Index on Censorship’s Monitoring and Advocating for Media Freedom project tracks press freedom violations in five countries: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. Learn more.
TV crew assaulted while reporting on illegal logging in Kharkiv region
28 August 2018 — Unknown individuals attacked a 112-Ukraine TV crew, which was reporting on illegal logging and theft of wood in the village Zolochiv, in the Kharkiv region, 112-Ukraine TV channel reported.
A group of men blocked the journalists’ car and struck its wheels, threatening the journalists with physical violence. A TV reporter called the police, who arrived, but did not intervene. Journalist Oleg Reshetnyak went on the air, described the situation, but the assaulters noticed this and took the camera during the live broadcast.
Reshetnyak was beaten during the assault. An ambulance was called to him.
UPDATE: 29 August 2019 — Police detained 49 individuals suspected of assaulting a television crew, Kharkiv region police reported.
“A conflict between security guards and journalists arose during the shooting of the video. Security guards blocked the car, tried to seize the camcorder and injured a journalist,” the Kharkiv region police press service reported.
One of the most active individuals is suspected of “obstruction of legitimate professional activity of journalists.” Two more individuals have been detained on suspicion of “threatening or abusing a journalist.”
According to police, private guards working for the logging company used violence, blocked the TV crew’s car, tried to seize the camcorder and injured the journalist. The journalist received multiple injuries to their back and kidneys, as well as bruises on their face.
Categories: Blocked Access, Physical Assault/Injury, Attack to Property, Intimidation
Source of violation: Known private individual(s)
TV correspondent harassed at nationalist rally
24 August 2019 — Nash/Maxi TV journalist Bogdan Karabyniosh was harassed on-air by unknown individuals at a nationalist march in Kyiv, Detector Media reported.
During a live broadcast, participants in the march people called the channel pro-Russian, shouted the name of the owner of the channel, Volodymyr Murayev, and Vladimir Putin. Afterwards, the unknown individuals called on the journalist to leave and not interfere with the rally. The journalist considered such actions as obstruction of his journalistic activity.
20 August 2019 — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan filed the lawsuit in the Shevchenko District Court of Kyiv against three journalists from Schemes, an investigative program that’s a joint production of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and public broadcaster UA:Pershyi. The three journalists are Nataliya Sedletska, Valeria Yegoshina, and Maksym Savchuk, Kyivpost reported.
The details of the lawsuit are currently unavailable, so it is unclear which of Schemes’ reports about the presidential aide Bohdan found defamatory.
“At this point, we have not received the text of Bohdan’s lawsuit. Therefore, we cannot comment on it,” the editorial board of Schemes wrote on Twitter on Aug. 21. “We are confident that the information we publish is reliable and are ready for the trial.”
Bohdan is a former lawyer whose most famous client was oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky. After Zelenskiy’s victory in the presidential election, Bohdan was appointed his chief of staff, heightening concerns over Kolomoisky’s suspected influence on the new president.
Schemes did several investigations into Bohdan. One of them revealed his multiple trips to Tel Aviv, where Kolomoisky resided at the time, while the lawyer was de facto running Zelensky’s election campaign. The show also reported on his secret meeting with the then-head of the constitutional court.
In an interview with Ukrayinska Pravda published on April 25, Bohdan said he was preparing to sue Schemes’ journalists for spreading false information that he had taken 11 flights to Russia, six of which were through Belarus. However, the journalists never reported that. In their investigation, they said Bohdan had made three trips to Russia since 2014 and crossed the Belarusian border 11 times “in an unknown direction during 2018-2019.”
Source of violation: Government/State Agency/Public official(s)/Political party
Drunk man assaults local TV crew
16 August 2019 — A drunk patron of a shop assaulted members of a TV crew from a regional TV station in Mariupol, Mariupol News reported. The name of the TV channel and the names of journalists were not disclosed.
The individual hit the cameraman and damaged a video camera, the local police press service reported. Journalists filed a complaint to the police. The officers found the offender, who turned out to be a 44-year-old resident of Mariupol.
The incident was investigated as an “obstruction of the legitimate professional activities of journalists”, which is punishable with up to three years in prison.
Categories: Physical Assault/Injury, Attack to Property
Source of violation: Known private individual(s)
MP calls journalist “a stupid sheep”
18 August 2019 — Maxim Buzhansky, a member of the Ukrainian parliament, who belongs to president Volodymyr Zelensky’s political party, called Olga Dukhnich, a journalist working for Novoe Vremya (New Time) “a stupid sheep”, Ukrayinska Pravda reported.
“Another stupid sheep who is a journalist for the odious media Novoe Vremya said in an interview with a representative of Servant of the People political party that I was nostalgic for the USSR and president Yanukovych’s times. I understand that some colleagues are too restrained to call things by their names, so I will help them. A stupid sheep from the odious media,” Buzhanskiy posted on his Telegram public channel.
In response, Dukhnich posted on Facebook that “to answer to Mr. Buzhansky is like trying to figure out a relationship with a pigeon that shit on your coat sleeve.” The journalist called on the politician to apologise to Novoe Vremya, which is a weekly magazine.
In an interview with the leader of Servant of the People, Dmytro Razumkov, Dukhnich said that Buzhanskiy was “nostalgic for the USSR and Viktor Yanukovych’s time.” Razumkov, for his part, said the MPs should be judged for the current and future acts.
In July 2019, parliamentary elections were held. Servant of the People Zelensky’s party gained more than 43 percent of the vote.
Source of violation: Government/State Agency/Public official(s)/Political party
Court leaves journalist under house arrest
15 August 2019 — The Korolyovsky District Court of Zhytomyr ruled that journalist and blogger Vasyl Muravitsky should remain under house arrest until 12 October 2019, Ukrinform news agency reported.
Prosecutor Vadym Levchenko filed a motion to change Muravitsky’s pre-trial detention from 24-hour house arrest to remand in custody. According to the prosecutor, there were risks that Muravitsky may hide or commit similar crimes by “writing publications on anti-Ukrainian topics.”
The journalist’s lawyer, Svitlana Novitska, insisted on changing the measure of restraint on personal commitment or bail, instead of house arrest.
At a court hearing the prosecutor read out Muravitsky’s correspondence with other individuals, in which publications, various Ukrainian politicians, the organisation of a press conference and fees were mentioned. In addition, the prosecutor provided a disk with screenshots of Muravitsky’s correspondence on Facebook, Telegram, Skype, as well as the e-mails.
The lawyer noted that such evidence is clearly inadmissible and is an interference with the private correspondence of her client. The prosecutor replied that the investigating judge allowed him to examine the journalist’s correspondence. The court took into consideration the evidence provided by the prosecution, Ukrinform reported.
On 2 August 2017, Muravitsky was arrested on suspicion of treason and undermining the territorial integrity of Ukraine because he worked for Russian news agencies. Until June 27 2018, the journalist was in custody, after which the court changed the preventive measure to house arrest.
On 6 August 2018, after the court hearing in Zhytomyr, activists from neo-Nazi C14 group splashed Muravitsky with the dye brilliant green as he left the building. (Known as ‘zelenka’, this dye was widely used as an antiseptic during the Soviet period but is now increasingly used in attacks against dissidents and political opponents in Russia and Ukraine, where it is still readily available. It is extremely difficult to wash off the skin, and though not as corrosive as most acids, it can cause chemical burns.)
Source of violation: Government/State Agency/Public official(s)/Political party
Man harasses TV crew in Odessa
8 August 2019 — An unidentified person interfered with and harassed a Dumskaya TV crew in a casino, Dumskaya.net reported.
The individual began to threaten the news crew when they learned that a live broadcast was in progress. “If I see myself on the TV screen, you will have a lot of trouble,” the man said to a female journalist who wanted to talk about possible gambling legislation.
The individual forcibly took the camera from the cameraman. The crew’s equipment was damaged as a result of the incident.
The journalists filed a complaint with the police.
Categories: Physical Assault/Injury, Attack to Property, Intimidation
Source of violation: Unknown
MP called to attack pro-Russian TV channels with anti-tank missile
12 August 2019 — Appearing on Pryamiy TV, People’s Front MP Serhiy Vysotsky said pro-Russian television channels should be blown up with an anti-tank missile, Strana.ua reported.
“These channels that we are talking about, they work against Ukraine — in favor of the enemy, all the journalists who work there — they are combatants of the Russian Federation. And what should be done with them is to blow them up with an anti-tank guided missile, that is, to close them,” Vysotsky said during a talk show.
The head of the National Union of Journalists, Serhiy Tomilenko, commented that the deputy’s appeal was an incitement to hostility which is criminalised in Ukraine.
“With anxiety I note the escalation of pressure on the TV channel. I hope that the new government will find the strength to preserve freedom of expression, to stop the pressure and to ensure the right of journalists to the profession,” the Channel 112 Ukraine CEO Yehor Benkendorf said.
On July 13 2019, the main office of TV Channel 112 Ukraine was attacked with a rocket-propelled grenade in Kyiv. The police still haven’t found the offenders.
During the parliamentary elections of 2019, Vysotsky ran for European Solidarity political party of the ex-president Poroshenko, but was not elected.
Source of violation: Government/State Agency/Public official(s)/Political party
Court rules against independent TV channel
6 August 2019 — The commercial court of Kyiv granted far right groupC14’s claim against Hromadske TV, Hromadske reported.
C14 filed a lawsuit against Hromadske TV “on the protection of honour, dignity and business reputation” in July 2018. One of the documents in the statement of claim featured a copy of a tweet posted to the Twitter of the media organization’s English-language service Hromadske International, which describes C14 as a “neo-Nazi group”. The tweet was posted on May 4 2018, when representatives of C14 captured and forcefully took Brazilian militant Rafael Lusvarghi to Ukraine’s Security Service.
The court noted that the information circulated by Hromadske in May 2018 “harms the reputation” of C14 and ordered Hromadske to refute the information and pay 3,500UAH ($136) in court fees to C14.
Olena Tchaikovska, the attorney for Hromadske TV, called the decision “incorrect and illegal.” “It introduces an egregious tendency that suppresses freedom of speech. We will appeal it,” she said.
“We are surprised by this decision. Not only does it contradict the judicial logic, but is also a dangerous precedent for other media and for freedom of speech in general,” editor-in-chief of Hromadske Angelina Karyakina said of the decision.
“The position of C14 is that they are not a neo-Nazi group in their activities or in the nature of their activities. They are a nationalist group, but they are by no means neo-Nazi,” said Victor Moroz, C14’s lawyer at a previous court hearing. According to Moroz, what Hromadske called the organisation harms the business reputation of C14.
Hromadske television defends its position and insisted that it did not commit any violations by characterising the organisation as “neo-Nazi.”
UPDATE:
7 August 2019 — A number of international human rights organisations have criticised the decision of the commercial court of Kyiv, the Institute of Mass Information reported.
Freedom House Ukraine qualified this decision as a dangerous precedent of interference with freedom of opinion and expression in Ukraine. “C14 can contest/deny Hromadske’s characterisation but it is the right of the media to publish their view, in good faith, based on the information they gathered” on C14 and its members, “many of whom declared that they joined the group because of its neo-Nazi orientation”, Matthew Shaaf, director of Freedom House Ukraine said on. Shaaf believes an increase in self-censorship among media in Ukraine could be the most pernicious impact of ruling against Hromadske for calling C14 neo-Nazi.
Source of violation: Government/State Agency/Public official(s)/Political party
Local TV crew assaulted
1 August 2019 – A Kapri TV crew was assaulted by unidentified individuals and a political aid of a parliamentary candidate in Pokrovsk Donetsk region, the Institute of Mass Information reported.
As a result of the assault, the cameraman received a concussion, his camera and mobile phone belong to journalist Alyona Sobolenko were damaged.
According to Sobolenko, Vitalii Verbicky, a political aide working for MP candidate Ruslan Trebushkin, broke her smartphone after snatching it from her hands as she attempted to enter the building. Verbicky then forcefully shoved the cameraman into the building where a meeting of the members of the district election commission and the city leadership was taking place.
The journalists had gone to the offices to investigate why the election commission members were not engaged in recounting a local vote, but instead were meeting with Trebushkin himself behind closed doors.
Once in the building the cameraman reported he was assaulted and his camera was broken. The individuals also destroyed the memory card containing video, Sobolenko said. The cameraman said he was threatened with further violence and that the men wanted to know if there were additional TV crews outside. The cameraman was prevented from leaving the building for half an hour.
Sobolenko, who remained in the parking lot, called the police to the scene of the incident. “The police did not arrive at once, I had to call three times, but the officers were in no hurry … We were very worried because we did not know what was going on behind closed doors in the room… We recorded the beating in the hospital, and today called an ambulance again because the cameraman had dizziness, he was diagnosed with a brain injury,” Sobolenko told IMI.
When the police finally arrived, they were prevented from accessing the building by a crowd of men, who blocked the entrance. Subsequently, the police called for reinforcements and freed the cameraman.
The journalists filed a complaint with the police. A criminal case was opened on the article “obstruction of journalists’ legal activities.”
On 26 July 2019, Turkey’s highest court brought new hope to Turkish academics when it ruled that ten educators who had signed the petition “We will not be a Party to This Crime!” (Bu Suça Ortak Olmayacağız) had been tried unfairly and in violation of their rights.
The petition, created by the Kurdish rights group Academics for Peace, called on the Turkish government to “prepare the conditions for negotiations and create a road map that would lead to a lasting peace which includes the demands of the Kurdish political movement”. It was signed by over two thousand academics, all of whom were then individually charged with “conducting propaganda for a terrorist organisation”. The news that the resulting trials might violate the signatories rights sparked a firestorm of controversy in Turkey, where academia is tightly controlledand public discussion of the trials has been constrained.
Noémi Lévy-Aksu is an historian of the late Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey and an aspiring lawyer. She has French and Turkish citizenship and was working as an assistant professor at Boğaziçi University until 2017, when she was dismissed for signing the Academics for Peace petition, an experience about which she previously spoke to Index in 2018. Lévy-Aksu is currently a teaching fellow at the London School of Economics and she is involved in human rights advocacy and volunteer legal work. She still speaks out about her experience and she spoke with Index’s Sophia Paley about the latest developments in the challenges facing Turkish academics and their students.
Index: Thousands of academics have been dismissed for political reasons since the coup in 2016, most of them were not signatories of the Academics for Peace petition. Why do you think the Academics for Peace cases have gotten so much more international attention than these other cases?
Noémi Lévy-Aksu:The case of the Academics for Peace has become emblematic of the attacks on academic freedom and freedom of expression in today’s Turkey. The sole ground on which academics have been threatened, dismissed and prosecuted is their endorsement of a declaration demanding the end of state violence against civilians and the resumption of the peace process. In this respect, it is one of the multiple cases of criminalisation of critical thought and expression, which target journalists, political actors, human rights defenders as well. The degree of international attention is also due to the efforts of the Academics for Peace themselves, who have established solidarity networks in Turkey and abroad to support the signatories and raise awareness about their cases among academics, human rights defenders and policy-makers.
Index: What do you think will happen to the petition signatories who have already been sentenced, including those who legally forfeited their right to an appeal?
Lévy-Aksu: Turkey’s constitutional court has ruled that the conviction of the signatories of the Academics for Peace declaration was a violation of their rights and considered that the declaration was within the scope of academic freedom. The court also ordered that a copy of the decision be sent to the lower courts involved in the process. Accordingly, those still under prosecution should be acquitted, re-trials should be held for the ones who have received a final sentence and the regional courts of appeal should reverse the conviction for the cases that are pending on appeal.
Index: Do you think that the high court’s verdict represents a genuine turning point for academic freedom in Turkey, or is that a false hope? What is the verdict’s significance?
Lévy-Aksu: The decision of the constitutional court is an important landmark, following a few other positive decisions acknowledging the wide scope of freedom of expression in international law and Turkish legislation. In this respect, it brings hope not only to academics, but also to all those who are currently prosecuted for their opinions and statements in Turkey, as well as to the national and national human rights defenders. However, the decision was adopted with a one-vote majority and triggered harsh criticism in the pro-governmental media. Legally, the decisions of the constitutional court are binding on inferior courts, but in the last few years some inferior court judges have proved reluctant to apply those decisions, so the next few months will be crucial to evaluate the legal impact of this judgment.
Finally, one should not forget that the criminal prosecution of the Academics for Peace is just one aspect of the multiple attacks against academic freedom in today’s Turkey. Arbitrary dismissals and obstacles to critical research remain burning issues, which cannot be solved without a strong political will.
Index: According to pro-state media, 1,071 academics have signed a manifesto condemning the high court’s verdict. Why do you think they would do such a thing? Do they truly believe their fellow academics are promoting terrorism? What is their motivation?
Lévy-Aksu:The “1071” declaration was initiated by a few university rectors, who did not hesitate to stand against the highest court of the country to show their loyalty to the political power. The number “1071” was chosen as a reference the Malazgirt battle in 1071, but it soon appeared that the list was not accurate: some signatories appeared twice, while a few declared that their names had been included without their consent. One lecturer from Istanbul Aydın University even resigned to protest against her name being used without her consent. As for the more than a thousand academics who chose to endorse such a declaration, some are active supporters to the government, while others probably feared sanctions if they answered negatively to their rectors’ requests. In any case, this declaration gives an idea of the atmosphere in these universities, where administrations are completely beholden to political power and the academic staff have little choice but active or passive consent.
Index: How familiar is the Turkish public with the government’s tightening restrictions on academic freedom? What do you believe is their reaction?
Lévy-Aksu: Turkey’s public sphere is so divided that it is impossible to talk about the “Turkish public”. The case of the Academics for Peace petition has received attention both in pro-governmental and in independent media, from very different perspectives. In the pro-governmental discourse, purges in academia are presented as part of the fight against terror and its supporters, either Gulenists or pro-Kurdish. In that view, state security and the interests of the nation are involved, so academic freedom is not important. On the other hand, restrictions on academic freedom are increasingly criticised in the public sphere, as part of the broader violations of human rights and freedoms in Turkey, but also because of their negative impact on the quality of teaching and research in the Turkish academia.
Index: Speaking of the quality of Turkish higher education, how do solidarity academies differ from other private educational institutions, and what is their role in providing space for open inquiry and critical thought?
Lévy-Aksu: Solidarity academies are alternative structures created by academics who believe that new spaces are needed to resist attacks against academic freedom and critical thought. Many of them, though not all, are signatories to the Academics for Peace petition who were dismissed from their academic positions. Solidarity academies started as local, informal initiatives in various cities of Turkey, such as Eskişehir, Kocaeli, Dersim, Mersin, Izmir, Ankara and Istanbul. Several have now become more organised and obtained a legal status as associations. Contrary to private educational institutions, they are non-profit organisations and they aim to develop innovative approaches to research and teaching, with special emphasis on freedom and critical thinking. While they do not seek to reproduce the conventional academic system, these academies have connections with international research networks and scholars and they make an important contribution to knowledge production in Turkey. As an increasing number of countries witness attacks on academic freedom, such initiatives are vital to develop transnational networks of solidarity and support academics and students affected by these developments.
Index: The Turkish government is increasingly relying on anti-terrorism legislation to attack its political enemies. Why was this specific justification chosen, and how does it change the legal process?
Lévy-Aksu: Using anti-terror legislation to attack political enemies is a strategy that has been used by the Turkish successive governments for decades. As in other countries, anti-terrorism legislation enables the state to limit the rights of the suspects, as illustrated by the anti-terror law adopted after the state of emergency was lifted in July 2018. Inter alia, it allows longer custody periods and defenders and lawyers can be prevented from accessing the case file. Beyond these legal aspects, labelling critical voices as terrorist is a political strategy that aims to shape public opinion and increase support of the government. It presents the prosecution and imprisonment of opponents as legitimate and necessary for the interests of the nation.
Index: The Turkish Constitution includes provisions forbidding “[u]niversities, members of the teaching staff and their assistants” from engaging “in activities directed against the existence and independence of the State, and against the integrity and indivisibility of the Nation and the Country”. This unity of the nation includes linguistic and cultural unity, as shown in the mandate that “No language other than Turkish shall be taught as a mother tongue to Turkish citizens at any institutions of training or education”. Do these guarantees of a unitary ethnostate for Turks influence how the Academics for Peace petition signatories and others were treated?
Lévy-Aksu: This question raises several important issues which it is impossible to fully answer here. The first issue is related to the tension between academic freedom and national security. This is not specific to Turkey (see for instance the much debated Prevent legislation in the UK), but since the beginning of the republic, regardless of the political orientation of the government (and with a few exceptions), the state’s approach to academic freedom has been particularly restrictive in Turkey.
The second issue has to do with Turkish nationalism and its negative perception of cultural and linguistic diversity, which has constituted an important aspect of the Kurdish issue in the last decades. Education in their mother tongue is a recurrent demand of the Kurdish rights movement. While the government seemed willing to develop a more conciliatory approach to the question during the peace negotiations, since the process collapsed, a rigid version of Turkish nationalism has been on the rise again. As an urgent call to stop state violence against civilians, the declaration of the Academics for Peace was not directly related to the question of cultural rights, but it emphasised the need for a peaceful resolution to a conflict that has lasted for decades. The attacks against the signatories illustrate how, under the current government, human rights and democratic values are treated as subversive when they are used to articulate a critique of the state. Meanwhile, countless citizens have been imprisoned or prosecuted for their political and cultural activities on behalf of Kurdish rights and democracy.
Index: Some observers emphasise the worsening situation for academics after the failed coup of 2016. Do you agree that 2016 was the turning point, or if not, when did these problems begin?
Lévy-Aksu: Attacks on academic freedom did not start with the failed coup of 2016, nor actually with the AKP government. With respect to the Academics for Peace signatories, the repression started right after the petition was released in January 2016. The signatories were immediately the targets of hate speech, the first dismissals occurred, and four signatories were imprisoned. However, after a state of emergency was proclaimed in July 2016, the process dramatically accelerated and the purges targeting Gulenists, the Academics for Peace signatories and other opponents became massive in higher education, as in other sectors. The civil servants dismissed by the emergency decrees did not only lose their jobs: their passports were revoked, and they received a life-long ban on public service. In addition, they continue to face informal practices of black listing and discrimination. This process has been described as “civil death” by some signatories and continue to have dramatic moral and material consequences.
Index: Are you worried or hopeful for the future of Turkey’s education system, and why?
Lévy-Aksu: The current situation of Turkey’s education system is extremely worrying. Successive reforms implemented in primary and secondary education have further disorganised the system, and all levels of education have experienced purges. Higher education has been decimated by these purges. Even though not all critical academics have been dismissed, the space for academic freedom has dramatically shrunk in all universities and many choose self-censorship to avoid possible sanctions. Both the Turkish Higher Education Council and the Scientific and Technological Research Council (TUBITAK) have been discredited by their prominent role in the dismissal and marginalisation of critical scholars. The students are the main victims of this process, both because they have lost many dedicated and inspiring teachers, but also because they are themselves targeted by repression, both at the disciplinary and criminal levels. There are tens of thousands students imprisoned today in Turkey.
Yet, the resilience of civil society in Turkey is remarkable, and international solidarity has enabled a number of critical scholars to continue their research away from Turkish academia. It is my hope that the experience academics have gained of alternative structures such as the solidarity academies and the international networks developed during these years will contribute to transforming the education system for the better when there is a political opening. [/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1566481960332-5be62801-2970-10″ taxonomies=”8843″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/b21faoXVpM4″][vc_column_text]“Students in the United States must be free to express their views, without feeling pressured to censor their speech…We can and will push back hard against the Chinese government’s efforts to chill free speech on American campuses.” This is what Marie Royce, US assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs, said in her address welcoming Chinese students to American universities in July 2019.
As much a warning as a welcome, the speech illustrates the balancing act America and other western countries often perform when engaging with Chinese people and organisations on campus. The presence of the Chinese Communist Party on campuses severely limits the free expression of Chinese students, and threatens more broadly to curtail academic freedom, the right to protest, and the ability to engage with the uncomfortable truths about the Chinese government honestly.
To understand the situation, one must first understand the unique nature of the party apparatus. The CCP attempts to control not only China’s political arena but every aspect of Chinese citizens’ lives, at home and abroad, including on US campuses. Dr Teng Biao, a well-known Chinese human rights activist and lawyer, tells Index on Censorship: “It’s quite unique. The party’s goal is to maintain its rule inside China at all costs, and so it sets about making the world safe for the CCP. It is all-directional.”
That control looks very different abroad than it does at home. CCP does not control much of its foreign influence network directly. “It has different ways of implementing influence,” Teng explains. Some Chinese organisations “are directed by the Chinese government and don’t have much independence in making decisions.” However, other organisations, such as alumni networks and Chinese businesses, as well as Chinese students, have their own agency and goals, and operate largely independently.
Sources from US intelligence agencies to the New York Times have reported that the Confucius Institutes, which teach Chinese language skills to non-Chinese people, and the Chinese Students and Scholars Associations, which are student-led organisations that provide resources for Chinese students and promote Chinese culture, are directed by the CCP. The CSSA has worked closely with Beijing to promote its agenda and suppress critical speech. According to Royce, “there are credible reports of Chinese government officials pressuring Chinese students to monitor other students and report on one another” to officials, and the CSSA often facilitates this spying.
Beijing’s influence is perhaps the most indirect and complex with regard to Chinese students themselves. The same day Royce made her welcome address, 300 Chinese nationalists disrupted a demonstration against China’s Hong Kong extradition bill at the University of Queensland, Australia, leading to violent clashes. On 7 August 2019 more violence between detractors of the extradition law and supporters of the CCP occurred at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, in what China’s consul general in Auckland calls a “spontaneous display of patriotism”. Earlier this year, Chinese students at MacMaster University in Canada, incensed by a lecture on the Chinese government’s treatment of the Uigher ethnic minority, allegedly filmed the event and sent the video to the Chinese consulate in Toronto, which denied involvement but praised their actions as patriotic. [/vc_column_text][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/kW3c211dy8g”][vc_column_text]Speaking to Index about the Queensland protest, Dr Jonathan Sullivan, director of China Programs at the University of Nottingham Asia Research Institute, said “Many Chinese students have passionately held views and they sometimes mobilise to voice them. I don’t think it’s helpful to see such mobilisations as being the work of the party, although there is also evidence that party/state organisations sometimes provide help.” Sullivan notes, however, that their passion and convictions “are themselves a product of the authoritarian information order created by the party-state” and that “there is among Chinese students potential to react in an organised way.”
Isaac Stone Fish, a prominent journalist and a senior fellow at the Asia Society’s Center on U.S.-China Relations in New York City told Index “[The party is] very effective generally at keeping students in an ideological framework,” convincing them, for instance, that “the communist party and China are the same” and thus motivating them to protect the party. However,he agrees that students’ convictions belong to them. “It’s ok for Chinese students to feel that Beijing’s policies are correct,” he says. Problems only arise when they try to control the conversation.
As the extent of the CCP’s influence is gradually revealed to the public, there have been fears that governments will retaliate indiscriminately and restrict visas for all Chinese students abroad, or withhold them specifically from members of the CSSA. Tensions over immigration, especially in the US, mean such a reaction is possible, but as Sullivan says: “We should keep in mind that most Chinese students care about their degree and getting on in life, and we all must resist any temptation to homogenise — let alone demonise — them.” Stone Fish concurs. “There is…a danger of a racially-tinged backlash against Chinese people, which would be an ethical and strategic mistake.”
Sullivan is concerned that many universities treat Chinese students like an easy source of income instead of treating them as students with unique and pressing needs. They have that in common with the party itself. One of the biggest dangers in dealing with the CCP, explains Stone Fish, is “its willingness to use Chinese students as bargaining chips” directing them to some universities and way from others to encourage political conformity. Western institutions are vulnerable to such a tactic, Teng claims, because they “care about money more than universal values,” and “They don’t profoundly realise” that the CCP “has become an urgent threat.”
So far, the western response to the issue has been inconsistent and uncertain. “I think universities need to develop a much clearer understanding of the issues,” Sullivan says. “These can be complex and university administrators are not generally China specialists who are able to identify the nuances, which makes policy and provision inadequate and potentially unbalanced.” Going forward, Stone Fish asserts, we should be “Educating college administrators about how the party works,” and “having universities work together.” Cooperation is essential, because “Beijing prefers to negotiate one-on-one,” but as a bloc, Universities have leverage of their own.
Demand for western education in China is strong and continues to grow, especially among the Chinese elite and middle class. However, universities can only use that demand to resist pressure from the CCP if they coordinate their response. Stone Fish concludes, “I think the greatest danger is giving in to Beijing’s demands not to have certain speakers, or allow the party to prevent certain voices from being heard.” [/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1566913121795-e09fc4f8-7d31-10″ taxonomies=”8843″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”100109″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]16 years ago Facebook arrived on the scene followed shortly by Twitter. We thought it was going to open up pleasant social discourse. How wrong we were.
Now comes the question of whether online content – should be regulated. Arguing this corner is Seyi Akiwowo, a former councillor and target of trolls, and now the founder of Fix The Glitch which is campaigning for platforms to take responsibility. But does this challenge free speech and who decides where to draw the line? Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of Index on Censorship and defender of free speech will be joining us to give an alternative view.
Which side are you on?
This is a Trouble Club event.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”107240″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”108685″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_custom_heading text=”Hosted by” font_container=”tag:p|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”108686″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.thetroubleclub.com/”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]
