Did Eutelsat sell its soul to China?
On Monday, Reporters without Borders (RSF) provided evidence supporting speculation that French satellite broadcaster Eutelsat had blocked transmission of some TV channels in China in response to pressure from Beijing.
If the allegations against Eutelsat are confirmed, it would mean that the company was complicit in helping China maintain a tight lock on the flow of “undesirable” information into the country.
This would offer yet another example of the active role companies can play in suppressing human rights, something that has been documented time and again yet remains largely ignored by lawmakers worldwide.
Two months ago, Eutelsat scrapped Asian transmission of New Tang Dynasty TV (NTDTV) and the Sound of Hope and other radio stations, citing “technical” problems. It was not the first time that NTDTV, which regularly covers human rights violations and the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in its news programs, had run into difficulties with its transmission to Asia.
In 2005, 45 Taiwanese legislators joined lawmakers in Canada, the US and Europe in urging Eutelsat to continue to transmit NTDTV after it declined to renew its contract. There was widespread concern that Eutelsat’s decision was a response to pressure from Beijing. NTDTV claimed Eutelsat was negotiating the rights to broadcast the Beijing Olympics at the time.
NTDTV says its broadcasts are the only uncensored channel accessible in China, making them key to promoting freedom of speech. It also renders the timing of Eutelsat’s technical malfunction ahead of the Olympics suspect.
RSF has collected information from Eutelsat staff indicating that the company was pressured by Beijing and that it has since transmitted other channels on a transponder that Eutelsat had claimed was not functioning. This would mean that Eutelsat has violated its contract with NTDTV at China’s behest.
This latest information should ratchet up concerns in the EU about the actions of European companies in non-democratic markets — and hopefully inspire renewed talks on the role of governments in preventing corporate abuse of human rights.
Eutelsat would hardly be the first company to play by Beijing’s rules. Yahoo, Cisco Systems, Google, Microsoft, Nortel Networks and Sun Microsystems are some of the companies whose decisions in China have drawn sharp criticism.
Calls in some countries and at the UN to address corporate complicity in human rights abuses have, however, made little headway. UN Norms for Business, a UN corporate responsibility initiative, has stalled, as has the Global Online Freedom Act, proposed in the US Congress, which was drawn up in response to the situation in China following news of Yahoo’s role in helping police there track down dissidents.
The French government should follow the lead of the US Congress, which held hearings to probe the actions of Yahoo and other US companies in China. By looking into the evidence collected by RSF, Paris would recognize the gravity of the allegations and send a message that corporate misdeeds will not go unnoticed.
Some Western companies have argued that requiring them to uphold freedom of speech in China would handicap them in that market, giving rivals the upper hand and hurting their own growth prospects. There is every reason to believe that this is the case. But for governments that argue that human rights are universal, turning a blind eye to corporate infringement on these values is not an option.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath