CHINA: Freedom of Expression

‘Stainless Steel Mouse & Golden Shield’

‘IT was the best of times, it was the worst of times." The words were used to describe the French Revolution, but they could equally be applied to the Internet revolution in China. On the one hand, the Internet is seen as a panacea for freedom of expression and freedom of information. The only drawback being the economic one; that is, "the right to freedom of expression should become a reality for everyone, not just the privileged few who can afford their own telephone line, modem and PC". (Peter Noorlander, Article 19)

But, on the other hand, simply providing access to the Internet is only part of the story. As the case of China shows, there is nothing inherently democratic about the Internet, its introduction does not necessarily mean greater freedom and democracy, but in a one-party state can mean "more subtle and sophisticated forms of repression".

China's 'Golden Shield'

China was first linked to the global Internet in 1994. Since then the Chinese authorities have sought to control China's Internet connections. The most comprehensive work to date on the technology used by the Chinese authorities is China's Golden Shield: Corporations and the Development of Surveillance Technology in the People's Republic of China by Greg Walton, published by the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development (2001).

Walton's conclusion is that while the Internet "has increased opportunities for human rights and democracy activists to build international support for their struggles" it has also "brought new challenges for human rights advocates, particularly those living under repressive regimes" and is " threatened by economic priorities".

In the early days of the Chinese Internet, the government used fairly "crude" methods to "block" access to certain websites. China adopted the "Great Firewall" strategy, the concept of foreign 'internet' gateways linking to a secure national 'intranet'. Web users seeking "forbidden" websites would not be able to reach those sites at all, as the IP address for the website would be blocked. The principle adopted by the Chinese government was "guarded openness", seeking to preserve the economic benefits of openness to global information, while guarding against unwanted foreign influence. However, due to the increased volume of Internet traffic in China the government can no longer filter out all "objectionable" material before it enters China's networks.

The government has tried other techniques. For example, in August 2002 they temporarily blocked access to the popular Internet search engine 'Google'. The outcry over this incident caused the government to back down. Fortunately, for the Chinese government, as technology has improved so has access to better censorship and surveillance methods.

Users may now have the impression that they have access to certain sites but certain functions on those websites are blocked. In addition experts and users have reported selective blocking of e-mail that mentions certain words, e.g. "Falun Gong", restricted or difficult access to foreign sites and continued interruption of search engines on particular topics.

This is all possible through "software filters" used at the level of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and cyber-cafes. One particular method is to re-direct those visiting banned websites to a single IP address which is already blocked by the government at the international gateway level.

Experts say this is done by falsifying the records in Domain Name Servers (DNS), so that when a user types in a web address the DNS will route the request to a pre-determined site and not the intended address.

But this kind of complex technology has not appeared overnight. In November 2000, 300 companies from over 16 countries attended a trade show in Beijing called Security China 2000.

The focus of the show was the "Golden Shield" project, launched to promote "the adoption of advanced information and communication technology to strengthen central police control, responsiveness, and crime combating capacity, so as to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of police work." (see box)

The latest initiative by the Chinese authorities is to attempt to make Internet companies police themselves. In August 2002, a 'Public Pledge on Self-Discipline' was introduced. Signatories agree not to post "pernicious" information that may "jeopardize state security, disrupt social stability, contravene laws and spread superstition and obscenity".

Amnesty International (AI) reports that over 300 companies have signed up, including the Chinese operations of 'Yahoo!'.

Internet-related convictions

There have been an increasing number of Internet-related convictions in China. Typical offences include posting or downloading pro-democratic information or articles that are critical of the Chinese government or articles that allege human rights violations in China - activities which fall broadly under the term "virtual organising".

In November 2002 AI reported the cases of 33 people who had been detained or imprisoned for offences in relation to the exercise of freedom of religion, expression and association in the use of the Internet. AI reported that two detained for such offences, both members of the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement, have died in custody, allegedly as a result of torture and ill-treatment by the police.

The Hong Kong-based organisation, Human Rights in China, reports that political dissident Tao Haidong was recently sentenced to seven years in prison for articles he posted on the Internet. The most celebrated case to date is perhaps that of Liu Di - otherwise known by her Internet name "Stainless Steel Mouse" - a 22-year-old student at Beijing Normal University, who was detained in November 2002 after she posted politically sensitive articles on the Internet.

This picture is reinforced by the cases in the Addendum to the Special Rapporteur's (SR) report to the 59th Session. The SR refers to five communications received with regard to human rights violations in relation to the use of the Internet in China.

One of these cases concerns an urgent appeal sent on 8 October 2002 by the SR, jointly with the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, concerning Chen Shaowen, an Internet essayist from Lianyuan in Hunan Province, who was allegedly arrested on 6 August 2002 on suspicion of "using the Internet to subvert state power". He is said to have written numerous essays and articles for various overseas Chinese-language web sites on topics including China's unemployment problem, social inequalities, and flaws within the legal system.

The SR also reports that in a letter dated 24 May 2002, the Government of China replied to a communication from the SR dated 1 November 2001 concerning Zhu Ruixiang and Lü Xinhua. The Government alleges that in the case of Zhu Ruixiang he had on many occasions, since October 2000, made use of the Internet to produce and disseminate materials designed to subvert the State's political authority, and that his acts constituted the crime of inciting subversion of State political authority.

He was sentenced to three years' fixed term imprisonment and stripped of his political rights for two years

The pattern of these cases shows that whilst the technology may be new, the underlying charges of "subversion" or "threatening to overthrow the government" have not changed and continue to be used to suppress freedom of expression. (see Half a life: Story of a political prisoner).

The grim irony appears to be that as human rights activists and political opponents have begun to use the Internet to promote their causes, the Chinese government has adopted technology to make it potentially easier to silence their opponents.

Freedom of expression and association

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states: "[E]veryone has the right to freedom of expression: this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."

There is no doubt that these words apply to the use of the Internet. The Internet's primary functions are to allow the user to "seek, receive and impart information", and while Article 19 was drafted before the use of the Internet it is expressly applicable to "any other media".

At the 58th Session of the CHR members (including China) adopted resolution 2002/48 on the right to freedom of opinion and expression by consensus. At operative paragraph 12, the CHR "[s]tresses the importance of the diversity of sources of information, including mass media, at all levels, and the importance of the free flow of information, as a way to promote full enjoyment of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and encourages the facilitation of access to the Internet."

In spite of its obligations under international human rights law, in China there is no "free flow" of information. The Chinese authorities have adopted restrictive laws, arrests, detentions, censorship, bans, surveillance of and restrictions on the use of the Internet.

The diversity of sources is deliberately limited and the right to freedom of opinion and expression, in particular for journalists, members of political opposition groups and parties and human rights defenders is severely limited.

During the 1990's the members of the Western Group shifted their focus on Chinese human rights violations from a relatively open multilateral focus on the UN bodies, such as the CHR, to a less transparent bilateral dialogue. A China resolution at the CHR has not been seen since.

This shift in policy was sold on the basis of a 'win-win' philosophy. The Western members could deepen diplomatic and economic relations with China after Tiananmen Square (1989), and at the same time explore a meaningful human rights dialogue without the pressures of public scrutiny on China.

This has regrettably not proved to be the case. According to the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, "[t]he bilateral human rights dialogue has not achieved its objectives, the situation of human rights in China has deteriorated". On 31 March 2003, Human Rights in China stated, "[a]ll available information suggests that the Chinese government is as repressive as ever toward political dissidents".

In the context of the restriction on the use of the Internet in China, it is worth noting the words of the SR: "The Special Rapporteur considers that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression is a clear indicator of the level of protection and respect of all other human rights in a given society." The regulation of the Internet worldwide will be explored at the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva from 10 to 12 December this year. The World Summit website says that: "The Summit offers a unique opportunity for the global community to reflect, discuss and give shape to our common destiny in an era when countries and peoples are interconnected as never before." The Asia-Pacific Regional Conference was held in Tokyo from 13 to 15 January 2003 as a preparatory meeting to the World Summit. The Tokyo Declaration was the end product. In the ten-page document there is only one cursory reference to the protection of freedom of expression. This is not a good start. 

Can the mouse be mightier than the Golden Shield?