both dated April 17. Liu's case highlights several pressing issues in China, including the expropriation of rural land, difficulties citizens face in obtaining redress for their grievances, fair trial challenges, and the risks human rights lawyers face in taking on sensitive cases (see the May 26 Human Rights Watch report on the possibility that officials will not renew the law licenses of a group of rights defense lawyers in apparent retaliation for their work on sensitive cases).
Authorities released Liu Yao from the Dongyuan County Detention Center on April 16 after having detained him for more than 15 months as his case moved back and forth between the Dongyuan People's Court and the Heyuan Intermediate People's Court. During his challenge to the original verdict and sentence -- a challenge that involved two appeals and a retrial -- Liu's original sentence of four years for "intentional destruction of property" (Article 275 of the Criminal Law ) was gradually reduced, but the verdict of guilt was upheld. Liu maintains he is innocent and told Radio Free Asia that he planned to submit a petition to the Guangdong High People's Court. One of Liu's attorneys, the prominent Beijing rights defense lawyer Li Fangping, told Caijing that based on the Lawyers' Law, the conviction means that Liu will be permanently prohibited from practicing law, as reported in an April 17 article. Liu Yao's case received substantial attention among rights defense lawyers throughout China, and was particularly noteworthy for the advocacy that the Shenzhen lawyers' community provided on Liu's behalf. In early February 2009, 511 Shenzhen lawyers signed a petition (available on Human Rights in China's Web site) calling for the Heyuan Intermediate People's Court to hold an open and fair hearing to adjudicate Liu's second appeal, in what HRIC called "the largest joint signature campaign to date by China's legal community."
Factual Background
In 2006, villagers in Paitou sought the assistance of Liu (who was born in Paitou) to represent them in a land dispute involving the Heyuan Fuyuan Hydropower Corporation (Fuyuan) and the Dongyuan county government, according to an August 14, 2008, Caijing article and a February 1, 2009, Voice of America (VOA) report. Liu discovered that Fuyuan had failed to obtain the approvals necessary to appropriate the land and convert it to a nonagricultural use. Moreover, in November 2007, Dongyuan county's State Land and Resource Bureau ordered Fuyuan to halt construction, but Fuyuan failed to comply with the stop-work order. According to Caijing, in December 2007, Liu Yao and a group of villagers made two trips to the construction site to demand that Fuyuan cease construction, resulting in clashes and alleged property damage. Authorities took Liu into custody on December 18, 2007, and detained him at the Dongyuan County Detention Center until April 16, 2009.
First Trial (June 2008)
During his first trial in Dongyuan People's Court in June 2008, Liu argued that their efforts to stop the illegal construction was lawful "self-help" to protect the villagers' rights and thus did not constitute a crime, according to the February 1 VOA article. Liu's defense counsel also argued that the photographs of the construction site offered as evidence by the prosecution were neither dated nor verified and did not reflect the scene at the time of the alleged incidents, according to a July 29, 2008, article in Southern Metropolitan Daily. The article also states that Liu's counsel challenged the property damage appraisal document submitted by the prosecution. The trial court found that the total amount of damages suffered by Fuyuan exceeded 50,000 yuan (approximately US$7,300), according to Southern Metropolitan Daily. The article reports that Liu's trial lawyers stated that the appraisal document was key to the case, because, among other reasons, the amount of the alleged damages qualified as "very large" -- a determination relevant to the criminal charge and sentence. The Dongyuan court concluded that Liu had organized and incited the effort and sentenced him to 4 years in prison; his co-defendants, two villagers, received sentences of 9 and 10 months.
First Appeal (September 2008)
The Shenzhen Lawyers Association and lawyers elsewhere in China protested the original judgment and Liu's four-year sentence and successfully argued to the Heyuan Intermediate People's Court that it should hold a public hearing on Liu's appeal, according to an August 2008 letter (available on the Beijing Yirenping Center Web site) submitted to the Heyuan court by a group of more than 30 Chinese lawyers from several different provinces, and the February 1 VOA report. The Heyuan court concluded that a retrial was necessary due to "unclear facts and insufficient evidence," and on September 22 remanded the case to the trial court (Dongyuan People's Court), according to the Shenzhen lawyers' February 2009 petition.
Retrial (October 2008)
On October 17, 2008, the Dongyuan People's Court retried the case in open court. On December 17, the court issued its judgment upholding Liu's conviction for "intentional destruction of property" but reduced his sentence to two years. The judgment does not explain the reduction in sentence, but lowered the total amount of damages to 46,170 yuan (approximately US$6,750) and noted that the court's adjudication committee (a court's highest authority in deciding cases, comprised of the court president and other court officials) had discussed the case and decided the outcome. The Shenzhen lawyers stated in their February 2009 petition that no new evidence was presented on retrial and that the judgment lacked an adequate explanation of the "major flaws" in the evidence. Li Fangping said that the retrial was obviously unjust and the process used to assess the value of the alleged damage deeply flawed, according to the February 1 VOA article. A Guangzhou rights defense lawyer, Tang Jingling, who followed Liu's case from the beginning, stated that Liu's prosecution was a clear case of "political persecution," according to a January 23 Radio Free Asia article. Tang told RFA that the authorities were "using the law as a vehicle to block the lawyer from providing legal assistance to defend the land rights of the villagers."
Second Appeal and Final Judgment (April 2009)
In their petition, the Shenzhen lawyers called on the Heyuan Intermediate People's Court to hold an open court session to hear Liu's second appeal. On April 10, the Heyuan court did, in fact, hold an open hearing, which lasted a full day -- longer than any of the other proceedings in Liu's case. According to an April 11 Southern Metropolitan Daily article, more than 100 people attended the April 10 hearing, including Heyuan delegates of the National People's Congress and the provincial and municipal people's congresses, as well as representatives from the All-China Lawyers Association, the Guangdong Lawyers Association, the Shenzhen Lawyers Association, and the Heyuan Municipal Lawyers Association. Representatives from the Guangdong High People's Court, the provincial procuratorate, and the provincial justice bureau were also present. Three witnesses who had not testified in any of the previous hearings appeared and provided testimony. Liu Yao's attorneys again questioned the evidence offered by the prosecution and the procedure used for determining the value of the damages, according to Southern Metropolitan Daily. The Heyuan court issued the final judgment in Liu's case on April 16, further reducing the value of the damaged property to 23,798 yuan (approximately US$3,480), according to an April 17 Xinhua report. As noted above, Liu received a suspended sentence and was released from detention.
Following the April 16 verdict, Li Fangping told Caijing that the underlying cause of Liu Yao's case -- the unlawful seizure of the villagers' land -- still had not been resolved. Li Fangping also told Human Rights in China, "from the reduction of the sentence from 4 years to 2 years and then to 18 months with a 2-year suspension -- you can tell that the prosecution's case was problematic. I hope that the international community will continue to pay attention to this kind of case and the situation of rights defense lawyers in China," according to a statement issued by HRIC on April 17.
For additional information on Liu Yao's case, please see his record of detention, searchable through the Congressional-Executive Commission on China's (CECC) Political Prisoner Database. For more information on obstacles facing human rights lawyers in China, see Section III -- Access to Justice in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-02-25 ) |
Posted on: 2009-07-02 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=118053 |
Employment Discrimination Persists During Implementation of the Employment Promotion Law
China's Employment Promotion Law (EPL) took effect on January 1, 2008. Provisions in the law prohibit discrimination based on factors including gender (Art. 27), ethnicity (Art. 28), disability (Art. 29), whether or not the job candidate is a carrier of an infectious disease (Art. 30), and whether or not the job candidate is a migrant worker (Art. 31). Article 62 of the law permits workers to initiate lawsuits in cases of alleged discrimination. While plaintiffs have seen increased success in civil litigation against employers since the EPL took effect, experts continue to press for special legislation on employment discrimination, and efforts by both government and civil society groups to address discrimination continue (according to a March 3 People's Daily interview [via Sohu] with National People's Congress representative, Zhou Hongyu, and China University of Political Science and Law professor, Cai Dingjian.)
Discrimination
Based on Health Conditions
Beijing Yirenping Center, an advocacy group that works to combat discrimination against individuals who are carriers of certain diseases, reported in its "2008 Discrimination Against Hepatitis B Virus Carriers Survey Report" that of 92 multinational corporations surveyed from October to December 2008, at least 84 percent required potential employees to take a Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) test, and 44 percent refused to hire HBV carriers.
Dahe Net reported on February 27 that a college graduate filed a lawsuit against a provincial rural credit union in Zhengzhou city, Henan province, for employment discrimination based on his colorblindness. This was the first lawsuit in China that dealt with employment discrimination based on colorblindness. The plaintiff asked the court to order the credit union to pay him 3,000 yuan (US$439) as compensation for economic losses and 50,000 yuan (US$7,315) for emotional damages.
Based on Gender
Sixty-five percent of female college graduates consider gender discrimination their greatest barrier to finding employment, according to a survey reported in a March 12 Dazhong Daily article (reprinted in Xinhua). On average, men were able to secure a job interview after 2 or 3 resume submissions, while women only secured interviews after 8 to 10 resume submissions, according to the report. An employee of a corporation's human resources department, on the condition of anonymity, admitted that even though they collected women's resumes at job fairs, either no one would review those applications, or, after interviews, they would discuss ways to rule out female job seekers. Companies also have "raised the employment threshold" by adding requirements for female candidates regarding height, appearance, age, and marital and child-bearing status to "naturally disqualify" female job seekers, the article reported. For example, many companies at a job fair required women to be "slender and in good disposition," "between 1.68 and 1.72 meters" (between 5 feet 6 inches and 5 feet 7 inches), or "between 45 and 55 kilograms" (between 99 and 121 pounds), according to a March 8 Sichuan News Net article (quoting a March 4 Beijing Evening News report). Some offices, including departments within the judicial system, even "brazenly" require that male employees be above 1.75 meters (5 feet 8 inches) and want to hire "no women" because employees are to "reflect the country's image," said National People's Congress representative Zhou Hongyu in the March 3 People's Daily interview cited above.
Tackling Employment Discrimination
Even though the EPL aims to promote equality in employment, it does not clearly define what actions constitute employment discrimination, nor does it fully detail penalties for those actions. The Congressional-Executive Commission on China reviewed a sample of over 30 other legal, regulatory, and supplemental documents issued at both the central and local levels that refer to the EPL, and found similar issues concerning clarity and detail in provisions regarding the definition of discrimination, enforcement, and relief to individuals subjected to alleged discrimination. According to an Internet survey reported in a January 17 Legal Daily article (via Xinhua), 90.1 percent of college students believe that discrimination exists in their chosen fields of employment; 82.7 percent express "dissatisfaction but have no options" when they face employment discrimination and therefore choose to forgo their legal rights for the sake of securing their employment.
Since 2004, National People's Congress representative Zhou Hongyu and other experts have been promoting an anti-employment discrimination law that would establish an equal opportunity employment committee. The proposal details the conditions, procedures, and burdens of proof involved in petitioning the committee, according to a March 7 Legal Daily report. Nevertheless, as argued in a March 9 Xinhua article, a law cannot solve a problem without tackling its root causes¡ªwhich in this case includes corporations' lack of a sense of social responsibility. Companies "are not willing to hire disabled or disadvantaged workers for fear of hurting their economic performance,... especially under grim employment conditions," according to the March 7 report. In addition, some companies "find various excuses to create multiple barriers, legitimizing 'abnormal means' such as recruiting people solely based on their appearances or hukou status," says the same report. Ultimately, "discrimination is a social phenomenon" that requires people to change their traditional thinking, stated Zhou in the March 3 People's Daily interview.
For more information about employment discrimination, see Section II-Worker Rights-Employment Promotion Law and Section II-Public Health in the CECC 2008 Annual Report. See also a previous CECC analysis on ethnicity-based employment discrimination: Governments in Xinjiang Continue to Sponsor, Sanction Job Recruitment That Discriminates Against Ethnic Minorities.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-03-13 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-07-02 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=119057 |
Recruitment for State Jobs in Xinjiang Discriminates Against Ethnic Minorities
Ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) continue to face widespread discrimination in recruitment for state jobs, according to Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) analysis of recent recruiting efforts for jobs in the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC) and XUAR schools. The recent recruitment programs follow other examples of discriminatory job recruiting practices in the XUAR and come during a period of high unemployment for XUAR college graduates.
Discrimination in Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps Continues
The Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC) has announced plans to recruit for 894 positions, of which 744 have been reserved for Han Chinese, according to rosters of available job openings. (See an index of job openings posted May 7 on the Bingtuan Personnel Testing Authority Web site to download the rosters.) Of the remaining positions, 137 are specified as unrestricted by ethnicity and thus are open to applicants of all ethnic groups including Han, while 11 positions are reserved for Uyghurs and 2 positions are reserved for Kazakhs. The job recruitment follows earlier discriminatory hiring practices in the XPCC documented by the CECC in 2006. All of the positions advertised in the 2009 XPCC recruiting program require at least a technical or college degree. The positions include jobs in employing agencies such as government bureaus, Communist Party committee offices, the XPCC court system, and prisons. All candidates must take the job recruitment exam in Mandarin Chinese, according to information on the job recruiting program posted May 7 on the Bingtuan Personnel Testing Authority Web site. (For additional information on the 2009 XPCC job recruitment, see also a brochure posted May 7 on the Bingtuan Personnel Testing Authority Web site and an article posted May 8 on the Kashgar district government Web site.)
As noted in previous analysis by the CECC, the Chinese government established the XPCC in 1954 as a means of settling demobilized soldiers and Han migrants to perform border defense functions and to support economic development. The central government's 2003 White Paper on the History and Development of Xinjiang says that the ranks of the XPCC are now "a mosaic of people from 37 ethnic groups, including the Han, Uygur, Kazak, Hui, and Mongolian." The White Paper describes the XPCC as "a special social organization, which handles its own administrative and judicial affairs" but "in accordance with the laws and regulations of the state and the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region." As noted by the CECC, Chinese law forbids discrimination based on ethnicity. Within this framework of non-discrimination, several provisions in Chinese laws stipulate measures to promote the hiring of ethnic minorities.
Teaching Positions Discriminate Against Ethnic Minorities
Recent job recruitment announcements from one district and one autonomous prefecture in the XUAR also indicate widespread discrimination against ethnic minorities during the recruitment process for jobs in XUAR schools. In Aqsu district, 347 of 436 open positions in district schools are reserved for Han Chinese, while the remaining 89 positions are reserved for Uyghurs, according to a roster of open positions. (See an announcement on the job openings posted May 8 on the Shayar county government Web site to download the roster of job openings.) In addition to the restrictions based on ethnicity, candidates must not believe in a religion or participate in religious activities, according to the May 8 announcement. In the Bayangol Mongol Autonomous Prefecture within the XUAR, 413 of almost 500 jobs in local schools are reserved exclusively for Han Chinese, according to a list of open positions. (See a May 4 brochure on the Southern Xinjiang Personnel Net to download the roster.) In addition, 37 positions are specified as unrestricted by ethnicity and thus are open to applicants of all ethnic groups including Han, while 26 positions are reserved for Uyghurs and 10 exclusively for Mongols. In addition, 5 posts are open either for Han or Mongol candidates.
Available information on the job recruitment in Aqsu and Bayangol indicates that the ethnicity-based categories are not proxies for language skills, as the positions contain separate stipulations regarding language capability, in addition to ethnicity-based restrictions. (XUAR schools traditionally have offered separate tracks of schooling in Mandarin and in ethnic minority languages, though such tracking has diminished with the implementation of Mandarin-centered "bilingual" education.) According to the recruiting announcement from Aqsu district, ethnic minority candidates must meet a minimum requirement on a national Mandarin Chinese exam. In addition, 56 of the 89 positions for Uyghurs are reserved for Uyghurs who received their schooling in Mandarin-language schools (minkaohan students), according to the roster of open positions in Aqsu. The announcement on job recruitment in the Bayangol Mongol Autonomous Prefecture specifies that ethnic minorities whose native language (mother tongue, or muyu) is Mandarin Chinese may apply for positions reserved for Han Chinese, thereby appearing to exclude ethnic minority candidates who are fluent in Mandarin (such as minkaohan students who learned Mandarin in school), but do not speak it as their native language.
Graduates Face High Unemployment Rates
The barriers to employment for ethnic minority job candidates come during a period of high unemployment in the XUAR. XUAR authorities have pledged to boost employment and to focus on increasing job prospects for ethnic minorities, but the evidence of ongoing discriminatory practices, along with limited information on implementation of policies to promote employment of ethnic minorities, call such a stated focus into question.
According to a March 2 article from the XUAR Ethnic Affairs Commission (via the State Ethnic Affairs Commission) and March 10 China Daily report, the government has pledged to sustain an employment rate of over 70 percent for recent XUAR college graduates through measures including programs that send medical and educational workers to rural areas and through the establishment of job training bases. The rural jobs and training bases will focus on hiring and training ethnic minorities, according to the reports. Since making the pledge, authorities have reported on efforts to create new jobs for college graduates, though some information has had limited or no information on increasing job prospects for ethnic minorities. An April 16 article from Xinhua Xinjiang reported that the region has established over 7,000 spots for university graduates in the job training bases. The article did not include information on efforts to encourage training of ethnic minority graduates. A May 18 article from Xinhua Xinjiang noted that as of the end of April, only 22.1 percent of college graduates in the XUAR had signed employment contracts, down 1.49 percent from the previous year. The article reported that a government official outlined steps to spur employment, including through job recruitment for positions in the government and XPCC. (The government has also filled XPCC positions with people from outside the XUAR. See information on efforts to recruit approximately 4,400 college graduates from Gansu province for XPCC jobs, as reported in an April 10 China Ethnicities News report, via the State Ethnic Affairs Commission. The percentage of college graduates who signed employment contracts in the XUAR compares with an unofficial estimated nationwide figure for college graduates of 33 percent as of March 2009, according to an April 3 report posted on the Xinyang, Henan province, Personnel Bureau Web site.) At the same time it reported on job opportunities in the XPCC, shown by the CECC to exclude most ethnic minority candidates, the May 18 article said the government would focus employment assistance work on giving priority to hiring and providing benefits to ethnic minority graduates and graduates with difficulties finding employment. An April 15 government notice, posted May 22 on Tianshan Net, provided information on a program to send graduates to work in rural areas, but neither the notice nor accompanying materials provided information on promoting the hiring of ethnic minorities. Information on civil servant hiring in the XUAR has given some information on ethnicity-based restrictions and efforts to promote the hiring of ethnic minorities. Of 6,558 open civil servant positions in the XUAR government, the government has both left "the majority of positions unrestricted by ethnicity," thereby open to candidates of all ethnic groups including Han, and has "reserved a set amount of positions" for ethnic minorities, according to a May 12 report from the Xinjiang Personnel Department.
The continuation of government-sponsored discriminatory job recruitment practices in the XUAR accompanies broader policies in the region that also violate the rights of ethnic minority citizens. For more information on conditions in the XUAR, see Section IV--Xinjiang in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-05-26 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-07-02 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=122703 |
Officials Extend Liu Xiaobo's Residential Surveillance Beyond Legal Time Limit
Chinese officials continue to hold prominent intellectual and Charter 08 signer Liu Xiaobo even though the six-month limit for residential surveillance as provided for in China's Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) has expired. Article 58 of the CPL allows officials to place someone under residential surveillance for up to six months. Police reportedly took Liu into custody on December 8, 2008, meaning the period of his residential surveillance should have expired on June 8, 2009, and officials would have had to provide another legal basis for holding him, according to a June 8 Dui Hua Human Rights Journal analysis issued by the Dui Hua Foundation, a non-profit organization that seeks to promote universal human rights through dialogue between China and the United States.
Liu's lawyer, Mo Shaoping, said police told Liu's wife that Liu would remain under residential surveillance while they continued to investigate his case, according to a June 9 Agence France-Presse (AFP) article (via Google). "They said that new measures in his case would be taken, but they did not specify what these measures were," Mo said. "Basically, his entire residential surveillance has not conformed with laws and regulations."
Officials have kept Liu at an undisclosed location in Beijing even though Chinese law would appear to require that residential surveillance be carried out at Liu's home in Beijing and not another location. Officials have also denied Liu access to his lawyer, despite provisions under Chinese law that give a person under residential surveillance the right to meet with his lawyer without permission.
"His residential surveillance should be carried out at his home -- his family should live with him and his lawyers should be able to freely visit. None of this has happened," Mo told AFP. Mo said he sent a letter to the procuratorate in Beijing asking officials to free Liu or issue formal charges, according to a June 9 Times Online article.
The Dui Hua analysis noted:
Though more attention has been paid in recent years to abiding by certain provisions of the CPL, Chinese law-enforcement authorities have in the past frequently ignored legally established rights and time limits, especially in cases like this one that appear to be of a political nature. Officials took Liu into custody a day before more than 300 Chinese citizens issued Charter 08, a document which they signed and which calls for political reform and greater protection of human rights in China. The charter was posted on the Internet and allows additional persons to sign the document via e-mail. As of April 17, 8,484 persons had signed the charter, of which about 80 percent reside in mainland China, according to the book "Charter 08," published by Open Books (Hong Kong) in May. Charter 08 is inspired by a 1970s charter issued in the former Czechoslovakia.
For more information, see a previous CECC analysis of official harassment of Charter 08 signers, censorship of Charter 08 on the Chinese Internet, and the legality of Liu's residential surveillance, and a previous CECC analysis of the Charter 08 document and initial reports of Liu's detention.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-06-09 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2009-07-02 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=123377 |
Xinjiang Authorities Block, Punish Free Expression
Authorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) continued in 2009 to engage in censorship campaigns and punish people for peaceful expression and assembly. Authorities outside the XUAR also participated in the censorship of a Web site devoted to Uyghur issues. The measures continue a longstanding trend in blocking and punishing free expression in the XUAR, especially among the Uyghur ethnic group. The continued controls also come amid a year of heightened government repression in the region. See below for information on recently reported government efforts to block and penalize free expression and assembly, as well as for a newly reported development in the case of imprisoned Uyghur writer Nurmemet Yasin.
Censorship Campaigns
In 2008, XUAR authorities made "illegal" political and religious publications the focal point for that year's campaign to "Sweep Away Pornography and Strike Down Illegal Publications." In late 2008 and early 2009, authorities reported on the continuation of censorship campaigns that included focus on "illegal" political and religious publications.- A district in Qaramay municipality reported in late November 2008 that the municipal government had issued a "notice on confiscating Muslim books such as 'The Truth About the Holy Teachings' and 'The Call to Orthodoxy,'" according to a November 29 report on the Jerenbulaq district (Baijiantan), Qaramay municipal government Web site. Authorities investigated local book and music sellers in accordance with the notice, the article reported.
- In an inspection of the cultural market in the XUAR capital of Urumqi, authorities reported confiscating 175 copies of "illegal religious pictures," according to a February 10 report from the Urumqi municipal government Web site.
- XUAR authorities will coordinate with propaganda departments from provinces including Gansu, Qinghai, Shaanxi, and the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region to establish a cross-provincial mechanism to stop the printing and sales of "illegal" religious materials, according to a March 2 Xinjiang Daily report about a meeting to enlarge the law enforcement teams that monitor cultural markets in the XUAR. The article also reported that in 2009, XUAR authorities established a fund to reward efforts to "purify" the cultural market, with focus on "illegal" religious and political publications.
- As part of a campaign to curb "illegal religious activity" in Hoten district, authorities reported finding large amounts of "illegal propaganda materials such as books, handwritten texts, CDs, and tapes," according to a March 4 article on the Xinjiang Peace Net. See a related Congressional-Executive Commission on China analysis for more information about the steps to fight "illegal religious activity" in Hoten.
- Authorities in the XUAR will implement a special system of oversight for bookstores, newspaper stands, audio and video suppliers, and similar vendors that are located within 500 meters of schools, according to a March 18 report from Tianshan Net. The report also provided statistics on the number of books confiscated in 2008. Of a total of 877,193 copies of items confiscated in 2008, 29,905 were "illegal" political materials. The article did not report the number of "illegal" religious items confiscated.
Repeated Shutdown of "Uyghur Biz" Web site, Webmaster Questioned
In March, authorities repeatedly shut down the multi-language Web site Uyghur Biz (also known as Uyghur Online) and interrogated Beijing-based Uyghur scholar Ilham Toxti, who runs the site, according to reports from Radio Free Asia (RFA). (See March 6, March 26, and May 12 English-language reports and March 5, 6, and 24 Uyghur-language reports.) Ilham Toxti reported that authorities accused him of separatism, according to the May 12 report. Authorities initially shut down the site in early March, after Ilham Toxti gave an interview criticizing government administration in the XUAR. Based on CECC monitoring, the Mandarin-language version of the Web site was available again on March 9 and the Uyghur-language version on March 10. CECC monitoring found that the site was again closed on March 20, one day after the site hosted an article by Ilham Toxti stating that XUAR government chairperson Nur Bekri was unfit for his job. The Internet censorship follows the closure of Uyghur Biz in mid-2008, as reported in a June 12, 2008, RFA article, and also follows the closure of some Uyghur-language bulletin board services during the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games. According to the March 26 RFA article, the Uyghur Biz Web site has been shut down a total of six times since Ilham Toxti first started the site in 2006.
Penalizing Free Expression and Assembly
Several reports from March and April 2009 described steps to punish people for exercising their right to distribute information or organize protests:- According to April reports from Radio Free Asia (RFA), authorities in Turpan municipality detained Ekberjan Jamal, a young Uyghur man, on December 25, 2007, after he had used his cell phone to make audio recordings of November 2007 shopkeepers' demonstrations in Turpan and sent the recordings to friends overseas. (See an April 15 English-language report and April 13 and 14 Uyghur-language reports.) His friends gave the recordings to Hong Kong-based Phoenix News and to RFA. (See 2007 RFA articles about the demonstrations dated November 1, 2, and 26.) Ekberjan Jamal later posted on his own Web site the news based on his audio recordings. The Turpan Intermediate People's Court sentenced Ekberjan Jamal to 10 years in prison on February 28, 2008, for splittism and revealing state secrets, crimes under articles 103 and 111 of the Criminal Law. He is being held in the Xinjiang Number 4 prison in Urumqi, according to the RFA reports.
- Chinese state-run media reported in March that procuratorate officials approved the arrest of and initiated prosecution against a young man, identified only as "Ya," after he allegedly "spread rumors" on the Internet about a clash that broke out in January at an Internet Caf¨¦ in Shayar county, Aqsu district. (See a March 16 report from Tianshan Net and a March 17 report from Xinhua, via China Daily.) The reports said that "Ya" fabricated the nature of the clash, reporting that Han Chinese had beaten and killed a Uyghur youth, describing police indifference to the matter, and reporting that over 500 Uyghurs took to the streets to demonstrate. The Tianshan Net report said that "Ya's" article was then used by "separatist" Web sites overseas that aimed to "disrupt ethnic unity" and "influence social stability." (For reports on the incident by RFA after the clash broke out in late January, see a February 6 article as well as RFA Uyghur-language articles from January 30, February 3, and February 4. See also a January 31 report from the East Turkistan Information Center.)
- Also in March, official media reported that in June 2008, authorities from Hoten district intercepted and arrested people described as members of Hizb ut-Tahrir who planned to "sabotage" the Olympic torch relay. A report posted March 3 on the Hoten Peace Net (from the Hoten Frontier Defense Detachment) said that authorities found the group traveling in a vehicle carrying a computer, printer, and "reactionary" leaflets. The report did not provide additional details about the case.
- The Uyghur American Association reported in a March 16 press release that a court in Hoten municipality, Hoten district, sentenced Abdukadir Mahsum on February 26 to 15 years in prison for his activities organizing peaceful demonstrations in Hoten in March 2008 to protest government human rights abuses. The news follows other steps in the XUAR to punish people who plan or participate in demonstrations. In December 2008 public security offices took two young men into detention after they tried to organize a demonstration on the campus of Xinjiang University.
New Report Provides Update on Imprisoned Writer
According to information reported in a March 17 Radio Free Asia (RFA) article, prison authorities have taken repercussions against imprisoned writer Nurmemet (Nurmuhemmet) Yasin since he met with UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak in late 2005 and reported mistreatment to Nowak. According to the RFA article, authorities have reduced Nurmemet Yasin's family visits from every two months to twice a year and have restricted Nurmemet Yasin's activities within prison as punishment for having not "reformed his views." Nurmemet Yasin is serving a 10-year prison sentence for "inciting splittism," based on a short story he wrote about a pigeon that chooses suicide over life within a cage.
For more information on freedom of expression in the XUAR, see the following CECC analyses:For more information on conditions in the XUAR, see Section IV--Xinjiang, in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-03-30 ) |
Posted on: 2009-07-02 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=119624 |
China Requires Journalists To Obtain New Press Cards To Practice Profession
Journalists and editors at Chinese news organizations are required to possess a government-issued press card in order to legally practice their profession. This requirement differs from more limited forms of press accreditation, such as press badges required for access to certain places or events. Under China's press card system, the government has complete discretion to determine who may or may not legally practice journalism. As detailed below, such a licensing scheme does not conform to international human rights standards for freedom of expression. Every five years journalists already possessing a press card must apply for a new card, at which time the government may deny renewal. 2009 marks five years since the government last renewed press cards in 2004. Press cards currently held by journalists will expire on July 1, 2009. The government has given journalists and editors until June 30 to obtain new cards.
China's Licensing Scheme Does Not Conform to International Standards
China's general press card requirement does not conform to international standards for freedom of expression. Under the Measures for the Administration of Journalist Accreditation Cards, all journalists are required to possess the press card and cardholders must meet government-imposed qualifications including a minimum level of education and adherence to a vague "professional ethics" requirement. International experts have criticized a general licensing requirement for journalists which allows the government discretion to refuse registration and imposes substantive conditions on print media. Such schemes are unnecessary and may be abused, according to a 2003 joint declaration issued by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, and the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression. "Individual journalists should not be required to be licensed or to register. There should be no legal restrictions on who may practice journalism," the declaration said, adding that press accreditation is "appropriate only where necessary to provide [journalists] with privileged access to certain places and/or events." Such an interpretation of the appropriateness and scope of accreditation requirements for journalists is consistent with international human rights standards for freedom of expression, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which require that restrictions on freedom of expression be limited to those which are necessary to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, or public health or morals. China has signed and committed to ratify the ICCPR.
Chinese officials have used the general press card requirement to harass unlicensed journalists who report on politically sensitive topics. In 2007, for example, police in Nanjing accused Sun Lin (pen name Jie Mu), a reporter for the U.S.-based news Web site Boxun News, of working for an illegal news organization and reporting without an official press card, according to a June 4, 2007, Committee to Protect Journalists article. Sun had reported on property disputes and other politically sensitive topics as well as Boxun's failure to gain accreditation to cover the 2008 Olympic Games and officials had warned him to stop reporting, the article said.
2009 Accreditation Card Renewal
The General Administration on Press and Publication (GAPP) has announced that journalists and editors working for Chinese news organizations must exchange their current press cards for new ones by June 30, 2009, and that the validity of their old cards will expire on July 1, according to the Circular Regarding the 2009 Exchange and Issuance of Press Cards (Circular) issued on January 20, 2009. The renewal will affect approximately 260,000 news personnel, according to a February 11 People's Daily article. GAPP is the administrative agency in charge of regulating the news publishing business, including the licensing of news publications and journalists. Every five years journalists must exchange their cards for new ones, according to Article 16 of the 2005 Measures for the Administration of Journalist Accreditation Cards.
According to the Circular, GAPP and local press and publication bureaus under GAPP will be responsible for approving and issuing the cards. The Circular provides that these government agencies and news organizations should "strictly examine and verify the press card applicant's qualifications, be stringent with the scope of distribution of press cards, and firmly expunge those not meeting the requirements from the journalists' ranks."
2009 Campaign to Strengthen Oversight
The new press cards are linked to a broader set of GAPP measures in 2009 to "strengthen oversight of news personnel and news reporting and editing activities," according to GAPP Deputy Director Li Dongdong as reported in a February 13, 2009, China Press and Publication Journal report. These measures include: - Creation of a black list. Journalists who "violate laws and regulations" will have their press cards revoked and names placed on a black list of journalists with "bad records."
- Amendment of the Measures for the Administration of Journalist Accreditation Cards to "strengthen the regulatory system relating to applying for, examining and verifying, and granting press cards."
- New measures to strengthen oversight over reporting and editing activities to "regulate order in news reporting and curb fake reports."
Chinese Government Justifications for Policy
The Chinese government claims that government licensing and supervision of journalists and editors is needed to prevent corruption and protect journalists. In March 2009, GAPP Director Liu Binjie said a spate of cases involving extortion among "fake" journalists in 2008 had "impacted commercial and social stability" and that "attacking fake journalists" would be a government priority this year, according to a March 4 Jinghua Times report (via Xinhua). The preamble to the Circular claims, as Chinese officials have in the past, that the exchange and issuance of press cards will strengthen the rights of news reporters. Officials this year point to new language printed on the press card as further ensuring journalists' access to government officials. The new language will say: "governments at all levels should facilitate the reporting of journalists who hold this card and provide necessary protection," according to a February 10 China Youth Daily report.
For additional analysis of China's licensing system for journalists under international human rights standards, see The Mechanics of Censorship, A Report on the Regulations for Print Media of the People's Republic of China, issued in September 2007 by Article 19, a human rights organization that promotes freedom of expression.
For more information on the Chinese government and Party's censorship of Chinese media generally, see Section II - Freedom of Expression, in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-03-18 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2009-07-02 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=118599 |
China's Responses at the UN Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review
During the recent Universal Periodic Review of China's human rights record before the UN Human Rights Council, China denied the existence of human rights issues such as censorship, abuse of state secrets laws, and black jails, defended its reeducation through labor system and registration requirements for religious activity, and asserted that its laws protect workers, lawyers, and ethnic minorities. China did not support Member States' recommendations in many of these areas and called such concerns ¡°politicized.¡±
On February 9, 2009, the UN Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) held a three-hour session to review China's human rights record. The UPR, which was created in 2006, is a new mechanism under which the UN Human Rights Council reviews the human rights records of all UN Member States once every four years. (See previous Congressional-Executive Commission on China analysis for background information on the review process.)
The three-hour review session began with a presentation by Li Baodong, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations, who provided an overview of China's social, economic, and human rights developments and reiterated China's position on a number of human rights issues. An "interactive dialogue" followed during which delegations from 60 Member States commented on China's human rights situation and offered specific recommendations. Fifty-five other Member States were not able to make their statements due to time constraints. The Chinese delegation responded to some of the comments by highlighting China's progress on human rights and rejecting certain concerns raised at the session by a number of countries, calling such criticisms "politicized," according to the Draft Report of the Working Group on the UPR of China.
On February 11, the Working Group adopted the Draft Report, which summarized the February 9 session and set forth China's official response to the recommendations made by Member States. The final report will be adopted at an upcoming regular session of the UN Human Rights Council. The state under review may choose to support or not support a recommendation, or indicate that a recommendation has already been implemented. Accepted recommendations are not legally binding. The state under review has the primary responsibility for implementation and must provide information on its progress at a follow-up review. China's follow-up review will take place during the second cycle of the UPR (2012-2015). For more information on the UPR process, please see a fact sheet available on the Web site of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The language below is based on or taken directly from the Draft Report. Please note the Draft Report paraphrases and summarizes, rather than directly quotes, statements made at the session. Any language that appears in quotation marks in the chart below is taken verbatim from the Draft Report. Also note the chart highlights only a selection of the many issues discussed at the session. Please see the Draft Report for the full summary of China's session.
| Issue | China's Responses to Concerns Raised | China's Responses to Recommendations |
|---|
| Freedom of Expression | China's Response:
-"There is no censorship."
-"No individual or press has been penalized for voicing their opinions or views."
-Obstacles faced by journalists do not come from the government.
-Laws prohibiting the creation of rumors or subversion on the Internet conform with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. | China Did Not Support:
-Extend relaxed restrictions for foreign journalists to Chinese journalists.
-Revise laws and practices that violate free expression and release prisoners held for such crimes (including those held in connection with Charter 08).
-Accept differences of opinion "expressed by human rights defenders through peaceful demonstration." | | Treatment of Human Rights Advocates | China's Response:
-State secrets laws are not abused to punish human rights defenders.
-Law on protection of state secrets clearly defines "state secrets." | China Did Not Support:
-Reform state secrets laws and definitions of crimes such as incitement of subversion to prevent the abuse of such laws to punish human rights defenders.
-"Investigate reports of harassment and detention of human rights defenders."
China Supported:
-Guard against those "who are qualifying themselves as human rights defenders with the objective of attacking the interests of the state and the people of China." | | Freedom of Assembly | China's Response:
-Rights to freedom of assembly, association, procession, and demonstration are protected and citizens may apply to engage in such activities under law. | China Did Not Support:
-"Ensure protection of the right of peaceful assembly and release all persons arrested in this connection." | | Freedom of Religion | China's Response:
-Registration requirements for religious organizations are "minimum" and "family gatherings" of Christians do not require registration. | China Did Not Support:
-Review approach to religious groups, including unofficial ones.
-Guarantee religious freedom, freedom of belief, and the freedom to worship in private.
-"Simplify requirements for official approval of religious practices[.]" | | Reeducation Through Labor (RTL) (system allowing for up to four years detention outside of judicial system and Criminal Procedure Law) | China's Response:
-"The Chinese system of reeducation through labor is similar to that of correctional service in other countries and is applied to persons who have committed crimes that do not warrant criminal sentence. There are 320 such centres in China with 190,000 inmates." | China Did Not Support:
-Abolish the RTL system.
China Supported:
-Reform RTL "according to its national realities." | | Extra-Legal Detention Facilities or "Black Jails" | China's Response:
-"There are no black jails in the country." | China Did Not Support:
-Abolish black jails. | | Rights of Lawyers and Detainees | China's Response:
-Recently amended law on lawyers clearly protects "[lawyers'] rights, their personal liberty and immunity from sanctions for speeches defending legally their clients in criminal proceedings." In state secrets cases, it is normal to place restrictions on lawyer-client meetings. | China Did Not Support:
-Ensure lawyers "can defend clients without fear of harassment and can participate in the management of their own professional organizations."
-"Ensure the independence of [the] judiciary and lawyers."
-Ensure detainee's rights to see visitors and have "permanent access to legal counsel and effective complaint mechanisms." | Ethnic Minorities
(Tibetans, Uyghurs) | China's Response:
-Religious beliefs and culture of ethnic minorities are respected and protected.
-Ethnic minorities are allowed to fully exercise their human rights.
-"[A] few people with the support of foreign forces try to split Tibet and Xinjiang from China and they by no means represent the governing majority of Tibetans and Uighurs as Tibet and Xinjiang are inseparable parts of China's territory and the Government will not allow any attempt to split China to succeed." | China Did Not Support:
-Review laws and practices to ensure protection of ethnic minorities' freedom of religion (1),(2), movement, culture, and language.
-End the "strike hard" campaign in Tibet associated with numerous rights violations.
-Increase access to Tibetan areas for the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR), other UN bodies, diplomats, and international media.
China Supported:
-Continue "efforts to further ensure ethnic minorities the full range of human rights including cultural rights." | | Death Penalty Statistics | | China Did Not Support:
-Make death penalty statistics public. | | Worker Rights | China's Response:
-Constitution and trade union law provide that workers may "organize and join trade unions and carry out activities entirely free." | China Did Not Support:
-Lift reservation to Article 8.1(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), "which ensures the right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of his or her choice." | | North Korean Refugees | China's Response:
-China has acceded to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its Additional Protocol and follows the principle of non-refoulement (non-repatriation) in accordance with the convention.
-China is working on refugee legislation to further clarify screening procedures.
-"Some people who illegally entered China because of economic reasons are not "refugees" but illegal immigrants." | China Did Not Support:
-Implement the November 2008 recommendations of the Committee against Torture, "particularly on ... the non-refoulement of refugees from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea." |
| Source: -See Summary (2009-03-18 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2009-07-02 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=119334 |
Two Men in Inner Mongolia in Detention for Involvement in Mongolian Organization and for Planned Protest
Authorities in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (IMAR) have detained two Mongol men on charges of involvement with a pan-Mongolian organization and for attempting to organize a protest, according to a May 3 report from the U.S.-based Southern Mongolian Human Rights Information Center (SMHRIC). State security personnel detained Almas in the IMAR capital of Hohhot on April 30, 2009, while authorities detained Baoyu in Bogt (Baotou) city on the same day. According to the report, authorities detained them for involvement or alleged involvement in the "Pan-Mongolia Association," which authorities label as a separatist organization, as well as for alleged attempts to arrange a protest in Hohhot on the 62nd anniversary of the IMAR's founding on May 1. SMHRIC reported that Almas is the secretary of the Pan-Mongolia Association and that authorities alleged Baoyu was also involved in the organization. According to SMHRIC, sources reported that a call to hold a protest and an announcement about a conference to address ethnic issues in the IMAR, both written in the name of the Pan-Mongolia Association, were distributed through the Internet and text messages. Further details about the cases, including the men's current whereabouts, are unknown.
Also on April 30, security officials in Naiman banner, Tongliao city, detained businessman Arslan, one of Almas' friends, according to the SMHRIC report. They questioned him about his association with Almas, about the Pan-Mongolia Association, and about Arslan's Internet publications, which they charged harmed ethnic harmony. Authorities held him in three periods of detention for three days before releasing him.
The detentions follow other measures to punish ethnic Mongols for promoting Mongols' rights or for their links or perceived links to overseas ethnic rights organizations. As noted in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC)2008 Annual Report, in July 2008, authorities in the IMAR detained businessman Burildguun for alleged ties to an overseas Mongolian political group. In March, authorities detained writer Naranbilig for 20 days in connection with his plans to attend the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and with his broader activities advocating for the rights of ethnic Mongols. The same month, authorities also detained activist Tsebegjab for his alleged ties to overseas activists. Authorities later placed both Naranbilig and Tsebegjab under confinement in their homes.
The detentions come as the government continues to implement policies in the IMAR that have undermined the protection of Mongols' rights. As noted in the CECC 2008 Annual Report, longstanding government policies have disrupted traditional pastoral livelihoods, forced resettlement and assimilation, and reduced the use of the Mongolian language. Authorities have taken some steps in recent years to revive the use of Mongolian, with mixed results, but elsewhere authorities have targeted some Mongolian language Web sites for closure. For more information on conditions in the IMAR, see Section II--Ethnic Minority Rights in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-05-15 ) |
Posted on: 2009-06-24 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=122238 |
Xinjiang Authorities Announce Heightened Security Threat, Strengthen Security Capacity, and Continue Propaganda Campaigns
Authorities throughout the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) have continued in late 2008 and early 2009 to implement harsh security controls and widespread propaganda campaigns in the name of preserving stability, while a top official in the region said in March 2009 that the XUAR will face a more serious security terrain in the coming year.
Official: More Serious Security Issues for XUAR in 2009
Speaking at a press conference on March 6, XUAR government chairperson Nur Bekri said that the region's battle against separatism would be "more severe, the task more strenuous, and the conditions for battle more intense," according to a March 6 Xinhua article and March 7 Tianshan Net report. Nur Bekri attributed security threats to "Western hostile forces" and to the "three forces" of terrorism, separatism, and religious extremism, which he said would continue to carry out activities to "divide" and "sabotage" the region, according to the Tianshan Net report. He said all threats to the region would meet with "hard strikes" and "firm opposition" from the people. In January 2009, a national White Paper on China's national defense (via the Chinese government Web site) included supporters of "East Turkistan independence"--a reference to perceived separatist movements directed toward the XUAR--as one of three threats to "China's unity and security." As described in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) 2007 and 2008 Annual Reports, authorities have used security campaigns in the XUAR as a pretext for squelching peaceful dissent and controlling expressions of ethnic and religious identity, especially among the ethnic Uyghur population.
Nur Bekri's remarks come during a period of heightened security controls within the region. Authorities increased controls in 2008 amid preparations for the Olympic Games, intensified anti-terrorism campaigns in the region, and in response to protests among Uyghurs and Tibetans in China. (See the CECC 2008 Annual Report for more information.) In the aftermath of these events, authorities continued throughout fall 2008 to enforce harsh security measures and widespread ideological campaigns, efforts which have continued into late 2008 and 2009. Recently reported measures include:
Increased Capacity by Security Forces
The central and XUAR governments reported on measures in recent months to bolster overall security capacity throughout the region, according to reports from late 2008 and 2009. At a region-wide meeting held on March 5 and 6, XUAR public security officials pledged to strengthen stability measures, according to a March 6 report from the Xinjiang Daily. While the measures address the central government's general directive to "protect growth, the people's livelihood, and stability" throughout China (see, e.g., a March 4 China News Net article and February 14 Xinhua article), the meeting also singled out strengthened security measures in order to defeat the threat of the "three forces" within the XUAR. The Xinjiang Daily report also described police measures in January to root out "illegal" religious instruction classes, which led to over 20 detentions. The news follows the Central Military Commission's upgrade of the status of the Xinjiang people's armed police force in November in a measure described as increasing the force's capacity to respond to threats to stability, as reported in a November 27, 2008, Tianshan Net report (via NetEase), November 28 Xinhua article, and January 12, 2009, Tianshan Net article.
Local governments within the XUAR also reported on strengthening security measures. In March, authorities in Poskam (Zepu) county, Kashgar district, described measures to strengthen security work through measures that include mobilization of public security, procuratorate, court, and justice department staff to conduct nightly patrols, and a rapid response system to summon the public security bureau, people's armed police, and people's militia, according to a March 12 report from the Kashgar district government Web site. A month earlier, an official from the Aqsu district government outlined four broad measures for ensuring stability that included calls for a strengthening of intelligence networks, stepped-up controls over religious activity, and an increase in ideological propaganda, according to a February 23 report from the Aqsu District Environment Protection Bureau (via the XUAR Environmental Protection Bureau). The official also called for building off the successful experiences in Olympics security arrangements to tighten the district's "prevention and control" system within society.
Continued Ideological Campaigns
Authorities continue to implement widespread ideological campaigns targeting various communities within the XUAR. The educational campaigns as described in some reports have included sharp rhetoric against peaceful human rights activities.
Wide-scale Campaigns Target Students, Other Groups. Government Reports High Participation Rate
Authorities in Kashgar city, Kashgar district, outlined work on anti-separatism reeducation that has divided the education into three phases, extending through April 2009, according to a December 22 report from the Kashgar district government Web site. The three phases will include a period of study, a period of "exposing and criticizing," and a period of "self-examination and rectification," according to the report. The report described plans to form teams of cadres and religious personnel to bring anti-separatism education to groups including religious adherents, workers, youth, students and teachers, and migrants. Describing anti-separatism education for students as a "long-term and arduous job," an official in Ghulja (Yining) city, Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture, outlined plans to strengthen anti-separatism education in schools, including through mandatory classes on patriotism and ethnic unity that exceed national requirements and through oversight measures implemented for the winter vacation, according to a February 5 report on the Ili News Net. The measures include arranging for teachers to visit students in their homes during vacation, requiring students to visit campus twice a month, and requiring students to do assignments seen as promoting ethnic unity, according to the report. During a three-month period of anti-separatism reeducation starting in October, authorities in Hoten district reported that 300,000 people directly received anti-separatism education and that in total, propaganda efforts reached more than 95 percent of the population, according to a February 8 report from the Xinjiang Daily. In addition to educating the public on stability threats, the activities also spread information on Communist Party policies in areas including religion, population planning, and "bilingual" education, according to the report.
Anti-Separatist Campaigns Target Rebiya Kadeer and Overseas Organizations
Two reports from the Qizilsu Kyrgyz Autonomous Prefecture (Qizilsu KAP) described anti-separatist propaganda campaigns that included harsh attacks against Rebiya Kadeer and groups including an organization that promotes human rights for Uyghurs. Rebiya Kadeer, a former political prisoner in China, is a U.S.-based civic leader and activist who has advocated for human rights for Uyghurs. Since Rebiya Kadeer's release from prison in 2005, authorities have harassed her family members remaining in the XUAR, culminating in prison sentences given to two of her sons in 2006 and 2007.
According to a report from the Qizilsu Anti-Separatism Office posted December 19 on the Xinjiang Peace Net, officials from the Qizilsu KAP traveled to an impoverished area to deliver anti-separatism propaganda education to 6 impoverished households and over 30 cadres. The report said that the education clarified the "reactionary fallacies" spread by the likes of Rebiya Kadeer and the "three forces." The report also singled out groups including the World Uyghur Congress (WUC), a Germany-based organization headed by Rebiya Kadeer that promotes human rights and democracy for the Uyghur people. A village cadre said officials would strengthen anti-separatism education and focus especially on religious figures, women, and youth, according to the report. In a prefecture-wide effort to focus on specific populations during anti-separatism propaganda education activities launched throughout the Qizilsu KAP, the Communist Party-led Qizilsu Women's Association issued a "Letter to Women of the Prefecture" to mobilize them to participate in anti-separatist propaganda education activities, according to a report from the Qizilsu Anti-Separatism Office posted December 19 on the Xinjiang Peace Net. According to the report, the letter educated women in seeing that Rebiya Kadeer was a "running dog" for anti-China sentiment in the West and a common enemy of the people, as well as a "bad woman" unable to "even properly educate her own children." The letter also denounced groups including the "three forces," the WUC, and "Tibet Independence." The letter called on women to be good wives, mothers, and daughters, and expose the "true evil intent" behind Rebiya Kadeer's calls for human rights and democracy. (For additional information on anti-separatism campaigns, including in the Qizilsu KAP, see a March 5 report on the Xinjiang Peace Net, providing more information on the scope and content of anti-separatism education in the Qizilsu KAP, as well as a December 15 report from the Xinjiang Legal Daily describing anti-separatist education activities among officials. For a detailed example of the content of anti-separatism propaganda education, see a question-and-answer sheet used in anti-separatism reeducation, dated November 12 from the Kelpin (Keping) county, Aqsu district, government Web site, available as a cached page.)
Controls Over Religion
Authorities have tightened control over religious activity as part of heightened security measures. See a related CECC analysis for information on measures recently reported by local governments, including carrying out a campaign aimed at "weakening religious consciousness," implementing rules to expel religious leaders for missing political study classes, monitoring students' activities during school vacations, and holding open trials to punish "illegal religious activity" and demonstrate its consequences to the public.
For more information on conditions in the XUAR, see Section IV--Xinjiang, in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-03-17 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-06-24 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=118758 |
China Issues New Hukou Policies To Promote Employment; Discrimination Continues
In January and February, the Chinese government issued new policies to lift certain restrictions on household registration (hukou), allowing citizens who meet specified criteria to obtain local hukou. Having local hukou is effectively a prerequisite for securing employment, healthcare, social insurance, education, and other government benefits; this has been the case since the issuance of the Regulations on Household Registration in 1958. The new policies aim to promote employment as authorities recently acknowledged rising unemployment of college graduates and migrant workers during the current economic downturn. Even though the new policies may benefit those with higher education and special skills, they continue the trend to exclude the majority of Chinese migrant workers. (For a discussion of China's household registration system, see section II--Freedom of Residence in the CECC 2008 Annual Report, including the Addendum: Recent Hukou Reforms (pp. 105-112); for a broader retrospective, see also the CECC October 2005 CECC topic paper on China's household registration system, and a chart on Chinese Hukou reforms as of 2004.)
National Policy
Article 2 of the State Council General Office's Circular Regarding Strengthening Employment for College Graduates issued January 19 (January 19 Circular) encourages college graduates to work in small- or medium-sized and non-state enterprises. According to the article, "each locality and city should abolish restrictions on local hukou" (excluding four municipalities: Beijing, Chongqing, Shanghai, and Tianjin) to encourage firms to hire college graduates without local hukou. The January 19 Circular also states that China's employment situation is "very grim" due to the current international financial crisis, and "each locality and relevant department should put the employment of college graduates as the top priority in the work of employment." Two weeks later, the State Council's Circular Regarding Completing Employment Work in the Current Economic Situation issued on February 3 referred to the January 19 Circular again when emphasizing college graduates' employment as a top priority for the government.
Shanghai Policy
Shanghai, as one of the four municipalities excluded from the January 19 Circular, issued the Trial Measures Regarding "Shanghai Residence Permit" Holders' Application for Shanghai Permanent Hukou (Trial Measures) on February 12. Article 5 stipulates that the applicant satisfy the following requirements: (1) hold a Shanghai residence permit for at least seven years; (2) participate in the city's social security system during the seven years while holding a Shanghai residence permit; (3) pay income tax during the seven years while holding a Shanghai residence permit; (4) have been employed as mid- or higher level professionals in the city; (5) and have had no violations of national or the city's population planning policy, administrative punishment or more severe criminal record, or other bad behavior. Even though Article 1 of the Trial Measures states that their purpose is to "deepen the city's household registration management reform," "perfect the residence permit system," and "attract talent," it appears that only fewer than 3,000 residents out of the 4,115,000 Shanghai residence permit holders may qualify and thus benefit from the new policy, according to a February 24 Xinhua report and a February 18 Beijing News report.
Reform with Discrimination
The Chinese government's new hukou policies come at a time when the government's primary concerns are the economic downturn and related social issues, including unemployment and "social stability." Even though the new policies aim to create employment, they exclude most migrant workers who do not have a college education or special skills, and are unlikely to bring fundamental change to the discriminatory nature of China's hukou system, according to Xinhua and People's Daily (via Xinhua) reports on February 17. As noted in the CECC 2008 Annual Report, China's hukou reforms have continued the trend to classify citizens into those with better education and skills and those with less education and fewer job skills, largely migrants or the so-called "floating population." For example, the Guangzhou city government in Guangdong province announced in February a new plan to manage the "floating population" in three categories for "public security," according to a February 21 Southern Metropolitan Daily report. This new plan drew criticism from the public for labeling the "unemployed" and the "poor" as "high risk populations" and thus in need of "strict management until [they] die," according to quotes from netizens reported in a February 23 Voice of America article. In the meantime, many local hukou reforms have taken place in other cities in Guangdong province, according to a February 24 Southern Daily report. There are also concerns about whether the new policies will be implemented because they are not compulsory, as a February 17 South China Morning Post (registration required) article and a February 18 National Business Daily article reported.
For more discussion on unemployment and hukou, see a previous CECC analysis Officials' Early Response to Unemployment and "Social Unrest" During Downturn, and section II--Freedom of Residence in the CECC 2008 Annual Report, including the Addendum: Recent Hukou Reforms (pp. 105-112).
| Source: -See Summary (2009-03-17 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-06-24 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=118848 |
Xinjiang Authorities Strengthen Controls Over Religion
Local governments in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) reported throughout early 2009 on measures to strengthen control over religious activity. Measures include carrying out a campaign aimed at "weakening religious consciousness," implementing rules to expel religious leaders for missing political study classes, monitoring students' activities during school vacations, and holding open trials to punish "illegal religious activity" and demonstrate its consequences to the public. (See below for more details). The reports indicate a continuing trend in heightened repression over religion in the region, which according to official statistics has a majority Muslim population. The measures also form part of broader efforts in the XUAR to strengthen security and guard against perceived threats to stability. The XUAR government identifies "religious extremism" and "illegal religious activity" as key threats to the region. (See the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2008 Annual Report for additional details.) The tightened controls follow heightened security measures in the XUAR implemented in 2008 amid preparations for the Olympic Games, intensified anti-terrorism campaigns in the region, and in response to protests among Uyghurs and Tibetans in China. Authorities continued to enforce harsh security measures and implemented widespread ideological campaigns throughout fall 2008 and into 2009. The steps to tighten control over religion also come as authorities have launched a third round of political training for "patriotic religious personnel" in an effort to enforce the notion that "stability is above all else" and to bolster support for policies on stability and economic development. According to a February 26 report from the Xinjiang Daily, the XUAR government will carry out training for 29,000 religious figures between 2009 and 2012. In a September 2008 speech, Nur Bekri announced plans to launch this training in 2009 and said it would be directed at Muslim religious personnel, according to a copy of the speech posted September 11 on Tianshan Net. Previous training has reached 43,700 participants--the figure refers to renci, which includes the possibility of repeat participants represented in this figure--in two rounds of sessions launched since 2001, according to the Xinjiang Daily report.
Recently reported measures by local governments to strengthen religious controls include:
Tightened Controls in Hoten
The Hoten district government announced plans to strengthen measures to deal with "illegal religious activities," according to a February 27 report on the Hoten Peace Net. The report described five measures: - Strengthening leadership and deployment of work on religion, including through the establishment of leading groups on "illegal religious activity," the use of accountability systems among officials, and through strengthened supervision over government work in this area.
- Increasing warnings against "illegal religious activity" and increasing propaganda on issues such as Communist Party policy toward religion and the nature of the "three forces" of terrorism, separatism, and extremism; using media like art and broadcast communications to spread propaganda and using artistic performances and recreational activities to weaken religious atmospheres; and carrying out activities such as events for people to sign their names to show resistance to "illegal religious activities."
- Deepening capacity to investigate and detect "illegal religious activity," including by mobilizing the support of local organizations and schools.
- "Strengthening management and purifying the environment" through five steps: strengthening management of religious activities; strengthening oversight of students during vacation periods through a system of both fixed and unscheduled contact with students; strengthening the management of the "cultural market," an activity that has been tied to censorship campaigns in the region; strengthening "inspection and control" over floating populations; and strengthening capacity for management.
- Stopping violations of the law and attacking crimes through measures including: carrying out public education and punishment of participants in "illegal religious activities"; penalizing and holding accountable heads of households, religious leaders, and other responsible people for the acts of students in "illegal" scripture classes; and holding open arrests and trials at the sites of illegal activity to send a message to the public about the consequences of such activity.
A March 4 report from the Xinjiang Peace Net reported positively on the Hoten district government's work to control "illegal religious activities," noting that authorities had already investigated and prosecuted "illegal religious activities," and had found large amounts of "illegal propaganda materials such as books, handwritten texts, CDs, and tapes," as well as ammunition and explosives. (A less detailed mention of this is also in the February 27 Xinjiang Peace Net report.) The March 4 report did not provide additional details on what made the religious activities and publications illegal nor on how the ammunition and explosives were related to religious activity. (For an example of how some "illegal religious activity" may be defined, see a question-and-answer sheet used in anti-separatism reeducation, dated November 12 from the Kelpin (Keping) county, Aqsu district, government Web site, available as a cached page, and a document providing a regional government definition of 23 kinds of illegal religious activity posted February 2, 2008, on the Chinggil (Qinghe) county, Altay district, Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture government Web site.) An overseas organization reported that the campaign in Hoten has included house-to-house inspections, along with closures of unauthorized religious schools and detentions of those involved, according to a March 30 Associated Press report (via Yahoo).
Increased Oversight to Address Outstanding Problems in Yeken County
Government, Communist Party, and county Islamic Association officials in Yeken (Shache) county, Kashgar district, organized a meeting for religious figures on February 16 to address a series of "outstanding problems" within religious circles and discuss steps to deal with the management of religious affairs, according to a February 24 Xinjiang Peace Net article. "Outstanding problems" included:- The discovery of scripture instruction sites at mosques within the scope of a few religious leaders' jurisdiction.
- "Illegal religious activity" extending across multiple localities.
- The discovery of "illegal tabligh activities" and people suspected of membership in Hizb ut-Tahrir.
- Failure to curb or report the presence of illegal propaganda.
- Inadequate enthusiasm among some religious figures toward contributing to the development of the rural economy.
The official also expressed concern about religious figures who did not participate in political education and who have a "half-baked" understanding of interpreting scripture. He called on Islamic Association officials to sharpen their sense of responsibility toward their work. In addition, the official outlined a series of measures for strengthening religious work in the county. The measures included implementing a detailed system of oversight to enforce political training among religious leaders and expelling religious leaders who miss a total of three study sessions. The official also called for using Friday prayers to convey information to worshipers on government policy on economic development, and for requiring religious leaders to report to authorities at least twice a month.
Campaign to "Weaken Religious Consciousness" Among Ethnic Minority Women and Young People in Ghulja
Authorities have launched a series of talks as part of Communist Party- and government-led propaganda education activities to "weaken religious consciousness and uphold a civilized and healthy life" among ethnic minority women and young people in Ghulja city, Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture, according to a March 18 report on the Fazhi Xinjiang Web site. The talks spread knowledge on legal topics such as the marriage law and thereby "weakened religious consciousness" among ethnic minority women and young people of the whole city, according to the report.
Using Intelligence Networks to Find Illegal Religious Activity in Awat
As part of steps to expand intelligence information networks in Awat county, Aqsu district, authorities have mobilized religious leaders and other groups to expand information gathering activities, according to a March 17 report on the Xinjiang Peace Net. As a result of intelligence leads, authorities have investigated and prosecuted four instances of underground scripture readings, investigated four instances of suspected participation in "illegal religious activity," and stopped one case of "religious interference into matrimony." The report also described two "masked" individuals, in a possible reference to efforts to investigate women wearing full head coverings.
Anti-Separatism Education Against Religion for Teachers in Bortala
A middle school in the Bortala Mongol Autonomous Region organized reeducation activities in the "battle against separatism" that referred to the importance of teachers refraining from participating in any religious activity, according to a January 14 report from the Xinjiang Peace Net. Past reports (1, 2) on measures directed against teachers, who are state employees, indicate such statements include teachers' activities outside of working hours.
Detaining Students Involved in "Illegal" Religious Classes in Lop and Awat Counties
XUAR public security officials reported banning three "illegal" sites of religious instruction in Lop county, Hoten district, and Awat county, Aqsu district, and detaining over 20 people involved as part of efforts to "strike hard" against the activities of the "three forces" and "cults" like Falun Gong, according to a February 3 report from the Xinhua Bingtuan Web site and a March 6 report from the Xinjiang Daily.
For more information on conditions in the XUAR, see Section IV--Xinjiang, in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-03-12 ) |
Posted on: 2009-06-24 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=118959 |
Governments in Xinjiang Continue to Sponsor, Sanction Job Recruitment That Discriminates Against Ethnic Minorities
Hiring practices that discriminate against ethnic minorities have continued in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), according to Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) monitoring of job recruiting announcements from the past year. The CECC found employment advertisements posted on government Web sites that reserved positions for Han Chinese in civil servant posts, state-owned enterprises, and private posts, indicating direct government involvement in discriminatory practices, as well as implicit government endorsement of and failure to prevent discriminatory practices in private hiring. The practices contravene provisions in the PRC Constitution and in Chinese laws that forbid discrimination. See, for example, Article 4 of the Constitution and Article 9 of the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law (REAL), both of which forbid discrimination based on ethnicity. Article 12 of the Labor Law and Article 3 of the Employment Promotion Law state that job applicants shall not face discrimination in job hiring based on factors including ethnicity, and Article 28 of the Employment Contract Law states that all ethnicities enjoy equal labor rights. Within this framework of non-discrimination, Article 14 of the Labor Law allows for separate legal stipulations to govern the hiring of ethnic minorities, and Article 28 of the Employment Promotion Law says that employing units shall give appropriate consideration to ethnic minority workers in job hiring. In addition, Article 22 of the REAL provides that ethnic autonomous government agencies shall give appropriate consideration to ethnic minorities in job hiring. Article 28 of the Implementing Provisions for the REAL also provides that ethnic autonomous areas give appropriate consideration to ethnic minorities in the job hiring process for government positions and includes provisions for their participation in higher levels of government.
The job recruitment programs observed by the CECC continue a trend in discriminatory hiring practices in the XUAR reported by the Commission in 2006 and 2005. Recent recruitment programs include:
- Four schools recruiting teachers within the Shihezi municipal education system have reserved all open positions exclusively for Han Chinese, and one school has reserved three of four open positions exclusively for Han Chinese, according to a job announcement issued January 24, 2009, by the Shihezi 8th Division Personnel Bureau, available as a download from the Shihezi Education Net and online from a page posted January 28 by the Shihezi Number 10 Middle School. In total, the positions form 17 of 69 open positions available in schools within the Shihezi education system. The remaining 52 slots are specified as unrestricted by ethnicity and thus are open to applicants of all ethnic groups including Han. On February 6, the Shihezi Personnel Bureau amended the announcement to remove two other hiring restrictions in the job recruitment, according to a February 10 Xinjiang Daily report, but left the restrictions on ethnicity in place.
- Jing (Jinghe) township, in Jing (Jinghe) county, Bayingol Mongol Autonomous Prefecture (XUAR), has advertised 11 open community public welfare positions, 6 of which are reserved for Han Chinese, 1 for an ethnic Uyghur, 2 for ethnic Kazakhs, and 2 for ethnic Mongols, according to a January 16 announcement posted January 21 on the Jing county government Web site. The announcement specifies that ethnic groups including Hui, Manchu, Xibo, and Zhuang may apply for the positions open to Han Chinese.
- The Turpan District Tobacco Monopoly Branch Office is recruiting for two positions, both reserved for Han Chinese, according to an announcement posted January 14 on the XUAR Personnel Department Web site.
- A mining company advertised only for Han Chinese to fill 18 open positions, according to a September 16, 2008, job announcement posted the following day on the Koktoqay (Fuyun) county government, Altay district, Web site.
- A new store advertised for 30 employees, specifying that 20 positions were for Han Chinese and 10 for ethnic minorities, according to a September 4 announcement posted on the Jing county government Web site.
- Job openings publicized as part of government-organized job recruiting activities in Jing county included 17 positions explicitly reserved for Han Chinese, according to a May 16 announcement on the Jing county government Web site. (See also a May 12 description of the job recruiting activities posted May 15 on the same Web site.) Descriptions of the remaining 100-plus positions either did not mention ethnicity or specified that there were no restrictions based on ethnicity. Employers listed appeared to include private employers alongside state-owned enterprises.
- The Aqsu District (XUAR) Human Resources Department visited the Xi'an Jiaotong University in Shaanxi province to recruit personnel for jobs in Aqsu hospitals and an agricultural technology center, reserving 18 of 43 positions for Han Chinese, according to an April 16 posting on the Xi'an Jiaotong University Web site. The Aqsu District Human Resources Department job announcement specified the remaining slots as unrestricted by ethnicity, thereby leaving them open to applicants of all ethnic groups including Han.
The discriminatory recruitment falls among other labor policies and practices in the XUAR that also restrict the job prospects of ethnic minorities. For example, measures to promote Mandarin-focused "bilingual" education in XUAR schools have resulted in language requirements that disadvantage ethnic minority teachers. Such job hiring and labor practices are part of broader policies in the region that also restrict ethnic minority rights. For additional information, see Section IV--Xinjiang in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-02-09 ) |
Posted on: 2009-06-10 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=117001 |
TAR Creates March 28 Holiday To Celebrate 1959 Dissolution of Dalai Lama's Government
Deputies to the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) People's Congress voted on January 19, 2009, to establish "Serfs Emancipation Day," a public holiday celebrating the March 28, 1959, Chinese government decree that dissolved the Dalai Lama's Lhasa-based Tibetan government, according to two January 19 Xinhua reports (1, 2 (translated in OSC, 22 January 09). Karma (Gama), Vice Chairman of the TAR People's Congress Standing Committee, explained at a January 19 press conference that Premier Zhou Enlai signed the State Council decree on March 28 "declaring a disbandment" of the Tibetan government after "the reactionary clique at the upper levels of Tibet led by the Dalai launched an all-round armed rebellion on 10 March, 1959, aimed at splitting the motherland." Legchog (Lieque), the Chairman of the Standing Committee, said Serfs Emancipation Day would "strengthen Tibetans' patriotism," according to a January 16 Xinhua report. TAR prefectural and county officials have met to "ensure that all people mark the occasion with festivities," according to a January 16 Radio Free Asia (RFA) report filed three days before the holiday was formally established. The report cited a TAR official who asked not to be identified and acknowledged that Tibetans are unwilling to celebrate the anniversary.
On March 10, 1959, tens of thousands of Tibetans in Lhasa gathered outside the Dalai Lama¡¯s summer residence (the Norbulingka Palace), where he was residing at the time, because they feared a People's Liberation Army (PLA) plot to harm the Dalai Lama, according to biographical information available on the Web site of the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama (OHHDL). Tension increased and on March 15 PLA artillery shells struck outside the Norbulingka, according to a chronology on the OHHDL Web site. The Dalai Lama escaped from Lhasa in disguise and under the cover of darkness on March 17, 1959. Earlier that day, PLA artillery shells exploded outside one of the Norbulingka gates, according to the Dalai Lama's autobiography, Freedom in Exile (p. 149). Speaking from India where he lives in exile, the Dalai Lama has on March 10 of every year since 1960 made a formal statement to the Tibetan people. (The Dalai Lama's 1961-2008 March 10 Statements are available on his official Web site.)
Most Tibetan Buddhists regard the Dalai Lama as their spiritual leader despite Party and government campaigns that seek to vilify and discredit him. Tibetan calls for the Dalai Lama to return to Tibet were widespread during the 2008 Tibetan protests (see below). The absence of any progress during the seventh and eighth rounds of the China-Dalai Lama dialogue in 2008 has deepened Tibetan frustration with the Chinese government. (See the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) 2008 Annual Report; Tibet: Special Focus for 2007 of the 2007 Annual Report; and Section VIII¡ªTibet of the 2006 Annual Report for more information on the status of negotiations between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama's representatives, and the Chinese government and Party's anti-Dalai Lama campaign.).
Establishing "Serfs Emancipation Day" and requiring Tibetans to participate in celebrations of the end of the Dalai Lama's government (and, by association, the departure of the Dalai Lama), is provocative at a time of heightened Tibetan sensitivity, possibly increasing further the risks to what Chinese officials call "social stability." March 10 is also the one-year anniversary of the start in Lhasa in 2008 of a cascade of Tibetan protests that by April 2008 had reached across the TAR and the Tibetan autonomous areas located in Qinghai, Gansu, and Sichuan provinces. The protests resulted in a large number of deaths, detentions, and disappearances according to reports by media and non-government organizations, but Chinese government measures to prevent information from leaving China have obstructed a full or accurate accounting of the consequences. The Lhasa Intermediate People's Court handed down seven sentences in October and November 2008 ranging from eight years in prison to life imprisonment to Tibetans who allegedly provided information about events in Lhasa to Tibetan organizations based in India. Chinese officials blamed "the Dalai Clique" for "masterminding" the 2008 protests and rioting, and did not acknowledge the role of rising Tibetan frustration with Chinese policies. (See the CECC 2008 Annual Report for more information on the Tibetan protests and their consequences.)
Some Tibetans living in Tibetan autonomous areas of China intend to express in a passive manner their discontent with developments over the past year, including the death and imprisonment of Tibetan protesters, by foregoing the usual celebration of Losar, the Tibetan lunar New Year (February 25 in 2009), according to the January 16 RFA report, a January 27 International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) report, and a January 29 Washington Post (WP) report. A Tibetan source in Aba (Ngaba) county, located in Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan province, told RFA that Tibetans in the county are "observing a year of mourning in memory of those who were killed, tortured, and jailed during the protests in Tibet." The ICT report noted that "many Tibetans posted blogs and comments mostly opposing any celebration" of the New Year. A monk in Qinghai told the WP that instead of celebrating the Tibetan or Chinese New Year, he and other monks would not eat "good food" or set off firecrackers.
Tibetans in Lhasa adopted non-celebration of Losar to express collective dissatisfaction in 1992, the first Tibetan New Year following a 14-month period of martial law imposed on March 8, 1989, after three days of protests and rioting in Lhasa. According to one eyewitness account:"That year, the first day of the Tibetan New Year, called Losar, fell on March 5, the anniversary of the demonstrations in 1988 and 1989. Many Lhasa residents had decided to acknowledge the coincidence of Tibetan New Year and March 5 not by doing, but by not doing. Contrary to tradition, tattered window-awnings, dirty door-hangings, and faded whitewash remained untouched, greeting the New Year with utter cheerlessness." (Steven Marshall, "Prisons in Tibet," in Elliot Sperling, Steven Marshall, Orville Schell, and Mickey Spiegel, Tibet Since 1950: Silence, Prison, or Exile, Aperture and Human Rights Watch (New York: Aperture, 2000), 144-149.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-01-29 ) |
Posted on: 2009-05-10 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=116724 |
State Security Cases From Xinjiang Appear to Surge in 2008
Courts in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) completed trials in 2008 for a total of 268 cases involving crimes of endangering state security (ESS), a number that appears to represent a surge over previous years, based on available data. (See analysis below for more details.) The XUAR High People's Court announced the number of cases during a report made at a January 9, 2009, meeting of the XUAR People's Congress, according to a January 10 report on the Xinhua Xinjiang Web site. Crimes of ESS (also translated as "endangering national security") are defined in articles 102-113 of the Chinese Criminal Law to include acts such as separatism, espionage, and armed rebellion. Many of the ESS crimes carry the possibility of life imprisonment and capital punishment. The apparent rise in ESS cases came during a year in which authorities implemented harsh security measures throughout the XUAR amid preparations for the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympic Games and protests in Uyghur and Tibetan areas of China. The figure's release also comes after limited official reports in 2008 of terrorist activity in the region, although the figure may not reflect all cases of alleged terrorism pursued by authorities. In December, a XUAR court found that two men had engaged in terrorist activity earlier in the year and sentenced them to death for "intentional homicide" and "illegally producing guns, ammunition and explosives," crimes outside the ESS category. See December 17 Xinhua reports in English and Chinese (via Xinjiang Peace Net) for more information. In 2008, procuratorate offices in the XUAR capital of Urumqi approved arrests of 133 people in 51 cases involving crimes carried out by the "three forces," including ESS crimes along with other "crimes of serious violence" such as carrying out explosions, murder, plunder, and kidnapping, according to a January 23 report from Urumqi Online. The government uses the term "three forces" to designate what it deems as terrorist, separatist, and "extremist" threats to the region's stability. The Urumqi Online article reported that the number of cases and people involved represented increases of 64.5 percent and 75 percent, respectively.
Official information on the number of completed ESS trials in the XUAR follows data released in December 2008 showing that, as of November 2008, XUAR procuratorate offices had issued indictments in 204 such cases that year, involving 1,154 people, according to a Procuratorial Daily report posted January 4 on the Xinjiang Peace Net. In total, the procuratorates approved the arrests of 1,295 people suspected of ESS crimes as of November, according to the report. The information on the total number of ESS trials concluded in 2008 did not include the number of people involved.
Number of People Indicted in the XUAR Eclipses Nationwide Totals for Previous Years, Trial Figures Appear to Surge
The XUAR ESS indictment figures for January through November, 2008, are almost as high as nationwide ESS indictment totals in 2007 in terms of number of cases involved and are approximately double in terms of individuals involved. The number of people indicted in the XUAR is also double or more the number of people indicted nationwide in 2006 and 2005. In 2007, procuratorates nationwide issued indictments in 231 cases involving 619 people, according to China's National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) figures for that year. The previous year, there were indictments nationwide in 258 cases involving 561 people, according to NBS figures for 2006. The figure in 2005 was 185 cases and 349 individuals, according to a compilation of national data on arrests, indictments, and trials in The Dui Hua Foundation's Winter 2009 Dialogue Newsletter. Available data, including a comparison with total numbers of ESS cases tried nationwide in the past five years through 2007 (see The Dui Hua Foundation's compilation of figures) and information from the XUAR on ESS cases accepted by XUAR courts since 2003, also suggests that ESS trial figures in the XUAR in 2008 may have increased significantly from previous years. The head of the XUAR High People's Court reported in 2007 that since 2003, the XUAR court system has accepted an average of roughly 150 ESS cases per year, according to an August 14, 2007, article from the Xinhua Xinjiang Web site.
XUAR Justice System Places Stability "Above All Else"
The apparent surge in ESS cases from the XUAR comes amid information from XUAR procuratorate and court officials emphasizing their offices' roles in upholding stability. The January 4 Procuratorial Daily article reported, "Since 2008, all levels of the XUAR procuratorate have from start to finish taken safeguarding social stability as the utmost political task for strengthening legal supervision." The January 23 Urumqi Online article used similar language to describe procuratorial work in that city. At a meeting on "struggle against separatism" reeducation held by the XUAR procuratorate on December 1, a procuratorial official called on officials to recognize that stability "is above all else," according to a December 3 article from the Xinjiang Legal Daily. In August 2008, the head of the XUAR High People's Court "said [that XUAR courts] at all levels will always maintain high vigilance against ethnic separatism and illegal religious activities to safeguard the motherland's unity and national security and will give top priority to the trial of crimes endangering national security," according to a description of his remarks reported in an August 15, 2008, China News Service article (via Open Source Center, subscription required).
For more information on conditions in the XUAR, see section IV--Xinjiang in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-01-15 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-04-16 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=116338 |
Propaganda Officials Censor Coverage of Beijing Fire
Propaganda officials in Beijing ordered Chinese Web sites to delete blogs and discussion groups about a fire at a hotel under construction on the grounds of China Central Television's (CCTV) headquarters that began on the evening of February 9, 2009, according to a February 11 Los Angeles (LA) Times article. The officials also ordered Chinese media not to publish photos, videos, or in-depth reports about the fire, which took place in Beijing, and to run only official stories issued by the Xinhua News Agency instead of their own reports, the article said. Other foreign and Hong Kong media reported the existence of a propaganda order whose description closely matches the description in the LA Times article, including a February 11 Agence France-Presse (AFP) report (via Straits Times), a February 11 Times of London report, a February 10 New York Times (NYT) report, and a February 10 Apple Daily (Hong Kong) report (subscription required).
The fire, which reportedly began at 8:27 pm, quickly engulfed the 30-story hotel, and was allegedly caused by an illegal fireworks show arranged by CCTV employees for the last day of China's Lunar New Year holiday, according to a February 11 Xinhua article. The timing of the propaganda order is unclear. Apple Daily, citing the Hong Kong-based Information Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, reported that at 11:15 pm on the night of the fire, the Network News Management Department of the Beijing Municipal Internet Propaganda Management Office under the Beijing Municipal Government issued the propaganda order. LA Times reported that by the next morning the "Beijing propaganda ministry" issued the order.
The impetus behind the order is also unclear, although a flood of comments on the Internet after the fire reflected public anger toward CCTV and may have prompted the order, according to AFP and LA Times. LA Times reported that the fire "laid bare simmering anger and resentment toward the network both for spending public money on grand construction projects and for continuing to broadcast government propaganda." The state-run CCTV is China's sole national television network and reaches more than a billion viewers, according to an August 21, 2008, NYT article. According to the network's Web site, CCTV serves as "an important mouthpiece for the Communist Party, government, and people."
Propaganda officials, led by the Communist Party's Central Propaganda Department (CPD), frequently issue orders to Chinese media intending to ensure that news coverage is consistent with the Party's political agenda. Prior to last year's Beijing Olympics, propaganda officials issued a number of orders to journalists, banning coverage of politically sensitive topics such as food safety issues and directing them on how to cover controversies arising before and during the Olympics. In December 2008, the CPD reportedly issued two orders instructing domestic news organizations to stop reporting on a CCTV reporter who had been arrested at her home in Beijing by officials from Shanxi province and to run only Xinhua versions of the story, according to a December 12 South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) article (subscription required). Propaganda officials often direct media to run only Xinhua stories following events deemed politically sensitive. Xinhua is an institution directly under the control of the State Council, China's central government, according to the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China's Web site. In January 2009, top Party officials said the propaganda agenda for 2009 would focus on safeguarding economic development and social stability.
Reporting by Xinhua and other official outlets appeared to dominate initial coverage of the fire although news outlets were observed later to publish their own photos and stories. State media did not report the fire until 10 pm, with Xinhua leading the way with just a one-sentence brief, according to a February 12 South China Morning Post article (subscription required). (According to Xinhua's Web site, at 10:07 pm the news agency issued a one-sentence story and at 10:14 pm published several photos.) According to the Beijing Youth Daily's Web site, the paper posted pictures and a brief story from the official Chinanews.com on February 9. Early on February 10, the paper published its own story that reported similar content as Xinhua reports printed elsewhere (see, e.g., February 10 Beijing Daily article), including the report that top Chinese officials, among them CPD Director Liu Yunshan, had rushed to the scene. On February 11, the paper issued a lengthier report including its own photos. The extent to which such reporting was consistent with the propaganda order reported here or other orders not known to the public is unclear. A previous Congressional Executive Commission on China analysis reported that in May 2008 many Chinese journalists ignored an order prohibiting them from traveling to Sichuan province to cover an earthquake.
The geographic scope of the order is also unclear. In Beijing, residents had difficulty finding images of the fire in the city's newspapers, on the Internet, or on television, according to the February 10 NYT article. Outside of Beijing, however, "photos and giant headlines about the fire were splashed across the front pages of newspapers throughout the country," according to a February 10 report on the Danwei Web site, which issues commentary on media, advertising, and urban life in China.
For more information on the Chinese government and Party's censorship of Chinese media, see Section II - Freedom of Expression, in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-02-17 ) |
Posted on: 2009-03-12 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=117628 |
Officials' Early Response to Unemployment and "Social Unrest" During Downturn
Since late 2008, Premier Wen Jiabao and other high level officials have made public statements acknowledging rising unemployment in China and the new challenges to "social stability" posed by unemployed migrant workers, according to a January 28 BBC report and a February 2 Financial Times report. (For more discussion of "social stability" and "social unrest," see the Preface and General Overview in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2008 Annual Report.)
Lower Economic Growth and Higher Unemployment
Chinese officials have stressed that 8 percent is the minimum needed to create enough jobs to avoid unrest, according to a January 29 Economist report. The latest economic figures may add to the leadership's concern. China's gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate slowed to 6.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, marking the lowest growth rate since 2002, according to a January 22 China Daily report citing an official from China's National Bureau of Statistics.
Among the challenges associated with the downturn, two issues related to employment--migrant workers' returning home and employment of college graduates--remain the most worrisome to Chinese leaders despite new measures to sustain economic growth and restrain inflation, as Premier Wen Jiabao has indicated, according to a December 20, 2008, China News report. According to Wen, employment of college graduates is a top priority for the government because 6.5 million college graduates are expected to join the workforce in 2009, and even if China's economy attains the 8 percent target growth rate in 2009, it can provide at most 9 million jobs.
Furthermore, an estimated 20 million migrant workers throughout China either have lost jobs or returned home without employment due to the global financial crisis, according to Chen Xiwen, a rural issues expert who serves as director of the Office of the Central Leading Group on Rural Work and deputy director of the Office of the Central Leading Group on Finance and Economics, as quoted in a February 2 Caijing report. Chen also stated that unemployment among migrant workers may deteriorate during the first half of 2009 before the financial crisis "hits the bottom."
Concern over "Social Unrest"
In response to rising unemployment among migrant workers and the possibility of "mass incidents" related to social problems exacerbated by the economic downturn, the government has issued new policies, including the State Council Circular Regarding Handling Current Migrant Worker Affairs (State Council Circular) on December 20, 2008, PRC Central People's Government Opinions Regarding Promoting Agricultural Development and Increasing Farmers' Income (Or the so-called "No. 1 Document") on December 31, 2008, and Guiding Opinion Regarding Handling Current Economic Situation and Stabilizing Labor Relations on January 23, 2009. These three documents place emphasis on migrant workers, farmers, and laborers respectively, but they all make reference to "maintaining social harmony and stability" during the financial crisis.
Labor disputes nearly doubled in the first 10 months of 2008 compared to the same period of 2007, according to Wang Shenqjun, president of the Supreme People's Court, as quoted in a December 22, 2008, Radio Free Asia report. The Sunday Times documented numerous protests by farmers, factory workers, and teachers against their employers and government offices in Guangdong, Zhejiang, and Jiangsu provinces in December 2008 and January 2009, according to its February 1, 2009, report.
Officials have identified sensitive issues such as confiscation of rural land, environmental pollution, citizen relocation and resettlement, and handling of collective properties that may trigger "mass incidents," according to a February 2, 2009, Xinhua report. In response to a question regarding how local governments should handle protests, Chen Xiwen explained:"If 'mass incidents' happen, leaders at all levels must be at the front line to explain to the people and persuade them face-to-face. Leaders cannot hide behind public security or the police, thus causing conflicts. Except for those unfortunate situations where there is beating, attacking, robbing, or burning, in principle, no police should be deployed. Leaders at all levels should go to the front line to solve problems." Chen also cited 'mass incidents' in Guizhou and Yunnan provinces in 2008 as examples of local authorities' "poor handling" of protests and harming the people's interests as a result.
Migrant Workers and Hukou
The economic downturn, the concern over unemployed migrant workers, and official unease about "social unrest" also have rekindled discussion of how to implement long-term protections for migrant workers effectively, and of the possible abolition of the household registration (hukou) system. (For a discussion of China's household registration system, see section II--Freedom of Residence in the CECC 2008 Annual Report, including the Addendum: Recent Hukou Reforms (pp. 105-112); for a broader retrospective, see also the CECC October 2005 CECC topic paper on China's household registration system, and a chart on Chinese Hukou reforms as of 2004.)
China has 950 million citizens who hold rural hukou, including 130 million migrant workers who have rural hukou but work and live in urban areas, according to a January 19, 2009, Caijing report. Migrant workers without urban hukou are more vulnerable to exploitation. The economic downturn risks "amplifying rights violations" linked to China's discriminatory hukou system, which denies migrant workers the social welfare benefits available to those who hold urban hukou, according to a Human Rights Watch statement on January 23. Many unemployed migrant workers without urban hukou choose to return home after losing jobs. However, disputes occur when migrant workers return home to find that their land has been either "collectively contracted" without their consent by local officials for other commercial purposes or contracted to other farmers, according to the January 19 Caijing report. For the longer-term protection of migrant workers and to prevent "social instability," experts have called for accelerating hukou reforms that would allow migrant workers to integrate fully into the urban system, according to a January 25, 2009, Xinhua report, and Caijing reports on December 18 and 23, 2008.
For more information on the economic downturn and "social instability," see a previous CECC analysis: Officials To Strengthen Security Before Anniversaries and During Economic Downturns.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-02-19 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-03-12 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=117063 |
Government Calls for Strengthening Propaganda on Ethnic Policy
Two central government agencies recently issued an outline to strengthen propaganda education on the government and Communist Party's policy on ethnic issues, according to reports from Chinese media. The undated Outline Concerning Propaganda Education on the Party and State's Ethnic Policy (Outline) was issued by the Central Propaganda Bureau and State Ethnic Affairs Commission and publicized in early February. (See, e.g., a February 4 Xinhua article describing the Outline.) The Outline follows other efforts in recent months to bolster state policy on ethnic issues, in areas including the promotion of "ethnic unity education" and the advancement of science and technology development among ethnic minorities. The policy guidelines come in the aftermath of demonstrations in spring 2008 by Tibetans and Uyghurs protesting government policies toward these groups. Tibetans and Uyghurs are among the 55 groups designated as "minority ethnicities" (shaoshu minzu, also translated as "minority nationalities") by the Chinese government.
The recent Outline on propaganda education affirms state policy toward ethnic minority groups and ethnic relations, provides a description of specific measures to address ethnic issues, and outlines methods for enhancing policy implementation. Specific features include:
Affirming the Importance of Ethnic Unity
Several points within the Outline provide an overview of China's status as a multiethnic country and describe the recent state of ethnic relations. - According to the Outline, China's multiethnic status "has been the determinant that strengthening ethnic unity, in the final analysis, is a major task affecting the unification of the motherland, territorial integrity, and consolidating frontier defense." (Point 1)
- While affirming that all ethnic groups are equal and are "masters of their own affairs" within the socialist system, the Outline also notes outstanding problems remain as a result of factors such as inadequate mutual understanding among ethnic groups, discrepancies in economic and cultural development, a historical legacy of ethnic bias and estrangement among ethnic groups, and poor understanding of the legal structure affecting ethnic groups. (Point 3)
- The Outline also notes that "international hostile forces" continue to carry out the "political schemes" of "westernization" and "separatism." According to the Outline, these "hostile forces" coordinate with "domestic ethnic separatist forces" to use "so-called ethnic, religious, and human rights issues" to carry out activities such as "infiltration" and "subversion." The Outline describes March 2008 protests in Tibetan areas as an "alarm bell" in this respect. (Point 3)
Affirming State Policy as a "Lifeline" for Ethnic Unity
- The Outline affirms the state's existing model for dealing with ethnic issues, noting that Party policy "has concentrated the wisdom and painstaking effort of several generations of Party figures in their dealing with ethnic issues, and it is an important component of the Party's basic theories, basic vocabulary, basic programs, and basic experiences[.]" (Point 5)
- It also highlights the importance of strengthening ethnic relations and ethnic unity in order to realize full implementation of Party policy, while also noting that improving ethnic relations and unity can only be truly achieved under Party policy. (Point 6)
Describing State Policy
Several points within the Outline provide a general overview of Party policy on ethnic issues.- The Outline describes equality among ethnic groups as a cornerstone of Party policy and describes legal protections for ethnic minorities within the PRC Constitution and laws. It adds that the state guarantees equal rights in areas including employment and that each ethnic group has the right to use and develop its own language. (Point 8) (The Congressional-Executive Commission on China has observed job hiring practices in both government and private sectors that discriminate against ethnic minorities. See analyses from 2005, 2006, and 2009. It has also tracked policies that undercut protections for ethnic minority languages stipulated in Chinese law.)
- While acknowledging that problems remain in ethnic relations and ethnic unity, the Outline attributes them to "contradictions among the people" and calls for promoting "principles, legal institutions, policies, and strategies" to remedy this. It also calls for resisting "international hostile forces raising the banner of such things as 'ethnicity,' 'religion,' and 'human rights' to carry out westernization and separatist activities toward our country." In addition, it calls for striking against the "infiltration and sabotage" of "ethnic separatist forces, religious extremist forces, and violent terrorist forces." (Point 9)
- The Outline describes its system of self-government in designated ethnic minority areas as a basic policy that promotes ethnic minorities' right to autonomy. At the same time, the Outline stresses the role of autonomous governments in guaranteeing the fundamental policies of the Party and central government. (Point 10)
Strengthening Implementation of State Policy- The Outline concludes with a call for propaganda education on the state's policy on ethnic issues, calling for education among both ethnic minorities and "especially" among Han Chinese, and education of both the public and "especially" of cadres. (Point 13)
- The Outline also calls on service providers, employers, and other groups to observe legal provisions that protect equality among ethnic groups. In addition, it calls for preventing situations that "hurt the feelings of ethnic groups and injure ethnic unity" (Point 14), sentiments that have been used in the past to promote publishing restrictions.
Although it attributes outstanding problems to "contradictions among the people" rather than shortcomings in state policy, the Outline's attention to existing problems underscores the barriers that ethnic minority citizens of China continue to face in protecting their rights. As noted in the CECC 2007 and 2008 Annual Reports, ethnic minorities in China do not enjoy the "right to administer their internal affairs" as guaranteed to them in Chinese law. Overarching Party and government policy limits the scope of China's regional ethnic autonomy system and places curbs on autonomous governments' legislative powers. Although the Chinese government protects some aspects of ethnic minority rights and is more tolerant of ethnic minority communities not perceived to challenge state policies, shortcomings in both the substance and the implementation of Chinese policies toward ethnic minorities prevent ethnic minority citizens from enjoying their rights in line with domestic Chinese law and international legal standards.
For additional information, see the "Special Focus" on ethnic minority issues within the CECC 2005 Annual Report, Section II--Ethnic Minority Rights and Section IV--Tibet in the 2007 Annual Report and Section II--Ethnic Minority Rights, Section IV--Xinjiang, and Section V--Tibet in the 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-02-17 ) |
Posted on: 2009-03-12 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=117640 |
Chengdu Court Postpones Trial of Activist Huang Qi
The Wuhou District People's Court in Chengdu, Sichuan province, postponed the trial of rights activist Huang Qi after initially notifying Huang's wife and his lawyer on February 2, 2009, that the trial would be held the next day, according to February 2 articles in the Washington Post (WP) and Associated Press (AP, via WTOP.com). Huang's wife, Zeng Li, said the court called her twice on February 2, first informing her of the trial date on the next day, and later telling her the date had been postponed and that she would receive three days' notice before the trial. No new date has been announced. Huang, founder of the rights advocacy Web site, 64tianwang.com, has been detained since June 2008 on charges of illegally possessing state secrets. Prior to his detention, Huang had traveled to areas affected by the May 2008 Sichuan earthquake and posted articles on his Web site about demands by parents for compensation and an investigation into school collapses that killed thousands of children.
The court's original one-day notice would have violated Chinese law had it been carried out. Article 151(4) of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) requires the court to notify the defendant's counsel and representatives no later than three days before the opening of the court session. Furthermore, Article 151(2) requires the court to deliver the indictment to the defendant no later than 10 days before the opening of a court session. One of Huang's lawyers, Mo Shaoping, called the one-day notice "a totally illegal process," according to the AP article. According to Mo, the judge blamed the short notice on difficulties reaching Huang's lawyer and family. Mo and Zeng told AP that their addresses and phone numbers were contained in court documents. Moreover, Zeng said she had been trying to reach the court for weeks to no avail. Prosecutors and court officials told WP they were not permitted to speak to foreign media, and the AP's calls to the court on February 2 went unanswered.
The underlying activity giving rise to the state secrets charge is unclear. Mo told Agence France-Presse (AFP) last September that authorities had questioned Huang about interviews he conducted while visiting areas affected by the Sichuan earthquake, according to a September 24 AFP article. "They also asked him about issues regarding his charge of illegally possessing state secrets," Mo told AFP. Mo was not able to disclose further information about the state secret Huang is alleged to have possessed. The Chinese government takes a broad interpretation of what constitutes a state secret that potentially includes essentially any matter of public concern. "There's an expansive definition of state secrets, and the problem is it cannot be challenged, and very often the courts don't see the documents that are allegedly state secrets," Nicholas Bequelin, a China researcher for Human Rights Watch, told the New York Times in a February 2 article about Huang's case. "There's no mechanism under Chinese law to challenge something that the prosecution says is a state secret. So basically, if you're charged with state secrets, it's unlikely you can shake the charges," Bequelin said. Furthermore, by alleging that a defendant's case involves state secrets, authorities may deny the defendant access to a lawyer. In a March 10, 2006, report (searchable by date on the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Web site) based on visits to China, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment noted that China's vaguely defined crimes of endangering state security, splittism, subverting state power, and supplying state secrets left "their application open to abuse particularly of the rights to freedom of religion, speech, and assembly," and recommended the abolition of such "political crimes."
Plainclothes police took Huang into custody on June 10, 2008. Chengdu public security officials formally arrested him on July 18 on the state secrets charge. Under Article 96 of the CPL, lawyers in state secrets cases must obtain the approval of investigating authorities before meeting with a client. Mo was not able to meet with Huang until September 23, according to the September 24 AFP article. Huang's lawyers have criticized their lack of access to the police's evidence and case files, according to the AFP article and a November 12 Radio Free Asia (RFA) article (in Chinese). According to the RFA article and a November 14 Voice of America (VOA) article (in Chinese), prosecutors have returned the case to police for supplementary investigation on two occasions, the second occurring in November. VOA quoted one of Huang's lawyers as saying the supplementary investigations indicated that the state's evidence was insufficient.
Huang previously served a five-year sentence from 2000 to 2005 for "inciting subversion of state power." The court in that case cited articles Huang posted on his Web site dealing with topics such as "democracy," "June 4," and "Falun Gong."
For more information on Huang's case, please see his record of detention, searchable through the Congressional-Executive Commission on China's Political Prisoner Database.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-02-06 ) |
Posted on: 2009-03-12 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=117139 |
Top Officials Say Propaganda in 2009 To Focus on Economy and Stability
In early January 2009, top Chinese Communist Party officials outlined a propaganda agenda for the year that focuses on safeguarding economic development and social stability. Li Changchun, a member of the Party's Politburo Standing Committee, and Liu Yunshan, Director of the Party's Central Propaganda Department (CPD), a department responsible for censorship of China's media, outlined the agenda during the National Propaganda Directors' meeting in Beijing on January 4-5, according to a January 5 Xinhua article.
- Saying there had been "new, complex changes in the domestic and international situation," Li named safeguarding "economic development" and "social stability" as two of the four most important tasks for the year. Li told officials to improve their guidance of public opinion. They should provide "a favorable public opinion environment for maintaining the calm, steady, and relatively fast development of the economy and society," "vigorously promote social stability," and "maintain the favorable situation of unity, harmony, and stability," Li said. He also said that officials should "vigorously highlight that the Communist Party is good, socialism is good" and promote the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China.
- Liu announced a "concrete agenda for propaganda, ideological, and cultural work in 2009" that included "integrating a heightened sense of crisis with shoring up confidence" and "integrating insistence on positive propaganda with defusing public emotion." He also said that officials should "seize the critical links" to promote propaganda overseas and through the press, and literature and art publications.
Li and Liu's statements regarding the direction of the Party's propaganda agenda are in line with concerns expressed recently by other Chinese officials over increasing "social unrest" in 2009, amid the country's economic downturn and the run-up to several significant anniversaries. Propaganda officials had already received instructions to put a positive spin on China's economy. In November 2008, Liu Yunshan called on them to prioritize "economic propaganda work," with "positive propaganda" as their guiding principle.
Propaganda officials, led by the CPD, monitor and censor domestic news to ensure consistency with the Party's political agenda. Li and Liu's statements may indicate the targets for censorship this year. Over the last several months, officials have targeted a number of news organizations for economic reports perceived to be "negative." - The Hong Kong-based Information Centre for Human Rights and Democracy reported that authorities in Shanxi province suspended two journalists and two editors for producing a television episode on the potential bankruptcy of a Linfen textile mill and the uncertain future of the mill's 6,300 workers, according to a January 6 Associated Press/Kyodo article (via Breitbart.com) and a January 6 Radio Free Asia article. The episode, which was to air on the program "Concern" [Guanzhu] in December 2008, was never broadcast after Linfen officials reviewing the episode canceled the program for "serious political error." The clips reportedly showed workers protesting at the Linfen government building.
- In September 2008, the Inner Mongolia Press and Publication Bureau ordered the three-month suspension of the China Business Post after it published a report in July critical of the Agricultural Bank of China, which at the time was preparing for a stock offering.
- In September 2008, propaganda officials ordered major financial Web sites to remove "negative" reports regarding China's stock markets, according to a September 10 South China Morning Post article (subscription required).
The Party's propaganda agenda does not mean that China's state-controlled media will entirely avoid stories relating to the economic downturn. China's media, for example, have reported on the government's acknowledgement of rising unemployment and slowing economic growth (see, e.g., a February 2, 2009, Caijing article, on a government official's estimates that 20 million migrant workers are unemployed, and a January 22, 2009, China Daily article, on the decrease in GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2008). Such stories are not necessarily inconsistent with the Party's agenda. Commentators have noted that the Internet has forced government officials to respond more quickly and openly to news developments in order to maintain control of the agenda, according to a November 18, 2008, Bloomberg report (reprinted in International Herald Tribune).
For more information on how the Chinese government and Party censor China's media, see Section II - Freedom of Expression, in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-02-05 ) |
Posted on: 2009-03-12 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=117025 |
Uyghur Historian Released From Prison
Uyghur historian Tohti Tunyaz completed his 11-year sentence for "inciting splittism" and "unlawfully obtaining state secrets" on February 10, 2009, according to information accessible to the public in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) Political Prisoner Database, and he has since been released from prison, according to February 10 reports from the Sankei and Mainichi (via Yahoo) newspapers, based on information from sources close to the case. According to the reports, after being met by his sister at the prison in Urumqi, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), Tohti Tunyaz traveled to a relative's home. The Sankei report said it is unclear whether Tohti Tunyaz will be allowed to return to Japan, where he had previously lived. According to the Mainichi report, his wife and two children reside in Japan.
As noted in the CECC Political Prisoner Database, on February 11, 1998, Chinese authorities detained Tohti Tunyaz, an ethnic Uyghur citizen of China based at Tokyo University in Japan, while he was visiting the XUAR to conduct research on Uyghur history. On March 10, 1999, the Urumqi Intermediate People's Court sentenced him to 11 years¡¯ imprisonment for "inciting splittism" and "unlawfully supplying state secrets to entities outside China," crimes under Articles 103 and 111 of the Criminal Law. On February 15, 2000, the Xinjiang High People's Court rejected his appeal, but it changed the charge of "unlawfully supplying state secrets" to foreign entities to the charge of "unlawfully obtaining state secrets," a crime under Article 282 of the Criminal Law. Sources close to the case said the alleged "state secrets" were a list of documents from an official librarian and sources said that Tohti Tunyaz had not published a separatist book, though the trial court alleged he had. On May 17, 2001, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found his imprisonment to be arbitrary and in violation of his right to freedom of thought, expression, and opinion (decision via University of Minnesota Human Rights Library). Tohti Tunyaz served his sentence in the Xinjiang Number 3 Prison in Urumqi.
Authorities in the XUAR continue to hold other Uyghurs in detention for exercising their right to free expression, based on information accessible to the public in the CECC Political Prisoner Database. Cases include:- Miradil Yasin and Mutellip T¨¦yip. Xinjiang University (XU) security staff detained Miradil (Mir'adil) Yasin and Mutellip T¨¦yip on December 20, 2008, for distributing leaflets on campus calling on students to hold a demonstration. XU staff notified public security offices, which took the two young men into detention.
- Mehbube Ablesh. An employee in the advertising department at the Xinjiang People's Radio Station, Mehbube Ablesh was fired from her job in August 2008 and detained in apparent connection to her writings for the Internet that were critical of government policies, including "bilingual" education.
- Nurmemet Yasin. A XUAR court sentenced writer Nurmemet (Nurmuhemmet) Yasin to 10 years in prison in 2005 for "inciting splittism'' after he wrote a story about a caged bird who commits suicide rather than live without freedom. Korash Huseyin, chief editor of the journal that published Nurmemet Yasin's story, received a three-year sentence in 2005 for "dereliction of duty." Korash Huseyin completed his sentence in February 2008 and is presumed to have been released from prison.
- Abdulla Jamal. Authorities arrested teacher Abdulla Jamal in April 2005, after he submitted for publication a manuscript that authorities claimed incited separatism. The arrest followed his detention a month earlier, along with the detention of 3 other teachers and 17 or 18 students, ostensibly for involvement in a fight between ethnic Uyghur and Han Chinese students.
- Abdulghani Memetemin. A XUAR court sentenced journalist Abdulghani Memetemin to nine years' imprisonment in 2003 for providing information on government repression against Uyghurs to an overseas organization that reports on human rights abuses in the XUAR. Authorities characterized this act as "supplying state secrets to an organization outside the country."
The CECC reported in its 2008 Annual Report that repression in the XUAR increased in 2008 amid preparations for the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games, limited official reports of terrorist activity, and protests among Uyghurs and Tibetans in China. Authorities implemented harsh security measures, especially among the ethnic Uyghur population, including wide-scale detentions, inspections of households, restrictions on Uyghurs' domestic and international travel, restrictions on peaceful protest, and increased controls over religious activity and religious practitioners. The government also continued to strengthen policies aimed at diluting Uyghur ethnic identity and promoting assimilation. Since publishing its 2008 Annual Report, the CECC has observed a continuation of harsh security measures and policies that place assimilation pressures on ethnic minorities.
For additional information about conditions in the XUAR, see the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-02-03 ) |
Posted on: 2009-03-12 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=116781 |
Restrictions on Information Access in Tibetan Areas Increase
Internet and cell phone text messaging services in Tibetan areas of western China reportedly have been disrupted, according to a March 10, 2009, Associated Press (AP) article and a February 22, 2009, Reuters article. While access to the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) itself has remained severely restricted, foreign journalists recently reported greater harassment in Tibetan areas in neighboring provinces outside the TAR, according to a March 9 statement of the Foreign Correspondents Club of China (FCCC), an association of Beijing-based journalists. The communications disruptions and harassment of foreign journalists coincide with a series of dates that many Tibetans consider to have a high level of cultural and political sensitivity, and have made it difficult to access and verify information about reported increases in security measures implemented by Chinese officials, and the impact of such measures on Tibetans and other residents in those areas.
AP reported that Internet and cell phone text messaging services in the region were "spotty" and that residents of Lhasa, the capital of the TAR, had received a text message from cell phone service provider China Mobile warning of disruptions to phone calls and text messages between March 10 to May 1 "due to networks improvements." A China Mobile customer service representative reportedly confirmed the message's existence to AP. The Reuters article reported that unnamed residents across the region said they were not able to send or receive text messages or to access the Internet. Chinanews.com, an official state news agency, said that cell phones were operating normally in Lhasa and cited reports from cell phone stores in Lhasa that there had been no noticeable rise in complaints about cell phone users not being able to dial out or receive text messages, according to a March 10 article
The popular Tibetcul.com Web site reportedly has been shut down since the afternoon of March 5. According to a March 5 statement on the Web site and a March 7 Reuters article, the Web site closed for repairs on March 5 and would be inoperable for about a week. The site featured news from China's state-controlled media as well as cultural and Buddhist content, according to the Reuters article.
FCCC's March 9 statement urged the Chinese government to "halt a wave of detentions of journalists and open Tibetan areas for news coverage." The association reported that in the previous week officials detained, turned back, and confiscated the tapes of, reporters from at least six media organizations attempting to visit Tibetan areas in the provinces of Gansu, Sichuan, and Qinghai. Under foreign reporting regulations issued in October 2008, foreign reporters are generally allowed to report without restrictions, although officials made clear at the time that foreign reporters would still require special permits to travel to the TAR. FCCC reported that in the recent instances officials gave no legal basis for the restrictions outside the TAR. AP reported on February 12 that local officials have been barring foreigners not only from the TAR, but from other parts of western China with large Tibetan populations. Furthermore, on March 11 AP reported that the travel ban had been extended to Jiuzhaigou valley in Sichuan province. Jampa Phuntsog (Xiangba Pingcuo), Chairman of the TAR government, recently described the conditions foreign reporters should meet in order to be allowed into the TAR, saying that the TAR's "door is always open" to foreign journalists "as long as the reporters conduct their coverage in a just and objective way that is conducive to Tibet's social and economic development," according to a March 6 Xinhua report.
The FCCC statement also said that the journalists reported official intimidation of their Chinese co-workers, with one suggesting that officials were targeting Chinese counterparts who could not benefit from any protection the new regulations might afford.
The series of sensitive dates in 2009 includes the Tibetan New Year (Losar) on February 25, the fiftieth anniversary of March 10, 1959, the date when tens of thousands of Tibetans in Lhasa gathered outside the Dalai Lama's Norbulingka residence because they feared a People's Liberation Army plot to harm him, and the first observance of "Serfs Emancipation Day" on March 28, a government-established holiday marking the end of the Dalai Lama's government. Officials in Lhasa, the capital of the TAR, have launched a "strike hard" anti-crime campaign involving stepped up checks on residents. Foreign media accounts of the period note an increase in police and military presence in Tibetan areas, but that verifying the situation is difficult. (See, e.g., March 10 AP article). Similar communications disruptions and harassment of foreign journalists were evident following a series of protests in Tibetan areas that began on March 10, 2008, in Lhasa and spread to the Tibetan areas of Sichuan, Gansu, and Qinghai provinces. (For CECC analysis of these protests, click here.)
For more information on the Chinese government's attempts to control media coverage and access to information about the Tibetan protests in 2008, see Section II - Freedom of Expression, in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-03-11 ) |
Posted on: 2009-03-12 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=118912 |
Chinese Government Mandates "Ethnic Unity Education" to Promote Party Policy on Ethnic Groups
The Chinese government has directed schools throughout the country to implement "ethnic unity education," in a stated effort to promote Communist Party policy on ethnic minorities. The trial Guiding Program on Ethnic Unity Education in Schools, issued November 26, 2008, by the Ministry of Education and State Ethnic Affairs Commission (SEAC) and publicized in December (see a December 15 Xinhua report on the Central People's Government Web site), calls for "ethnic unity education" starting in grade three of elementary school and extending to high school and vocational schools. Describing work to promote ethnic unity as an "inevitable demand" for strengthening "socialist ethnic relations" and safeguarding stability and unification of the country, the program requires schools to guarantee teaching 10-12 hours a year of "ethnic unity education" in elementary and junior high school, 8-10 hours in high school, and 12-14 hours at the vocational school level. The content of the classes, which must use government-approved teaching materials, includes general information on China's ethnic groups and adds a focus on issues including "safeguarding the unification of the motherland" and "opposing separatism" starting in the upper levels of elementary school. Students in high school also study other multiethnic countries and learn the "superiority of the Communist Party's and [Chinese] state's ethnic minority policy." The "ethnic unity education" curriculum also includes topics such as the state's "guarantee of ethnic minorities' freedom of religious belief" and their rights to "preserve and reform" their customs and "use and develop" ethnic minority languages.
The November 2008 program comes after Tibetans and Uyghurs held demonstrations earlier in the year challenging the Chinese government's ethnic minority policies, though the program also builds on earlier efforts to promote ethnic unity education. (For more information, see previous CECC analyses on the Tibetan and Uyghur demonstrations. For information on older central and local government attention to the promotion of "ethnic unity education," see, for example, article 6 of the 1995 Education Law, a 2004 report on the Tonghai county, Yunnan province, government Web site, and a 2005 report (estimated date) from the Henan province Ethnic Affairs Commission Web site.) The Uyghur and Tibetan demonstrators in 2008 had protested issues including government restrictions on religious practice and controls over cultural expression. Following the demonstrations, local governments in Uyghur and Tibetan areas have reported on wide-scale education campaigns in local schools that include focus on "ethnic unity" and anti-separatism. (See a previous CECC analysis for more information on campaigns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. For information on campaigns in Tibetan areas, see, e.g., an April 30, 2008, report on the Tibet Autonomous Region government Web site and a June 27 report on the Lhasa municipal government Web site.)
The program also comes amid central government statements emphasizing the broad promotion of ethnic unity. See, e.g., a November 4 report on the Central People's Government Web site, a December 24 Xinhua report, and a December 31 People's Daily report by the SEAC Leading Party Group (via Xinhua).
For more information on conditions for ethnic minorities in China, see Section II--Ethnic Minority Rights, Section IV--Xinjiang, and Section V--Tibet, in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2008 Annual Report, as well as the Special Focus on ethnic minorities in the 2005 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2008-12-19 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-02-03 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=115663 |
Lhasa Court Sentences Tibetans for Sharing Information With "The Dalai Clique"
A Communist Party-run newspaper has provided the first detailed information about Tibetans convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment for nonviolent activity that authorities link to rioting on March 14, 2008, in and near Lhasa, the capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region. The November 8, 2008, Lhasa Evening News (LEN) report asserted that the defendants had "endangered state security." China's state-run media has previously provided legal process information about the cases of only a few dozen Tibetan "rioters," but almost no information about the large but unknown number of Tibetans believed to have been detained in connection with peaceful protest activity. (See the CECC 2008 Annual Report for more information on the 2008 Tibetan protests and their consequences.)
The LEN article (translated in a December 22 International Campaign for Tibet report) described "four 'March 14 incident' cases" involving a total of seven Tibetans who allegedly provided information ("intelligence") to Tibetan organizations based in India that are part of what the Chinese government and Communist Party refer to collectively as "the Dalai Clique." The report did not, however, mention the Dalai Lama himself or provide any information directly linking any of the four cases to the March 14 protests and rioting. The Lhasa Intermediate People's Court sentenced one Tibetan to life imprisonment and six Tibetans to fixed terms of imprisonment ranging from 8 to 15 years on charges of "espionage" (Criminal Law, Article 110) or "illegally sending intelligence abroad" (Article 111).
The court accused six of the defendants of activity "concerning the security and interests of the state" and one defendant of activity "harming the security and interests of the state," according to the LEN report. China's Constitution (Article 54) states that Chinese citizens "must not commit acts detrimental to the security, honor, and interests of the motherland." The Criminal Law chapter on "Crimes of Endangering National Security" (Articles 102-113), however, mentions the ¡°security¡± of the state only once (Article 102) and only with respect to colluding with a "foreign State," a description that is not applicable to "the Dalai Clique." The chapter does not mention the "honor" or "interests" of the state or link them to specific crimes. As a result, law enforcement and judicial officials exercise broad discretion in identifying and punishing behavior that they deem to "concern" or "harm" China's security, honor, and interests. The table below summarizes the information provided in the LEN report.
Lhasa Intermediate People's Court: Punishing Tibetans for Sharing Information With "The Dalai Clique"
Pinyin Name
Tibetan Name | Alleged Activity
| Criminal Charge
| Criminal Law
| Sentence Date
| Sentence Length | | Wangdui
Wangdu | Copied "splittist" CD-ROMs and leaflets; sent "intelligence" to "the Dalai Clique"
| "Espionage" | Art. 110 | October 27, 2008 | Life imprisonment | | Mima Dunzhu
Migmar Dondrub | Distributed "splittist" CD-ROMs and leaflets; sent "intelligence" to "the Dalai Clique"
| "Espionage" | Art. 110 | October 27, 2008 | 14 years | | Pingcuo Duojie
Phuntsog Dorje | "Collected intelligence;" "illegally sent intelligence abroad [to "the Dalai Clique"] via Wangdu" | Unlawfully provided "intelligence" to an organization or individual outside of China | Art. 111 | October 27, 2008 | 9 years | | Ciwang Duoji
Tsewang Dorje | "Collected intelligence;" "illegally sent intelligence abroad [to "the Dalai Clique"] via Wangdu" | Unlawfully provided "intelligence" to an organization or individual outside of China | Art. 111 | October 27, 2008 | 8 years | | Suolang Zhaba
Sonam Dragpa | Joined "the Dalai Clique's 'Tibetan Youth Congress';" collected and sent "intelligence" to the TYC | Unlawfully provided "intelligence" to an organization or individual outside of China | Art. 111 | October 27, 2008 | 10 years | | Yixi Quzhen
Yeshe Choedron | Received "financial aid" from "the Dalai Clique's 'Security Department'" for providing "intelligence and information" | "Espionage" | Art. 110 | November 7, 2008 | 15 years | | Suolang Cidian
Sonam Tseten | Collected and provided "intelligence" to "the Dalai Clique's '9, 10, 3' [Gu Chu Sum] splittist organization" | Unlawfully provided "intelligence" to an organization or individual outside of China | Art. 111 | November 7, 2008 | 10 years |
The LEN report did not provide any details about the type of information that any of the defendants allegedly provided to entities outside of China. The report did not identify the group or individual deemed to be part of "the Dalai Clique" that allegedly received information from the four defendants accused of acting together: Wangdu, Migmar Dondrub, Phuntsog Dorje, and Tsewang Dorje. One of the other defendants, Sonam Dragpa allegedly provided information to the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC), a non-governmental organization (NGO) that seeks Tibetan independence according to the TYC Web site; Yeshe Choedron allegedly provided information to the Tibetan government-in-exile; and Sonam Tseten allegedly provided information to Gu-Chu-Sum, an NGO that Tibetan former political prisoners established to work on behalf of Tibetan political prisoners, according to the group's Web site.
At least two of the Tibetans, Wangdu and Phuntsog Dorje, have served previous sentences as political prisoners. Wangdu was detained on March 8, 1989, the day martial law took effect in Lhasa after three days of protests and rioting. According to the CECC Political Prisoner Database, Wangdu's initial three-year sentence was extended by five years to a total of eight years' imprisonment after he and at least 10 other Tibetan political prisoners signed (in prison) a petition stating that the 1951 17-Point Agreement between the Chinese government and the Tibetan government in Lhasa was forced on an independent Tibet. Wangdu, who had learned English, was a monk and tour guide at Lhasa's Jokhang Temple before the 1989 detention. Prior to detention from his home on March 14, 2008, Wangdu worked in Lhasa for the Australia-based Burnet Institute as a project officer for the institute's HIV Prevention in Lhasa Project, according to information in the ICT report, a December 22 Associated Press report (reprinted in Fox News), and an October 9 Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD) report. Information about the project is available on the Burnet Institute's Web site.
Phuntsog Dorje, a former employee of the Snowlands Hotel in Lhasa, served a 10-year sentence after detention in 1990, according to the 1994 Human Rights Watch report, "Detained in China and Tibet: A Directory of Political and Religious Prisoners." Authorities suspected Phuntsog Dorje of having links to a pro-independence group. In 1993, Phuntsog Dorje was suffering from kidney problems attributed to "extraordinarily heavy labor," the report said, citing an October 19, 1993, Tibet Information Network report (TIN ceased operations in 2005).
The Commission is aware of only one other official Chinese report of detention of Tibetans for peaceful protest activity during the wave of protests that began on March 10, 2008, the anniversary of the 1959 Lhasa uprising. The report concerns one of the two protests reported to have occurred in Lhasa on March 10. A March 25 China Tibet News report (translated in OSC, 27 March 08) stated that on March 24 the Lhasa People's Procuratorate authorized public security officials to formally arrest on charges of "illegal assembly" 13 of 15 monks whom police detained on March 10 for "chanting reactionary slogans" and carrying home-made Tibetan flags near the Jokhang Temple. The report did not name any of the monks charged with "illegal assembly," but named another of the monks, Lodroe (Luozhui), as the leader of the protest and the first to display the Tibetan flag. The report did not provide any information about the charges against Lodroe. No information is available about whether or not a court tried and sentenced the monks. All of the monks were temporary students at Sera Monastery in Lhasa but who hailed from other monasteries located in Tibetan autonomous prefectures in Sichuan and Qinghai provinces, according to March 10 and March 12 Radio Free Asia (RFA) reports and two March 12 TCHRD reports (1, 2).
Hundreds of Drepung Monastery monks staged the other March 10 peaceful protest in Lhasa by attempting to march from the monastery to the city center, where the Potala Palace and the Jokhang Temple are located, according to the RFA reports and a March 11 TCHRD report. According to information and analysis provided in Section V, Tibet, of the CECC 2008 Annual Report, Tibetan protests spread quickly through more than 50 county-level areas in the Tibetan autonomous areas of China. Protesters resorted to rioting in a total of 12 county-level areas, according to official Chinese media reports, but generally peaceful Tibetan protests took place in more than 40 additional county-level areas. China¡¯s leadership blamed the Dalai Lama and "the Dalai Clique" for the Tibetan protests and rioting, and did not acknowledge the role of rising Tibetan frustration with Chinese policies that deprive Tibetans of rights and freedoms nominally protected under China¡¯s Constitution and legal system. Chinese authorities released by June 2008 more than 3,000 of the more than 4,400 detained Tibetans whom officials characterized as "rioters" and who had surrendered or been detained by April 9, based on CECC analysis of a June 21, 2008, China Daily report and previous Chinese state-run media reports.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-01-23 ) |
Posted on: 2009-02-03 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=115942 |
UN Human Rights Council To Review China's Human Rights Record
On February 9, the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva will review China's human rights record under a new mechanism known as the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The UPR was created on March 15, 2006 by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/251 (A/Res/60/251), which established the 47-member Human Rights Council (Council), replacing the Commission on Human Rights. The UPR mechanism "involves a review of the human rights records of all 192 UN Member States once every four years." (UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR), Basic Facts About The UPR). OHCHR describes the UPR as "one of the key elements of the new Council which reminds States of their responsibility to fully respect and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The ultimate aim of this new mechanism is to improve the human rights situation in all countries and address human rights violations wherever they occur." (OHCHR, Fact Sheet: Human Rights Council-Universal Periodic Review).
The Working Group on the UPR will meet in a three-hour session on February 9 to review China's human rights record. Each review is facilitated by a group of three rapporteurs (referred to as "troikas"), who are drawn by lot from Council members and from different Regional Groups. Canada, India, and Nigeria will serve as the troika for China's review. They will facilitate the "interactive dialogue" portion of the Working Group session and will prepare the report of the Working Group. (Human Rights Council Res. 5/1, "Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council," sections D.2.18(d), and 21 (18 June 2007).) Participation in the review is not limited to Members of the Council; any Member State may be involved, including in the interactive dialogue, during which they may ask questions, make comments and/or offer recommendations. (Human Rights Council Res. 5/1, sec. D.2.18 (b); OHCHR, Basic Facts About The UPR). Representatives of NGOs may also attend the review. (HRC Resolution 5/1.)
The review will be based on:
The documents that will be considered for the review are:
For more information on China's compliance with its international human rights obligations and commitments, see the Congressional-Executive Commission on China's 2008 Annual Report. For more information on the UPR review process, see China's National Report (in Chinese only), the "compilation of UN information" and the "summary of stakeholders' information" prepared by the OHCHR (in English), and the original submissions of 46 stakeholders . The final report (referred to as "outcome") of China's review, once released, will be available here. Click here for a list of representative cases to use as a resource for formulating questions, comments, and/or recommendations pertaining to the release of citizens detained or imprisoned for advocating greater human rights guarantees in China, including citizens who engage with the international community to address human rights abuses.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-01-21 ) |
Posted on: 2009-02-02 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=116477 |
Officials To Strengthen Security Before Anniversaries and During Economic Downturns
Chinese officials have warned of increasing "social unrest" in 2009 and have called for strengthening public security in the run-up to several significant anniversaries and amid the country's economic downturn. Security officials reportedly plan to use the "valuable" and "successful" experience of security measures deployed during the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games to increase security controls in 2009, according to a January 6 People's Daily article and a January 13 South China Morning Post report (subscription required). Minister of Public Security Meng Jianzhu called on public security officials to acknowledge the "grave challenge of maintaining national security and social stability" ahead of the 60th Anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China in October this year, as reported in the People's Daily article. Chen Jiping, director of the Central Committee for Comprehensive Management of Public Security, was quoted in an interview with the state-run magazine Outlook Weekly as saying that authorities will deploy new measures such as a neighborhood watch program and the creation of special departments modeled on those used during the Olympics that mobilized and used volunteers to help police maintain public order, according to the South China Morning Post report.
In addition to the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China in October, 2009 also marks several sensitive anniversaries, including the 50th anniversary of the March 10, 1959, Lhasa uprising, and the 20th anniversary of the June 4, 1989, peaceful democracy protest at the Tianamen Square. A January 6 Associated Press report writes that "opponents of the authoritarian regime could seize on [anniversaries] as symbolically rich opportunities to stage demonstrations or issue calls for political reform." The Chinese government and Communist Party have used campaigns to strengthen security measures and crack down on "social unrest" and dissent in the name of maintaining social stability during other "sensitive" times, including most recently before and during the Beijing Olympics and during the Olympic torch relay. (See the Preface of the CECC 2008 Annual Report and a previous CECC analysis for more information.)
The recent high-level official statements on maintaining "social stability" also come at a time when official statistics paint a grim economic picture and as the media and government officials have warned of potential mass protests resulting from high unemployment rates and increasing social discontent. Reuters reported on December 17, 2008, that up to 1.5 million graduates may face difficulty finding employment in 2009, that at least 4 million unemployed migrant workers have left cities to find jobs in large towns or counties, and that the urban unemployment rate is at 9.4 percent, according to estimates by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The first issue of the Outlook Weekly in 2009 also reported that nearly 10 million migrant workers have lost their jobs, according to an estimate by China's National Bureau of Statistics. The same article said the economic downturn has led to greater social instability, including increasing incidents of unemployment-related labor disputes, land disputes, "highly sensitive" taxi strikes, and financial crimes. The article said experts have called for "proper handling" of mass incidents through prevention and mediation, to "keep conflict resolution at the local level," to "solve problems locally," and to "eliminate hidden danger at the initial stage."
For more discussion on "social instability" and "social unrest," see the Preface and General Overview in the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-01-30 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-02-01 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=116313 |
Yunnan To Establish Anti-Trafficking Office To Focus on Women and Children
The Yunnan provincial government issued the Yunnan Province Implementing Opinion on the National Action Plan on Combating Trafficking in Women and Children (2008-2012) (Yunnan provincial implementing opinion) for the National Action Plan on Combating Trafficking in Women and Children (2008-2012) (National Action Plan) on November 21, 2008, calling for the establishment of an anti-trafficking office to coordinate the province's anti-trafficking efforts. The implementing opinion, like the National Action Plan, focuses on women and children. Yunnan is the fourth province to issue an implementation plan after the State Council issued the National Action Plan in December 2007. Guizhou province issued an implementing opinion in May 2008, followed by Hainan and Fujian provinces in June 2008.
Similar to Guizhou, Hainan, and Fujian's implementing plans, Yunnan province will:- Establish an anti-trafficking "leadership committee" with an office located within the provincial public security department. The "leadership committee" will implement, organize, and coordinate cross-regional, inter-governmental, inter-agency, and cross-provincial (district and city) anti-trafficking efforts.
- Include funds in the annual budget required by each locality and department to ensure the development and implementation of anti-trafficking work.
- Investigate and punish, according to law, illegal employers and employment of child labor, and ban illegal employment or marriage brokerage agencies or their Internet sites.
- Strengthen the provision of social welfare and assist with victim reintegration for rescued women and children, including appropriate arrangement for children without guardians, school enrollment for children who have reached appropriate age, as well as occupational training and employment assistance.
- Create special files for rescued women and children to track their living conditions and to coordinate relevant departments and organizations' efforts to resolve problems faced by those who have been rescued.
- Enhance international and cross-provincial cooperation.
The Yunnan provincial implementing opinion also includes a new measure allowing rescued women who cannot or are unwilling to return home to remain in Yunnan, subject to the approval of the relevant department(s). For those rescued women who are allowed to stay in Yunnan, the Yunnan Provincial Population and Family Planning Commission will regard them as "permanent residents" (changzhu renkou), instead of as migrants or members of the so-called "floating population" who do not have a local household registration (hukou). (For a discussion of China's household registration system, see section II--Freedom of Residence in the CECC 2008 Annual Report, including the Addendum: Recent Hukou Reforms (pp. 105-112); for a broader retrospective, see also an October 2005 CECC topic paper on China's household registration system, and a chart on Chinese Hukou reforms as of 2004.) The significance of the new policy is twofold: - Trafficked Chinese women without a local hukou may avoid involuntary repatriation, thus minimizing the risks of facing danger, such as threats from their traffickers, or re-trafficked once returned home.
- For non-Chinese women trafficked into Yunnan, neither the National Action Plan nor the Yunnan provincial implementing opinion distinguishes between foreign and Chinese victims, and the measures do not specify that this new policy is applicable only to Chinese citizens. If interpreted in this way, the Yunnan provincial implementing opinion's policy of allowing non-Chinese women to remain in Yunnan would comply with the international standard set forth in Article 7 of the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking In Persons, Especially Women and Children. This Protocol states that "each State Party shall consider adopting legislative or other appropriate measures that permit victims of trafficking in persons to remain in its territory, temporarily or permanently, in appropriate cases." However, it remains to be seen how the new policy will be implemented in practice.
Even though the Yunnan provincial implementing opinion appears to provide better protection and prevention measures to trafficked women and children, there remain several weaknesses:- The measures do not include language about men identified as trafficking victims.
- Authority coordinating the inter-agency anti-trafficking effort is assigned to the provincial public security department. Generally speaking, public security departments may favor a "law and order" approach to anti-trafficking, rather than a human rights approach that favors prevention and addresses the root causes of human trafficking.
See the following Commission analyses for a discussion of China's anti-trafficking efforts: China's Anti-Trafficking Efforts Remain Inadequate One Year After Government's Release of National Action Plan, Infant Trafficking From the Earthquake Zone and Other Cases Reflect Anti-Trafficking Challenges, China's Long-Awaited Action Plan on Trafficking Aims To Provide "Sustainable Solutions". See also Section II-Human Trafficking in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-01-29 / English) |
Posted on: 2009-02-01 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=116491 |
Chinese Media Censor Parts of President Obama's Inauguration Speech
An official "full text" Chinese language translation of President Barack Obama's January 20, 2009, inauguration speech that appeared in major state-controlled Chinese news media omitted two paragraphs and the words "and communism," according to a review of the translation as it appeared on the Web sites of those media organizations on January 21. In addition, after President Obama said the word "communism," China's national television station, China Central Television (CCTV), cut away from live coverage of the speech, as shown in a video posted on the CCTV Web site on January 21. (The full text of the speech is available on the Presidential Inaugural Committee Web site; a transcript of the speech as delivered by President Obama is available on the New York Times Web site.)
[UPDATE, January 26, 2009: On January 22, the People's Daily, the Communist Party's flagship newspaper, posted its own "full text" translation of President Obama's speech. The Congressional-Executive Commission on China retrieved that translation from the People's Daily Web site on January 23 and saved a copy here. At the time, the People's Daily translation included the words "and communism" as well as the omitted paragraphs. On January 26, the CECC accessed the same link and found that the words "and communism" had been omitted, even though the original post date of January 22, 2009, 15:48, remained unchanged.]
Omitted Passages; "Silencing of Dissent"
The following two paragraphs, which appear about two-thirds into President Obama's 18-minute speech, were omitted from the "full text" Chinese translation prepared by the official China Daily and reprinted on the Web sites of CCTV (omitted paragraphs should have appeared on page 4), Xinhua, China's central news agency, Sina.com, a popular domestic news and information portal (omitted paragraphs should have appeared on page 2), and People's Daily (omitted paragraphs should have appeared on page 4):To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it. Sina.com also posted a video with Chinese subtitles of President Obama's entire speech on the Web page where the "full text" Chinese translation begins. As of January 22, the subtitles do not omit the passages above.
"Communism"
About 11 minutes into President Obama's speech, he said: "Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions." The words "and communism" were omitted from the official China Daily translation (omitted words should have appeared on page 3) and its reprint on the Web sites of CCTV (omitted words should have appeared on page 3), Xinhua, Sina.com (omitted words should have appeared on page 2), and People's Daily (omitted words should have appeared on page 3).
As shown in the CCTV video, the station muted audio of the simultaneous interpreter shortly after she translated the word "communism." The screen then cut to the anchor hosting the coverage. It is unclear whether the anchor was caught off guard. (See January 21 BBC report for 30-second clip of this portion of CCTV's live coverage.) The anchor responded by turning to a CCTV reporter in Washington, DC and asking her about the challenges President Obama faces in dealing with the economy. While the station had earlier cut away about five minutes into the speech for three minutes of analysis by the Washington reporter (while the speech ran in the background in English for much of this time), it is unclear whether the later cut away was planned. The latter cut away, which included a background segment on President Obama, lasted for about seven minutes before simultaneous translation resumed with about one minute left in the speech.
Chinese subtitles that appear at the bottom of the video on Sina.com on January 21 also omit the reference to "communism."
English Text Reprinted in Chinese Media
The reference to "communism" and the passages noted above were not removed from the English text of the speech as reprinted on the China Daily Web site (communism, passages) on January 21, as reprinted on CCTV's Web site (communism, passages) on January 21, and as reprinted on Xinhua's Web site on January 21.
Past Censorship of U.S. Officials
Chinese media have censored the remarks of top American officials in the past. According to an April 20, 2004, New York Times (NYT) report, the official "full text" of then Vice President Dick Cheney's 2004 speech in Shanghai that appeared on major Chinese Web sites omitted references to political freedom, Taiwan, North Korea, and other topics that propaganda officials deemed politically sensitive. The NYT report also said that a CCTV broadcast of a 2003 interview with then Secretary of State Colin L. Powell left out references to human rights abuses and other issues despite a diplomatic agreement to broadcast the interview unedited.
For other accounts of the omissions from full text versions of President Obama's speech in Chinese media, see, e.g., a January 21 NYT report and a January 21 Times of London report.
For more information on how the Chinese government and Communist Party's policies toward China's media lead to censorship of information considered politically sensitive, see Section II - Freedom of Expression, in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-01-27 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2009-02-01 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=116483 |
Officials Increase Censorship of Foreign and Domestic Web Sites
Chinese authorities appear to have stepped up censorship of the Internet in recent weeks with increased reports of foreign- and Hong Kong-based Web sites being blocked and the closure of a popular domestic blog hosting site for posting "harmful" political information.
Foreign and Hong Kong Web Sites
In December 2008, foreign and Hong Kong media reported that access from within China to several foreign- and Hong Kong-based news Web sites had been blocked after having been temporarily unblocked last August around the time of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, according to a mid-December Yazhou Zhoukan (Asiaweek) report (in Chinese), a December 16 BBC report, and a December 17 South China Morning Post report (subscription required). The blocked Web sites include the Chinese-language sites for the BBC, Voice of America, and Deutsche Welle, YouTube's Hong Kong and Taiwan sites, and the Web sites for the Hong Kong-based news organizations Ming Pao, Asiaweek, and Apple Daily. Access to some of these sites subsequently was restored, according to a December 19 New York Times (NYT) article. Citing reports from users in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, the NYT said that access to its own Web site from within China had been blocked for more than three days, noting the absence of technical issues with the site, and no problems with accessibility from Hong Kong, Japan, and the United States, according to the December 19 article and a December 22 article. Amnesty International (Amnesty) reported on January 12, 2009, that authorities had resumed blocking its site in China after allowing access for the Olympics.
Chinese officials are able to block domestic access to foreign Web sites because they control the gateway connection between mainland China and the global Internet. Official involvement in the blocking of any particular site is difficult to confirm because officials provide little information about which sites are blocked and why a specific site has been blocked or unblocked. Sites that are blocked often report accessibility outside of mainland China and no technical issues. In response to questions about blocked Web sites, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) spokesperson Liu Jianchao said at a December 16 press conference (Chinese, English) that he was "not aware of the specifics" but that "it is undeniable that some websites do violate the Chinese law." Liu cited as an example Web sites that "publicly stage 'two Chinas' by putting the mainland China and China's Taiwan Province into two independent categories," in violation of the Anti-Secession Law. On January 13, 2009, MFA spokesperson Jiang Yu denied allegations that Chinese officials were blocking the Amnesty Web site ahead of a series of politically sensitive anniversaries in 2009, according to a January 13 Agence France-Presse article (via France 24). The same article quoted Jiang as saying that Amnesty "has always been biased toward China." Chinese and English transcripts of Jiang's January 13 press conference on the MFA's Web site do not mention the denial, but indicate that Jiang reiterated China's position that it manages the Internet according to Chinese laws and legally-binding regulations, which "prohibit the spreading of illegal information through the Internet, such as advocating cults and separatism."
Mainland Web Sites
Southern Metropolitan Daily, a newspaper based in Guangdong province, reported on January 12 that the Beijing Municipal Government's Information Office had ordered the closure of the blog hosting Web site Bullog (www.bullog.cn) after the site failed to remove large amounts of "harmful information" relating to current events and politics as authorities had requested, according to the Web site's administrator and founder, Luo Yonghao. Luo said that the site's service provider informed him by e-mail on January 9 that the provider received the shutdown order from the Beijing Communications Administration. Attempts by the Congressional-Executive Commission on China to access the Bullog Web site on January 27 were unsuccessful, yielding only browser-generated messages that the address could not be found. According to a January 12 Sydney Morning Herald article, Bullog has become a popular site for Chinese intellectuals and commentators to discuss politics and policy, registering more than one million daily viewers in April 2008. A January 13 Reporters Without Borders report said that at least nine contributors to Bullog had signed Charter 08, an open statement calling for political reform in China that has attracted the attention of authorities. Chinese officials have harassed signatories and censored references to Charter 08 on the Internet.
The reported shutdown of Bullog comes amidst a government campaign to remove "vulgar content" on the Internet. The campaign began on January 5 and will continue until early February, according to a January 6 People's Daily article (in Chinese). The campaign's primary target appears to be pornography, but employees at Web sites attempting to carry out the government's directive have noted "increased pressure to control political content as much as smut" as well as the vagueness of what the government considers unacceptable content, according to a January 12 Guardian article and a January 6 Straits Times article (via AsiaMedia). "We are just feeling our way in the dark now and going by intuition, deleting whatever we think might not be deemed proper by the government," one senior manager of a Chinese Web site told the Straits Times on the condition of anonymity.
As the CECC noted in its 2008 Annual Report, China's Internet laws and the interpretation and application of such laws by Chinese officials violate international human rights standards because they target content that the Chinese government and Communist Party deem politically sensitive. For more information on Internet censorship in China, see "Internet Censorship" in Section II - Freedom of Expression, in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-01-27 / English / Free) |
Posted on: 2009-02-01 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=116297 |
Authorities Target Protestant House Churches for Harassment, Detentions in December
Authorities disrupted several Protestant house church gatherings in December 2008, in some cases detaining church leaders, according to reports from the China Aid Association (CAA), an organization that monitors conditions for religious freedom in China. The reports come amid calls from local governments in late 2008 to stem Protestant house church gatherings and meetings of other unregistered religious groups. The CAA also issued a report in December on the demolition of a registered church and provided information on new developments in ongoing cases.
Recent reports include:- The Zhoukou municipality Reeducation Through Labor Committee (RTL) in Henan province issued a decision on December 16, 2008, sentencing three church leaders to one year of RTL for their involvement in "illegal proselytizing" and an "illegal gathering," according to a January 6 CAA report and a copy of the RTL decision posted January 6 on the CAA Web site. Authorities initially detained the three church leaders, Tang Houyong, Shu Wenxiang, and Xie Zhenqi, on December 3 at a house church gathering. CAA reported that authorities detained other attendees and sentenced 20 of them to 15 days of administrative detention. According to CAA, authorities alleged the church members belonged to the "Shouters," a group deemed a cult by authorities, but CAA said the church members were not associated with the group. The wife of one of the men sentenced to RTL has since pursued legal action in the case, including filing an administrative lawsuit and a motion to dismiss a judge involved, according to a January 26 CAA press release and copy of a court filing posted the same day on the CAA Web site.
- On January 2, public security officers in Urumqi, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), disrupted a house church meeting and detained 51 attendees. Authorities held 3 of the 51 in public security bureau custody, one of whom was sentenced to 10 days of administrative detention, according to a January 5 report from CAA.
- On December 17, police officers in Yancheng, Jiangsu province, demolished a registered church, according to a December 22 report from CAA. The CAA said sources described the demolition of the Chengnan Christian Church as the result of collusion between the Yancheng government and real estate developers. The demolition came despite a December 16 court ruling in favor of the church, CAA reported.
Among reports from CAA are also several incidents which took place during the Christmas season, a period also targeted in past years.- Authorities disrupted Christmas eve and Christmas day gatherings in Bozhou, Anhui and Yucheng county, Shangqiu, Henan provinces and Qitai county, Changji Hui Autonomous Prefecture, in the XUAR, according to CAA reports from December 26 and December 30. Officials took into detention two church leaders from the Anhui gathering, seven church leaders from the XUAR, and nine people from Henan. Authorities later released five of the nine detained in Henan and sentenced the remaining four to 15 days of administrative detention, according to a December 27 report from Monitor China, a Web site affiliated with the CAA.
- Earlier in the week, authorities targeted other house church Christmas celebrations in Anhui and in the XUAR, according to a December 25 CAA report via the Christian News Wire. Authorities disrupted a Bible training class in Dongzhi county, Chizhou, Anhui province, on December 22, interrogated the 19 students and 2 church leaders in the class, and sealed off the building where the classes were held. On December 22, authorities warned a house church leader in the Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture, XUAR, to stop holding services.
- On December 24, police disrupted a group of people, including Protestant volunteers, who had gathered to rebuild housing for victims of the May 12, 2008, earthquake in Sichuan province, according to a December 27 CAA report. Authorities confiscated the group's property and took some of the group members into detention. CAA reported that authorities had targeted the group because of the presence of the Protestant volunteers.
Also in December, the CAA reported on developments in ongoing cases. - On December 15, a court in Qorghas (Huocheng), XUAR, tried the case of church leader Lou Yuanqi, detained since May 17, 2008, for ¡°inciting separatism,¡± in connection to interviews he gave about his prior detentions for leading house church services. Authorities formally arrested him on June 20, on charges of using superstition to undermine implementation of state law, a crime under Article 300 of the Criminal Law, stemming from his church activities and from reporting abuses to overseas groups. See a CAA December 15 report and the Congressional-Executive Commission on China Political Prisoner Database for more information.
- On December 21, 2008, public security officers detained Beijing-based house church leader Zhang Mingxuan in Ulanhot, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, while he was there to preach, according to a December 22 CAA report. He was sentenced to 15 days of administrative detention for "operating an illegal organization for religious activities." International pressure prompted his early release on December 22, CAA reported. Authorities harassed Zhang on multiple other occasions in 2008, as noted in previous CECC analyses (1, 2) and the CECC Political Prisoner Database.
For more information, see section II--Freedom of Religion in the CECC 2008 Annual Report.
| Source: -See Summary (2009-01-26 ) |
Posted on: 2009-02-01 |
 |
|
| Link directly to this item with: http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=116591 |
Officials Harass Charter 08 Signers; Liu Xiaobo Under Residential Surveillance
Chinese authorities have harassed at least 101 signatories of Charter 08 and placed signer and prominent intellectual Liu Xiaobo under residential surveillance at an unknown location in Beijing in apparent violation of Chinese law following his detention on December 8, 2008, according to Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) reports on January 2 and January 9. The Central Propaganda Department has warned domestic reporters not to write about or interview any of the charter's signers, while references to the charter appeared to have been removed from the Internet, according to a January 4 Guardian report and a December 15-31 CHRD report. On the eve of December 10, 2008, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, more than 300 Chinese citizens signed and posted online Charter 08, which calls for political reform and greater protection of human rights in China and is inspired by a 1970s charter issued in what was then Czechoslovakia. The January 9 CHRD article said that more than 7,200 people have signed the document.
Harassment of Signers
The January 9 CHRD article said that the human rights organization had documented 101 cases in which police sought to question, formally summoned, or otherwise harassed a Charter 08 signer. The article said the cases occurred in 17 provinces and three municipalities and provided a list of people who had been harassed. Those harassed have reported that officials warned them not to give media interviews to promote Charter 08, sought to determine the main authors of the document and how it was disseminated, and demanded public retractions of signatures and support for the document, according to the CHRD article and a January 7 Christian Science Monitor (CSM) article. The prominent intellectual Zhang Zuhua was summoned on December 8 and again on December 26 by the Beijing Public Security Bureau's Domestic Security Protection Unit, the latter occurring shortly after Zhang gave an interview to CSM, according to the December 15-31 CHRD article and the CSM article. In another reported case of harassment, police in Hangzhou city, Zhejiang province, questioned writer Wen Kejian for several hours on December 25 in connection with his signing of the charter, according to a December 29 CHRD article.
Liu Xiaobo
Liu Xiaobo, who was taken into custody on December 8, has been placed under residential surveillance at an undisclosed location in Beijing by the Domestic Security Protection Unit under the Beijing PSB, according to the January 2 CHRD article. The restrictions on Liu's freedom not only appear to violate international human rights standards for free expression and association and China's Constitution, but to also violate China's procedural provisions since officials have placed Liu under residential surveillance at a location outside of his own residence. Article 57(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) provides that a criminal suspect under residential surveillance may not leave his domicile without permission, and contemplates that the suspect may be placed under residential surveillance at a designated location outside his domicile if that person "has no fixed domicile." Article 98 of the Procedural Provisions for Public Security Agencies Handling Criminal Cases (1, 2, 2007 Amendment), issued by the Ministry of Public Security in 1998 to aid implementation of the CPL, defines "fixed domicile" as the "legal residence where the criminal suspect lives within the city or county of the agency handling the case." Since Liu has a home in Beijing and the case is being handled by Beijing officials, the law would appear to require that residential surveillance be carried out at Liu's home and not another location. Furthermore, Article 98 of the Procedural Provisions prohibits public agencies from setting up special places for "residential surveillance" that in effect subject the suspect to detention "in disguised form."
The January 2 CHRD article said that police allowed Liu to meet with his wife on January 1 but have not informed either Liu or his wife of the charges that led to his residential surveillance. According to a source close to the Liu family, the meeting took place at a secret location near Beijing, Times Online reported on January 6. The source said that Liu did not know the location of his residential surveillance. It is unclear what access Liu has to his lawyer, Mo Shaoping, who in recent years has represented a number of journalists, writers, petitioners, and other citizens accused of state security and public disturbance crimes. According to Article 24 of the Provisions Concerning Several Issues in the Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law, a person under residential surveillance does not need permission to meet with his lawyer.
It is unclear when Liu's period of residential surveillance began. Article 58 of the CPL allows officials to place someone under residential surveillance for up to six months.
Internet Censorship
As noted in its December 15-31 report, CHRD conducted searches of Baidu, Sina, and Google in late December and found that information about Charter 08 appeared to have been blocked or deleted.
For additional information, including an overview of free expression and free association issues related to Charter 08, and additional background informa |