Antony Loewenstein

My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:

The future of human rights in China after the Games will require constant negotiation and patience, writes Antony Loewenstein

The Olympics are nearly upon us (and dog is allegedly banned from sale during the event.)

Beijing residents are reporting a draconian crackdown on anything deemed “subversive.” “The dichotomy between what Olympics visitors will see and what residents experience”, writes Jen Lin-Liu, “may be most visible in the stadiums once the Games begin.”

There is no doubt that the departing New York Times correspondent Howard W. French is correct when he writes: “…Political change, however gradual and inconsistent, has made China a significantly more open place for average people than it was a generation ago.”

But the behaviour of authorities, both Chinese and the IOC, in the lead-up to the Games – insecure and petty – reveals a mindset that all-too-easily resents freedom of expression. Though it was amusing to read about Yahoo, one of the leading Western multinationals who has assisted the regime’s filtering system, caught out by promoting a picture gallery of the, “Tiananmen Square Massacre Remembered”, some commentators are comparing the Beijing Games to the 1980 Moscow event. Technology may have changed, but the nature of oppression is eerily similar. The Guardian explains:

“The similarities between these two coming-out parties are eye-popping: dissidents jailed; ‘social undesirables’ – mainly poor migrant workers – kicked out of town; three rings of police checkpoints surrounding the city; old buildings bulldozed; security so overwhelming as to squeeze all the fun out of the party.”

The China Model, furious economic development with general political impotence, is continuing (especially in the hi-tech sector). But it has its limits, not least the benefits brought by satellite television and the internet.

He Weifang, a professor of law at Peking University, says that China is slowly democratising, but at a vastly different rate to what the West thinks it deserves.

“Today, even the farmers in remote areas have satellite TVs,” Mr. He said. “So whenever they see an election, such as the one held in Pakistan recently, they may wonder why, even though we have approximately the same economic conditions, they can elect their top leaders, and we can’t even vote for the leader of a small county. I think a consciousness of political rights has increased more than anything.”

As a visitor to China in 2000 and again in 2007, it is patently clear that the country has become far more confident in its identity. Though a craving for global acceptance is key to understanding the recent nationalist surge, the Olympics are the ultimate opportunity for the regime to showcase its modernisation. It won’t totally succeed, and nor should it, because there is simply too much known about Beijing’s authoritarianism (and its denial of past revolutionary violence).

But human rights activists should not only damn the rising power. Nuance is the key, as is engagement. It’s hard to disagree with the conclusion of George Walden, a British diplomat in China during the Cultural Revolution, who says that the Games must be allowed to succeed:

“We need perspective on this. I was there during the Cultural Revolution, and I watched people being carted away in the streets to be shot in the back of the neck. About 3 million people died. I’ve been back often since, and each time there is a sort of incremental freedom, though sometimes it moves backward.”

I argue in my forthcoming book, The Blogging Revolution, that China’s internet may be the key to advancing the interests of its citizens. A regime can’t hide all the “subversive” material all of the time, no matter how hard they try. What was impossible only a few years ago – such as local citizens complaining online about corrupt, local officials – should give us hope that Chinese netizens are not the mindless drones often imagined by the Western media.

Technology and capitalism certainly don’t automatically guarantee democracy (something far too many neo-cons fail to understand) Until Western, IT multinationals are convinced that colluding with repressive regimes is not in their best interests, it will be close to impossible to change this current vicious cycle.

China’s entry into the world club will be a tortuous process, but respect is a two-way street.

Did China fake its Olympic Everest summit?

China’s net market is booming, but censorship of its video-sharing sites is rampant. Western multinationals are licking their lips at the possibilities:

A journalist’s guide to reporting the Beijing Games:

…Please remember: Chinese who love their country are called “nationalists.” Never use this word for Americans, French, Tibetans and other civilized peoples who love their country or territory. When demonstrators protest over Tibet they are acting in a heartfelt, spontaneous way, waving pretty flags you would be happy to see woven into your granny’s bedspread. When Chinese counter-demonstrate, they are always “bussed in,” the mood is “ugly”, and they are draped in intimidating red flags that can be made to look a bit Hitler Jugend-ish with the right kind of photo. (They probably did arrive in buses as this is the cheapest way of moving numbers of not-very-well-off people around, but you don’t need to prove the insinuation that the regime laid on the vehicles). Beijing is always a “regime,” by the way, and is not to be confused with western “governments”…

Internet access and China, a tortured relationship at the best of times.

I was interviewed yesterday on the Australian current affairs program, The Wire, about China’s policy of internet censorship during the Olympics, my forthcoming book, The Blogging Revolution and the tendency of Western media to demonise the Communist state:

With eight days to go before the start of the Beijing Olympics, controversy continues to plague this celebrated event. The Western media are up-in-arms this week after the Chinese Government decided to restrict their access to the internet during the Olympic Games.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

: Antony Loewenstein, journalist and author of “The Blogging Revolution”, Zhen Ji, President of the Chinese Student Association in Adelaide and Professor Kerry Green, Head of the School of Communications at the University of South Australia.

Tibetan blogger Woeser, New Statesman, July 31:

Then there are the thousands of Tibetans in Beijing. Tibetan college students have been told to go home this summer, while students at Tibetan schools are not allowed to leave the school premises. The Tibetan Studies Centre has given its staff a rare long holiday: even those we call “Tibetans hired by the imperial court”, meaning those on the government payroll, are not trusted. A Tibetan tour guide who I know was detained for a month, with no explanation whatsoever from the police.

A Tibetan artist friend was interrogated for a day because Buddhist scripture in Tibetan was found in his painting. My good friend Dechen Pemba, an ethnic Tibetan who was born in London and has been studying and working in Beijing, was deported back to the UK for reasons that were never fully explained.

As for me, if I stay in Beijing during the Olympics, I expect to be put under house arrest. So, should I go back to Lhasa? Friends and relatives there tell me: “You’d better wait until after the Olympics.”

Are you feeling that sweet Olympic spirit yet?

The Chinese authorities confirmed today that the 20,000 foreign journalists covering the Olympic Games will not have unrestricted access to the Internet during their stay. Kevin Gosper, the head of the IOC’s press commission, admitted today: “I also now understand that some IOC officials negotiated with the Chinese that some sensitive sites would be blocked on the basis they were not considered games related.”

Yesterday Gosper said the IOC’s key concern was to “ensure that the media are able to report on the games as they did in previous games.”

Reporters Without Borders condemns the International Olympic Committee’s acceptance of the fact the Chinese authorities are blocking access to certain websites at the Olympic Games media centre in Beijing. More than 20,000 foreign journalists are affected.

The organization also condemns the cynicism of the Chinese authorities, who have yet again lied, and the IOC’s inability to prevent this situation because of its refusal to speak out for several years.

Anybody who trusted a secretive authoritarianism regime (including the IOC) to keep their promises on this key issue was deluding themselves.

Let the Games begin.

My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:

Western critics of Beijing should be careful what they wish for during the Games, writes Antony Loewenstein

Amnesty International’s latest report on China’s human rights record makes for depressing reading.

“We’ve seen a deterioration in human rights because of the Olympics,” said Roseann Rife, a deputy programme director for Amnesty International. “Specifically we’ve seen crackdowns on domestic human rights activists, media censorship and increased use of re-education through labour as a means to clean up Beijing and surrounding areas.”

The New York Times demanded that US President George W. Bush express his concern on the declining situation. Fat chance.

Beijing’s pollution remains shocking (photo evidence here) and authorities are rightly fretting about the international reaction (though surely this is something that could have been predicted months ago.)

Leading American journalist James Fallows has issued a plea to anybody in the West wishing that the Games be a disaster for China and a PR debacle for the Communist regime. “Outsiders who think that a pollution emergency or a spiralling protest would focus domestic blame on the Chinese government are dreaming”, he blogs.

Writer Matt Steinglass disagrees, however, and echoes the feelings of many of us about China’s coming out party. His message? Let good and bad stories emerge from the Games:

“I don’t think such self-censorship would be good, and I don’t think it’s possible. There will be 22,000 journalists in Beijing next week. There is no way to shut up a journalistic mob of that size, each clambering over the next to get the story. China decided to invite the world in, to host the Olympics, in the expectation that it would receive a big boost in global respect and affection. It is about to find out what happens when you invite the world in. If Chinese don’t want foreigners viewing their country with a critical eye, they should kick the foreigners out. But you can’t throw an event to win the world’s respect and affection, screw up the event, and then complain that the world is biased against you.”

Of course, they’ll always be security concerns – one leading Israeli anti-terror expert fears for the safety of the Jewish state’s team – but such issues are paramount at every Olympics.

China has spent an incredible amount of money on the August event. According to Foreign Policy, “at least $40 billion total, including $35 billion for new roads and subway lines, $1.8 billion for venue construction and renovation, and a $2 billion operating budget.” Beijing is even starting to crack down on the country’s rampant nationalism, concerned it may frighten foreign investment and interest. Many citizens of Beijing are now being walled away from public view to keep the city “clean.”

Away from the headlines remains the story of individuals fighting a daunting system. Take Woeser, a prominent Tibetan blogger in Beijing, currently struggling to obtain a passport. It’s been more than 1150 days since she applied and she’s now planning to sue the authorities.

“For so long now, many Tibetan people have met difficulties applying for a passport”, she told the Independent. “Some people will walk for a long time, climbing snow-capped mountains to arrive in Nepal to get their right as a citizen.”

Let’s hope the Western media doesn’t ignore such stories during the August Games.

The Olympics are a unique opportunity for the global community to listen to China and not berate them. The people are not the regime. Furthermore, a great number of Chinese are undoubtedly excited about the event and want to tell the world about it, including through rap.

Individuals can do a multitude of things to show their solidarity with those suffering human rights abuses in China and Tibet.

What are you doing?

So much for the Olympic dream:

10,000 athletes from 200 countries are about to gather in Beijing under the banner “One World, One Dream.” But for sportswomen from countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran, that dream remains unfulfilled. While the International Olympic Committee bans any gender discrimination, these Gulf countries invoke “cultural and religious” reasons for forcing talented female athletes to stay home.

My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:

Sport isn’t the only thing on the minds of multinationals in Beijing, writes Antony Loewenstein

Human rights issues? What human rights issues?

With only a few weeks until the start of the Beijing Games, this seems to be the message from corporate sponsors of the event. The New York Times explains:

“McDonald’s is running a ‘Cheer for China’ television ad. Nike ads feature China’s star hurdler, Liu Xiang, and other Chinese athletes besting foreign competitors. Earlier this year, Pepsi even painted its familiar blue cans red for a limited edition ‘Go Red for China’ promotion.

“The campaigns for Western companies are part of an advertising blitz the likes of which this ostensibly communist nation has never seen. Ads are papered over bus shelters, projected on giant outdoor television screens and plastered on billboards. Commercials even flicker at commuters as they zoom through subway tunnels.

“China, already the world’s second-largest advertising market, after the United States, is a dream for consumer product companies. ‘For most international brands here, China is the growth market for the next 10 years,’ said Jonathan Chajet, strategic director at Interbrand, which consults on brands.”

Despite pressure some months ago to persuade multinationals to boycott the “Genocide Games”, China’s nationalism is clearly too strong a factor to avoid (along with the potential of massive profits.) The International Olympic Committee is also behaving badly.

Arvind Ganesan, the Director of the Business and Human Rights Program at Human Rights Watch, told Harpers magazine last week that he was concerned about the role of multinationals in China and their deafening silence over abuses:

“…All of the companies claim to have some sort of ‘socially responsive’ policies and two of them, GE and Coke, are actually part of an initiative called the ‘Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights.’ They have made public commitments to be progressive companies when it comes to human rights, but they have been silent about the situation in China.”

And the reason why?

“Through NBC, GE has paid hundreds of million of dollars to broadcast the Olympics. Given how much it has invested as a sponsor, let’s see how critical they are going to be.”

It’s inevitable that some of the Western media covering the sporting events will also discuss human rights abuses. It’s important that dissidents are not forgotten in the rush to celebrate athleticism. Take the case of imprisoned Du Daobin, whose case has been highlighted by the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ):

“Du, 43, a dissident writer and former editor of Human Rights Poetry, was sentenced in 2004 to three years’ jail for ‘inciting subversion of state power’ for publishing 26 articles in 2004 that were critical of the Government. The sentence was suspended to four years’ probation with two years’ deprivation of political rights.

“The IFJ has learnt that Du, a member of the Independent Chinese PEN Centre’s Writers in Prison Committee, was detained by police in Hubei on July 21 for allegedly publishing dozens of articles under a pseudonym during his probation.

“The charge of ‘inciting subversion of state power’ has frequently been levelled at writers and journalists who publish articles critical of any aspect of Chinese government policy.”

Beijing is afraid of both aggrieved citizens reaching the capital to protest and any sign of trouble from the outside. There are reportedly 110,000 security personnel and more than one million citizens to protect the Games against alleged terrorist threats.

Unfortunately, at least one athlete, an Israeli settler, will be representing the worst aspect of human nature, namely the dispossession of Palestinian land, in her pursuit of a taekwondo medal.

Perhaps the most surreal story of the week was the news that some American participants are considering wearing high-tech masks to protect them from pollution. It may cause problems, however. “When you’re walking around with a mask on, you’re basically saying, ‘You guys stink,’ “ says Scott Schnitzspahn, performance director of the U.S. triathlon team.

My following article appears in the Amnesty International Australia’s Uncensor campaign about human rights in China:

It is time for Western human rights activists to pressure China in new ways, writes Antony Loewenstein

With less than one month until the start of the Games, Beijing is trying to make itself more beautiful. Pollution is still rampant but supposedly improving. Ironically, tourism and business travel are down due to the onerous visa restrictions implemented by authorities.

Officials are nervous about what to expect. “It’s like they’re getting ready to throw a great party and then trying to restrain the partygoers,” said Bob Dietz of the New York based Committee to Protect Journalists, who couldn’t get a visa despite 20 years of travelling to China. “They’re not ready to welcome the world.”

Lindsey Hilsum, China Correspondent for Britain’s Channel 4 News, writes that party apparatchiks fail to understand what is truly needed in pleasing an international audience:

“The Chinese government prizes stability above all else, hence the strict instructions to provincial party bosses to ensure that no one with a grievance makes it to Beijing to ‘petition’ during the Games. Any protest would be regarded as a loss of face, an unspeakable embarrassment.

“But the bureaucrats have failed to understand what the rest of the world might regard as a successful Olympics. Quite apart from the sport, people want to have fun. The Sydney Olympics of 2000 are widely regarded as one of the best, because those who didn’t have tickets gathered in parks where they could eat, drink, make merry and watch the events on huge screens. Then they went out and partied. Everyone had a great time.”

Of course, China is not Australia and the comparison is slightly bogus. Chinese society is not conditioned like the West and doesn’t want to be.

In a recently released book, China’s Great Leap, by Minky Worden, the media director at Human Rights Watch, executive director of HRW, Kenneth Roth, asks: “Is there anything that outsiders can possible do to help the people of China change their country?” (One hopes that Roth isn’t suggesting that the West impose its values on a people who probably don’t want them.) He explains his thesis:

“Human rights activists should move beyond simply protesting the suppression of demonstrations or the arrest of lawyers. We should always note that Beijing, by tolerating such repression, is tacitly endorsing the abusive activity that is the subject of protest. Stop farmers demonstrating against the corrupt seizure of their land? That means that Beijing in effect supports seizure. Arrest lawyers challenging environmental degradation? That means that Beijing effectively sides with the polluter. By connecting human rights violations against protestors to the abuses being challenged, human rights activists can refocus popular discontent toward the top, and raise the cost of repression.”

The cost of repression remains alarmingly high. The Communist Party plans to continue terrorising the Tibetans and accepts that “final victory” is far off. Zhang Qingli, the hardline party secretary of Tibet, makes it clear that talks between the Dalai Lama and Beijing are a charade. The London Sunday Times writes:

“Zhang’s words make it plain the talks are a diplomatic mask to conceal China’s actual policy. His speeches, which are remarkably frank, show the government’s chosen response is a classic Marxist-Leninist propaganda and re-education campaign backed up by armed force.”

Despite the internet continuing to stimulate great social change, China faces great challenges ahead, not least the ever-growing gender imbalance, with 37 million more men than women and almost 20 percent more newborn boys than girls nationwide. The result of this in years to come is likely unrest, even greater violence.

Shanghai-based writer Mara Hvistendahl muses on this largely unreported issue:

“…Others are coming up with more practical outlets to exploit China’s new cadre of unstable young bachelors. Two years ago in Nanjing, Jiangsu’s capital, businessman Wu Gang opened the Rising Sun Anger Release Bar in a cheap hotel near the bank of the Yangtze River. The bar featured staples of Chinese entertainment like big-screen karaoke and plates of sunflower seeds but also a central catwalk where, for 100 yuan ($15) per minute, customers paid to assault the waiters, single young migrants from poorer cities to the north. If a customer preferred, his victim would dress in drag. Men “are under too much pressure,” Wu explained to me one day, as the waiters high-kicked Pepsi bottles in the storeroom. “They need a way to release it.”

The August Games are just the beginning of Beijing’s challenges.