News that 10 journalists were charged with covering up a mining accident in China’s Hebei Province is an intriguing development in a state wary of free media.
Reporters being charged for failing to cover a story involving corruption is a far cry from the usual news of them being browbeaten after publishing embarrassing material. But the journalists not only failed to report the story — they are accused of accepting US$380,000 in bribes from officials to stay quiet.
The accident took place on July 14 last year in Yuxian County — 80km from Beijing and just three weeks before the start of the Beijing Olympics. Dozens were killed, and it is likely that safety regulations were being flouted at the mine — as in most accidents in Chinese mines, the most lethal in the world.
For China, the Games were a chance to dazzle the world, but in the months leading to this moment of glory, Beijing was gripped by a fear of the foreign press “seizing on” negative news. Riots had erupted in Tibet in March, prompting Beijing to seal off the region. In the following months, everything from smog and subpar products to the deaths of enormous numbers of schoolchildren in the Sichuan Earthquake put pressure on China’s leaders — and then there was the controversy over underage Chinese gymnasts during the Olympics.
Only after the Olympics did it become clear that another scandal was covered up prior to the Games. Officials in Shijiazhuang and a company called Sanlu knew that infants were being sickened by milk powder tainted with the industrial chemical melamine.
Last week, China executed two people for selling tainted milk and protein powder. Now, it has charged journalists and officials in the Hebei accident, suggesting that the central government is trying to signal a change. The message is, at least superficially, that it is not afraid of confronting and dealing with scandals. Moreover, cover-ups are apparently no longer acceptable, no matter the circumstances. We are now led to understand that the public interest had always trumped the risk of embarrassing the government — even if, at the time, Beijing was busy preparing the best Olympics ever.
Is this message credible? Is the country that embarrassed itself again and again over its botched SARS cover-up finally appreciating the damage caused by punishment of journalists and whistleblowers?
Journalists in China are regularly intimidated into silence or punished for covering sensitive topics. Reporters without Borders has said that China has the highest number of imprisoned journalists in the world, while Xinhua’s staff are kept tightly in line to prevent unsanctioned reporting.
But there is another interesting aspect in the Hebei case. If these journalists were bribed not to report on Yuxian’s tragedy, this might indicate that no central government orders had been issued to cover up the incident. Such orders would not require bribing journalists, who defy media bans only at extreme risk to their careers and personal safety.
China has struggled for years in a globalized and wired world to contain news of its scandals. Yet, time and again, scandals are revealed. The fact that the authorities were able to contain news of the Yuxian mine accident for 85 days is a testament to the extent of their efforts. But in the end, there were too many loose ends — and too many angry victims.
Incidents that are covered up but which then become public knowledge are magnified in notoriety, damaging the reputation of every level of government. Given the new risks for those involved in hiding the truth, it will be interesting to see what extent China moves toward accountability, if only for the time being.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS