30 Mar 21 | China, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116480″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Last week, the Chinese government outlined sanctions against nine British individuals and three organisations for daring to speak out about what is going on in Xinjiang.
Those affected by the sanctions are former Conservative party leader Iain Duncan Smith, Tom Tugendhat, chair of the foreign affairs select committee, Nus Ghani from the business select committee, Neil O’Brien, head of the Conservative policy board and China Research Group officer, Tim Loughton of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, crossbench peer David Alton, Labour peer Helena Kennedy QC and barrister Geoffrey Nice.
The only individual not from the political sphere is Dr Joanne Smith Finley, Reader in Chinese studies at Newcastle University.
The organisations include the China Research Group, the Conservative Human Rights Commission and Essex Court Chambers.
China made the move after the British government imposed sanctions on four Chinese officials and one organisation last Monday: Zhu Hailun, former secretary of the political and legal affairs committee of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR); Wang Junzheng, deputy secretary of the party committee of XUAR; Wang Mingshan, secretary of the political and legal affairs committee of XUAR; Chen Mingguo, vice chairman of the government of the XUAR, and director of the XUAR public security department; and the Public Security Bureau of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps – a state-run organisation responsible for security and policing in the region.
A statement from Tom Tugendhat and Neil O’Brien on behalf of the China Research Group said, “Ultimately this is just an attempt to distract from the international condemnation of Beijing’s increasingly grave human rights violations against the Uyghurs. This is a response to the coordinated sanctions agreed by democratic nations on those responsible for human rights abuses in Xinjiang. This is the first time Beijing has targeted elected politicians in the UK with sanctions and shows they are increasingly pushing boundaries.
“It is tempting to laugh off this measure as a diplomatic tantrum. But in reality it is profoundly sinister and just serves as a clear demonstration of many of the concerns we have been raising about the direction of China under Xi Jinping.”
Commenting on China’s decision, foreign secretary Dominic Raab said: “It speaks volumes that, while the UK joins the international community in sanctioning those responsible for human rights abuses, the Chinese government sanctions its critics. If Beijing want to credibly rebut claims of human rights abuses in Xinjiang, it should allow the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights full access to verify the truth.”
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said, “The MPs and other British citizens sanctioned by China today are performing a vital role shining a light on the gross human rights violations being perpetrated against Uyghur Muslims. Freedom to speak out in opposition to abuse is fundamental and I stand firmly with them.”
Newcastle University academic Dr Joanne Smith Finley believes she has been sanctioned because of her “ongoing research speaking the truth about human rights violations against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang”
“In short, for having a conscience and standing up for social justice,” she said.
She said, “That the Chinese authorities should resort to imposing sanctions on UK politicians, legal chambers, and a sole academic is disappointing, depressing and wholly counter-productive.”
Dr Smith Finley has studied China for many years.
“I began my journey to become a ‘China Hand’ in 1987, when I enrolled at Leeds University to read modern Chinese studies. My first year spent in Beijing in 1988-89 – during which I also experienced the ‘Tianan’men incident’ – ensured that China entered my bloodstream forever, and the city became my second home,” she said. “I later focused on the situation in the Uyghur homeland (aka Xinjiang), to which I made a series of field trips, long- and short-term-, between 1995 and 2018.”
Dr Smith Finley said since taking up her post at Newcastle University in 2000, she has worked tirelessly to introduce students from the UK, Europe and beyond to the world of Chinese society and politics.
“I have prepared successive student cohorts for their immersion in Chinese culture, and have visited our students each year in situ across five Chinese cities,” she said.
“When China applies political sanctions to me, it thus stands to lose an erstwhile ally,” she said. “Since 2014, I have watched in horror the policy changes that led to an atmosphere of intimidation and terror across China’s peripheries, affecting first Tibet and Xinjiang, and now also Hong Kong and Inner Mongolia.”
“In Xinjiang, the situation has reached crisis point, with many scholars, activists and legal observers concluding that we are seeing the perpetration of crimes against humanity and the beginnings of a slow genocide. In such a context, I would lack academic and moral integrity were I not to share the audio-visual, observational and interview data I have obtained over the past three decades.”
“I have no regrets for speaking out, and I will not be silenced. I would like to give my deep thanks to my institution, Newcastle University, for its staunch support for my work and its ongoing commitment to academic freedom, social justice and inter-ethnic equality.”
Following the announcement of sanctions against Dr Smith Finley, more than 400 academics have written an open letter to The Times in support, asserting their commitment to academic freedom and calling on the Government and all UK universities to do likewise.
There are increasing demands from human rights activists to take action over China’s ‘soft genocide’ in Xinjiang. Tit-for-tat sanctions will not resolve the issue. That will take much firmer action from governments, organisations and individuals who are complicit in the subjugation of the Uyghurs, by buying Chinese products and accepting money built on their suffering.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”85″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
19 Mar 21 | Opinion, Ruth's blog, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116411″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]I can’t remember my first protest. I was born into a family where participating in a protest was a normal part of my childhood. My mum claims that my first protest was before I was born – she was eight months pregnant at a demo against mine closures in Scotland.
I have been on marches to save jobs, demos against political extremism, protests against injustice and vigils of remembrance. I’ve even organised a few. I have waved banners, handed out leaflets, marched, chanted and on occasion cried for more decades than I am prepared to acknowledge. I’ve exercised all of my democratic rights – hard-won – to campaign for change and to seek to remedy injustice to fight for a better world. And as an MP I was also protested against. It’s the democratic tradition that I was born into and one that I hold very dear.
Which is why events of the last fortnight in the UK have been so disgusting.
Index has been highlighting how repressive regimes, and others, have been using the Covid-19 pandemic to impose restrictions of their citizens since the start of the crisis. How free expression was being limited and our human rights curtailed. In the UK, most of us have taken it on faith that these were temporary measures and that liberal values would prevail – after all protests have continued throughout the pandemic. But not this week.
This week it wasn’t the Chinese Government in the frame for arresting people in Hong Kong, or Lukashenko’s regime in Belarus, or the military coup in Myanmar – it was the British Government and some very over-zealous policing of a vigil for a murdered woman.
Many people have written about the impact of Sarah Everard’s awful murder. Personally, I cannot stop thinking about her family and how distraught those that loved her must be. A vigil to remember her and as safe place for women to unite to highlight their lived experiences and their daily fears does not seem an extremist request – even during a pandemic. There are always ways to make sure that these things are done safely.
But as awful as the images were of women being forced to the ground and arrested by male police officers on Saturday night were, it was what came next that is so worrying for those of us who cherish the right to freedom of expression, the right of protest, the right to engage in the political process.
On Monday the Government brought forward new legislation in the Police, Crime, Sentences and Courts Bill which specifically restricts the right to protest. In fact according to the BBC: “The proposed law includes an offence of ‘intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance’. This is designed to stop people occupying public spaces, hanging off bridges, gluing themselves to windows, or employing other protest tactics to make themselves both seen and heard.” The law specifically targets people who protest alone.
Demonstrations by design are meant to disrupt normal activity. They are meant to annoy and irritate the establishment – because they are designed to challenge the status quo, or highlight an injustice. Rarely do people organise a protest because they are happy with the actions of their Government.
As the DUP MP Gavin Robinson said during the debate: “The loose and lazy way this legislation is drafted would make a dictator blush. Protests will be noisy, protests will disrupt and no matter how offensive we may find the issue at their heart, the right to protest should be protected.”
This bill needs to be amended. Our right to protest needs to be protected. And we need to defend it – loudly.
To be clear – Index will always defend the right to protest, even during a pandemic, because it’s one of our basic human rights.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”41669″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
08 Mar 21 | China, Cuba, Hong Kong, Media Freedom, Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Saudi Arabia, Turkey
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116366″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]West Wing writer Aaron Sorkin has taken another foray into the world of American politics with The Trial of the Chicago 7, starring Sacha Baron Cohen, Eddie Redmayne and Mark Rylance. The film delves into the trial of seven activists arrested for inciting violence during clashes with police that resulted from protests against the Vietnam War at the 1968 Democratic National Convention; it is a reminder of the importance of a fair trial.
Similar in tone, then, to BAFTA’s best film nominee The Mauritanian (pictured above) and the story of Mohamedou Ould Salahi.
Salahi was imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay due to perceived connections with terrorist group al-Qaeda for more than 14 years without charge until his eventual release in 2016.
In 2005, Salahi wrote a memoir that was eventually published in 2015 with numerous redactions and is the basis of the film.
Forty prisoners still remain at the camp and most have not been charged or tried with any crime. Despite this, as the film shows, legal challenges are deliberately stifled for political purposes.
President Joe Biden has committed to close the camp by the time he leaves office.
There are several recent documentaries that celebrate the crucial work of investigative journalists.
Collective is remarkable film about corruption and political cover-up at the heart of Romanian institutions.
In 2015, a fire broke out at Colectiv night club in Bucharest, resulting in the deaths of 64 people. Hospitals were overwhelmed by the casualties and the deaths of 13 of the victims were attributed to bacterial infections that arose from being treated with watered down disinfectant used to save money. The story would have been forgotten had it not been for the tireless work of a daily sports newspaper. The ordeal exposed corruption and corner-cutting that fuelled anger on the streets of Romania. Protests eventually led to the resignation of Prime Minister Victor Ponta.
During the film, lead investigator for the paper Catalin Tolontan says of the situation: “When the press bows down to authorities, the authorities will mistreat the citizens.”
Collective is an insight into how teams of journalists break such stories
Athlete A is another testament to the power of investigative journalism.
Over recent years, numerous scandals have revealed the toxic atmospheres of some elite sports teams. None more so, perhaps, than the sexual abuse of US gymnasts shown in Athlete A. The Indianapolis Star helped uncover victims’ stories of sexual abuse by USA team gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar, who was found to have assaulted at least 265 girls over a period of two decades. The film’s title refers to Maggie Nichols, the gymnast who reported her experiences in 2015, only to be dropped from the 2016 Olympics team shortly after.
Collective and Athlete A highlight the lengths governments and organisations will go to keep quiet such scandals.
More extreme examples can lead to deaths, such as the brutal killing of Jamal Khashoggi, investigated in The Dissident.
Khashoggi was a US-based journalist and columnist for the Washington Post and was murdered inside the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. The CIA eventually determined the killing was premeditated and ordered by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
After its release in January 2020, producer Thor Halvorssen alleged there were attempts by “Saudi-backed trolls” to reduce its score on film-rating sites IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes to below 70 per cent.
“The moment you drop under 70 per cent, your film is essentially dead,” Halvorsson told Variety at the time. “People who follow individual critics will watch it; but the regular public will not.”
Public pressure that arises as a result of the revelations of the press are important, democratic displays of dissent. Their value is emphasised when authorities try to take away such expression.
Protests over a proposed extradition law allowing people in Hong Kong to be sent for trial in mainland China began in 2019. The law was met with such hostility by people in Hong Kong, that China eventually brought in the controversial National Security Law, criminalising any act of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with external forces.
The citizens of Hong Kong have suffered under the law, as have the press. On 6 January, 53 pro-democracy activists were arrested by Chinese authorities.
Do Not Split – which takes its name from a Cantonese phrase which translates loosely as “Do not split, do not divide, do not snitch on others” – follows the course of the early protests up to the imposition of the law that now threatens freedom in Hong Kong.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”581″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
19 Feb 21 | Belarus, Opinion, Ruth's blog
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116024″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Our daily team meetings at Index are an opportunity to touch base, to make sure that everyone is coping in the current lockdown and to discuss the latest aggressions by too many authoritarian leaders. Unfortunately the last of these is never short and sweet.
Where is today’s misery? What has Lukashenko done now? What’s the latest in Hong Kong? What the hell happened in Catalonia? Has anything changed in Kashmir? Where are we with Myanmar?
And it goes on, every day a new atrocity: a new attack on media freedom, another arrest of an artist or an activist, another family devastated, another person hurt.
It would be too easy for Index to become a grievance sheet – just listing country after country and each infringement on freedoms. But behind each repressive action there is a person, a family, a story and we owe it to them to make sure the world knows their names, understands what they are trying to do and of course know how outrageous the treatment is that they are being subjected too.
But sometimes our job is much harder. Sometimes it is one of our correspondents who has been arrested, someone that we know well. And sometimes it is a member of the Index family that is suffering for their commitment to our collective human rights. Every person we cover is special but when it’s someone you’ve been to the pub with it’s just that little bit harder.
Last month I wrote about Andrei Aliaksandrau, a former member of our team. Today marks 39 days since his arrest and incarceration in Belarus. Andrei is one of 255 political prisoners imprisoned by Lukashekno’s regime (as of today) since the crackdown on civil society began 193 days ago. The world has condemned his arrest but he remains in a Belarusian jail.
This simply isn’t good enough. We need action. We need Andrei home. We need the other 254 human rights activists released. We need media freedoms reinstated in Belarus and we need a guarantee that the right to peacefully protest will be protected.
We need action.
This week has seen Lukashenko’s regime double down on their critics. We’ve seen human rights organisations raided across Belarus. The offices of the Belarusian Association of Journalists has been raided. Human rights activists and journalists have had their homes searched by police. This is happening in Europe, in 2021 and the world is simply too distracted to act.
We need to stand in solidarity with the people of Belarus.
You can sign up to support the campaign for Andrei’s release here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
