Latest Updates from China Digital Times
• China Announces Sweeping Expulsion of American Journalists
• Translation: “An Urgent Call Regarding the Epidemic”
• Canadian Parliamentary Report Describes Chinese Interference
Photo: Untitled (San Francisco, Feb 29), by CDEL Family
© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). |
Permalink |
No comment |
Add to
del.icio.us
Post tags:
Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh
China Announces Sweeping Expulsion of American Journalists
A series of escalating blows between China and the U.S. continued on Tuesday with Chinese measures including a sweeping revocation of press credentials for American journalists for three major U.S. newspapers: The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. Only those whose press cards’ annual renewal for 2020 has already taken place appear eligible to remain. The move is extraordinary not just for its scope, but for its additional prohibition of expelled reporters subsequently working from the theoretically autonomous territories of Hong Kong or Macao. It comes in explicit response to the U.S.’ designation of five state media entities as "foreign missions"—the apparent trigger for the earlier expulsion of three Wall Street Journal reporters, ostensibly over an insensitive op-ed headline—and the subsequent imposition of a visa cap on those state media organizations’ U.S.-based staff, leading to the several dozen effective expulsions. Visa reciprocity measures have long been proposed and widely opposed as a response to China’s extensive restriction and obstruction of foreign news media.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Hua Chunying responded to the visa caps on March 2, tweeting "now the US kicked off the game, let’s play." Similarly eliding China’s past actions, her colleague Zhao Lijian told a press briefing that "the US is guilty of foul play first. We will simply do what we have to do." (Zhao has been a prominent figure in an ongoing Sino-U.S. exchange of recriminations and conspiracy theories between the two governments over the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, with Americans blaming Beijing for its emergence and Beijing seeking vindication in its suppression.) MoFA’s statement on the new restrictions warned of further action "should the US choose to go further down the wrong path":
First, in response to the US designation of five Chinese media agencies as "foreign missions", China demands, in the spirit of reciprocity, that the China-based branches of Voice of America, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and Time declare in written form information about their staff, finance, operation and real estate in China.
Second, in response to the US slashing the staff size of Chinese media outlets in the US, which is expulsion in all but name, China demands that journalists of US citizenship working with the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post whose press credentials are due to expire before the end of 2020 notify the Department of Information of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs within four calendar days starting from today and hand back their press cards within ten calendar days. They will not be allowed to continue working as journalists in the People’s Republic of China, including its Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions.
Third, in response to the discriminatory restrictions the US has imposed on Chinese journalists with regard to visa, administrative review and reporting, China will take reciprocal measures against American journalists.
The above-mentioned measures are entirely necessary and reciprocal countermeasures that China is compelled to take in response to the unreasonable oppression the Chinese media organizations experience in the US. They are legitimate and justified self-defense in every sense. What the US has done is exclusively targeting Chinese media organizations, and hence driven by a Cold War mentality and ideological bias. It has seriously tarnished the reputation and image of Chinese media organizations, seriously affected their normal operation in the US, and seriously disrupted people-to-people and cultural exchanges between the two countries. It has therefore exposed the hypocrisy of the self-styled advocate of press freedom. China urges the US to immediately change course, undo the damage, and stop its political oppression and arbitrary restrictions on Chinese media organizations. Should the US choose to go further down the wrong path, it could expect more countermeasures from China. [Source]
The New York Times’ Marc Tracy, Edward Wong, and Lara Jakes reported:
Orville Schell, a longtime American writer on China and a former dean of the U.C. Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism who is now at the Asia Society, said of the move: “There’s been nothing on such a grand scale.”
“Throwing out the big papers is one notch below closing down an embassy,” he added. “It’s a devastatingly dangerous spiral that we’re falling into here. The already compromised musculature between the two countries is being rent apart.”
[…] Almost all the American reporters for the three news organizations named in the Tuesday announcement have press cards and visas or residence permits that expire this year. The press cards are needed to maintain residency, and turning them in effectively means the journalists would need to leave the country. Reporters who were recently given a press card and residence permit that do not expire until 2021 can presumably continue to work.
All three news organizations also have full-time reporters based in China who are not American citizens.
The announcement does not indicate that any Hong Kong-based newsrooms of the organizations would need to stop operations, even if the journalists expelled from the mainland are not allowed to report there. The Times and The Journal both have large newsrooms in Hong Kong that serve as editing hubs and bases for reporters. The Washington Post’s Southeast Asia bureau chief is also based in Hong Kong. Those reporters do not operate under the same regulations as the ones based in the mainland. [Source]
From South China Morning Post’s Cissy Zhou:
Jude Blanchette, who holds the Freeman Chair in China Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the move “shows that the US and China are firmly locked in a tit-for-tat battle on the landscape of the media and the press. The US-China relationship was already deteriorating significantly. China’s move wouldn’t alter the course but will just accelerate it.”
[…] “Everyone knows state media workers from China, many of them have a dual role, these aren’t comparable, but by the Chinese government’s own logic, it is by framing this retaliation and reciprocity in it, it’s a smart move on their part because it makes these look like this is a one for one response while they are qualitatively and quantitatively different,” Blanchette said.
[…] “China’s decision to kick American journalists out of the PRC is evidence of the ongoing decoupling not only of supply chains and financial systems, but of information and knowledge systems – of media and academia,” said Robert Daly, director of the Wilson Centre’s Kissinger Institute on China and the United States.
“Forbidding foreign journalists to report freely from Hong Kong clearly violates the spirit of Beijing’s promise that the [special administrative region] could retain its social system for 50 years after the handover,” he added. [Source]
Media scholar Viv Marsh commented on the Chinese side’s disregard for a distinction between independent journalists and reporters for state media mouthpieces:
While retaliation following the state media visa caps was widely anticipated, the bar on expelled reporters continuing to work from Hong Kong was unexpected. The territory has previously refused a visa renewal to Financial Times editor Victor Mallet and denied entry to Human Rights Watch’s Kenneth Roth, but the new restriction raised questions about its execution given the territory’s battered but still legally intact autonomy.
Chris Horton noted a curious omission from the destinations ruled off-limits to displaced reporters:
At New Bloom, Brian Hioe speculated on the possibility that Taiwan will indeed become a new base for displaced reporters. Rights groups and media organizations have recently begun to establish regional bases on the island nation as the space for free expression in Hong Kong has been shrinking.
Josh Chin, one of the three Wall Street Journal reporters expelled last month, and some of the newly affected journalists reflected on the news:
The targeted publications also released statements:
Further condemnation came from human rights and free speech groups:
From Human Rights Watch:
“The Chinese government’s unprecedented move chokes off a major element of the very limited space for reporting in China,” said Yaqiu Wang, China researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Authorities already exercise near-total control over the domestic media, such that the foreign press has been vital in enhancing the world’s understanding of China.”
[…] “In the midst of a global health crisis – when accurate and timely information is needed more than ever – Beijing’s decision only seals its image as an enemy of a free press,” Wang said. “The Chinese government should immediately withdraw the ban and allow free reporting by domestic and foreign reporters.” [Source]
From PEN America’s Suzanne Nossel:
“At a time when facts and information are a matter of life and death for billions of people worldwide, the cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation between Beijing and Washington over the role of journalists is stunningly misguided and a grave risk to public safety. Both countries should lift any applicable restrictions and allow professional media outlets to play their role of reporting the news and calling it like they see it. It would be impossible not to interpret Beijing’s latest move as an effort to control the uncontrollable story, namely the spread of COVID-19. The role of government vis-a-vis the media right now should be to offer information and, beyond that, get out of the way of health experts, scientists and credible journalists who are telling the public what they urgently need to know.” [Source]
And from the Committee to Protect Journalists:
“The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns this senseless but entirely predictable retaliation by the Chinese government, which threatens to sharply curtail the reporting operations of major U.S. publications in China,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “Beijing and Washington should negotiate to solve their differences and stop taking measures that cripple news reporting during a global pandemic, when the public’s need for accurate information is greater than ever.” [Source]
Other responses:
(Background)
© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). |
Permalink |
No comment |
Add to
del.icio.us
Post tags: coronavirus, foreign media, journalism, journalists, media conditions, media freedom, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, new york times, United States, washington post
Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh
Translation: “An Urgent Call Regarding the Epidemic”
At the height of the novel coronavirus outbreak in China, Zhao Shilin, a retired Minzu University professor and former member of the Central Committee and Deputy Director of the Culture and Arts Commission, issued two public letters to Xi Jinping concerning the government’s response to the outbreak. The first letter, on February 23, stated that the government had “missed the most important ‘golden window’ of time to combat the epidemic—the time around [Chinese] New Year… [resulting] in the epidemic spreading with great ferocity. The costs of this mistake are enormous. The lessons we must learn are unspeakably painful. The losses, immeasurable.” Censorship and obfuscation of information about the virus’ spread and severity have been widely blamed for its rapid transmission in the early stages of the outbreak.
An Urgent Call Regarding the Epidemic
CCP Central Committee General Secretary Xi Jinping, I respectfully request you reflect on the following:
The Gengzi Year [32nd year of a 60-year cycle] epidemic is a raging national crisis. It has shocked the world. From all the reliable information currently available through various sources, the following determinations can be made: Due to human error, we have missed the most important “golden window” of time to combat the epidemic—the time around [Chinese] New Year, especially the beginning and middle of January. This has resulted in the epidemic spreading with great ferocity. The costs of this mistake are enormous. The lessons we must learn are unspeakably painful. The losses, immeasurable.
As General Secretary Xi said: “This battle against novel coronavirus pneumonia is a grand test of the capacity of our nation’s system of governance.”
Regrettably, I must say, you’re scoring zero so far.
Now that the mistakes have been made, it is difficult to find the reasons why, through human error, this golden window period was missed. Our top priority now is to draw on lessons learned from the spread of the outbreak and the mistakes made so far in fighting the epidemic. This is extraordinarily important, to both China and the world.
As for how this grand human error resulting in this outbreak and its ferocious spread could have happened, I humbly offer these five reasons.
1. The Habitual Use of Extreme Social Stability Measures
For a long time, the ingrained notion of “stability overrides all” has twisted how we treat so many societal problems. Upon careful examination of this “extreme stability” principle, all negative events, including both natural and made-made disasters, are seen as threats to stability. Both undermine the system’s image as being stable. As a result, a kind of rule has formed which holds that if any negative event can be handled in a low-profile fashion, then it should be. And so, the focus of this so-called stability is on the safety of the political regime, rather than the wellbeing of the people. To date, authoritative Chinese and foreign sources of information are all constantly confirming the following: Policy makers knew about the present outbreak from the very beginning, ordinary people were the only ones who didn’t know, and yet ordinary people are the only ones who suffer the consequences. I regret to say, since the beginning of the epidemic, the underlying psychology of policy makers deliberately concealing the epidemic is this: Put the safety of the regime before the safety of the people; put the stability of the regime before the stability of society; put the esteem of the regime before the rights and interests of the people. Because of this, officials on all levels work together to deliberately conceal the outbreak—at the expense of people’s lives, with no regard for the fact that concealing the truth would lead to further spread of the outbreak and provoke societal unrest. This is precisely what is meant by “putting political security first.”
Policy makers hoped in their hearts that they could make it through this outbreak on blind luck. They were unable to quickly mobilize society to implement effective prevention and control measures as early as possible, missing the golden window again and again, and thereby resulting in the fierce spread of the outbreak. This has a direct connection to this extreme, twisted, regime-based, “putting the political regime first” social stability way of thinking.
2. The Institutional Practice of Only Reporting Good News, Not Reporting Bad
The system encourages the reporting of good news and discourages reporting bad news. This has been a long-standing practice. Those lower on the totem pole report good news to higher-ups and avoid bad news to curry favor, to fish for political capital. Higher-ups report only good news to the public, constructing an image of infallible political authority. This is especially true during Spring Festival, the most important holiday for the Chinese people. Portraying images of “peace,” “prosperity,” and “joy” becomes a political mission of oppression. Because of this, even though the China CDC declared a level-two emergency on January 6–which did in fact cause public awareness–the next day, on January 7, at the same time policymakers called for precautionary measures, they still directed that any such measures must not interfere with Spring Festival festivities. They wanted to completely stunt public awareness of the outbreak. On January 23, the outbreak put Wuhan on lockdown. On the same day, shockingly, the General Secretary mentioned not a single word about the outbreak during his Chinese New Year Festival speech. Perhaps the General Secretary just wished for the public to celebrate at ease, to feel good. Why not just avoid mentioning such troubling things? But this behavior of reporting the good and not the bad is obviously not conducive to public vigilance and preventative action.
3. Rigid Institutional Supremacy
Supremacy is a chronic disease within a system. This has become an even larger problem over the last several years. In a system of governance, authority resting solely at the very top inevitably results in stiff, mechanical incompetence. Officials at all levels focus solely on those above them, everything revolves around power. In the face of a menacing epidemic, there is a lack of initiative, flexibility, focus, and responsibility, inevitably leading to loss of precious time and endless consequences. Those responsible in the Hubei and Wuhan governments, these two levels of government, while they themselves had a clear understanding of the dangers this epidemic posed, still deceived the public, misled public opinion, and suppressed the disclosure of the truth by professionals, blindly relying on instructions from superiors, with seemingly no discussion of adjustments to protocol. They failed to proactively take necessary prevention and control measures. As a result, the epidemic spread like wildfire, resulting in national disaster.
4. Loss of Functioning Civil Society
Because of the institutional constraints on its structure, our society is one that is completely controlled vertically, without any horizontal connections. We are a society that is all longitude, no latitude. Having such a one-dimensional society means the loss of self-autonomy and the ability to help ourselves and our communities. Faced with this horrible epidemic, we can rely only on the vertically structured bureaucracy of the Party and government. Inefficient, slipshod. Twice the effort for half the result. In the communities at the very bottom of this vertical structure, during the present outbreak, it’s often the case that just a dozen or so people manage tens of thousands. They are overwhelmed and exhausted. Not only are there a myriad of problems caused by the failure to properly address the epidemic, but now there’s also tension between these officials and the public. Because of this, a neighborhood cadre lamented, “A doctor was murdered in Beijing not too long ago. Over here, it’s the neighborhood Party Secretary they’re going to kill.”
The centralized control of power and resources of this vertical system is a hotbed for political corruption. The China Red Cross, as a wing of the vertical power structure, is the only organization that can legally distribute donated materials. During such a dangerous epidemic, would it really be such an intolerable dereliction of duty to allow other organizations to distribute disaster relief items? The reason the Red Cross dares to act with such impunity is because it is part of the power structure. It’s an untouchable, exclusive monopoly. Other, more efficient, more reputable NGOs, on the other hand, face difficulty after difficulty. Due to this lack of civil society, all of these various non-governmental and autonomous organizations lack legal status. They are unable to smoothly play a role. All space for society to help itself has been squeezed out. Society has lost its capacity for elastic interactivity. Meanwhile, the higher-level government bureaucracy acts as it always has. The grassroots are left overwhelmed, exhausted, stretched, and struggling to keep up. The provisional group they organized, the “Red Armbands,” was considered illegal, criminal. They were attacked with great force, an unbridled violation of human rights. How could this not lead to the spread of the epidemic? On top of this human tragedy, we also have humanitarian disaster
5. Lack of Information Transparency
We live in the Information Age, ease of access to and the transparency of information are basic conditions for maintaining the normal operation of society. This is particularly true during a public health crisis. As experts point out, rapid response is crucial in addressing public health issues. Information on an epidemic should be made public as soon as possible. Every day, every hour represents valuable time to contain the virus.
The Information Age offers a huge advantage–our ability to use the modern, developed internet to promptly communicate comprehensive information in real time. Through the internet, we can get a grasp on an outbreak as soon as possible, and, with this information, effectively prevent and control its spread. But because of systemic reasons and rigid ideological requirements, we often fail to utilize these advantages. To the contrary, we are often affected by its disadvantages. This is because the system sees information as a technological means of political control. They work in every possible way to prevent information from being used as a communication tool. The former is far and away more powerful than the latter. The latter must obey the former. As insightful people have said, “China’s current system of governance is a model of top-down decision making and implementation, rather than a system of bottom-up information collection and transmission.”
Due to the unreasonably strict control of information, early efforts by professionals to disclose invaluable information about the outbreak was actually blocked. Those disclosing the information were labeled “rumormongers” and were subjected to admonishment from the Public Security Bureau. They were publicly exposed on CCTV. The most notable cases of this was the treatment of the eight doctors, one of whom was Li Wenliang.
Without access to free-flowing, transparent information, the function of public opinion in exposing truth has been suppressed. The underlying reason for this is that free speech has become a kind of taboo. Regrettably, it must be pointed out that, for a very long time, the freedom of speech granted by the constitution has existed in name only. The system has erected barriers against public speech everywhere. They shut down networks and delete accounts with impunity. Such dictatorial actions suffocate the communication of information and the ability of public opinion to act as a check on power. The information blockades, restraints on public opinion, and stripping of freedom of speech both violate basic human rights and paralyze and mislead the public’s timely and objective knowledge of the epidemic. These practices subject the public to a huge amount of psychological stress. With these practices, it was impossible to avoid wasting all that precious time during this current epidemic. As a result, the outbreak spread like wildfire.
Regrettably, it must be said, because of the five aforementioned systemic reasons, we missed our golden window to address the epidemic, resulting in its ferocious spread. I can’t help but take the liberty to point out that some responsibility for this kind of global systemic crisis rests on the leaders of Hubei Province and Wuhan city. But the main responsibility is on the central government. General Secretary Xi Jinping is primarily responsible.
Man-made errors in decision-making and fundamental shortcomings of the system have led to the ferocious spread of the outbreak, to national disaster, and to global catastrophe—all from an epidemic that could have been nipped in the bud early on. One could say that the harm caused by the spread of this epidemic is proportional to the size of the decision-making error and the harm caused by these systemic defects. Human factors and systemic defects, causing the epidemic’s fierce spread, causing such gigantic harm—you could say it’s 10% natural disaster and 90% human catastrophe. We can no longer whitewash the truth. We can no longer claim easy victory. We can no longer treat a funeral like a wedding. We can no longer treat disaster as political achievement. How many have died? How much human tragedy? Express pride among a forest of corpses…sing praises atop a pile of bones—how can one bear it? The only thing we should be doing is thinking of every means possible to halt the damage.
When General Secretary Xi summarized his lessons for outbreak containment and prevention, he said we needed to “fix short boards and plug up any leaks.” Well, what are our short boards? Where are our leaks? As the five aforementioned reasons make clear, our shortest boards are the system’s short boards. Our biggest leaks are the system’s leaks.
“Those who warned to fix the chimney and move the kindling are never rewarded after a house burns down—only those who got burned putting it out are rewarded.”
If we could “fix the chimney and move the kindling,” then we wouldn’t have to get “burned.” As we’re recovering from our losses all across the country, fighting against the further proliferation of this epidemic’s “burn,” we mustn’t forget those people who suggested “fixing the chimney and moving the kindling” in the first place. Those are the people from within and without the system calling for systemic political reform, especially those critics who dare to point out the defects in our system. If those in power truly wanted to “earnestly listen to the public, no matter if it sounds good to you or not, as long as what they are saying is correct,” then so many disasters could have been averted. If they did occur, they’d be dealt with in a timely manner. It wouldn’t escalate to catastrophe. So many natural disasters would fail to result in human tragedy. When they do occur, they’d be dealt with as early as possible.
In response to this large-scale public health crisis, General Secretary Xi proposed the establishment of fourteen systemic practices. (After reading them I couldn’t help but gasp. Logically speaking, these fourteen practices should have been established at least as early as after the 2003 SARS epidemic, for crying out loud!) These fourteen practices require one prerequisite—one for the political system. That is, to implement the Socialist core values of “freedom, democracy, equality, and rule of law”; to establish a responsible government whose rights are effectively monitored and restricted; to establish normal, healthy civil society; and to guarantee the political rights of citizens, such as freedom of speech, as granted by the constitution.
This should be the biggest lesson we take away from the present epidemic. Therefore, we must not merely call for urgent action. Rather, we must take this battle as an opportunity to deepen political reform, implement the core Socialist values of “freedom, democracy, equality, and rule of law,” build a responsible government subject to effective supervision and restraint, build a normal and healthy civil society, and guarantee the political rights of citizens, including freedom of speech, as granted by the constitution.
Is the above correct? I look forward to your response!
Sincerely,
Member, China Association for Promoting Democracy (former member of the Central Committee and Deputy Director of the Culture and Arts Commission)
Retired Professor, Minzu University of China
Zhao Shilin
February 23, 2020 [Chinese]
On March 2, Zhao issued a second letter responding to the death of Doctor Li Wenliang, who had been officially admonished for sharing information about the outbreak of novel coronavirus before it was publicly known, and who then died of the related disease, COVID-19. Li’s death spurred an outpouring of anger and grief from citizens who followed his call that “there should be more than one voice in a healthy society” to demand free speech.
Suggestions Regarding the Problems Publicizing Epidemic Prevention and Control Information
CCP Central Committee General Secretary Xi Jinping, I respectfully request you reflect on the following:
We describe our propaganda as “great propaganda.” We control all public opinion, media, and all other various information channels in the country. Because of this, the propaganda apparatus is an extraordinarily important part of the prevention and control of the present epidemic. I must regretfully point out that this is also an important reason why the epidemic has been able to spread so rapidly. During the early stages, the propaganda apparatus tightly concealed information about the outbreak. It paralyzed the public’s response and prevention and control efforts. Right now, as we are deep in the work of containment, some disturbing phenomena have appeared in the propaganda apparatus. Because of this, I propose the following suggestions.
Please allow me to start with the Li Wenliang matter.
There are two layers of painful lessons to be learned from the Li Wenliang matter.
First, we have the perverse blocking of the truth leading to the outbreak’s rapid spread. After Li Wenliang exposed the truth about the outbreak on December 30, related departments, according to the requirements of information management and control, were ignoring the truth about the epidemic. Rather, they were working hard to conceal the invaluable information Dr. Li Wenliang had provided from the frontlines as it was happening. They took emergency measures against the promulgation of truth by purging the truth-tellers (that’s what people refer to in the popular phrase that has been circulating around, “They’re not solving the problem. They’re solving the person who brought up the problem”). Mr. Li Wenliang was first questioned by the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission. He was then called in for a talk with the Hospital Supervision Department. After that, he was admonished by the police for “spreading rumors.” Finally, he was labeled a “rumormonger” on China Central Television. This perverse chain of events silenced all health providers, critically hindering the timely disclosure of information from professionals on the frontlines, and resulting in the rapid spread of the outbreak. As Mr. Zhong Nanshan pointed out, if preventative measures were taken in a timely manner in December or January, the epidemic would be much smaller. Someone made the calculations—if control and prevention measures were taken in the beginning of January, the number of infected would not have surpassed 1,000 people. There would have been no more than 40 deaths. Li Wenliang put the suppression of public opinion and information on prominent display.
This suppression of public opinion and information has caused enormous harm. There are too many painful lessons we should have learned from history. Forget about older examples. Just looking at this century alone, with the spread of AIDS and SARS, a tremendous amount of suffering has been caused through the concealment of information. AIDS whistleblower Dr. Gao Yaojie, and SARS whistleblower Dr. Jiang Yanyong, both suffered difficulties and suppression. They are still being treated unfairly to this day. We now have the Li Wenliang matter. The Gao Yaojie and Jiang Yanyong matters, along with the Li Wenliang matter, are obviously closely related with the erroneous policies of the propaganda apparatus.
Second, freedom of speech has been stripped to a degree beyond all reason. Li Wenliang has become a symbol of all those persecuted for telling the truth. But he lived as an honest “model citizen,” a seeker of “peaceful times,” a proponent of the system, someone who would “protect the flag and support the police,” like they say these days. He was far from a dissident, a critic, or a public intellectual, let alone a hostile force. But, just like that, a rule-following “conservative fellow” uttered a few sentences of truth out of professional sensitivity and expertise, and he was immediately, ruthlessly repressed. This clearly demonstrates the extreme to which speech is being stifled beyond all reason. With such contempt for basic human rights, and with speech so unreasonably stifled, can a society really be called a normal society?
The Li Wenliang matter is a call to action. Our top priority must be to implement the basic human rights enshrined in the constitution and protect citizens’ freedom of speech. At the same time, we must recognize that freedom of speech is not only a basic human right, but also a basic requirement to guarantee the normal running of public life in the Information Age. By stripping the freedom of speech of Li Wenliang and all eight of those doctors, their early warnings about the outbreak were not communicated to society in a timely manner. We failed to arouse the needed alarm and vigilance, and as a result, the outbreak got out of hand. How deep, how so very deep a lesson this is.
There are many examples of disastrous consequences for society brought on by stripping free speech. These incidents should provoke deep reflection by the propaganda system. But the incredible thing is, instead of learning from these incidents, as the epidemic rages on and the control situation remains dire, they are intensifying their efforts to block all kinds of media reports on the epidemic and to crack down on citizens disclosing truth from the frontlines. It’s absolutely chilling.
Particularly ill-advised, at the same time as this regression continues to suppress public opinion and block the truth, the propaganda system remains fully operational. As the national crisis unfolds, the epidemic continues to claim the lives of our fellow citizens. With the tagline “Great National Epidemic War,” the apparatus squirms in anticipation for opportunities to sing songs of praise to our heroic leaders and the superiority of our system.
For example, here are the document requirements for the National Radio and Television Think Tank: “Present footage of General Secretary Xi Jinping at site inspections in a way that portrays an air of leadership style. Publicize all the latest important speeches and directives given by the General Secretary exactly as originally presented. …Resolutely work to achieve the ‘Propagandize the Core, Maintain the Core’ principles repeatedly emphasized by the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television Party Group.”
May I ask, Propaganda Department, during such grim times, is maintaining the image of the leadership important, or is saving people’s lives more important? Is it really appropriate to ignore the cries of countless citizens because you only have dear leader on your mind?
Again, on February 29, People’s Daily reported General Secretary Xi’s visit to Heilongjiang Province. The eye-catching headline: “General Secretary Visited Our Home: The Time Passed as Sweet as Honey.”
May I ask, facing this kind of a headline, what should the people think in the outbreak zone? Things are “sweeter than honey” where the General Secretary visits, but what about a visit from the General Secretary to Wuhan? The outbreak rages on; is it appropriate to report on what people in the outbreak zone are thinking and feeling, or is it more appropriate to flash the good fortune of people outside of the outbreak zone? Can’t this kind of reporting wait a while, until the outbreak calms down?
The epidemic still rages on. Cities on lockdown remain on lockdown. The safety of our loved ones is at stake. People dying, departing forever, inconsolable grief. As the people continue to battle the epidemic in this time of national disaster, the Propaganda Department remains obsessively focused on propagandizing on behalf of the leader, making sure the leader stays prominent, praising the leader. Does all this really benefit the leader? All that “directing public opinion,” “positive energy,” “promote positive influence and effectiveness,” etc., many times is just old-fashioned whitewashing, avoiding taboo, refusing criticism, singing people’s praises, using “infallibility” to cover up the gigantic responsibility of the authorities, using “patriotism” to cover up the public’s demands for their rights, using “optimism” to cover up the tragedy experience by countless people, using “chicken soup for the heart” to cover up every kind of humanitarian problem.
This is, of course, a long-established propaganda model. From the anti-Rightist famine to the Cultural Revolution, from the AIDS epidemic, SARS, and now to the present outbreak, no matter how many disasters and errors we live through, it’s always dismissed as an “arduous adventure,” and the “greatness, glory, and righteousness” remains constant. Creating disaster, consuming disaster, praising disaster—every disaster eventually becomes a political achievement, every funeral becomes a wedding. This is the Party’s routine disaster propaganda protocol. Regrettably, I must point out that this kind of propaganda is tantamount to pouring salt in a wound. Not only is it detrimental to the image of those in power, it seriously damages the prestige of the government in the eyes of the public. Not only is it detrimental to the image of our system of government, it seriously damages public confidence in the system.
As the Party has always required, propaganda work is the Party’s mouthpiece. Every day, your own mouthpiece propagandizes your wise and great leader and the superiority of your perfect party system. To put it nicely, it’s self-praise. To put it more sharply, it’s boasting, is it not?
In my humble opinion, while the bodies of our deceased compatriots are still warm, we shouldn’t be so eager for self-affirmation and self-praise. We must not let songs of praise drown out the lessons to be learned. We must not let pride cover up our problems. We must not let victory dilute our responsibility. We must not let celebration cover up the truth.
As we recover, instead of praising our system’s advantages, we should instead look for our system’s holes. Instead of propagandizing our system’s great strength, we should instead look to fix the system’s broken boards. Our most pressing tasks should be to review the lessons we should take away from this situation in a serious and profound way; to clearly define who is responsible; to improve and elevate the national governance system and its capabilities; and to foster the professional ethics and standards of officials.
The Propaganda Department should recognize that those most deserving of praise are lifelong medical workers. Those most worthy of commendation are the kind people who have provided all types of generous assistance. Those most worthy of sympathy are the patients struggling with the virus. Those most worthy of mourning are the victims of this epidemic. Those that should be comforted most are the friends and relatives of the victims.
Some people may say: You know, from the decision-makers at the top to the grassroots cadres at the bottom, they’ve all gotten a lot of things done! Why shouldn’t we sing their praises? My response is: workers conduct manual labor, farmers plant their fields, business people do business, but what about officials? This is their job—to get things done with the power bestowed onto them by the public! Resolving public health crises would be an especially important example of what the are supposed to do. Laborers labor, farmers farm, business people do business, and no one is singing their praises. So why should we sing praise onto those in government? How much privilege do those in power enjoy? Why the endless “greatness, glory, and righteousness” just for doing your job?
Just as Camus said in “The Plague,” “There’s no heroism in any of this. This is merely a matter of honesty. The only possibly way to fight the plague is honesty.”
What the Party’s propaganda work needs most, is honesty.
Is the above correct? I look forward to your response!
Sincerely,
Member, China Association for Promoting Democracy (former member of the Central Committee and Deputy Director of the Culture and Arts Commission)
Retired Professor, Minzu University of China
Zhao Shilin
March 2, 2020 [Chinese]
Translation by Little Bluegill.
© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). |
Permalink |
No comment |
Add to
del.icio.us
Post tags: censorship, coronavirus, li wenliang, transparency, Xi Jinping
Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh
Canadian Parliamentary Report Describes Chinese Interference
On Thursday, Canada’s National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians published a heavily redacted version of its annual report, originally submitted to the government last August. The document consists of three reviews, into "diversity and inclusion in Canada’s security and intelligence community; the government response to foreign interference; and, the national security and intelligence activities of the Canada Border Services Agency." The second of these identifies China and Russia as the two most active perpetrators of foreign interference in Canada, including "using deceptive means to ‘cultivate relationships with elected officials and others perceived to possess influence in the political process; seek to influence the reporting of Canadian media outlets; seek, in some cases, to affect the outcome of elections; and coerce or induce diaspora communities to advance foreign interests in Canada.’"
The review focuses on "traditional" person-to-person activities, rather than cybersecurity, and also excludes "specific interference activities directed at the 2019 federal election [and] the national security implications of foreign acquisitions of Canadian businesses." It notes that in Canada, compared to other countries including the United States and Australia, such activity "has received minimal media and academic coverage, and is not part of wider public discourse," fostering "the assumption that foreign interference is not a significant problem in Canada." The assumption, it argues, is mistaken, and "foreign interference represents a significant threat to Canada’s society and fundamental institutions."
Chapter 2 presents the Committee’s review of the government’s response to foreign interference. This review demonstrates that some states pose a risk to Canadian institutions and Canadian rights, freedoms and values. The chapter’s first section explains the breadth and scope of the threat of foreign interference. It outlines the primary threat actors and examines the threat that those actors pose to Canada’s fundamental institutions and ethno-cultural communities. The second describes government efforts to respond to the threat. This review is important because of the potential adverse effects of foreign interference on Canadian democratic institutions and on the rights and freedoms of Canadians. [Source]
These "ethno-cultural communities" are a key focus of the report. The text notes that "the PRC’s legislative framework directs all Chinese entities and individuals to contribute to state security," describing this as an "all-encompassing strategy […] rooted in China’s fundamental approach to statecraft and international relations." However, it also stresses that Chinese-Canadians and Chinese in Canada are often victims rather than instruments of this approach. (Triple asterisks indicate redactions, some of which are further annotated.)
Canada is a multicultural society, home to large ethnocultural communities. For example, there are approximately 1.8 million Canadians of Chinese background and 1.2 million Canadians of Indian background in Canada, 1 in 5 Canadians were born abroad, and over 22 percent of Canadians identify heir mother tongue as a language other than English, French or Indigenous languages. ethnocultural communities are vulnerable to foreign interference either as targets or as a means of undermining Canadian values and freedoms, and threatening the personal liberties of Canadians and landed immigrants.
A great deal of foreign interference has the goal of creating a single narrative or consistent message that helps to ensure the survival and prosperity of the foreign state. As CSIS [the Canadian Security Intelligence Service] notes, *** However, ethnocultural communities are not homogeneous and individuals or groups may not want to get involved or do not support the foreign state’s goals. Therefore, foreign states utilize a range of tactics to enforce a single narrative. Those tactics *** include:
- threats;
- harassment;
- detention of family members abroad;
- and refusal to issue travel documents or visas.
Many ethnocultural community members are also monitored for what the foreign state considers to be dissident views or activities. For example,[*** This paragraph was revised to remove injurious or privileged information. The paragraph describes the foreign interference activities of a specific country in Canada and their implications for a specific ethnocultural group. ***] [Source]
Two more paragraphs and eight bullet points are them omitted on similar grounds.
GAC [Global Affairs Canada, also known as the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development] has noted [*** that a specific state***] is increasingly monitoring and harassing human rights defenders in Canada and interfering with freedom of assembly and media. These activities have "a chilling effect on human rights activism and freedom of expression." *** [Source]
Manipulation of mainstream and Chinese-language media was another focus:
Foreign interference in the media can take a variety of forms, from distorting messages and encouraging self-censorship to hostile takeovers and foreign control of media outlets. Foreign states use ethnic and mainstream media to spread messages and forward their own agendas. *** The PRC and the Russian Federation both manipulate mainstream and ethnic media.
Traditionally, the PRC took a defensive approach to the media, through domestic censorship and by expelling critical foreign journalists. More recently, the PRC has added a more assertive approach by "trying to reshape the global information environment with massive infusions of money – funding paid- for advertorials, sponsored journalistic coverage and heavily massaged positive messages from boosters. While within China the press is increasingly tightly controlled, abroad Beijing has sought to exploit the vulnerabilities of the free press to its advantage."
[…] Currently, there are approximately 650 publications and 120 radio and television programs in 75 Canada that are in languages other than French and English. Some of these are heavily influenced and manipulated, either wittingly or unwittingly, by foreign states.
[…] The PRC has several state-owned media outlets that operate in Canada including Xinhua News, People’s Daily and the China News Service. *** The PRC is seeking to "harmonize" international Chinese-language media with its own by attempting to merge the editorial boards of those outlets with PRC media. This would result in the PRC controlling the message in Chinese-language media, thereby undermining the free and independent media in Canada. [Source]
The U.S. recently took a series of steps against Chinese state media on its soil, first designating them as "foreign missions" and thereby imposing new information disclosure requirements, and then by capping the number of visas to be issued to their staff in response to China’s subsequent expulsion of three Wall Street Journal reporters.
The section also highlights Chinese state media’s use of paid inserts in several prominent English-language newspapers, referring to The Telegraph’s reported receipt of £750,000 per year for such a placement.
The report then turns to interference in the educational sphere, noting that "CSIS assesses that the PRC and the Russian Federation are the primary threat actors on Canadian campuses," and highlighting the Chinese Students and Scholars Associations and Confucius Institutes that have been the objects of previous concern elsewhere:
[*** Two sentences were revised to remove injurious or privileged information. ***] Academic research indicates that one such student group is the Chinese Students and Scholars Associations (CSSAs). As CSIS noted, the CSSAs are an important support mechanism for international students studying abroad and "provide a social and professional network for students … they are not nefarious in and of themselves." However, there is growing public concern about the relationship between the associations and the PRC’s embassies and consulates as the CSSAs are "one of the main means the Chinese authorities use to guide Chinese students and scholars on short-term study abroad." In the United States, CSSAs are "mobilized to protest campus events that threatened to show China in a negative light. . .. Though ties with the Chinese government vary from chapter to chapter, there is reportedly ‘growing ideological pressure from the embassy and consulates’. Some CSSAs already mandate loyalty to the Party line." *** CSSA behaviour may also pose a threat to freedom of speech and assembly. For example, a media report discussed a Toronto-based chapter of the CSSA that immediately informed the Chinese consulate and publicly condemned a presentation at McMaster University by Rukiye Turdush, a critic of the PRC’s internment of Uyghurs.
As part of the PRC’s cultural influence efforts abroad, the Chinese government funds Confucius Institutes that "teach Chinese language and culture, including calligraphy, food and dance." For example, there are now more Confucius Institutes in Africa than the number of cultural centres of any other government except France. In Canada, these institutes are typically affiliated with postsecondary education institutes and K-12 schools. CSIS notes that New Brunswick recently shut down a Confucius Institute due to community complaints related to foreign interference. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations for the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs recently completed a review of these institutes in a report entitled "China’s Impact on the U.S. Education System." The report noted that,
Confucius Institute funding comes with strings that can compromise academic freedom. The Chinese government approves all teachers, events, and speakers. Some U.S. schools contractually agree that both Chinese and U.S. laws will apply…. The Chinese teachers sign contracts with the Chinese government pledging they will not damage the national interests of China. Such limitations attempt to export China’s censorship of political debate and prevent discussion of potentially politically sensitive topics
Recent Canadian media reports have highlighted similar concerns, including a January 2019 article that discussed the rejection of a Confucius Institute agreement by a Toronto school board. [Source]
Separately, Canada’s National Post examined the contracts for seven of the ten remaining Confucius Intitutes in the country, finding that only one included "any protection for academic freedom," while several included non-disclosure clauses.
The NSICOP report continues with examples of similar interference in "Canada’s close allies and some like-minded states," as well as international organizations including the United Nations. It concludes:
The Committee believes there is ample evidence *** that Canada is the target of significant and sustained foreign interference activities. *** The PRC, the Russian Federation *** other states ***. The Committee believes that these states target Canada for a variety of reasons, but all seek to exploit the openness of our society and penetrate our fundamental institutions to meet their objectives. They target ethnocultural communities, seek to corrupt the political process, manipulate the media, and attempt to curate debate on postsecondary campuses. Each of these activities poses a significant risk to the rights and freedoms of Canadians and to the country’s sovereignty: they are a clear threat to the security of Canada. [Source]
The following section describes and assesses Canadian authorities’ responses to this threat, concluding that:
There is work to be done. This review shows that, for years, CSIS has investigated and reported on the threat posed by foreign interference by a number of states. It has assessed that Canada is an "attractive and permissive target." The government’s new focus is in its earliest stages and has yet to markedly change this environment. Engagement of sub-national levels of government remains cursory or limited by institutional challenges. Public engagement is almost non-existent, save for recent efforts by the Director of CSIS. Organizations within the security and intelligence community differ on how they define the problem and how they understand its gravity and prevalence. Reactions to foreign interference remain ad hoc and case-specific, rarely putting them in their broader context. The response is typically led by single organizations and the tools to counter are most often diplomatic. Understandably, this tends to result in foreign policy considerations being given greater weight than longer-term domestic risks, which are often harder to articulate as concrete harms. No organization represents the longer-term interests of Canadian sovereignty and fundamental values.
The government must do better. Canada’s long-term security depends on the integrity of its sovereignty in decision-making, strong and independent fundamental institutions, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of Canadians. The government’s approach must be based on a refined calculation of our collective interests and, most importantly, a continued emphasis on Canada’s liberal democratic values. In that context, the Committee agrees with the following sentiment:
Democratic values cannot be taken for granted. We must not become complacent in thinking that our own long-standing democracies are not susceptible to foreign interference. The openness of our societies is what make us vulnerable, but is a core component of democracy that contributes to our resilience and cannot be compromised.
The threat is real, if often hidden. If it is not addressed in a comprehensive, whole-of-government approach, foreign interference will slowly erode the foundations of our fundamental institutions, including our system of democracy itself. The Committee expects that its review and recommendations will highlight important areas within which to work. [Source]
The section includes case studies of Canadian responses, including the handling of China’s efforts to repatriate alleged suspects as part of the anti-corruption campaign that was one of Xi Jinping’s earliest signature policies. Canadian law enforcement provided some cooperation with this campaign, but the report alludes to Chinese activites beyond this. In 2015, the Obama administration rebuked Beijing over cases in which, according to The New York Times, “Chinese agents — who are not in the United States on acknowledged government business, and most likely are entering on tourist or trade visas — use various strong-arm tactics to get fugitives to return [including] threats against family members in China.”
Chinese security officials have taken a number of measures to conduct Operation Fox Hunt, including diplomatic pressure on foreign states to cooperate with their investigations and covert trips to persuade or coerce fugitives to return. They employ these measures with Canada. On a diplomatic level, Chinese police and prosecutors work with the RCMP to arrange to meet fugitives in Canada, ostensibly to gather evidence and to discuss the case against them. Chinese authorities agree to seek permission from the RCMP prior to travelling to Canada and to abide by the terms of the Protocol on Foreign Criminal Investigators in Canada, including that meetings are held in RCMP facilities and monitored by an RCMP officer. (*** The remainder of this paragraph was revised to remove injurious or privileged information. It discusses Chinese tactics. ***] ***
[…] The RCMP worked with Chinese officials to support their investigations of corrupt officials. RCMP officials obtained information to substantiate the allegations against the alleged fugitives, facilitate Chinese requests to travel to Canada to interview the individuals and, in Canada, monitor the interviews. The RCMP imposed increasingly stringent criteria on PRC investigators as time passed. [*** The remainder of this paragraph was revised to remove injurious or privileged information. It describes challenges raised by the RCMP. ***]
[…] Despite these interventions, Chinese *** activities to advance Operation Fox Hunt continued. [*** The remainder of this paragraph was revised to remove injurious or privileged information. It describes a specific instance of covert foreign interference. ***] No action was taken at that time or, more generally, since. [Source]
Many other redactions have annotations hinting at their content. Paragraph 112 "describes a CSIS assessment," and comes immediately after discussion of the perception that the extent and success of foreign interference in Canada has been limited. Several other redactions cover "the objectives and tools of China’s foreign interference"; "the foreign interference activities of a specific country in Canada and their implications for a specific ethnocultural group"; "how states interfere in various aspects of Canada’s electoral process"; "Examples that illustrate foreign interference activities directed at elected officials and their staff"; "how certain countries manipulate and control mainstream and ethnic media"; "CSIS investigative challenges"; "various government measures to address Chinese Fox Hunt activities"; "CSIS communications with a number of government departments about challenges in addressing Fox Hunt activities"; and "how Interdepartmental coordination on Fox Hunt appears to have waned."
CBC’s Catharine Tunney reported on the report’s public release:
Liberal MP David McGuinty, chair of the committee, said he couldn’t answer questions about how successful those attempts have been or how many there are in a year.
[…] Stephanie Carvin, a former national security analyst who now teaches at Carleton University, said the broad nature of foreign interference in Canada drives home the need for a resiliency plan.
"It’s really hard to make foreign influence illegal in a democracy because we have free speech, because we have rules about what you’re allowed to say, but we can try and make these communities that are being targeted more resilient," she said.
"We can try and open lines of communication to either law enforcement or security agencies so these individuals who feel they’re being targeted in Canada can come forward, express their concern and feel that they are being listened to." [Source]
The Globe and Mail’s Robert Fife and Steven Chase highlighted concerns of a backlash against Chinese communities:
Wenran Jiang, an adjunct professor at the University of British Columbia’s School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, said the report raises serious concerns if the allegations it makes are “proven to be the case.”
But he warned against any suggestion that overseas Chinese communities are the tool of the PRC. “The generalization that somehow the PRC government, its embassies and consulates can control, and do control overseas Chinese behaviour is an insult to millions of overseas Chinese, be they PRC citizens or foreign citizens of Chinese origin,” Mr. Jiang said.
“Canada must be vigilant in defending itself against any foreign interference in its internal affairs, especially from non-democratic states, but at the same time, we must be aware of the growing sinophobia and not descend into racial profiling and McCarthyism.” [Source]
Canada is the last member of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to announce a decision on the use of equipment from Chinese telecom giant Huawei in its next-generation 5G mobile networks. The U.S. has sought with limited success to persuade other countries that this would constitute an unacceptable security risk, and governments around the world have faced heavy pressure from both the U.S. and China over the issue. Canada’s position is further complicated by its custody of Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s CFO and the daughter of its founder, following a U.S. extradition request. Canadian industry minister Navdeep Bains told CBC earlier this month that "we will make sure that we proceed in a manner that’s in our national interest," and "won’t get bullied by any other jurisdictions," an apparent reference to proposals from U.S. senators which Bains quickly walked back to "won’t be influenced by other jurisdictions." The Globe and Mail’s Lee Berthiaume reported last week on comments from Canada’s Chief of the Defence Staff on the factors being considered:
Defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance says he is worried about anything that would give China easier access to the Canadian military’s computer networks, but says there are ways to manage any security risks from Huawei’s participation in building Canada’s new 5G networks.
[…] During a major defence conference last week, the chief of the defence staff specifically singled out China for its “malign activities in cyberspace,” an assessment echoed by several other Canadian and allied military officers.
Yet Vance also expressed confidence in the government’s ability to “mitigate” such a threat, and would not say whether he had recommended Huawei be banned from Canada’s 5G networks.
“There are ways to mitigate it,” he said. “So it is very much an active file discussion at the highest levels of government and therefore entirely inappropriate to comment on the advice I have given. But it is of concern.” [Source]
These comments might hint at an approach similar to that of the U.K., which recently announced that it would allow Huawei a limited role outside core network roles, with its market share further capped elsewhere. That decision attracted widespread criticism, notably from former Australian signals intelligence chief Simeon Gilding. In a blog post for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Gilding wrote that the Australian Signals Directorate had concluded it was not possible to adequately ensure “that hostile intelligence services could not leverage their national vendors to gain access to our 5G networks.” Although Huawei’s founder Ren Zhengfei has insisted that he would not allow Chinese authorities to use his company this way, such refusal is widely regarded as implausible given legal requirements and, more importantly, the underlying political reality they embody.
Thirty-eight MPs from the UK’s ruling Conservative party led a failed attempt to derail this decision last week. Reuters reported that France will also allow "non-core" use of Huawei equipment cleared by cybersecurity agency ANSSI, noting the company’s recently announced plans for a new factory in France, its first in Europe. At War on the Rocks last week, meanwhile, Andreea Brinza discussed how wariness of Russia has led some Eastern European countries "to side with Washington over China and Huawei, which now find themselves squeezed out of a region that they once considered favorable terrain."
© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). |
Permalink |
No comment |
Add to
del.icio.us
Post tags: 5G, academic freedom, Canada, confucius institute, espionage, foreign media, global influence, huawei, media control, overseas Chinese, Xi anti-corruption campaign
Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh
