Saturday, 6 November 2021

Chinese Translation of ASPI’s “Architecture of Repression” Xinjiang Report Now Available

This week, CDT finished publishing a Chinese translation of “The Architecture of Repression,” a recent report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on the bureaucratic, legal, and rhetorical foundations of mass detentions and other rights abuses in Xinjiang. The introduction to the original English report (authored by Vicky Xiuzhong Xu, James Leibold, and Daria Impiombato) lays out its goals and contents:

Since the mass internment of Uyghurs and other indigenous groups in China was first reported in 2017, there is now a rich body of literature documenting recent human rights abuses in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. However, there is little knowledge of the actual perpetrators inside China’s vast and opaque party-state system, and responsibility is often broadly attributed to the Chinese Communist Party, Xinjiang Party Secretary Chen Quanguo, or President Xi Jinping himself.

For accountability, it is necessary to investigate how China’s campaign against the Uyghurs has been implemented and which offices and individuals have played a leading part. The current knowledge gap has exposed international companies and organisations to inadvertent engagement with Chinese officials who have facilitated the atrocities in Xinjiang. It has also prevented foreign governments from making targeted policy responses.

Finally, it is essential to carry out such an investigation now. Amid debate internationally about whether the recent events in Xinjiang constitute genocide, Chinese officials are actively scrubbing relevant evidence and seeking to silence those who speak out.

This project maps and analyses the governance mechanisms employed by the Chinese party-state in Xinjiang from 2014 to 2021 within the context of the region’s ongoing human rights crisis. To that end, the authors have located and scrutinised thousands of Chinese-language sources, including leaked police records and government budget documents never before published. This archive of sources is made publicly available for the use of others. [Source]

The report details the variegated infrastructure underpinning the 2014 Counterterrorism Campaign and the 2017 Re-education Campaign in Xinjiang. The latter, it notes, included “a distinct five-year plan to radically alter Xinjiang society […] and to achieve ‘comprehensive stability’ (全面稳定) by the end of 2021,” an observation in line with recent reports of shifts in the region. At the level of central strategy, ASPI notes a “striking resemblance” between these campaigns and Mao-era mass mobilizations, and points out that “in addition to mass internment and coercive labour assignments, Xinjiang residents are also compelled to participate in acts of political theatre, such as mass show trials, public denunciation sessions, loyalty pledges, sermon-like ‘propaganda lectures’, and chants for Xi Jinping’s good health.” The authors examine Beijing’s “reflexive compulsion” for this kind of “campaign-style governance” via a survey of leading analysts’ views. Campaign-style governance is described as a counterpart to and suspension of regular, bureaucratic “norm-based governance”: a “‘guerilla policy style,’” “defined by ‘secrecy, versatility, speed, and surprise,’” which offers “‘a tool for the party-state to correct the perceived failings of its vast bureaucratic machine,’” or to bridge “‘the gap between the party-state’s desired governance outcomes and current administrative capabilities.’”

In addition to this top-down strategic focus, the report details the key roles of lower-level officialdom, highlighting county-level Party secretaries and local neighborhood or village committees. In Xinjiang, county secretaries “are directly responsible for a number of ‘first-in-command projects’ (一把手工程), from orchestrating the Counterterrorism Campaign in their jurisdictions, to leading a taskforce that oversees the county’s Vocational Education and Training Service Management Bureau (职业技能教育培训服务管理局) also known as the Re-education Bureau (教培局), to signing ‘statements of target and responsibility’ (目标责任状) for coercive labour transfers and, finally, to overseeing the implementation of population-control measures.” Although Uyghurs have served in this role in the past, as of September 2021, “not a single county party secretary in Xinjiang is Uyghur, which speaks to the erasure of once-promised ethnic self-rule, and to deeply entrenched racism at the heart of the Han-dominated party-state system.” Three officials receive individual profiles: the “young, loyal and capable” Tsinghua- and Harvard-educated Yao Ning; Yang Fasen, now a vice-governor, who as county secretary pioneered a widely emulated model of propaganda-heavy “de-extremification”; and Uyghur deputy county secretary Obulqasim Mettursun, whose enthusiastic adoption of Party rhetoric in essays and “propaganda lectures” made him the focus of a regionwide “Learn From Obulqasim Mettursun“ campaign and won him the titles of Outstanding Communist Party Member and Advanced Model of National Unity—though not, yet, promotion to the rank of fully-fledged county secretary.

The authors also describe grassroots implementation of the campaigns through a “Trinity” system of neighborhood committees, police, and external “Fanghuiju” teams:

[… T]he Neighbourhood Committee (社区居委会), a nominally service-oriented voluntary organisation, has morphed into a powerful policing organ. Its new functions now include issuing travel permits for Uyghur residents, monitoring residents’ actions and emotions in their homes, committing individuals to re-education camps and subjecting relatives of those detained to ‘management and control’ orders that are akin to house arrest.

[…] Xi took inspiration from the 1963 ‘Fengqiao Experience’ (枫桥经验), in which work units and commune brigades mobilised the masses in targeting and transforming the ‘enemies’ hiding among the people. Adapted for contemporary use, Xi has unleashed the neighbourhood and village committees to expand the party’s visibility and control at the grassroots and to pre-empt any source of instability. Grassroots mobilisation efforts increasingly blanket China and have been criticised for their arbitrariness during the Covid-19 pandemic, when neighbourhood committees outside Xinjiang denied residents who returned from travel access to their own homes. [Source]

Drawing on leaked documents, the report provides particularly valuable detail on Fanghuiju—“shorthand for ‘Visit the People, Benefit the People, and Link the Hearts of the People’ (访民情、惠民生、聚民心).” In notoriously invasive home visits to Uyghur families deemed particularly suspect, officers calling themselves “relatives” of the targets deliver political instruction and monitor domestic tidiness, emotional stability, and ideological rectitude. The report includes excerpts from official reports on repeated visits to the family of a 19-year-old who was detained and eventually sentenced to three years in prison for using the Zapya file-sharing app and, allegedly, a VPN.

Also cited is a manual, used in Kashgar Prefecture, which encourages participants to “show warmth to their Uyghur ‘relatives’ and give kids candy. It also provided a checklist that includes questions such as: ‘When entering the household, do family members appear flustered and use evasive language? Do they not watch TV programs at home, and instead only watch VCD discs? Are there any religious items still hanging on the walls of the house?’” Participation in the visits is widespread, with “almost every department and office in Xinjiang” contributing personnel, including seemingly unrelated bodies such as the Agricultural Machinery Bureau.

The ASPI authors also offer insight into the official language of the campaign. This is a highly charged, militaristic lexicon of “micro clues” and “enemy movements”; “severing heads” and “brandishing the sword”; and the “three loves” (for the Party, the motherland, and “the big family of the Chinese nation-race”), “three oppositions” (to separatism, extremism, and violence), “three gratitudes” (to the motherland, the Party, and Xi), and “three wishes” (for the motherland’s prosperity, Xi’s good health, and ethnic harmony and unity).

The report concludes:

By examining the Chinese party-state’s governance methods, this report illustrates how human rights abuses are being carried out in Xinjiang and by whom. Mass campaigns aimed at political realignment are not artefacts of a bygone era. Rather, they are occuring at a time when Chinese society is more tightly connected with the world than ever before, and pursued along racial and religious lines in Xinjiang with profound social impacts. Consequently, this is the first PRC mass campaign that liberal democracies have experienced up close, while knowingly or unknowingly consuming its outputs, such as products made with forced labour. [Source]



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/11/chinese-translation-of-aspis-architecture-of-repression-xinjiang-report-now-available/

Friday, 5 November 2021

EU Sends First Official Delegation to Taiwan: Supporting Democracy, Countering Disinformation on the Agenda

This week, the EU sent its first official parliamentary delegation to Taiwan. The delegation consisted of seven members of the European Parliament’s Special Committee on Foreign Interference, also known as IGNE, along with six other lawmakers hailing from a range of political parties within the European Parliament. In what Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen called a “highly significant” three-day visit, the EU delegation praised Taiwan’s thriving democracy and met with various Taiwanese government and civil society stakeholders to learn best practices for combating disinformation. Over the past few months, the EU has shifted towards more comprehensive relations with Taiwan, concurrent with China’s increasing threats against both EU member states and the island it considers its own. 

The delegation’s reception included meetings with Premier Su Tseng-chang and Deputy Foreign Minister Harry Tseng on Wednesday, President Tsai Ing-wen on Thursday, and Digital Minister Audrey Tang on Friday. Both sides projected a message of unity, beginning with Taiwanese airline EVA Air shuttling the EU delegation from Paris to Taipei. The delegation called Taiwan a “key partner and democratic ally.” Raphael Glucksmann, the French MEP leading the delegation and chairperson of IGNE, described Taiwan’s democracy as a “treasure” that must be protected. Sarah Wu at Reuters reported on Glucksmann and President Tsai’s solidarity and call for greater cooperation:

“We came here with a very simple, very clear message: You are not alone. Europe is standing with you,” Raphael Glucksmann, a French member of the European Parliament, told Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen in a meeting broadcast live on Facebook.

“Our visit should be considered as an important first step,” said Glucksmann, who is leading the delegation. “But next we need a very concrete agenda of high-level meetings and high-level concrete steps together to build a much stronger EU-Taiwan partnership.”

[…] “We hope to establish a democratic alliance against disinformation,” Tsai told the delegation in the Presidential Office.

“We believe Taiwan and the EU can certainly continue strengthening our partnership in all domains.” [Source]

One major reason for the delegation’s visit was to learn from Taiwan’s experience combating disinformation. In the face of large-scale, state-backed destabilization campaigns originating from China, specifically targeting Taiwanese media and elections, Taiwan has proven to be a remarkable example for the West on how to protect its citizens from disinformation without overly restricting access to information. The EU is keen to replicate Taiwan’s strategies as it faces similar challenges. In June 2020, the EU publicly labeled China as a source of disinformation. Lawrence Chung from the South China Morning Post described the EU delegation’s desire to learn from Taiwan to strengthen its own democracy: 

“We came here to learn from you, to learn from your capacity for building such a vibrant democracy while being confronted with such a level of threats and interference,” said Glucksmann, a vocal critic of China, who had been barred by Beijing from visiting the mainland.

Glucksmann said Europe is also facing “large-scale actions orchestrated by an authoritarian regime to vandalise European society and weaken its democracy”.

“Your success in building your democracy while being confronted with such threats is good advice for us,” Glucksmann said, adding the delegation could learn from Taiwan’s experience in dealing with this kind of threat and see what tactics can be applied at home.

[…] For her part, Tsai expressed her appreciation for the group’s visit, saying Taiwan is hoping to establish a “democratic alliance against disinformation” as the challenge is a global one.

[…] “Taiwan is also willing to share its experience in combating disinformation with our European friends. This will deepen our partnership and help safeguard the free and democratic way of life we enjoy.” [Source]

In the Diplomat, Staś Butler described the particular lessons Taiwan can share with the EU’s IGNE:

“Dividing our society is the ultimate goal for [China’s] actions,” said Wu Ming-hsuan, co-founder of Doublethink Lab. Wu’s organization is one of several Taiwan-based groups aiming to classify and counter the spread of misinformation and disinformation in Taiwanese society.

“Fortunately, I think that the resistance of the civil society of Taiwan is quite strong. There’s a lot of action being taken by civil society organizations like Taiwan FactCheck Center, or other fact checking communities, volunteer groups, trying to do more,” Wu said. Such groups are working on “not only fact checks, but how to disseminate those fact check results to the general public by using messenger apps, chatbots, or just going directly to the community.”

Alicja Bachulska, a China analyst at the War Studies University in Warsaw, said INGE can learn a lot from Taiwan. “For both geographic and historical reasons, Taiwan’s ties with the PRC can serve as a case study when it comes to understanding Beijing’s approach towards both direct and indirect coercion.”

In her view, INGE “should focus more on understanding Taiwan’s resilience and also learn more about its anti-pandemic measures.” [Source]

Focus Taiwan, Taiwan’s national news agency, highlighted the significance and growth of such close collaboration between Taiwan and the EU:

Commenting on the visiting delegation Wednesday, Executive Director of the European Union Center in Taiwan Marc Cheng (鄭家慶) said that Taiwan-Europe relations have increased in visibility over the past few years due to visiting delegations to and from both sides.

These delegations also reflect the fact that the two sides have grown closer, and as topics of mutual concern between Taiwan and Europe expand in scope the relationship will further deepen over the next few years, Cheng told CNA.

[…] It is incredibly meaningful now that Taiwan and Europe are engaging in official exchanges, Cheng said.

DPP lawmaker Lo Chih-cheng (羅致政) said that the visiting delegation shows the EP is unwilling to bow to pressure from China, which has repeatedly warned European countries to refrain from engaging with Taiwan. [Source]

A series of exchanges in October set the stage for the EU’s official visit this week. On October 7, a small delegation of French senators led by Alain Richard, former French Defense Minister and head of the French Senate’s Taiwan Friendship Group, visited Taiwan for a five-day trip. Richard, on his third trip to Taiwan, was given a medal of honor by President Tsai; in his acceptance speech, he called Taiwan a country. A few weeks later, on October 27, Taiwanese Foreign Minister Joseph Wu embarked on a European tour, during which he met openly with lawmakers in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Lithuania, and covertly with MEPs in Belgium, while securing dozens of memorandums of understanding in a variety of fields. On October 21, the EU parliament passed a non-binding resolution to strengthen connections with Taiwan. The resolution, passed in a landslide vote of 580-26, calls for the EU to adopt sweeping changes: prepare a bilateral investment agreement with Taiwan, change the name of its representative office in Taipei to the “European Union Office in Taiwan,” and grant Taiwan observer status in the WHO and Interpol. It is one of 12 resolutions friendly to Taiwan that the EU passed this year. 

The EU’s warming relations with Taiwan coincide with its deteriorating relations with China. In March, the EU imposed sanctions on four Chinese officials for their role in alleged human rights violations in Xinjiang. Beijing responded immediately with counter-sanctions against MEPs, national lawmakers, scholars, think tanks, and EU institutions. The EU Parliament, in turn, froze the ratification of the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China. After Lithuania announced in July that it would allow Taiwan to call its office in the capital of Vilnius the “Taiwanese Representative Office in Lithuania,” China imposed trade barriers and both countries recalled their ambassadors in a tense standoff. The EU rallied to Lithuania’s defense in an October 28 joint letter, with EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and EU Council President Charles Michel vowing to “push back” against “threats, political pressure, and coercive measures” from China. 

Beijing has strongly denounced the EU’s overtures to Taiwan. The Global Times mocked European “political clowns” for their “lame roadshow” in Taipei and criticized “Taiwan’s secessionist regional leader Tsai Ing-wen.” As the One-China policy is increasingly tested, the risk of military backlash has grown substantially. In early October, the PLA sent a record-breaking 148 aircraft into Taiwan’s Air Defense Zone within a four-day period, with as many as 56 incursions in a single day. While the US has pushed for Taiwan’s official recognition at the UN, recent Chinese government announcements urging citizens to stockpile food have worried some onlookers that Beijing may be preparing for war. 

The EU faces a difficult balancing act between supporting Taiwan and not enraging China. Greek MEP Georgios Kyrtsos stated that their delegation visit did not upgrade Taiwan to the level of a state, insisting, “We did not come here to provoke a situation, we came here to send a message that we are supporting a democratic country and developing our economic ties.” (However, his choice of the word “country” might undermine his point.) Andrew Rettman in EUobserver described a similar mindset among other members of the delegation who noted the imperative of cooperation with Taiwan: 

Speaking to EUobserver from Taipei, Petras Auštrevičius, a Lithuanian liberal MEP on the delegation, said if China was to impose fresh sanctions because of the visit, it would be “a sign of growing Chinese assertiveness and nationalism”.

“If we do not support democracies and don’t cooperate with them we are simply doomed and losing our political orientation. We aren’t changing the status quo [on Taiwan], but talking to like-minded partners,” he said. [Source]

Despite the EU’s warmer relations with Taiwan, China-E.U. cooperation on issues such as climate change and green projects continues unabated. On Thursday, at a side event of the 26th U.N. Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26), the International Platform on Sustainable Finance (co-chaired by the EU and China) published a set of standards for defining green projects. As Tang Ziyi and Wang Liwei reported for Caixin Global, the standards are designed to facilitate more cross-border investment in green projects between China and EU nations:

It lists 80 economic activities across six industries that have been defined as green and sustainable by both China and the EU. The six industries are agriculture, forestry and fishing; manufacturing; electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply; construction; water supply, and sewage, waste management and remediation activities; as well as transportation and storage. The taxonomy also offers criteria for gauging a project’s contribution to mitigating climate change.

“It is expected to support China-EU green finance cooperation and mobilize cross-border climate financing by lowering the green certification cost for cross-border transactions,” the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) said in a statement Thursday. “It could be used as a voluntary reference by market participants when issuing or trading green financial products.”

At the end of 2020, China was the world’s largest issuer of green loans by outstanding value, and it had the second-largest market for green bonds, according to central bank data. However, that was partly due to its loose standards for defining green projects. [Source]



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/11/eu-sends-first-official-delegation-to-taiwan-supporting-democracy-countering-disinformation-on-the-agenda/

Photo: Shanghai Streets, by Ryan

A bicycle repair shop

Shanghai Streets, by Ryan (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/11/photo-shanghai-streets-by-ryan/

Thursday, 4 November 2021

Inside Peng Shuai’s Accusation Against Former Top Leader: #MeToo, Censorship, and Resistance Discourse

This post was co-written by Alex Yu.

Late in the evening of November 2, Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai made an earth-shaking allegation: that a former member of the Politburo Standing Committee sexually assaulted her, and then kept her as his mistress. Peng posted an essay on Weibo alleging that Zhang Gaoli, former Vice Premier and member of the seven-man Politburo Standing Committee, coerced her into a sexual relationship. The essay was censored a mere 20 minutes after it was posted to Weibo, and a feverish cat-and-mouse game of censorship ensued. By the end of the night, Peng Shuai—a Wimbledon and French Open doubles champ once ranked number one in the world—had become part of the ever-expanding repository of sensitive words on the Chinese internet. Although she did not explicitly identify herself with the #MeToo movement, many view her essay as the first #MeToo post to broach sexual assault at the highest levels of the Chinese government. 

According to Peng’s account, she and Zhang Gaoli first had sex more than ten years ago in Tianjin, when Zhang was the city’s Party chief. Peng alleged that the two reconnected about three years ago, after Zhang’s retirement, when he invited her to play tennis and subsequently pressured her into having sex in his bedroom, while his wife guarded the door from outside:

I did not consent at first that afternoon. I cried the whole time. When I had dinner with you and Auntie Kang Jie [Zhang’s wife], you said that the universe was so big that the earth was no more than a grain of sand in comparison, and that we humans were even less than that. You kept talking, trying to persuade me to let go of my “mental baggage.” After dinner, when I was still reluctant, you said that you hated me! You then said that you had never forgotten about me over the past seven years, and that you would take care of me …I said yes because I was scared and panicky, and still had feelings for you from seven years ago … and then, yes, we had sex.

[…] You were always afraid I would make recordings and keep them as evidence. In fact, I have no evidence or proof other than my own word. I don’t have any recordings or videos. All I have are the true experiences of my own twisted self. I know that you, the high and mighty Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli, have said you’re not afraid. But even if I’m like an egg cracking against a rock or a moth to the flame, bent on self-destruction, I will speak the truth about you and me. I suspect that, given your intelligence, you’ll try to deny this or strike back at me. The world is but a plaything to you. You always say you hope your mother is watching over you from heaven. I’m a bad girl who doesn’t deserve to be a mother. You’re a father with a son and daughter. I’ve asked you before: if it were your adopted daughter, would you force her to do what I’ve done? Could you really, in good conscience, bear to face your mother after all you’ve done in your life? We are all so sanctimonious … [Chinese]

Almost as soon as the essay was posted, Peng Shuai and Zhang Gaoli’s names were censored. Attempts to post their names on Weibo triggered a notice that “relevant laws and regulations” prevented the action. Soon after, their initials “PS” and “ZGL” were also censored, driving Weibo users to take refuge in a host of increasingly abstract homophones, allusions, variant characters and improvised stand-ins. Zhang Gaoli became “Zhuge Liang,” the famed military strategist of yore, and “Zhang Guoli,” the popular actor/director/comedian. Peng Shuai became “Bodhisattva” (菩萨 Púsà), singer/songwriter “Pu Shu,” and “Marshal (元帅 Yuánshuài) Peng Dehuai,” all of which share pinyin initials or other elements with her name. After Weibo began censoring those terms as well, users took to posting the phrase: “Eddie Peng is so handsome.” (The Taiwanese actor and Peng Shuai share the same surname, and the tennis star’s given name uses the character for “handsome.”)


A Weibo user posts “Eddie Peng is just too handsome,” while sharing a flipped, upside-down screenshot of Peng Shuai’s original Weibo post.

Weibo also locked down miscellaneous posts from years past relating to Peng Shuai, Zhang Gaoli, tennis, and even British politician Matt Hancock’s affair after the latter became an avenue for netizens’ sarcastic discussions on the improprieties of foreign officials. Douban banned users who mentioned Peng’s post, even obliquely, and censored commentary on the Korean drama “The Prime Minister and I” after it became a code-word for Zhang Gaoli and Peng Shuai. Tencent removed the popular drama from its streaming service. Douban also removed a post that substituted former United States Vice President Mike Pence for Zhang and Serena Williams for Peng.

Weibo used nearly all the tools in its censorship toolkit to suppress discussion of Peng’s post. Searches for “the universe is so big,” a line from Peng’s post, returned only results from verified organization accounts (personal accounts, even verified, were excluded), and searches for “tennis” were similarly restricted. By preventing the display of non-verified users’ posts, Weibo was able to dramatically streamline its censorship by limiting the number of accounts it had to censor.

Given the stringent censorship of verified Weibo accounts and close scrutiny of any content relating to Party leaders, some have wondered why Weibo allowed Peng to post her message in the first place. CDT Chinese’s Eric Liu, who formerly worked as a Weibo censor, wrote that athletes and other celebrities who rarely post on political themes do not have their posts inspected before publication, unlike those users considered “sensitive Big V’s,” who have each of their posts screened. Peng’s post was left up for approximately 30 minutes before censors deleted it, a timeframe Liu called “normal to slow.” The post did not go viral while it was live, likely because of Weibo’s “automatic shadow ban” feature, which makes potentially sensitive posts unsearchable and thus less viral. Her post was only shared 1,000 times in the 34 minutes that it was uncensored, but after it was deleted, it was searched for 6,749,000 times. Peng’s Weibo account still exists, although all her posts are locked and her bio, which once was the opening lines of her post about Zhang Gaoli, has been changed to an anodyne description of her athletic accomplishments.

While intense, the censorship of Peng’s account does not compare to that of Hao Haidong, widely considered the greatest soccer player in Chinese history. In 2020, Hao declared his opposition to the Chinese Communist Party and his intention to create the “New Federal State of China” with Guo Wengui and Steve Bannon. Hao’s name became a “first-level” sensitive word and all of his accounts across all social media platforms were deleted. His website haohaidong.com.cn was also taken offline.

Not all censorship was imposed from above. Some users accused those posting about the scandal on foreign social media sites of “passing the knife” to foreign forces. This left many in a hopeless predicament: “Post on the foreign internet and give hostile foreign forces a smoking gun. Post on the Chinese internet and see it deleted in seconds, accompanied by a comment ban. You lose no matter what.” 

Weibo users hunting for censored news wrote of seeking “melons” or “melon seeds,” both online slang terms for morsels of gossip. The word “melon” and the watermelon emoji were both subsequently banned by Weibo. Some delighted in the cheeky search for “melons,” for example by posting “eating melons” in the comment section of Serbian tennis star Novak Djokovic’s latest Weibo post. The quest for “melons” turned the battle between censor and poster into a game. Yet others found the tongue-in-cheek use of “eating melons” unseemly. “When a heart-wrenching accusation becomes a meme like ‘a melon we commoners can’t eat,’ they’ve already won,” wrote one Douban user. Another implored others to remember Peng’s pain, which they felt was obscured by the talk of “melons.” Others lamented that the pressures of censorship had destroyed language and turned learning the truth into a fearful thing: 

There is a “new normal” in this land: On hearing about the scandals of high-level officials, our instinctive reaction is fear. We know which side will win before the battle is even fought. Everyone knows this, but no one dares to discuss it; everything is secretive, and swept under the rug. Everything is reduced to code words; everyone nudges you into deleting your posts. It’s as if, by the simple act of reading something, we have become the wrongdoers. [Chinese]

Peng Shuai’s allegation is nigh unprecedented in modern Chinese history, and entirely unprecedented in China’s #MeToo movement, which had not previously touched the upper echelons of the Party. Sexual impropriety by lower-ranking Party officials, however, is less uncommon news. A study by researchers at Beijing’s Renmin University found that 95% of high-level officials detained for corruption in 2012 had had extramarital affairs; in 60% of these cases, sexual misconduct was the primary cause of their downfall. Scandals involving lower-level officials’ sexual improprieties often go viral. In March, a young woman was sentenced to prison after her former lovers, all powerful officials in small-town Jiangsu, turned on her and likely framed her for extortion. Her case went viral and drew nationwide attention. When Zhou Yongkang was snared by Xi’s anti-corruption campaign in 2014, social media users were given free rein to speculate on his sexual habits. There was even a game released on QQ and WeChat titled, “Do You Dare Touch The Tiger’s Butt?” The crucial difference between these past cases and Peng Shuai’s accusation against Zhang Gaoli is that Zhou, and countless other disgraced officials, were only fair game for public discussion after their downfall within the Party, whereas Zhang is a Party member seemingly in good standing.

Dubbed a “cautious reformer” by some Western media, Zhang is known for keeping a low profile. In the course of his career, he has made very few public appearances or speeches. According to an official media report published in 2013, he has one son, who at the time was a low-ranking military officer. Left out of the official report was Zhang’s adopted daughter named Zhang Xiaoyan, whom Peng Shuai mentioned in her essay. The younger Zhang is married to Hong Kong businessman Lee Shing Put, who had business operations in Tianjin, where Zhang Gaoli once served as Party chief. The couple were named in Panama Papers as shareholders of offshore companies incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.

Authorities have allowed discussion of other #MeToo accusations when politically expedient. After a fan accused Chinese-Canadian megastar Kris Wu of rape, authorities allowed discussion to percolate online, likely because the accusation coincided with a crackdown on the entertainment industry. But #MeToo activists who have taken a stand against the patriarchal structure of Chinese society have faced severe backlash. Huang Xueqin, a feminist activist, was detained in September and has been held incommunicado ever since.  Zhou Xiaoxuan, better known as Xianzi, has repeatedly had her social media accounts shuttered. News of her ultimately unsuccessful suit against powerful television anchor Zhu Jun for sexual harassment was universally censored, “no exceptions.” She posted a veiled message of solidarity with Peng Shuai on Wechat near midnight on Tuesday evening, “I hope she’s safe.” A post from a Weibo user on the same night reflected: “Thinking back to when China’s #MeToo first emerged, some said it started in the entertainment world because it was the most chaotic. Obviously not—it’s just because the other [political] power system is more tightly closed and cannot be exposed.” Despite such state-directed pressure and harassment, #MeToo continues to exert a powerful influence on Chinese society. In a Twitter essay, later republished by CDT Chinese, U.S.-based feminist activist Lü Pin reflected on the enduring power of China’s “Rice Bunny” movement [“Rice bunny” is a homophonous euphemism for #MeToo]:

Everything is under surveillance. Even things yet unsent get censored. So many Rice Bunny voices were never heard, as can be imagined. Today the barriers to speaking up are extremely high. Nonetheless, Rice Bunny continues to break through censorship. It relies on those touched and moved by the heart-wrenching accusations of victims, which inspires people to discuss and repost, and to speak on their behalf. It relies on this spontaneous wave of human emotion, so that eventually everyone is made aware of the truth, and censorship loses its power. [Chinese]

The Party’s official stance on Peng’s post is ignorance. “I haven’t heard of it and it isn’t a diplomatic question,” a Foreign Ministry spokesperson said in response to a question about the case in a press briefing on Wednesday. As of Thursday, November 4, Peng’s whereabouts are unknown. Several foreign media outlets attempted to make contact with her or her representatives, but none were successful.



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/11/inside-peng-shuais-accusation-against-former-top-leader-metoo-censorship-and-resistance-discourse/

Photo: Skating [Shichahai, Beijing], by b cheng

Several dozen warmly dressed skaters enjoy ice-skating on an outdoor lake in Shichahai, Beijing. In the background are several modern high rises and the red columns and tiled rooftops of Beijing’s ancient Drum and Bell Tower.

Skating [Shichahai, Beijing], by b cheng (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/11/photo-skating-shichahai-beijing-by-b-cheng/

Foreign Correspondents Club of China Demands Greater Transparency from Organizers of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics 

The Foreign Correspondents Club of China (FCCC) released a statement on Tuesday criticizing the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (BOCOG) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for their lack of transparency regarding Olympic-related reporting in China. The press group described numerous ways in which the foreign press has been “continuously stymied” in its attempts to report on the upcoming 2022 Winter Olympic Games, drawing attention to the Chinese government’s hostile attitude towards reporters and foreshadowing the difficulties foreign correspondents will face when the games begin in February. Janet Paskin at Bloomberg summarized the main criticisms contained in the FCCC statement:

Foreign media staff have over the past year been excluded from news conferences, venue visits and other routine events that were open to domestic media, the Foreign Correspondents Club of China said in a statement Tuesday. Journalists have been denied access for numerous reasons, including venue capacity, Covid-protocols and security concerns, the group said.

“There is still tremendous uncertainty over how and if foreign correspondents will be able to cover the Games,” the FCCC wrote in a statement. 

The behavior failed to uphold IOC charter provisions requiring the body to “ensure the fullest coverage by the different media and the widest possible audience in the world” as well as China’s own pledge to give media the freedom to report the games and their preparations, the group said. [Source]

An IOC spokesperson later stated that the IOC would address the FCCC’s concerns with the Beijing 2022 Organizing Committee. The spokesperson added that the IOC’s integrity and compliance hotline, designed for journalists to report violations encountered during their coverage, and singled out by the FCCC for not working, was now fixed. The Chinese government offered a more adversarial response. In his press conference, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin took issue with the FCCC’s statement and noted that China does not recognize the group nor believe it fully represents all of the foreign journalists working in China. But at the Guardian, Helen Davidson highlighted reporter testimonies supporting the FCCC’s criticism:

The FCCC provided several testimonies, including from a US journalist who said they were stopped and questioned by police after they tried to take photos with their phone of a venue, from a public road.

Another broadcaster said it was called by an organiser of an Olympic venue tour and shouted at over a report that mentioned human rights boycotts. “We haven’t been given access since,” the broadcaster said.

A European newspaper reporter who attempted to visit venues after BOCOG failed to grant access was stopped at the entrance to winter sports slopes in Chongli and Yanqing. “This lack of access means Chinese state media claims about the environmental sustainability of venues are impossible to verify,” the reporter said. [Source]

Press access will be further complicated by Covid-19 safety measures. China has some of the most stringent pandemic-related restrictions on movement, and many correspondents are worried that the Chinese government will abuse these safety restrictions to limit press coverage of the Olympics. Chinese authorities have already used the pandemic to disrupt reporting by forcing foreign journalists to take an unreasonable number of Covid-19 tests and threatening them arbitrarily with quarantine. Andrew Keh from the New York Times described China’s “closed-loop” bubble for the Olympics, which appears significantly stricter than that imposed during the Tokyo 2021 Olympics:

The Beijing Olympic and Paralympic Games will take place in what organizers called a “closed-loop management system,” a bubblelike environment in which athletes, officials, broadcasters, journalists and a large Games work force will be forced to eat, sleep, work and compete, without leaving, from the day they arrive to the moment they depart.

[…] Members of the local news media and the venue work forces [for the 2021 Summer Olympics] in Tokyo, meanwhile, were allowed to commute to Olympic venues from their homes. And after a 14-day period of more harsh restrictions, all visitors to the Games were given the freedom to move about the city as they wished.

The so-called closed-loop management system planned in China, the I.O.C. said, would encompass “all Games-related areas, including arrival and departure, transport, accommodation, catering, competitions, and the Opening and Closing Ceremonies.”

The I.O.C. statement suggested that no one inside the system would be allowed to venture out of it for any reason: “Within the closed loop, participants will be allowed to move only between Games-related venues for training, competitions and work. A dedicated Games transport system will be put in place.” [Source]

China is infamous for its treacherous reporting environment. Reporters Without Borders ranks China 177 out of 180 countries in its 2020 World Press Freedom Index. A past report by the FCCC revealed that 80 percent of correspondents had experienced “interference, harassment or violence” while reporting in China. Among the 47 journalists jailed in China in 2020, the highest number of any country, two are Australian citizens: Yang Hengjun and Cheng Lei. That same year, at least 20 foreign foreign journalists were expelled from or otherwise forced to leave China. Conditions have not improved since then. In February, the Chinese government banned the BBC from broadcasting, inciting a “campaign of harassment” that resulted in  threats of violence directed at BBC reporters. During the July floods in Zhengzhou, in Henan Province, foreign correspondents from the Los Angeles Times, Deutsche Welle, and the Associated Press were harassed by angry mobs that impeded their investigations. A June 2021 survey conducted by ChinaFile showed that 40 percent of respondents, citing the increasingly repressive atmosphere, would not want to return to China after Covid-19 restrictions are lifted. 

Iris Hsu with the Committee to Protect Journalists provided concrete examples of the Chinese government’s negative treatment of journalists in the period leading up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics:

  • Foreign journalists were harassed, threatened, and had to fend off interference by Chinese officials while trying to do their jobs. The Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China documented more than 230 cases of harassment, obstruction, and detention and at least 10 cases of death threats made against foreign journalists in China.
  • Six Hong Kong broadcasters were expelled from the Tibet Autonomous Region for covering anti-government demonstrations; at least 50 foreign journalists told the FCCC that they also faced obstruction from officials while trying to report in Tibet.
  • In just one example of repercussions for domestic reporting, Chinese freelance journalist Lü Gengsong was sentenced in 2008 to four years in prison on subversion charges for publishing articles about government corruption and organized crime. After his release, Lü was arrested again in 2014 and is currently serving an 11-year sentence in prison for writing on human rights issues. [Source]

Echoing 2008, the 2022 Beijing Olympics are mired in controversy over the Chinese government’s reported human rights abuses. Human rights groups have argued that the alleged genocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang and the National Security Law crackdown on political and civil rights in Hong Kong are grounds for boycotting the games. Prominent activists have propelled these issues into mainstream consciousness, and some U.S. politicians have proposed a diplomatic boycott. To avoid international protests that might amplify calls for a boycott, organizers flew the Olympic torch directly from Athens to Beijing without a global relay. The Chinese government is keen to ensure that its own version of the Olympics will be the one on display to the world.



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/11/foreign-correspondents-club-of-china-demands-greater-transparency-from-organizers-of-the-2022-beijing-winter-olympics/