14 Jul 23 | China, News and features, Opinion, Ruth's blog
It seems I am reminded daily that I am very lucky to live in a democracy. I may not agree with my Government – but I have the right to tell them I don’t. I may not agree with what’s written in a newspaper – but I have the right to tell the world I don’t. I may not support the status quo in terms of what is happening in my community – but I have the right to speak to my neighbours and demand better and demand change.
Those basic rights to challenge the orthodoxy, to challenge my political leaders, to challenge authority is a blessing and one that I value every day, especially when I am exposed to what happens to people who by dint of birth just aren’t afforded the same rights as me.
This week, yet again, we’ve read reports of events in China. Not only has the CCP continued their persecution of political dissidents by taking in Nathan Law’s family for questioning but they’ve also rolled out a new tool for ‘training’ journalists. The new smartphone training programme from the All China Journalists Association seeks to train aspirant and current journalists in the ‘Marxist vision of journalism’. I honestly have no idea as to what that could possibly entail as I’m not sure that the Communist Manifesto issued ideological guidance for the execution of occupational journalism.
However, what we do know is that no good will come from a CCP-sanctioned training programme designed to brainwash aspiring journalists, who live under a despotic regime, into writing acceptable forms of ‘journalism’. To compound the propaganda element of the training programme – journalists will be forced to undertake the programme before they take an exam to test their loyalty to Xi Jingping and if you don’t pass you don’t get to be a journalist.
This isn’t journalism in any way that those of us who live in a freer society would recognise. It’s an effort to ensure the ongoing practice of national propaganda under the pretence of ‘journalism’. It’s the ultimate effort to ensure that no one can speak truth to power and that only one dominant narrative – that of the CCP – is heard. There will be no challenge to the status quo. There will be no free media. There will be no dissent.
The question for global media outlets then becomes how on earth do you cover events in China if journalists on the ground are actually propaganda agents and it’s increasingly difficult for foreign news journalists to operate freely. We covered this earlier this year. But as some dictators become even more fearful of their own people – this is a question which is increasingly going to dominate newsrooms around the world.
14 Jul 23 | China, Netherlands, News and features
One day last October, journalist and former China correspondent with the Dutch daily newspaper de Volkskrant Marije Vlaskamp received an odd email. It contained confirmation of a hotel reservation at the Holiday Inn Express in The Hague made on Booking.com in her name.
Two things struck her as extremely strange. One is that the reservation had been made on the Chinese language version of the website; the second is that she had never made the booking.
After calling the hotel to cancel the reservation, things became even more unsettling.
She received a message from the Chinese dissident Wang Jingyu, whom she had interviewed before. Wang had recently found refuge in the Netherlands and she had been in touch with him for a story about the ‘long arm of China’. He told Vlaskamp that a room had been booked in his name in the same hotel. Wang had also received an anonymous threat in Chinese: “‘One tip-off from me and the police will come and arrest you and your journalist friend.”
This was the moment Vlaskamp thought it was about time to inform her superiors at the paper – but not before she made herself a pot of jasmine tea. After having worked in China as a correspondent between 2001 and 2019, she knew the intimidation tactics of the Chinese state very well. She just never expected to be confronted with them after her return to the Netherlands.
Vlaskamp told the story in a long-form article in de Volkskrant in early April.
In it she revealed that the hotel reservation was just the first step in a campaign of intimidation targeted at both her and Wang.
Vlaskamp says as part of the campaign that she had received an anonymous warning that her name would be linked with bomb threats. A day later, she saw on the news that the residence of Dutch prime-minister Mark Rutte had been cordoned off and police, fire brigades and the bomb disposal unit were on the scene. Her heart “skipped a beat” when she heard that the threat was a car with a foreign number plate parked in the street where the Chinese embassy is located, just 200 meters away from the PM’s residence. That’s when she knew that the messages were part of a serious threat against her.
What is unclear is who is sending these intimidating messages. Putting pieces of the puzzle together, there is no doubt that they were acting on behalf of the Chinese state. In her article, Vlaskamp writes about researchers and scientists who have been warning for some time that China has been working on a network of influencing, subversion and intimidation abroad, while digital traces lead Dutch police investigators to IP-addresses in China and Hong Kong. But the Chinese state couldn’t be caught red-handed.
Vlaskamp is one of the first journalists to be subject to an intimidation campaign by China outside Chinese borders. In the summer 2023 issue of Index on Censorship magazine, we wrote about the case of Australian journalist Vicky Xiuzhong Xu. She and her family were harassed after contributing to a 2020 report on human rights violations in Xinjiang.
The frightening events Vlaskamp experienced illustrate perfectly just how far China is willing to go to protect its interests and silence dissidents and journalists.
But would it be wise to publish? No one could predict what effect a publication would have, and whether it would bring more risks for Vlaskamp. Both her and Wang had been threatened anonymously and told to stop their interviews and not to re-publish previous articles about Wang. They both refused to comply.
Eventually, the decision to publish was made but only after six months of soul-searching and journalistic research.
The paper explained at the time: “We only wanted to publish this story if our reporter was fully behind it. Which she is. As she writes herself, the journalistic duty to reveal wrongs takes precedence here. Besides, it is by no means certain that the intimidations would stop if she would not write about this. If her assailants believe that these intimidating practices are effective, only more of the same would be in store for her later on. And not just for Marije Vlaskamp. We are worried about a chilling effect: if de Volkskrant allows itself to be muzzled by persons claiming to act on behalf of a foreign power, this essentially affects all journalists who write critically about autocratic regimes.”
In a strongly-worded comment piece two days after the publication, de Volkskrant put the intimidation campaign against Vlaskamp and dissident Wang in a broader perspective. Not just the perspective of press freedom, which was clearly in jeopardy here, but also that of autocrats like China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who increase pressure on those who refuse to surrender to the autocrat’s personal version of reality. Within their own borders, their methods are harsh, and abroad they resort to increasingly shameless psychological warfare, the paper wrote.
Thomas Bruning, secretary general of the Dutch Association of Journalists, said that the events underscore the importance of not underestimating the use of spyware and other forms of digital surveillance. He said: “Vlaskamp’s case makes clear that journalists who critically follow regimes like China’s are vulnerable and deserve protection. More generally, journalists should be aware that digital intimidation and threats are an issue against they will have to arm themselves pro-actively.”
A search in the archives of de Volkskrant shows that the piece of early April is the last one Vlaskamp wrote about China. The paper has had a new China correspondent since 2019 but Vlaskamp had continued to write pieces for which her extensive knowledge of the country gave her analysis extra depth. Since April, she has written about Pakistan, India, Japan, North and South Korea, but not about China.
It begs the question of whether this is to protect her. Both Vlaskamp and de Volkskrant have refused to say.
[Both Vlaskamp and de Volkskrant were contacted to contribute to this story but would not comment further.]
07 Jul 23 | China, Hong Kong, News and features, Opinion, Ruth's blog
Index has a proud history of providing a platform for dissidents, we exist to protect and promote the concept of freedom of expression not just as a fundamental human right, which it is, but also as the ultimate right in a democratic society. The creation of art, journalism, comedy, academia, plays, poetry, novels and even placards. These are the ultimate expressions of a free society and for those of us who are able to celebrate our own freedoms it is something we should cherish.
However in recent days we have been once again reminded of how quickly repression and dogma can overwhelm a notionally free society and how tyrants seek to not only control their own citizens at home but also to undermine their freedoms when they have escaped the boundaries of their former home nations.
This week’s case in point is China and Xi Jinping’s CCP. This has been yet another awful week for the people of Hong Kong and the global diaspora, especially those who seek to speak out against Xi’s rule. Under the guise of the National Security Law the Hong Kong Police Force has issued arrest warrants for eight political dissidents who live in democratic societies. Their ‘crime’ was to challenge the CCP’s efforts to end the One Nation, Two Systems constitutional settlement, which had been granted to Hong Kong when British sovereignty ceased to apply to the territory in 1997. In other words they sought to protect the democratic society that they had built in Hong Kong. (Read what two of the UK-based activists had to say here.)
Each of them has had to flee their homes in Hong Kong, leave their lives and their loved ones behind in order to ensure their own liberty. They now live in exile with little likelihood that they will ever be able to return. But even that isn’t enough for the Chinese government.
It’s incredibly important that we know and celebrate the bravery of the dissidents who the Chinese Communist Party fear – they represent thousands of others, but today we must say their names.
Kevin Yam
Ted Hui
Nathan Law
Elmer Yuen
Dennis Kwok
Mung Siu-tat
Lau Cho-dik
Anna Kwok
We are lucky to live in a democratic society and therefore we have a responsibility to protect those who have had to free their repressive governments in order to speak out. They inspire us, so we must protect them.
The National Security Law is a disgrace and the worst example of a coordinated effort of transnational repression. But it’s not just the eight Hongkongers who the CCP seek to silence. It’s the rest of us too.
Last week Index hosted an evening of art and culture created and performed by Chinese dissidents. It was an incredible evening and an amazing success. However in the run up to the event our website was attacked and the webpage advertising the event was corrupted. It was the only part of our website to be affected. One of our artists, Badiucao, was threatened and advised to not attend and had to be accompanied throughout his visit to London. In recent months we have documented exactly what is happening to Chinese dissidents who seek to speak out against the CCP in Europe and you can read all of our work on our new website – while it’s still up!
This week my friend Lord Leong spoke in the UK Parliament about how the CCP was seeking to silence people. So do end my blog today I am going to leave you with his words:
In closing, I will quote the opening verse of “Glory to Hong Kong”. It has become the anthem of their struggle. Brave individuals in Hong Kong have been arrested and detained for singing it. The Chinese Government are trying to remove all traces of the lyrics online. I know that if I say them here, in this Chamber at the heart of the mother of Parliaments, these words will be forever recorded in Hansard. This will, I hope, encourage those brave souls, by demonstrating that their voices are being heard on the other side of the world despite Beijing’s attempts to silence them:
“We pledge: No more tears on our land,
In wrath, doubts dispelled we make our stand.
Arise! Ye who would not be slaves again:
For Hong Kong, may freedom reign!”
06 Jul 23 | China, Hong Kong, News and features, United Kingdom
Pro-democracy activists exiled from Hong Kong will never be silenced despite attempts by the Chinese Communist Party to use transnational repression against them, an urgent press briefing held at the UK House of Commons on Wednesday heard.
This is despite what some are calling a “Chinese fatwa” which has seen the Hong Kong Police Force issue arrest warrants againt eight activists, including Christopher Mung, Finn Lau and Nathaw Law in the UK, and others in the US, Canada and Australia. The authorities have also offered rewards of up to one million Hong Kong dollars for information leading to their capture.
Mung and Lau both spoke at the briefing, which was chaired by Bob Seely MP.
Mung stressed the repercussions of the long reach from the authorities, but vowed he will never be silenced.
He said: “The Chinese and Hong Kong governments are extending their hands abroad, suppressing freedom of speech and silencing activists with a chilling effect.
“But they will never eliminate my voice, or the voice of Hongkongers. For the rest of my life, us Hongkongers will fight together.”
Lau said it wasn’t the first time the CCP had tried to exert transnational repression of speech in the UK, citing the harassment of protestors outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester by staff in 2022.
He also issued a set of demands to the British government in response to the warrants. These included an urgent meeting with both the British foreign and home secretaries, as well as calling for legal action against anybody in the UK who passes on information about the activists for reward.
“We simply need concrete action and measures to tackle this,” he said.
Mark Clifford, president of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, went as far to call the warrants and bounties a Chinese “fatwa”.
He said: “The CCP and their enablers in Hong Kong have crossed a red line here. What they’re saying is democracy is illegal around the world under their National Security Law.
“We need actions because China will keep pushing, and pushing, and pushing.”
When asked why the warrants and bounties were issued now, Lau said that any guess is just speculation.
He continued: “Personally, I think it’s just simply a way of discouraging Hongkongers from fighting for their democracy and speech in the future.”
Benedict Rogers, chief executive of Hong Kong Watch, which monitors freedoms and human rights in Hong Kong, recounted attempts by the CCP to repress his own freedom of speech, while acknowledging these have been less severe than those now faced by the eight activists.
“About a year ago I received a letter from the Hong Kong police informing me that what I do with Hong Kong Watch in the UK violates the National Security Law in Hong Kong, and I could face a prison sentence there,” he said.
“I’ve also received anonymous threatening letters from Hong Kong, some even posted to my mother.”
Finishing off the session, Mark Clifford said that the battle with the CCP’s repression will be a long-term struggle, and to ensure talk of damaging trade relations doesn’t affect it.
“It’s an evil, evil country; and we must remember our values are just more important than economic commerce.”
Read our statement on the arrest warrants and rewards.
