Link
August 14, 2009
AT THE CONCLUSION of the Strategic Economic Dialogue on July 28, the United States and China issued a news release affirming "the importance of the rule of law to our two countries." One day later, Chinese police led prominent legal scholar Xu Zhiyong out of his apartment to be detained indefinitely.
Few people embrace the rule of law in China as openly or as wholeheartedly as Mr. Xu. After graduating from one of China's most prestigious law schools, he has dedicated his life to fighting for justice by means of the Chinese legal system. He has represented the parents of more than 300,000 children affected by melamine-contaminated milk, opposed secret "black jails" and fought for the rights of death row inmates. Mr. Xu is a strong proponent of working within the system for change -- so much so that he ran for office in one of China's rare contested elections and won. Along with his colleagues at the Open Constitution Initiative, which he helped establish, Mr. Xu is a highly visible legal figure to whom people have increasingly turned as they gained awareness of their constitutional rights.
Nongovernmental organizations such as the Open Constitution Initiative, or Gongmeng, occupy an uneasy place in China. Many register as businesses to avoid dealing with a system that limits the number of NGOs and that requires government agencies to oversee their operations. This decision leaves them in a legal gray area, and in July, Chinese authorities charged that Gongmeng was improperly registered and had failed to pay taxes. Officials entered the organization's offices and confiscated dozens of files.
Mr. Xu was confident that he could defend his organization against these allegations by his usual means: through the system. But scarcely a week before he was to appear in court, police took him from his home.
He is not the first to see his trust in the system backfire. Last month, China refused to renew the licenses of 53 human rights lawyers whose cases troubled the Communist Party. But by taking on a figure as public and as scrupulously law-respecting as Mr. Xu, the Chinese government has crossed a new line. China frequently affirms its commitment to the "rule of law." But because the Chinese judiciary is not independent -- its chief justice is a longtime party member who lacks a law degree -- and court decisions often depend upon policy calculations, it is thanks only to the tireless efforts of those such as Mr. Xu that the "rule of law" might come to mean anything at all.
According to Chinese practice, Mr. Xu can be held for 30 days while the government decides whether to press charges; during this interval, protests from abroad might have some impact. In February, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that human rights issues should not "interfere" in the discussion with China. But engaging with China does not mean abdicating the responsibility to strenuously object to its human rights violations -- especially in such an egregious case as the detention of Mr. Xu.
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Friday, August 14, 2009
¨Legal rights violations in China: Should Obama speak up?¨ Los Angeles Times Opinion
Link
August 13, 2009
In what seems to be part of a crackdown on civil rights lawyers in China, the Chinese government has arrested prominent civil rights lawyer Xu Zhiyong on tax fraud charges. Zhiyong, who has not been heard from since his arrest two weeks ago, started the nonprofit Open Constitution Initiative legal clinic six years ago, which has recently represented victims of the poisoned milk powder that left three children dead and 6,000 sick in China. Zhiyong's clinic was shut down for "tax evasion." Experts say this arrest does not bode well for the already precarious rule of law in China, and human rights activists across the political spectrum are calling for President Obama to speak up on the issue.
While the Chinese government over the last several years has made much progress in multiple areas of law, including trade and corporate issues, civil rights law is less established and growing slowly because of the risks lawyers who practice in this field face. Very few lawyers (Freedom Watch says there are only several dozen) are willing to take on cases such as defending parents whose infants were affected by poisonous baby formula or death row inmates.
Xu was one of the few. Many of his fellow lawyers have been disbarred and believe they will never be reinstated as practicing attorneys, even though they were working within the law to try make change in China. "None of these guys were going around the government," Sophie Richardson of Human Rights Watch told me. "They took cases to court that were violations under Chinese law. It's not an anomaly when you disbar the only 50 people who practice this kind of law."
The question is, why now? According to Clayton Dube, associate director of the USC U.S.-China Institute, many blame this recent crackdown on the upcoming celebration of the 60th anniversary of Communist China. He says the government's skepticism of these lawyers started back with the earthquake in the Sichuan province, continued with the Tibetan protests (many of whom were represented by rights lawyers) and grew with the milk contamination cases. In other words, this isn't a new phenomenon.
Both Freedom Watch and Human Rights Watch have said that they wish the Obama administration would do more to confront China over the violation of legal and civil rights, the effects of which they say are not only felt by Chinese citizens but often also by foreigners, as was the case with the exported baby formula.
Should the Obama administration speak out against the infringement of human rights in China and the deterioration of this field of law? China is a strategic partner that might not react well to harsh criticism from its economic ally. Even so, is it the president's duty to press on this issue and risk economic consequences for the United States?
August 13, 2009
In what seems to be part of a crackdown on civil rights lawyers in China, the Chinese government has arrested prominent civil rights lawyer Xu Zhiyong on tax fraud charges. Zhiyong, who has not been heard from since his arrest two weeks ago, started the nonprofit Open Constitution Initiative legal clinic six years ago, which has recently represented victims of the poisoned milk powder that left three children dead and 6,000 sick in China. Zhiyong's clinic was shut down for "tax evasion." Experts say this arrest does not bode well for the already precarious rule of law in China, and human rights activists across the political spectrum are calling for President Obama to speak up on the issue.
While the Chinese government over the last several years has made much progress in multiple areas of law, including trade and corporate issues, civil rights law is less established and growing slowly because of the risks lawyers who practice in this field face. Very few lawyers (Freedom Watch says there are only several dozen) are willing to take on cases such as defending parents whose infants were affected by poisonous baby formula or death row inmates.
Xu was one of the few. Many of his fellow lawyers have been disbarred and believe they will never be reinstated as practicing attorneys, even though they were working within the law to try make change in China. "None of these guys were going around the government," Sophie Richardson of Human Rights Watch told me. "They took cases to court that were violations under Chinese law. It's not an anomaly when you disbar the only 50 people who practice this kind of law."
The question is, why now? According to Clayton Dube, associate director of the USC U.S.-China Institute, many blame this recent crackdown on the upcoming celebration of the 60th anniversary of Communist China. He says the government's skepticism of these lawyers started back with the earthquake in the Sichuan province, continued with the Tibetan protests (many of whom were represented by rights lawyers) and grew with the milk contamination cases. In other words, this isn't a new phenomenon.
Both Freedom Watch and Human Rights Watch have said that they wish the Obama administration would do more to confront China over the violation of legal and civil rights, the effects of which they say are not only felt by Chinese citizens but often also by foreigners, as was the case with the exported baby formula.
Should the Obama administration speak out against the infringement of human rights in China and the deterioration of this field of law? China is a strategic partner that might not react well to harsh criticism from its economic ally. Even so, is it the president's duty to press on this issue and risk economic consequences for the United States?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
"Lawyer’s Detention Shakes China’s Rights Movement," by Andrew Jacobs, The New York Times
Link
August 9, 2009
BEIJING — China’s nascent legal rights movement, already reeling from a crackdown on crusading lawyers, the kidnapping of defense witnesses and the shuttering of a prominent legal clinic, has been shaken by the detention of a widely respected rights defender who has been incommunicado since the police led him away from his apartment 12 days ago.
Xu Zhiyong, 36, a soft-spoken and politically shrewd legal scholar who has made a name representing migrant workers, death row inmates and the parents of babies poisoned by tainted milk, is accused of tax evasion. The charge is almost universally seen here as a cover for his true offense: angering the Communist Party leadership through his advocacy of the rule of law.
If convicted, he could face up to seven years in prison.
“We’re all shocked by his detention, because Xu Zhiyong has always tried to avoid taking on radical and politically sensitive cases,” said Teng Biao, a colleague. “His only interest is fighting for the rights of the vulnerable and trying to enhance China’s legal system.”
Mr. Teng helped Mr. Xu establish the Open Constitution Initiative, a six-year-old nonprofit legal center that the authorities closed last month, charging that it was improperly registered and that it failed to pay taxes.
Mr. Xu is not the first rights advocate in China to face the wrath of the authorities in recent years. Gao Zhisheng, a vocal lawyer, vanished into police custody six months ago, and Chen Guangcheng, a blind lawyer, was beaten and then jailed after exposing abuses in China’s birth-control program.
Although rights lawyers and grass-roots social organizations have always been tightly controlled here, the pressure has intensified in recent weeks. More than 20 lawyers known for taking on politically tinged cases were effectively disbarred, and the police raided a group that works to ease discrimination against people with Hepatitis B.
Last week China’s justice minister gave a speech saying that lawyers should above all obey the Communist Party and help foster a harmonious society. To improve discipline, the minister said, all law firms in the country would be sent party liaisons to “guide their work.”
But given Mr. Xu’s international stature and reputation for working within the law, legal scholars both in China and abroad say his prosecution suggests a new level of repression.
“What makes his detention particularly disturbing is that he’s a special figure in so many ways,” said Paul Gewirtz, director of the China Law Center at Yale Law School, which helped Mr. Xu establish his legal center, known here by its Chinese name, Gongmeng. “He’s at the forefront of advancing the rule of law, which is something everyone agrees China needs for its ongoing development.”
After 30 years of reform, China’s legal system is at a critical juncture. Law schools continue to pump out thousands of graduates each year, and the courts, even if imperfect, have increasingly become a forum for resolving disputes. Late last month the Supreme People’s Court announced reforms intended to markedly reduce executions.
But as lawyers here discover, there are limits to China’s embrace of judicial reform.
The Constitution, which includes guarantees of free speech and human rights, is unenforceable in court. Judges routinely ignore evidence, making determinations based on political considerations. And when it comes to vaguely defined offenses like “subversion of state power” or the invocation of “state secrets” laws, even the best-trained lawyers are powerless to defend the accused.
He Weifang, a law professor and legal adviser to Gongmeng, said conservative forces in the Communist Party were increasingly wary of lawyers, whom they suspect are ultimately seeking to challenge one-party rule. Their greatest fear, Mr. He said, is that advocacy lawyers and civil society organizations could one day lead a pro-democracy movement among the poor and disenfranchised citizens they represent.
“What the authorities don’t appreciate, though, is that lawyers are leading these people to the courts, where their complaints can be resolved by rule of law,” he said. “People like Xu Zhiyong can only help the government solve some of the problems it faces.”
According to Gongmeng, Mr. Xu is being held at the Beijing No. 1 Detention Center, although public security officials have not confirmed that he is in their custody. Peng Jian, a lawyer who is advising Gongmeng, said the authorities had imposed a $208,000 penalty for nonpayment of taxes due on funds received from Yale for cooperative research projects.
A day after the raid on Gongmeng’s office, Mr. Xu held a news conference to say that the accusations were baseless. He described the attack on his research center as a battle between corrupt officials and society’s most vulnerable citizens. “We believe conscience will surely triumph over the evil forces,” he said.
A week later, police officers came to his door and led him away. Another employee of the research center, Zhuang Lu, was also taken away the same day.
Soon after graduating from Peking University law school, Mr. Xu became immersed in the case of a graphic artist who was beaten to death in 2003 in police custody in the southern city of Guangzhou. The artist, Sun Zhigang, 27, had been arrested under vagrancy laws that allowed the police to detain people for traveling outside their registered hometowns without a permit.
Mr. Xu led a campaign to end the practice, which gained widespread media attention. A few months later, the State Council abolished the system.
That same year Mr. Xu rose to the defense of a muckraking editor jailed in Guangzhou after his newspaper, Southern Metropolis, ran a series of articles about Mr. Sun’s death. The editor, Cheng Yizhong, said Mr. Xu helped rally lawyers and journalists, leading to his release five months later. “Only Xu had the courage to take on my case,” he said.
More recently, he tried to prepare a challenge to black jails, the illegal holding cells that some officials use to silence persistent critics. Last year, friends say, he was roughed up several times while gathering evidence from petitioners who had come to Beijing to press their grievances to the central government.
Raised in a Christian home in Henan Province, Mr. Xu was fond of noting his birth in a county called Minquan, which translates as “civil rights.” In an interview last year with The Economic Observer, a Chinese weekly, he said this had a profound impact on his social consciousness.
“I strive to be a worthy Chinese citizen, a member of the group of people who promote the progress of the nation,” he said. “I want to make people believe in ideals and justice, and help them see the hope of change.”
August 9, 2009
BEIJING — China’s nascent legal rights movement, already reeling from a crackdown on crusading lawyers, the kidnapping of defense witnesses and the shuttering of a prominent legal clinic, has been shaken by the detention of a widely respected rights defender who has been incommunicado since the police led him away from his apartment 12 days ago.
Xu Zhiyong, 36, a soft-spoken and politically shrewd legal scholar who has made a name representing migrant workers, death row inmates and the parents of babies poisoned by tainted milk, is accused of tax evasion. The charge is almost universally seen here as a cover for his true offense: angering the Communist Party leadership through his advocacy of the rule of law.
If convicted, he could face up to seven years in prison.
“We’re all shocked by his detention, because Xu Zhiyong has always tried to avoid taking on radical and politically sensitive cases,” said Teng Biao, a colleague. “His only interest is fighting for the rights of the vulnerable and trying to enhance China’s legal system.”
Mr. Teng helped Mr. Xu establish the Open Constitution Initiative, a six-year-old nonprofit legal center that the authorities closed last month, charging that it was improperly registered and that it failed to pay taxes.
Mr. Xu is not the first rights advocate in China to face the wrath of the authorities in recent years. Gao Zhisheng, a vocal lawyer, vanished into police custody six months ago, and Chen Guangcheng, a blind lawyer, was beaten and then jailed after exposing abuses in China’s birth-control program.
Although rights lawyers and grass-roots social organizations have always been tightly controlled here, the pressure has intensified in recent weeks. More than 20 lawyers known for taking on politically tinged cases were effectively disbarred, and the police raided a group that works to ease discrimination against people with Hepatitis B.
Last week China’s justice minister gave a speech saying that lawyers should above all obey the Communist Party and help foster a harmonious society. To improve discipline, the minister said, all law firms in the country would be sent party liaisons to “guide their work.”
But given Mr. Xu’s international stature and reputation for working within the law, legal scholars both in China and abroad say his prosecution suggests a new level of repression.
“What makes his detention particularly disturbing is that he’s a special figure in so many ways,” said Paul Gewirtz, director of the China Law Center at Yale Law School, which helped Mr. Xu establish his legal center, known here by its Chinese name, Gongmeng. “He’s at the forefront of advancing the rule of law, which is something everyone agrees China needs for its ongoing development.”
After 30 years of reform, China’s legal system is at a critical juncture. Law schools continue to pump out thousands of graduates each year, and the courts, even if imperfect, have increasingly become a forum for resolving disputes. Late last month the Supreme People’s Court announced reforms intended to markedly reduce executions.
But as lawyers here discover, there are limits to China’s embrace of judicial reform.
The Constitution, which includes guarantees of free speech and human rights, is unenforceable in court. Judges routinely ignore evidence, making determinations based on political considerations. And when it comes to vaguely defined offenses like “subversion of state power” or the invocation of “state secrets” laws, even the best-trained lawyers are powerless to defend the accused.
He Weifang, a law professor and legal adviser to Gongmeng, said conservative forces in the Communist Party were increasingly wary of lawyers, whom they suspect are ultimately seeking to challenge one-party rule. Their greatest fear, Mr. He said, is that advocacy lawyers and civil society organizations could one day lead a pro-democracy movement among the poor and disenfranchised citizens they represent.
“What the authorities don’t appreciate, though, is that lawyers are leading these people to the courts, where their complaints can be resolved by rule of law,” he said. “People like Xu Zhiyong can only help the government solve some of the problems it faces.”
According to Gongmeng, Mr. Xu is being held at the Beijing No. 1 Detention Center, although public security officials have not confirmed that he is in their custody. Peng Jian, a lawyer who is advising Gongmeng, said the authorities had imposed a $208,000 penalty for nonpayment of taxes due on funds received from Yale for cooperative research projects.
A day after the raid on Gongmeng’s office, Mr. Xu held a news conference to say that the accusations were baseless. He described the attack on his research center as a battle between corrupt officials and society’s most vulnerable citizens. “We believe conscience will surely triumph over the evil forces,” he said.
A week later, police officers came to his door and led him away. Another employee of the research center, Zhuang Lu, was also taken away the same day.
Soon after graduating from Peking University law school, Mr. Xu became immersed in the case of a graphic artist who was beaten to death in 2003 in police custody in the southern city of Guangzhou. The artist, Sun Zhigang, 27, had been arrested under vagrancy laws that allowed the police to detain people for traveling outside their registered hometowns without a permit.
Mr. Xu led a campaign to end the practice, which gained widespread media attention. A few months later, the State Council abolished the system.
That same year Mr. Xu rose to the defense of a muckraking editor jailed in Guangzhou after his newspaper, Southern Metropolis, ran a series of articles about Mr. Sun’s death. The editor, Cheng Yizhong, said Mr. Xu helped rally lawyers and journalists, leading to his release five months later. “Only Xu had the courage to take on my case,” he said.
More recently, he tried to prepare a challenge to black jails, the illegal holding cells that some officials use to silence persistent critics. Last year, friends say, he was roughed up several times while gathering evidence from petitioners who had come to Beijing to press their grievances to the central government.
Raised in a Christian home in Henan Province, Mr. Xu was fond of noting his birth in a county called Minquan, which translates as “civil rights.” In an interview last year with The Economic Observer, a Chinese weekly, he said this had a profound impact on his social consciousness.
“I strive to be a worthy Chinese citizen, a member of the group of people who promote the progress of the nation,” he said. “I want to make people believe in ideals and justice, and help them see the hope of change.”
"China tightens reins on dissent," by Bill Schiller, Toronto Star
Link
August 8, 2009
BEIJING–Xu Zhiyong once confided to a Chinese journalist that even as a young high school student he knew exactly what he wanted to do in life. In a careful, youthful hand he'd penned it into his diary:
"Dedicate myself to public service," he wrote. "Advocate for social reform. Change the tradition of a nation. Help build an ideal society."
They were lofty, noble goals – outsized for most people, but not for Xu. He felt it was his duty – in fact his fate – to aspire to nothing less, born as he was in a place called Minquan County.
"Minquan means `civil rights,'" he often says.
Until last week, Xu Zhiyong, a highly respected 36-year-old legal scholar and rising role model for young Chinese, was busy achieving those goals: spreading knowledge about Chinese law among the common people; using Chinese law to defend the poor and the vulnerable; and earning a reputation as a selfless, tireless builder of China's nascent civil society.
Then six policemen came to his home at 5 a.m. Wednesday and led him away.
Today, Xu Zhiyong is detained somewhere in Beijing, another victim of China's ever-tightening control on lawyers, activists and non-governmental organizations, people the government views as potential threats to their absolute power.
Xu's detention surprised many, both here and abroad: he didn't criticize China's Communist Party, never spoke out against the government, and he abided by the law and played by the rules.
"With his detention, the government has now crossed a threshold in terms of its intolerance of dissent," says Nicholas Bequelin of the international rights organization Human Rights Watch. "This indicates a hardening of the government's attitude towards civil society. If Xu goes from detention to `formal arrest,' then no one is really safe."
Xu is being held without charges.
The government alleges his organization, the Open Constitution Initiative (OCI), which he helped found in 2003, failed to pay its taxes.
Supporters say the taxes were paid and that the trumped-up charges are aimed at halting overseas funding and shutting the operation down.
"Xu Zhiyong and OCI have done nothing illegal," says Teng Biao, friend of co-founder of the organization. "We have respected the law in every instance."
While some in the rights lawyers' movement take a more muscular approach to the law, often taking on the government head-on, Xu is a pragmatist, insisting on working within the system, pushing for change while taking care not to incite authorities. But he and his organization have not shirked from taking on controversial cases.
He provided legal assistance to farmers in the northeast whose land had been illegally seized by corrupt government officials for private gain.
He exposed and publicized a system of illegal "black jails" where citizens from the provinces, who'd come to Beijing to complain about corrupt provincial politicians, were routinely taken to be beaten.
More recently, he organized a class-action suit for parents whose babies had been poisoned by melamine-laced milk during last year's Sanlu milk scandal. At least 300,000 babies were poisoned, but the government says only six died.
"This is precisely the kind of organization whose work the government should value, as it helps ease grievances and minimizes unrest," says Sophie Richardson, Human Rights Watch's advocacy director. "This attack on the Open Constitution Initiative marks a new low in the Chinese government's campaign against human rights defenders."
But Xu and his organization are by no means the only ones in the government's sights.
China's most prominent human rights lawyers are also under attack. At least 53 had their licences invalidated earlier this year, 20 of whom have now been disbarred. All are known for their work on sensitive cases.
The Yirenping Centre, an organization that gives counsel and support to hepatitis B carriers, was also raided by security police last week. Police seized leaflets that advised patients of their rights, claiming the centre needed a publishing permit to distribute the leaflets.
"The purpose is to find excuses for suppressing China's NGOs," the centre's director, Lu Jun, charged.
This week, the New York-based NGO Asia Catalyst also revealed that a Chinese AIDS advocate had his passport seized by Chinese authorities and prevented from attending an international AIDS conference in Indonesia.
Police warned the advocate, who had been invited to the conference by UNAIDS, that if he spoke to the media or international organizations about the passport seizure, he would face "the same fate as Hu Jia."
Hu Jia is a well-known Chinese HIV/AIDS activist currently serving 3 1/2 years in prison.
Cumulatively, says Bequelin, the government's actions suggest that its security apparatus has been given freer rein.
The turning point, he believes, was U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement during her visit to China this year that human rights issues need not interfere with Sino-American relations. Says Bequelin, "We're now seeing how unwise it was for Clinton and the U.S. to have basically said, `We won't do anything on the human rights front.'"
August 8, 2009
BEIJING–Xu Zhiyong once confided to a Chinese journalist that even as a young high school student he knew exactly what he wanted to do in life. In a careful, youthful hand he'd penned it into his diary:
"Dedicate myself to public service," he wrote. "Advocate for social reform. Change the tradition of a nation. Help build an ideal society."
They were lofty, noble goals – outsized for most people, but not for Xu. He felt it was his duty – in fact his fate – to aspire to nothing less, born as he was in a place called Minquan County.
"Minquan means `civil rights,'" he often says.
Until last week, Xu Zhiyong, a highly respected 36-year-old legal scholar and rising role model for young Chinese, was busy achieving those goals: spreading knowledge about Chinese law among the common people; using Chinese law to defend the poor and the vulnerable; and earning a reputation as a selfless, tireless builder of China's nascent civil society.
Then six policemen came to his home at 5 a.m. Wednesday and led him away.
Today, Xu Zhiyong is detained somewhere in Beijing, another victim of China's ever-tightening control on lawyers, activists and non-governmental organizations, people the government views as potential threats to their absolute power.
Xu's detention surprised many, both here and abroad: he didn't criticize China's Communist Party, never spoke out against the government, and he abided by the law and played by the rules.
"With his detention, the government has now crossed a threshold in terms of its intolerance of dissent," says Nicholas Bequelin of the international rights organization Human Rights Watch. "This indicates a hardening of the government's attitude towards civil society. If Xu goes from detention to `formal arrest,' then no one is really safe."
Xu is being held without charges.
The government alleges his organization, the Open Constitution Initiative (OCI), which he helped found in 2003, failed to pay its taxes.
Supporters say the taxes were paid and that the trumped-up charges are aimed at halting overseas funding and shutting the operation down.
"Xu Zhiyong and OCI have done nothing illegal," says Teng Biao, friend of co-founder of the organization. "We have respected the law in every instance."
While some in the rights lawyers' movement take a more muscular approach to the law, often taking on the government head-on, Xu is a pragmatist, insisting on working within the system, pushing for change while taking care not to incite authorities. But he and his organization have not shirked from taking on controversial cases.
He provided legal assistance to farmers in the northeast whose land had been illegally seized by corrupt government officials for private gain.
He exposed and publicized a system of illegal "black jails" where citizens from the provinces, who'd come to Beijing to complain about corrupt provincial politicians, were routinely taken to be beaten.
More recently, he organized a class-action suit for parents whose babies had been poisoned by melamine-laced milk during last year's Sanlu milk scandal. At least 300,000 babies were poisoned, but the government says only six died.
"This is precisely the kind of organization whose work the government should value, as it helps ease grievances and minimizes unrest," says Sophie Richardson, Human Rights Watch's advocacy director. "This attack on the Open Constitution Initiative marks a new low in the Chinese government's campaign against human rights defenders."
But Xu and his organization are by no means the only ones in the government's sights.
China's most prominent human rights lawyers are also under attack. At least 53 had their licences invalidated earlier this year, 20 of whom have now been disbarred. All are known for their work on sensitive cases.
The Yirenping Centre, an organization that gives counsel and support to hepatitis B carriers, was also raided by security police last week. Police seized leaflets that advised patients of their rights, claiming the centre needed a publishing permit to distribute the leaflets.
"The purpose is to find excuses for suppressing China's NGOs," the centre's director, Lu Jun, charged.
This week, the New York-based NGO Asia Catalyst also revealed that a Chinese AIDS advocate had his passport seized by Chinese authorities and prevented from attending an international AIDS conference in Indonesia.
Police warned the advocate, who had been invited to the conference by UNAIDS, that if he spoke to the media or international organizations about the passport seizure, he would face "the same fate as Hu Jia."
Hu Jia is a well-known Chinese HIV/AIDS activist currently serving 3 1/2 years in prison.
Cumulatively, says Bequelin, the government's actions suggest that its security apparatus has been given freer rein.
The turning point, he believes, was U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement during her visit to China this year that human rights issues need not interfere with Sino-American relations. Says Bequelin, "We're now seeing how unwise it was for Clinton and the U.S. to have basically said, `We won't do anything on the human rights front.'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
