Antony Loewenstein

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.

Share This

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.

Share This

The internet is not universal:

Some 80 per cent of European Union web surfers now have fast-speed broadband connections, but nearly 40 percent of all EU citizens still do not use the internet at all, an EU study published Friday found.

The percentage of internet illiterates ranges from 69 per ent in Romania to 13 percent in Denmark and The Netherlands.

Share This

Yet more evidence that Google’s YouTube is happily censoring videos to keep authoritarian governments happy.

Thailand, welcome to your new reality.

Share This

The OpenNet Initative recently reported the following disturbing development in relation to Google:

YouTomb, a project of the MIT Free Culture group that studies takedown notices by the video-sharing website YouTube, has identified a mechanism used by Google to restrict video content in specific countries. This appears to be the method YouTube is using to filter videos on behalf of governments and private actors that request it.

And now this latest news from Indonesia:

Indonesian Internet providers have started blocking websites or blogs posting an anti-Islamic film that has sparked widespread protests, a report said Saturday.

Internet Service Providers Association chairwoman Sylvia Sumarlin told news website detikcom that access to YouTube has been blocked but could not guarantee it would be totally unavailable for national viewing.

She said there were other routes that Internet service providers (ISPs) could access that were currently not being used.

The film, “Fitna”, could still be accessed on YouTube from some providers on Saturday.

Earlier this week, the government wrote to YouTube asking it to take down the film, made by the far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders.

Is Google assisting the Indonesians in its request? Like in China, it appears increasingly likely that YouTube is more than happy to keep certain, major markets happy (not the people, mind you, but the authorities.)

Share This

Following allegations that Western web majors such as Yahoo and Microsoft were assisting the Chinese regime in finding Tibetans after the recent violence, Yahoo has denied the allegations:

“Contrary to media reports, Yahoo! Inc. is not displaying images on its web sites of individuals wanted by Chinese authorities in connection with the recent unrest in Tibet,” it said in a statement sent to AFP in Paris.

“We are looking into this matter with Alibaba Group, the company that controls China Yahoo!,” the company said.

YouTube is now also available again in China.

Major questions remain as to the rights and responsibilities of Western internet companies in a repressive regime such as China.

Share This

My following article appears in today’s ABC Unleashed:

Fidel Castro controlled Cuba for nearly half a century. His rule was defined by defiance and dictatorship, brutal repression against dissidents and the management of an immoral American embargo. Free speech has always been the Achilles’ heel of the regime.

During my visit to the island last year – researching a book on the internet in non-democratic countries – I saw a population that craved access to the outside world.

Web and mobile phone penetration is the lowest in Latin America. I met computer students who studied the internet, but couldn’t access an unfiltered system. Cyber-rebels are increasingly challenging this information apartheid. I talked with hip-hop kids who loved gangsta rap they saw on satellite television. They cared little for revolutionary thought. Being able to buy consumer goods such as ipods was far more important.

It was a similar pattern across the globe, as I travelled from Egypt to Iran, Syria to Saudi Arabia and finally China.

The internet was playing a leading role in citizens talking to government and often challenging its archaic rules. Some simply wanted to meet boys and girls online. Others loved downloading pirated films and music. Only a handful craved political engagement.

A growing number of repressive regimes are experiencing the “Dictator’s Dilemma” defined in 1993 by Christopher Kedzie as “having to choose between open communications (encouraging economic development) and closed communications (controlling ‘dangerous’ ideas)”.

China maintains the world’s most effective internet censorship, dubbed “The Great Firewall” or “The Golden Shield Project”.

Tens of thousands of people are employed to monitor web traffic. Western companies such as Cisco, Yahoo, Google and Microsoft have willingly assisted officials in their goals and sensitive subjects such Taiwan, Tibet and democracy are routinely excised.

Over 210 million Chinese netizens – with 200,000 more going online for the first time every day – are leading a massive shift in the country’s relationship with central power, both allowing the regime a unique way to gauge public opinion and an opportunity for others to challenge corruption and pollution.

Although China is preparing for the likely onslaught of international pressure during the August Olympics over its human rights violations, the Communist nation is only the most infamous example of internet censorship.

Iran, especially under the leadership of hardliner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has led a purging of journalists, dissidents, prominent women and unionists.

Although the country’s online culture is arguably one of the most robust in the Middle East – and I met many bloggers there who bravely challenged the mullah’s grip on power – Western companies are contributing to the country’s isolation.

Yahoo and Microsoft quietly removed Iran from the country lists of their webmail services last year, claiming US sanctions forced their hand. My investigations suggest that these moves were probably a pre-emptive buckle, fearful of Bush administration sanction. Google’s Gmail service still features Iran on its country list.

Internet censorship is becoming a key human rights issue around the world, highlighted by leading NGOs and the European Union.

In a new book titled Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Policy, writers Ronald Deibart and Rafal Rohozinski remain optimistic that despite the best efforts of many dictatorial regimes, “it seems apparent that no one agent will be able to dominate cyberspace entirely, but many will be able to push technologies, regulations, and norms that affect it.”

I spent time in Saudi Arabia with leading blogger and activist Fouad al-Farhan. He is a Muslim moderate who campaigns for the establishment of democratic institutions in the US-backed dictatorship. He was arrested in late 2007 and remains imprisoned for unspecified “crimes” but sources suggest it is because he campaigned for the release of jailed activists.

Farhan’s writings provide an invaluable insight into one of the most repressive nations on earth.

Cinemas and music concerts are banned. Women are not allowed to drive or work in most industries. He told me about the ways in which some of his friends and families wanted to embrace gradual change while others desired going to Iraq and fighting the American “invaders”.

Without bloggers in Saudi Arabia, we would have little idea of the nation’s true state.

The internet will not automatically democratise all societies or bring Western-style reform. Many bloggers and activists I met across the world hoped for the exact opposite.

Its uncontrolled unpredictability has proven to the mainstream media that local voices will usually trump their own superficial understandings.

Share This

A great blog by American human rights lawyer Jonathan Turley is well worth a read. Two recent highlights:

- YouTube has again attracted controversy by pulling a video. This time it has removed the video of Marine David Motari throwing a puppy off a cliff as shown below in a different link. The company appears unwilling to recognize that some disturbing videos serve an important public interest, as with the torture videos that it removed earlier involving the Egyptian  and Russian abuse.

- Kentucky Representative Tim Couch wants to know who is saying what on the Internet. He has proposed legislation to make anonymous postings online illegal. It would face a daunting challenge on constitutional grounds.Couch would require posters to include their real name, address and e-mail address and fine site hosts for filing to required such identification.

Share This

My latest column for New Matilda is about China’s crackdown on internal dissent and its fear of the internet:

Although China is also battling a seemingly unsurmountable pollution problem, the regime appears determined to ignore Western calls for greater openness. “Why can’t China accept that dissent and argument are part of being a normal country?” asks leading Hong-Kong based academic Rebecca MacKinnon. “Why behave in such an insecure manner that violates international human rights norms, damages China’s international image, and distracts media attention away from the Chinese people’s genuine achievements over the past 30 years?”

But outside pressure may be starting to have an effect. When Hollywood filmmaker Steven Spielberg recently announced his withdrawal as an artistic director for the August games, the Chinese regime responded with indignation. The director claimed that Beijing was doing too little to pressure the Sudanese Government over its behaviour in Darfur. But the New York Times now reports that, in fact, “China has begun shifting its position on Darfur, stepping outside its diplomatic comfort zone to quietly push Sudan to accept the world’s largest peacekeeping force.” Beijing is clearly listening and remains determined to avoid an embarrassing Games hijacked by human rights agendas.

Share This

The power of the internet giant is getting way out of hand:

Google’s efforts to engulf the world’s medical records will begin in Cleveland.

Today, the search engine cum world power announced a joint project with the Cleveland Clinic, an 87-year-old not-for-profit medical center, that will see between 1,500 and 10,000 of the center’s patients entrust their personal records to Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

Yes, between 1,500 and 10,000. Presumably, Google and the Cleveland Clinic anticipate that a few thousand patients will ultimately decide this idea is way too creepy.

In any event, the project marks the debut of a long-awaited/long-dreaded online health service from the Mountain View, California web giant. Google has previously said that this store-your-medical-records offering would be available to the general public sometime in 2008.

Share This