Incorporating Responsibility: 2008



	Shi Tao


	Illegally providing state secrets


	November 23, 2014

HRIC Trends Bulletin on "China's Environment and Situation of Water"

HRIC Statement for Tibetan Uprising Day: "March 10: Out of Exile, Into the Streets!"

Where's Hu Now?: Let your voice be heard on Hu Jintao's U.S. visit

HRIC Comments on HR 4780: Global Online Freedom Act of 2006

Li Zhi Appellate Ruling: English translation

HRIC Testimony to "Monitoring Respect for Human Rights"

Articles Alert: Feb 2006

HRIC Trends Bulletin: Media Crackdowns in China

HRIC Testimony to "Internet in China" Congressional Hearing


		Change text size		Print this page

The Olympics as a Force for Change
[First printed in China Rights Forum, No.1 2003]

In early 2003, HRIC invited several individuals with diverse backgrounds to carry out an e-mail discussion on the possible impact of the 2008 Olympics on the human rights situation in China, and possible strategies for promoting human rights advocacy, education, and democratic reforms.

The Participants

Anne Callaghan has been the Campaigns Manager for Free Tibet Campaign (www.freetibet.org) since August 2000, and has been working on the Olympics campaign since the beginning of her tenure. FTC's Olympic campaign work is coordinated through an international coalition called the International Tibet Support Network, which consists of more than 100 groups from around the world.

Gao Zhan is a researcher at American University (www.american.edu), specializing in China, Chinese politics, gender and family. She was detained and falsely charged by the Chinese government in 2001 for doing research in China.

Andrew McLaughlin is Senior Adviser to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) (www.icann.org) and Senior Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu). He devotes most of his time to advising governments and fostering Internet deployment in developing countries.

Bobson Wong is executive director of the Digital Freedom Network (DFN) (www.dfn.org), a New York-based organization that promotes human rights education and activism around the world, primarily through the use of Internet technology. Specializing in the Internet in China, Bobson has written on freedom of expression and Internet access for Columbia University's Center for the Study of Human Rights, the Human Rights Encyclopedia, the U.S. Congressional-Executive Committee on China, and others.

Moderator: Sharon Hom is executive director of HRIC, and is professor of law, emerita, CUNY School of Law. Sharon has over 14 years of experience in U.S.–China law training and legal exchange initiatives, and has conducted numerous NGO consultations and human rights workshops.

HRIC — To what extent do you think the 2008 Olympics will have a positive, negative, or mixed effect on the human rights situation in China? What specific issues and relevant factors are likely to influence this effect?

Gao Zhan — I believe the 2008 Olympics will have a mixed effect on the human rights situation in China.

Because China has highly politicized its hosting of the Olympics, it is using every possible means to ensure success. As a result we see the authorities arresting more political dissidents, driving more non-Beijingers out of the city, demolishing more houses against the will of their owners who have lived there for generations, and keeping a tighter control over the flow of information.

But the flip side is the event will force China to loosen its grip on some media outlets. Merely for the sake of showing the world that Chinese do enjoy some basic freedoms, China will gradually lift some website blocks, allow in more foreign press, and tolerate to a certain extent the flow of information from outside of China as it prepares for the event. And ordinary Chinese folks will take advantage of this and enlighten themselves with information from the West. A well-informed and enlightened nation will not be suppressed for too long.

Bobson Wong — I don't think the Olympics by itself will have any major effect on human rights in China. Other factors will be far more important, such as labor unrest and the state of the economy. However, the world will be watching China during the Olympics. Whether this will help or hurt human rights in China depends on what happens beforehand.

On the one hand, the government wouldn't dare crack down on dissidents right before or during the Olympics if the world is watching.The 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations didn't get international attention until foreign journalists arrived in Beijing to cover Mikhail Gorbachev's visit.We've all seen in the past how China tends to ease restrictions while major international events are taking place in China. If anything happens during the Olympics—any labor strikes or Falungong protests—the entire world will know instantly with potentially disastrous results for the government.

On the other hand, precisely because of the increased scrutiny, you can bet that the government will try to remove any traces of dissent before the Olympics. (Unfortunately, this is not limited to China; many U.S. cities like to remove homeless people from the streets before national conventions or other major events.) Look for a crackdown in the years before the event and perhaps a modest easing of restrictions during the Olympics (such as a lifting of Internet restrictions to show how "open" China is). A few dissidents might even be allowed to speak out, although most Chinese citizens probably won't hear them.

The key, then, is to continue to monitor human rights now, well before the Beijing Olympics—because by 2008 it will be too late.The wild card in all of this is whether groups like Falungong, peasants, or factory workers can organize protests during the Olympics without being detected. If they can, then the government is in for a big surprise in 2008.

Andrew McLaughlin — The impact of the 2008 Olympics on China's human rights environment will depend to a large extent upon the behavior of (1) the sponsors, such as Coca-Cola, (2) the IOC, (3) the national Olympic committees and their athletes, and (4) the attending broadcast and print journalists.

I am not optimistic about the IOC, whose president regularly mentions the beneficial effect of the Olympics on China's "social environment...including human rights," but has taken no institutional steps to hold China to the promises made by the official Beijing bid committee. This is a case where bureaucracy could be the friend of human rights— the IOC could establish an office responsible for monitoring and reporting to the IOC on the state of China's human rights environment and press freedom. Those two issues should be of ongoing concern for the IOC, in part to assess whether the Beijing bid committee's commitments are being fulfilled. A quarterly report from a monitoring officer would help to maintain steady pressure on the Chinese authorities to keep their promises. However, as I mentioned, I see no sign that the IOC will take any such step.

The Olympics' sponsors, such as Coca-Cola, are in a similar position to communicate expectations that China will live up to its commitments, and to complain when they are violated. Beijing is no doubt counting on major sponsorship dollars; potential sponsors should make clear that their sponsorship decisions will rest in part on evidence that the human rights environment in China is improving. The Coca-Cola web page on its Olympic sponsorship, however, makes no mention of institutional concern or expectations for human rights in China.

During actual course of the Beijing Olympics, the national Olympic committees (and their athletes) will be in a position to speak out on behalf of prisoners of conscience and other unfairly jailed dissidents. Protected from arrest by the glare of Olympic hoopla, the leading athletes will have the eyes of the world on them.

Finally, the attending print and broadcast journalists should test China's promises of full journalistic freedom to push the limits of what has previously been allowed -- like good journalists anywhere, they should roam Beijing, investigating and documenting the reality of China's human rights abuses.

In broadest terms, the application of steady, public pressure on the Chinese authorities by outsiders (especially those with economic, diplomatic, or media leverage) can foster strong incentives for improved behavior. The Chinese authorities are human beings; they care about their reputations.The various outside parties associated with the 2008 Olympics will be in an unusually strong position to influence those reputations by drawing attention to human rights abuses and pressuring the Chinese authorities not to disgrace the promises and commitments they have made. Early signs of attention to human rights by the IOC and the sponsors are not, however, encouraging.

Anne Callaghan — Our focus has been to try and pressurize the IOC to take up human rights concerns as part of its planning process with Beijing, thus creating incentive for reform and positive change.That is proving to be rather too demanding for the IOC at present.

My thoughts on possible positive effects of the Olympics are as follows:

Media freedom – The Chinese authorities have made some promises on in guaranteeing media freedom for the Games, although they have not been specific about the time frame or scope. I would hope that the media and media freedom organizations would begin to test China's promise on this score, bringing real heat to the issue. But we also need to ask, will the world' s media be able to transmit independently of any Chinese communication system to prevent blockages?

Freedom of expression – Sadly, I think that this area may not improve, given China's overwhelming obsession with putting on problem-free Games and trying to ensure that the Games do not provide an outlet for criticism of the Party. Examples of this include the arrest of Shan Chengfeng and his sentencing to 2 years in a labor camp in the very week that the IOC Evaluation Committee was in Beijing to evaluate the bid in February 2001.Who is going to press China on these issues when companies from the USA and Europe will be desperate to win bids for infrastructure and services for the Games or open up the Chinese marketplace?

Internet freedom – I think it is likely that China will continue to clamp down on Web sites, and the authorities are becoming more sophisticated in blocking sites.

Freedom of movement – Given that the world's press may well be camped in Beijing for the Games, it will be interesting to see how China ensures that persons it regards as "undesirables" (citizens or foreigners) do not get to move freely within China.

Labor rights – What guarantees will there be that no prison labor will be used in the manufacture or delivery of good related to the Olympics?

Security – It is hard to know what state the world will be in by 2008, but certainly China has been quick to use the current situation to justify its clampdown on "splittists" and "extremists." The IOC also seems to be stressing security considerations with Beijing and Athens 2004 at the moment, and it was one of the issues [IOC president Jacques] Rogge raised with us when we queried the continued reliance by the IOC on its clause stipulating that no political meetings or demonstrations are allowed to take place in the week running up to, during and after the Olympic Games.Will companies be drafted to help them create or run the technology required to do that? Interestingly, it's possible that increased access to technology could help dissident groups or external groups bypass official blocking systems as they try to raise human rights issues during the Games.

Tibet – I have a mixed response to this, as it's impossible to say what Hu Jintao will be like as a leader or whether he will be as sensitive to the world's perception of him as Jiang was (witness the release of Ngawang Sangdrol [a Tibetan nun imprisoned in 1992] in advance of Jiang's visit to the USA in October 2002).We have to remember that Hu was the man who oversaw the imposition of martial law in Tibet in 1988. Will he be paramount leader by 2008, or will Jiang still be guiding things through his people, or indeed will there be someone new to contend with? I think the Chinese leadership's approach to reform and desire for openness will determine Tibet's future and whether the initial discussions that occurred in September 2002 might actually blossom into a fully-fledged dialogue for a peaceful settlement on the issue of Tibet.

Xinjiang – My fear is that the situation here will continue to deteriorate as the Chinese leadership does seem to be targeting the country rather viciously.

Political prisoners/fair trials – Again, I have mixed feelings on this. Will there be a moratorium on arrests or will the Olympics be used as a blanket to cover up what is going on? It might be worth taking at look at what happened during the UN Women's conference in 1995.

Certainly, some Tibetan delegates were harassed and denied a visa, but what we should find out is whether there was a stepping up of arrests or release of prisoners to divert attention from the bigger picture.

Death penalty – Will there be mass sentencing rallies around the time of the Games? If this happened, it would be harder to argue why the Chinese government would do such a thing if they weren't ashamed or worried about affect of the death penalty on China's image.

Religious freedom – As with the death penalty and political prisoners, I'm not sure whether China will try to tone down its harassment of religious minorities.The situation in Tibet and the other "autonomous" provinces could be a source of embarrassment to the Chinese authorities. However, they may try to paint themselves as an all-inclusive country through "supporters" from these communities, possibly coercing entire populations into mass displays.

Release of political prisoners – I would think that there would be at least some high profile releases well in advance of the Games to try and take the sting out of the human rights question.What strikes me after having heard a presentation from a Chinese delegate from the Beijing committee at a sporting conference in October 2002 is that they are tired of hearing the human rights arguments when they present what the Games will look like, but they haven't yet formulated any convincing arguments to repel them.What would particularly interest us is if the Panchen Lama might be freed in advance of ratification of some international instrument. China may well have ratified the ICCPR by this point and may use ratification of other UN instruments to counter human rights arguments.

Corruption/transparency – China is quite sensitive on this subject but given the amount of money that will be involved in the Games, there is huge potential for wide-scale corruption. Perhaps if foreign companies could be persuaded to be openly transparent about their financial dealings in this respect and pressured to come clean, this could have a positive effect and set a precedent.

Sharon Hom — Thanks to everyone for your responses. From each of your respective perspectives—NGO advocacy, Internet policy, academic, and personal experience with China's security apparatus—you have raised a rich range of issues. As the moderator, I am joining in at this point to raise some additional questions.

Gao Zhan points out the highly politicized nature of the bid and the hosting of the Olympics and suggests that the Olympics will have a mixed effect on the human rights situation. It is clear that the PRC government has effectively raised the nationalism banner to mobilize public support for the hosting of the Olympics, as well as to silence critical political debate or attention to ongoing human rights violations in the name of national security or social stability. This appeal to nationalism for political purposes (e.g. maintaining control) is also effective in undermining international human rights activists' efforts to promote uncensored public debates and free flow of information.

So one follow-up question is: how can/should concerned actors address or respond to the very effective deployment of nationalism here by the PRC government? What strategies (rhetorical, advocacy, media, other?) can be explored to expose the political uses of appeal to nationalism?

Gao Zhan — In addition to carrying out counter-propaganda activities on the media front, we should also play politics with the Chinese on their hosting of the Olympic Games. Two things we could think of doing: we can exert pressure on the U.S. Congress and the IOC by revealing to them how China is exploiting the opportunity of hosting the Games, and we can ask them to pass resolutions condemning the Chinese government and demanding improvement.We could do this by visiting the offices of members of Congress and by writing to IOC officials, or by hosting press conferences or other public forums.

Anne Callaghan — I see a number of possible rhetorical responses that would defuse the pro-nationalism argument. Some examples:

– "Doesn't China Deserve Human Rights for Life – Not Just for the Olympics?"
– "Give Human Rights a Sporting Chance"
– "Chinese People Deserve Olympics, Corrupt Regime Does Not"

I think it's important to reach out to Chinese communities, not only in China, but also abroad. Embarrassment strategies might also be effective. For example, we could elaborate on how various regimes have sought to use the Olympics to justify their human rights practices. Another possibility would be to stage public stunts and/or press briefings at the Athens 2004 Olympics that might test China's approach to the Olympics. In addition, we could consider ways to embarrass the IOC Evaluation Committee.

Ideally we need to find athletes and other sporting personalities willing to speak out for human rights.We can also apply pressure on Olympic sponsors by examining their public statements on human rights and pointing out contradictions with their Olympic promotion.

Regarding media strategies, we should target International Press Freedom Day in May or the International Olympic Day in June to raise questions about the extent of media freedom in China.

Sharon Hom — Bobson Wong makes a distinction between the direct impact of the Olympics and the opportunities for making an impact due to a "world will be watching" context. He predicts a crackdown in the years leading up to the Olympics and perhaps a modest easing of some Internet restrictions to show China's openness. In suggesting that the key is monitoring human rights now, Bobson, can you talk more about DFN's plans in the lead-up to the Olympics? Can you also address more generally specific Internet strategies for monitoring human rights situation, (e.g. DFN's excellent monitoring work), and how to amplify voices from inside China as well as get uncensored information flow in?

Bobson Wong — At this point, DFN has no specific plans to do anything related to the Olympics – not because we don't think it's important but because we don't feel that tying our existing human rights monitoring to the Olympics will add much to the debate.

Empowering voices from within China involves a number of things.

First, Internet access in China needs to be improved; since the government is already spending a lot of money on this, I don't think there's much that people outside China need to do.

The second thing that needs to happen is for government filtering of the Internet to be reduced or eliminated.This is a much trickier thing – there are technological ways to get around filtering, of course.The problem is that many of these methods require some persistence - subscribing to e-mail lists that send you URLs of proxy servers that are only good for a few days before censors shut them down.This is not for the casual surfer.What's surprising is the substantial number of Net users in China who use them – about 10 percent of urban Internet users in China according to a recent study by researchers as the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.There is a lot of work to be done in this regard – advancements in tools like SafeWeb,Triangle Boy, and other technological methods for circumventing censorship will definitely help.

But technological tools only get you so far because the government has a lot of money to counteract anti-censorship tools in what journalists like to call a "cat-and-mouse" game. These policies won't change unless Internet users in China feel threatened. Change is not going to come from outside pressure. It's too late for that. Pressuring western Internet companies not to do business in China is pointless now because they have too much money involved to change their minds. In the last few years, dissidents have been detained for using the Internet for political purposes and unfortunately most users in China don't seem to care. Internet users in China have spoken out when the government overreached and began affecting the average user. Look at the outrage from ordinary users last September after access to Google was temporarily blocked, when cybercafes in Beijing were shut down in June after a terrible fire, and after Liu Di (a university student who made the mistake of protesting government restrictions on the Internet) was detained. Users are beginning to realize that the government isn't just targeting dissidents. Ordinary users' fears that they could be next is more likely to spur change than any technological advancement.

Sharon Hom — Anne Callaghan outlines a very thorough inventory of human rights concerns and issues. On Xinjiang, the situation is deteriorating and quite serious, and China has been opportunistically invoking the war against terrorism to wage its campaign against "separatists." Human Rights Watch and HRIC will be issuing a joint report in the spring 2003 on Xinjiang that we hope will generate more attention to the ongoing human rights abuses there. Some questions for Anne and everyone: – In pressing for guarantees for media freedom during the games (and leading up to the Games?), what kinds of specific guarantees can you suggest in terms of time frame or scope? – Are there any thoughts on Anne's question regarding the technological ability of international media to broadcast independently of a Chinese (and censored) communication system?

Anne Callaghan — On pressing for specific guarantees, one possibility would be to highlight one specific theme over and above the others each year. However, given the scope of human rights abuses involved and the need for year-on-year improvement, I would prefer more of a "report card" format, giving "end of term marks" to China on its human rights record.

On media freedom I suggest pressing for these guarantees:

– Unrestricted media access to all areas of China
– No media handlers during visits or interviews
– No interference with the publication or transmission of reports on human rights or political issues
– Removing site bans on the Web (with external monitoring on whether the number of affected sites has decreased, and whether key sites can be accessed)

Apart from making demands on the Chinese government, I think we should also encourage the cooperation of outside actors.

For instance, there could be a Hot Spot Identification program, through which front-line reporters could report back on how media freedom is frustrated.These reports should be tracked for follow-up in subsequent years to see if there's been any improvement.

We should also press Internet providers to challenge China's site bans and to withdraw from "voluntary codes."

Bobson Wong — I am not completely familiar with the abilities of satellite technology in circumventing local filters. However, if past history is any guide, I doubt that the government would censor information going out of China to the rest of the world. I think it's more likely that the government would censor information that people in China could see.

Sharon Hom — In terms of developing concrete measurable "benchmarks" for assessing and monitoring the human rights situation in China in the lead-up to the Olympics, what areas would you suggest these focus on? For example, HRIC is exploring the first year's benchmark (2003) as focusing on the release of all political prisoners, especially those still imprisoned for the now non-existent crime of counter-revolutionary activity.

Anne Callaghan — I would like to see the following benchmarks:

– Political prisoners – press for the release of all still being held for the now-non-existent crime of counterrevolutionary activity by the end of 2003 (but is it legally feasible to accomplish this so quickly?)

– Prison labor – develop codes of conduct relating to mer chandise manufactured in prison labor camps.We could call on Olympics sponsors to monitor implementation of the codes.

– International obligations – call on China to adhere to its cur rent international obligations, and to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

– Olympics preparation – Beijing authorities should pledge not to use the Olympics to justify a human rights crackdown or forced removal of people from their homes.

– Tibet issues – call for China to grant impartial international observers access to the Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. Access should in particular be granted to Special Rapporteurs on torture and religious freedom.

– Also on Tibet – press for full and unconditional negotiations with Tibet's Government in Exile by 2004.

One other thought is to look at possibilities for including the Olympics as part of areas studied by the various relevant Special Rapporteurs - and within UN committees. For example, the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights could provide an opportunity for examining China's record linked to rights abuses associated with the Games.

In addition, special hearings could be held within Congress or various parliaments analyzing the information and debating whether companies should be allowed to bid for contracts that may facilitate human rights abuse – I'm thinking particularly of security and monitoring equipment.

Sharon Hom — Thanks to everyone for making the time to share your ideas and perspectives in this round-table discussion. Anne's thorough coverage of the breadth of issues and specific strategy ideas clearly reflect the effective advocacy and research grounding the Free Tibet Campaign. Bobson offered good insights regarding the role of technology in developing strategies for empowering more voices within China. Gao Zhan and Andrew offered mixed assessments on the likely impact (or not) of the Olympics on China's human rights environment. As HRIC moves forward with our Incorporating Responsibility 2008 campaign, we invite ongoing discussion and input from all of you as well as from all our readers.W e hope that by sharing ideas and collaborating on specific strategies, we can work together in the coming years to maximize the window of opportunity for making a greater impact on the improving the human rights situation in China.