Being undercover as a Western journalist in Burma.
Tag Archive for 'censorship'
My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:
China’s rapid growth is often forgotten when analysing the country’s human rights record, but these issues should not be ignored in the rush for super-power status, writes Antony Loewenstein.
Amidst all the current stories about China and the Beijing Olympics, it’s easy to forget that the country has progressed extraordinarily fast in the past decade. Some facts are in order:
- 30,000: The expected number of Chinese MBA graduates in 2008. The number in 1998: 0
- 500: The number of coal-fired power plants China plans to build in the next decade
- 540 million: Number of mobile phone users in China, with an increase of 44 million in the past six months
- 33: The number of Chinese journalists thought to be held in prisons in 2008
- 22: The number of suicides per 100,000 people, about 50 per cent higher than the global average. Suicide is the fifth most common cause of death in China, and the first among people aged between 20 and 35
- 30: The number of different animal penises on the menu at Guolizhuang, Beijing’s ‘penis emporium’. A yak’s costs about £15, while a tiger’s (which must be pre-ordered) will set you back £3,000
The rise of China continues to fascinate and frustrate the world. Very few other nations would warrant leading articles discussing the “dark side” of its existence.
Of course, China has come a long way in the last years, something revealed by this hilarious news story from 1982 about “sexy adverts” upsetting a Chinese workman. At that stage, advertising had only returned to public visibility after years of being banned as a “bourgeois capitalist practice.”
The last months have revealed intense anger towards perceived Western-led, anti-Chinese media coverage. Death threats against foreign journalists is increasing, according to a recent warning issued by the Beijing-based Foreign Correspondents Club. Chinese bloggers want to talk about patriotism and protestors in Korea who attacked Chinese students during the torch relay. Interestingly, Vietnamese bloggers recently expressed their displeasure about past Chinese behaviour.
Despite these issues, however, the regime is busily trying to present a welcoming face to the hundreds of thousands of visitors expected in August. The news that authorities won’t guarantee web freedom during the Games is a bad omen as is the arrest of yet another freelance writer. Zhou Yuanzhi was charged with “inciting subversion of state power.”
Tibet remains a thorn in the side of the authorities (and a provocative piece in last week’s Financial Times argued that the province had a stronger international law case for self-rule than Kosovo). The Dalai Lama and his cause are still misunderstood in the West. The leader of the Tibetan people is angry towards China but remarkably conciliatory. The charged area of Xinjiang remains under the Chinese jackboot.
While the political masters attempt to avoid potential embarrassments, Western multinationals continue to operate like business as usual (despite Google being investigated by Chinese officials for possibly breaching state secrecy laws by showing “illegal” maps of the country.)
Google co-founder Sergei Brin told last week’s shareholder meeting that he was “pretty proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish in China…Google has a far superior track record than other internet search companies in China.” What’s a little censorship when there is money to be made? Unveiling a translation service to rival search engine’s Baidu’s dominance is a clear sign of future directions. At least Reporters Without Borders asked a few pointed questions at the Adidas shareholders meeting about the company’s attitude to human rights abuse in China. They received little positive response.
The Western fear of China is never far below the surface, however. China bashing is the favoured sport of the American presidential nominees but achieves little. Respectful dialogue between the various sides is the only rational way forward.
Talking honestly about Palestine in Australia is clearly too challenging for some:
The decision by a Sydney library to dump an exhibition about Palestinian refugees after a visit by counter-terrorism police the night before it opened has been criticised as an act of censorship.
Leichhardt municipal library was to launch the Al-Nakba pictorial exhibition last Friday. A local community group, Friends of Hebron, had developed the display of photos, poems and articles over eight months.
“We set up the exhibition at the library on Thursday night and the librarian … approved the exhibition, and said that it could be seen by children and other people who into the library,” said Carole Lawson, a Friends of Hebron member.
But that night, shortly before the library closed at 8pm, officers from the police counter-terrorism operations arrived at the library.
I’ve been informed that members of the Jewish community and Zionist lobby complained about the existence of the exhibition. That figures. After all, it’s not as if Hebron is a classic example of apartheid.
China, the Beijing Olympics, Tibet and corporate sponsorship are a toxic mix.
So where to from here, a Chinese blogger asks?
Wikileaks reveals the reality of web life under Thailand’s former military rulers:
The January 11, 2007 official blocklist contains 13,435 websites, an increase of more than 500% over the 2,475 sites blocked by MICT’s 13 October 2006 list, compiled following Thailand’s military coup d’etat on 19 September.
In addition to this figure, the Royal Thai Police make public that they block more than 32,500 websites directly; a further unspecified number are blocked at Thailand’s Internet gateway by the Communications Authority of Thailand (CAT). No identification of websites blocked has ever been disclosed to the public nor do these government agencies disclose which criteria they use to block.
My following article appears in today’s ABC Unleashed:
The fifth anniversary in March of the Iraq war should have given the political and media elite time to reflect on their actions since 2003. Virtually ignored by the mainstream media were stories such as life in Fallujah, where citizens remain mired in poverty and resentment.
Despite the failings of the conflict, increasingly aggressive rhetoric against Iran suggests that a military strike against the Islamic Republic is being considered at the highest levels of the American and Israeli governments.
During the recent testimony of American General David Petraeus, he consistently blamed Iran, and not al-Qaeda, for Washington’s problems in the occupied nation. Tehran now complains that US-backed rebels are provoking its borders. New evidence proves that the Bush administration wanted to target Iran soon after 9/11.
Fox News‘ Bill Reilly blindly accepted the argument that, “Iran is directly responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American troops, and it is the primary reason Iraq remains so chaotic”. Bombing should clearly commence in five minutes.
The reality of Iran’s involvement in Iraq remains confusing, however, something confirmed by Independent journalist Patrick Cockburn. Tehran’s influence is complex, though undeniable.
Cockburn fears that an American attack on Iran is not unlikely, but for reasons other than currently stated. A regional challenge to America’s hegemony is not accepted lightly. Moreover, Washington will simply not tolerate a well-armed and relatively wealthy nation, Iran, challenging its unimpeded flow of oil from various, authoritarian client states.
The fact that America now has less control over the world’s global resources is something ignored by most commentators. The great, ironic legacy of the Bush administration will be its success in increasing the decline of America’s diplomatic influence. Large swathes of the world now largely ignore State Department dictates.
Israel also finds itself in a situation largely of its own making (not unlike its colonial addiction to the settlement project). Yossi Alpher, former adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, has articulated the thinking in Tel Aviv:
“…In order to understand Israel’s response to both the current tension with Syria and Hizballah and the link between that tension and the status of Israeli-Palestinian relations, it is vital to recognize the major evolution that has taken place in recent years in Israel’s grand strategic thinking regarding the Iranian threat. Iran - not Syria and not Palestine - is today the prism through which Israeli security planners look at the region, its permutations and the threats it presents. Any effort at either war or peace with Syria is directed against Iran. The non-state Islamist actors Hizballah and Hamas represent Iranian footholds on Israel’s borders and on the shores of the Mediterranean. Israeli-Egyptian cooperation regarding Hamas relates to Iran.
“Of course, Israel still has a host of strategic threats and issues to deal with. But the prism is Iran.”
The last weeks have seen bellicose statements by various Israeli ministers, not least Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer who warned Iran that any attack on Israel would result in the “destruction of the Iranian nation”. The Iranian response was predictable. Gen. Mohammad Reza Ashtiani said that Iran would destroy the Jewish state if attacked.
The Bush administration provide valuable insights into the mindset that led Tony Blair, John Howard and a host of other leaders into the “war on terror’s” orbit. Time.com’s senior editor Tony Karon explains:
The U.S. or an ally or proxy launches a military offensive against a politically popular “enemy” group; Bush and his minions welcome the violence as “clarifying” matters, demonstrating “resolve”, or, in the most grotesque rhetorical flourish of all, the “birth pangs” of a brave new world. Each time, the “enemy” proves far more resilient than expected, largely because Bush and his allies have failed to recognize that each adversary’s power should be measured in political support rather than firepower; and the net effect of the offensive invariably leaves the enemy strengthened and the U.S. and its allies even weaker than before they launched the offensive.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd may be faced with a request from the White House – including from the next President, either Democrat or Republican – to support military action against Iran.
The Labor party has already stated that it intends to bring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the International Court of Justice (something praised by the local Zionist lobby). It will inevitably fail but worryingly associates Australia with a neo-conservative foreign policy agenda, something supposedly jettisoned last year. It’s a shame our media doesn’t investigate recent claims that Israel is purchasing oil from the Islamic Republic, fundamentally undermining its claims of victimhood.
Rudd’s recent world tour was praised by the Wall Street Journal, though journalists missed a far more important gauge of public opinion. Iranians, in a recent poll, expressed scepticism towards America but a willingness to have “direct talks on issues of mutual concern” and “more access for each other’s journalists” Iranian bloggers continue to be active, despite the onerous restrictions.
Our media has a responsibility to fully investigate the claims and counter-claims surrounding Iran’s alleged nuclear program (though Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric rarely helps matters). As former US President Jimmy Carter said this week about the necessity of including Hamas in any Israel/Palestine peace deal, Tehran will inevitably need to be engaged if Middle East peace is to be achieved.
That is, of course, if what America and Israel truly desires.
The war against bloggers continues:
A prominent Malaysian blogger was charged Tuesday with sedition for allegedly implying the deputy prime minister was involved in the sensational killing of a young Mongolian woman.
Raja Petra Raja Kamaruddin, who has not denied that he linked Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak to the slaying, pleaded innocent to the charge, telling reporters that he should have the right to hold the powerful accountable for wrongdoing.
My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:
There are small signs that Chinese nationalism is being tempered by more thoughtful analysis of the motherland, writes Antony Loewenstein.
The Olympic torch relay has arrived in China. Unsurprisingly, the route in North Korea was protest-free.
Away from the Western media, however, the ethnic Uighur population are calling on the world to boycott the route through East Turkestan, alleging human rights abuses. Darfur campaigner Mia Farrow arrived in Hong Kong to highlight Beijing’s complicity with the Sudanese regime. American Jewish leaders are urging Jews to boycott the Games.
Nobody should expect the remaining leg of the torch to be trouble-free. Any number of minorities will attempt to disrupt the route, especially in Tibet itself, despite the undoubtedly excessive Chinese police presence.
The result of global outrage over Tibet and China’s human rights abuses continues to generate intense nationalism at home. The regime remains unsure how to manage the conflicting challenges. On the one hand it wants to show the world that its citizens love the motherland and don’t take kindly to Western lecturing. On the other hand, foreign investment is central to the country’s rapid economic rise and officials fear intense anti-Western sentiment may scare away much-needed financial support. Recent anti-French protests in China failed to generate the expected interest.
The reasons behind the nationalist surge are explained by Canberra-based, ANU Sinologist Geremie Barme who writes that, “many observers feel they have seen a sort of “export authoritarianism” masquerading as Chinese patriotism.” He continues:
“It is noteworthy that some bloggers in China are also disgusted by the self-indulgent rhetorical hysteria of their (generally) middle-class countrymen and women overseas. They say that they’d like to see them go back to China and fight for political reform, media freedom, and human rights on home turf rather than making an hubristic spectacle of themselves internationally.”
Jin Jung-kwon, a lecturer in German studies at Chung-Ang University in Seoul, says: “China seems to have no intention of making the Olympics a festival that people around the world can enjoy together.” It’s a sentiment that I’ve heard across the Western blogosphere. If the Chinese regime has to choose between cool and controlled, writes the Australian’s Rowan Callick, “they will always opt for the latter.” Especially in the year of the Olympics. It is even more remarkable, therefore, to read about a Tibetan blogger in Beijing continuing to discuss the reality on the ground in her homeland.
Away from the political controversies, Chinese officials are attempting to appease global fears over air pollution for the Beijing Games. China is home to one in three of the world’s smokers – during my visit last year I was constantly suffocating under a haze of smoke in seemingly every bar, restaurant and hotel – but last week announced a ban on indoor smoking.
Improving public behaviour - essential if the country will impress the tens of thousands of foreign visitors in August – is often taken into personal hands. Last year dozens of security guards used metal pipes to beat up builders having a cigarette break during the construction of the Olympic Stadium, breaking a ban on smoking at Olympic sites.
Unrest in Tibet continues and harassment of Tibetans in China proper is increasing. There are small signs of positive change, though. A Chinese student at Columbia University, after spending time with the Dalai Lama, wrote an essay with his reflections and concluded that engagement was preferable to conflict. He said:
“The meeting lasted for roughly 75 minutes, and I was deeply impressed by his sincerity and hospitality. His advocacy for non-violence, support for the Games and promise of non-independence are all consistent with what he has said and done in the West. As an ordinary overseas Chinese student, I think not only the future of Tibet requires formal discussions between Chinese government and His Holiness, but to abandon hatred and to promote harmony between Chinese and Tibetans also require continuous dialogue and communication between the two peoples, and this is the main purpose of my trip.”
Such statements would have been almost unimaginable barely a few months ago. If the recent strife leads to further dialogue between opposing parties, something positive will have emerged from a potentially diabolic situation.
Iranian blogger Omid Memarian, currently living in California, explains to his readers the apparent appeal of the current presidential race:
Many Iranians are obsessed with Barack Obama. If he goes to Iran, I’m sure he could fill Tehran’s Azadi Stadium, which has a capacity of 100,000. To a large extent this is because of the nature of Obama’s message about change and hope. Iranian people truly want to change their situation, get rid of decades of marginalization and restore their reputation in the world. They feel connected to his message of change. They are tired of living under the threat of economic sanctions and military attacks. Obama’s remark about initiating a dialogue with Iran translated for many Iranians into hopes of normalizing the relationship between the countries and Iran rejoining the international community. For many Iranian women struggling for women’s rights, Hillary is incredibly inspiring. Senator McCain, on the other hand, they see as just as a third term of President Bush, and I see no reason for them to connect to him.
A new global study by WorldPublicOpinion.org proves that a majority of people support the concept of press freedom and object to government interference with the internet:
A new poll of nations around the world finds worldwide support for the principle of media freedom and broad opposition to government having the right to limit access to the Internet. In many countries people want more media freedom than they have now, but in many Muslim countries and in Russia, there is substantial support for regulation of news or ideas that the government thinks could be politically destabilizing.
The Internet is a significant new medium for news, information, and ideas. As some governments have sought to regulate access to the Internet it has also become a new arena for conflict about media freedom. Presented the issue of Internet censorship, a majority in all but two of the countries that were asked this question say that “people should have the right to read whatever is on the Internet.”
On average six in ten endorse full access while three in ten say that the government should have the right to “prevent people from having access to some things on the Internet.” In China, a country whose Internet censorship policies have received a great deal of international attention, 71 percent of the public say that “people should have the right to read whatever is on the Internet:” only 21 percent of Chinese endorse their government’s right to limit access.
Taking apart a US-dictatorship, one step at a time.
(Thank you Facebook, blogging and on-the-ground activism in Egypt.)
My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:
With only 100 days until the Beijing Games, human rights activists are continuing to pressure the Chinese regime and authorities may be starting to feel the pressure, writes Antony Loewenstein.
After months of criticism of its human rights record, a conference in Beijing in late April attempted to challenge the Western perception. Luo Haocai, director of the China Society for Human Rights, said that, “China believes human rights like other rights are not ‘absolute’ and the rights enjoyed should conform to obligations fulfilled”.
After 30 years of rapid growth, he said, the Chinese people enjoyed religious freedom, political and social rights. Wang Chen, director of the Information Office at the State Council, agreed. “China is a developing country with a population of 1.3 billion and China’s human rights development still faces many problems and difficulties.” It’s a view unlikely to be shared by many in the West.
The Beijing Olympics continue to be a rallying cry for human rights activists. Advocacy group Dream for Darfur is now targeting corporate sponsors of the Games, including Coca Cola and McDonalds. BHP Billiton is accused of not speaking out on the ongoing genocide in Darfur. BHP was one of only eight companies to receive an “F” grade for its “moral failings” over Sudan.
Even the Germany Foreign Ministry, in a confidential report leaked to Spiegel, found “significant” failings over human rights, including excessive use of the death penalty, holding dissidents for no apparent reason, censoring the media and an inability to handle criticism. Torture was rampant.
None of these concerns seem to concern most Western companies, however. At a recent China International Exhibition of Police Equipment, countless multinationals displayed goods specifically designed to repress Chinese citizens. The New York Times questioned whether the export of such items might have breached a law passed in Congress after the 1989 Tiananmen Square killings. Like for many internet companies, China is a booming market, seemingly difficult to resist.
There are growing signs, however, that some companies are learning from past mistakes. Yahoo, after launching a Human Rights Funds last year to provide legal and humanitarian assistance for political dissidents, appears to be at least trying to mitigate its previous collusion with the Chinese regime. Yahoo boss Jerry Yang said last week: “I think that I’m a big believer in the American values (but) as we operate around the world, we don’t walk around having a very heavy-handed American point of view.”
Google’s recent announcement of an expanded Chinese workforce is cause for concern, however as was Yahoo’s recent involvement in a “One World, One Web” conference in Beijing.
The Chinese people themselves remain defiant and hurt by the international criticism of their government’s human rights record (though there is some dissent online). Chinese students in the US are battling what they see as biased media coverage and in China itself citizens recently said they trusted state media more than Western outlets to accurately report the Olympic torch relay.
CNN remains in the firing line and Chinese hackers are operating with tacit government support to disable foreign websites.
With 100 days until the beginning of the Beijing Games, now is the time to increase pressure on the weak spots of the Chinese regime (though a recent report suggests the US government is currently trying to scuttle a human rights lawsuit against a senior Chinese leader fearing a chill in trade relations).
Perhaps China watcher John Pomfret, writing in the Washington Post, gets it right. He argues that although the current protests in China are against the foreign media and Tibet, it wouldn’t take much to switch anger towards the Communist Party. In other words, Chinese nationalism is a constantly evolving entity.
Many Chinese are critical of their government; they simply have nowhere to vent their frustrations. This doesn’t mean they want to embrace Western-style capitalism.
A reliable American ally - Egypt continues to repress any kind of political activism - requires creative thinking by anybody caught up in its madness:
James Karl Buck helped free himself from an Egyptian jail with a one-word blog post from his cell phone.
Buck, a graduate student from the University of California-Berkeley, was in Mahalla, Egypt, covering an anti-government protest when he and his translator, Mohammed Maree, were arrested April 10.
On his way to the police station, Buck took out his cell phone and sent a message to his friends and contacts using the micro-blogging site Twitter.
The message only had one word. “Arrested.”
Within seconds, colleagues in the United States and his blogger-friends in Egypt — the same ones who had taught him the tool only a week earlier — were alerted that he was being held.
Reveal “state secrets” and watch out:
A soldier serving in the IDF’s elite 8200 military intelligence unit was sentenced to 19 days in prison on Wednesday for uploading a picture onto the Facebook social networking site.
Abuse the Palestinians and human rights group are forced to challenge the rules:
Today, 16 April 2008, The Public Committee against Torture in Israel (PCATI), Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, B’Tselem-The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, Hamoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual and Adalah-The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel filed a petition to the High court of Justice against the General Security Service (GSS), the Israel Police and the Attorney General demanding that the use of family members as means of exhorting pressure on suspects during interrogations by state authorities be absolutely prohibited.
Saudi blogger Fouad Al Farhan has been released from prison after more than four months away from family and friends.
He is a friend and colleague (more on Fouad here.)
The father of Saudi blogging is back, but I wonder how willing he will be to continue writing critically in his repressive regime.
(It’s a shame, therefore, that the company collaborates with the Chinese dictatorship, though it appears to be making progress towards protecting human rights):
Yahoo boss Jerry Yang, whose company once allegedly helped Chinese police nab and jail cyber dissidents, is today in the forefront of a global campaign to free those languishing in prison for expressing their views online.
He has established a “Yahoo! Human Rights Fund” to provide humanitarian and legal support to political dissidents who have been imprisoned for expressing their views online as well as support for their families.
And in between his gruelling schedules as chief executive of the Internet giant, the billionaire Yang paces the corridors of the US Congress, writes to government officials and meets with human rights groups to champion Internet freedom.
My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:
The nationalistic genie has escaped the Chinese bottle. Citizens across the world have reacted strongly to the perceived anti-Chinese political and media elite in the West. Protests have mushroomed throughout China against what demonstrators view as a slight against benevolent rule in Tibet. The government is clearly behind much of the reaction.
The internet, mobile phones and chat rooms have become the new meeting place for such activities. More than twenty million people have signed a petition against the French retailer Carrefour because of the failure of authorities in Paris to protect the Olympic torch. Conspiracy theories abound in the Chinese blogosphere about these events.
Student Zhu Xiaomeng made comments to the New York Times that reminded me of similar sentiments I heard in China last year. “Tibet is our country’s territory. You have no right to interfere in our interior affairs.” Microsoft’s China homepage has become a natural home for this kind of venting.
“Love Our China” is a familiar refrain of the protestors. The relationship between the West and China is inevitably being affected, with both sides seemingly incapable or unwilling to engage rationally with the other. Surely now is the time to reach out to Chinese people and try and explain why many Westerners are upset with Beijing’s role in Tibet.
I’ve even tried to contact a few Chinese friends in China to gauge their perspective, and many of them have oscillated between damning the violence on both sides and not fully understanding why pro-Tibetan activists in London, Paris and San Francisco were so vehemently critical of their regime. Evidence that now proves Chinese regime meddling in San Francisco’s pro-China protests reveals the level of paranoia in Beijing.
A recent study found that a majority of Australians wanted the Olympic sponsors to speak out strongly about China’s human rights record. This is unsurprising considering the fact that Amnesty International and Chinese human rights activists have found China falling short of the commitments it made when negotiating the 2008 Games. Arresting a leading Tibetan performer, writer and blogger only reinforces this belief. Equally problematic is a forthcoming museum in Beijing dedicated to the “official” version of Tibetan history.
One prominent, former Chinese diplomat turned spy novelist has argued that pro-China protests will only inflame racial tensions. I was more encouraged to see a recently released Beijing-based news researcher for the New York Times call this week for greater press freedom.
However, the ongoing controversy over China’s human rights record is not just about the Beijing Olympic Games. As the West wrestles with the notion of an “after-America” world, despotic regimes are increasingly turning to China for moral, military and diplomatic assistance. Recent evidence suggests that China is providing arms and troops to save Robert Mugabe’s embattled Zimbabwean dictatorship.
London’s Independent warned that after years of complaining about Washington’s support of barbaric regimes, it’s time to worry about the dawning of a new age:
“As for Mr Mugabe, he marked Zimbabwean Independence Day yesterday by complaining of neo-colonialism and how Britain wants to retake control of Zimbabwe. He and other African leaders should think more carefully. There is a danger of their countries becoming a victim of a re-colonisation. But the threat is not from the West. It comes from the East.”
While it’s never healthy to romanticise the Tibetan cause or the Dalai Lama and the history often paints a contradictory picture, one can hope that the Olympic Games provides international attention to an occupation that is largely forgotten in the Western media.
The growing global interest in the Middle East has allowed an Iranian graffiti artist such as A1one to gain prominence. He has to work covertly in the Islamic Republic but his blog provides ample examples of his fine work:
Revealed: how the Zionist lobby attempts to rewrite history and dishonesty change entries on Wikipedia.
Autocrats, censors and filters beware:
The Pirate Bay is known for defending people’s right to freedom of speech on the Internet, and this is exactly what motivated them to start this new blogging service.
Brokep, one of the co-founders of the site, told TorrentFreak that the idea to start a blogging service came up when the weblog of one of his friends was taken down from Wordpress recently, for linking to copyrighted material.
This, of course, goes against the “uncensored web” philosophy of The Pirate Bay team, and they didn’t hesitate to start their own blogging service, Baywords, using Wordpress as their blogging engine.