China’s treatment of cancer-stricken democracy activist Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) reflects Beijing’s hardening crackdown on political dissent and heightens concern over lesser-known campaigners still languishing in jail, supporters said.
Liu, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 while serving an 11-year sentence for subversion, has been transferred from a prison to a hospital on medical parole for terminal liver cancer treatment, his lawyer said on Monday.
The 61-year-old is one of China’s best-known activists, having spent decades campaigning for greater democracy and human rights in the country, and his jailing in 2009 drew global calls for his release.
Prison authorities said Liu was under the care of “eight renowned Chinese oncologists” at a hospital in Shenyang, the capital of northeastern Liaoning Province.
Activists said the move was not a humanitarian gesture, but rather a cynical attempt by authorities to avoid a backlash for allowing such a high-profile human rights defender to die behind bars.
“Presumably they didn’t want him to die in the prison — they want him to die somewhere else,” said Human Rights Watch China director Sophie Richardson, who described Liu’s treatment as a “travesty.”
Blind human rights lawyer Chen Guangcheng (陳光誠), who fled to the US in 2012, said: “If Liu died in prison, this would arouse the anger of the people and accelerate the demise of the CCP [Chinese Communist Party].”
Liu’s treatment offered little hope to lower-profile activists still in detention, supporters said.
“The international community can see that China has no human rights when even Nobel prize winners have been treated like this,” Beijing-based lawyer Yu Wensheng (余文生) said, adding that when Liu dies it would be “a heavy blow” for China’s human rights movement.
China has long been criticized for its harsh treatment of activists and dissidents, but since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) took power in 2012 the controls on civil society have tightened.
Campaigners have said it is impossible to know the exact number of lawyers and activists in detention, because many are held incommunicado with no access to legal advice or their families.
In summer 2015, hundreds of legal staff and activists were detained under the so-called “709 crackdown,” which was the toughest against civil society for years.
Most of those rounded up were released on bail, but last year courts found six of them guilty of serious crimes, with sentences ranging from no additional jail time to seven years in prison.
Wang Quanzhang (王全璋), one of several leading rights lawyers whose fate remains unclear, was charged in January last year with “inciting subversion of state power” and “picking quarrels and provoking troubles,” but he has not yet stood trial and has been denied access to a lawyer.
Chinese courts have a conviction rate of 99.92 percent and there are growing concerns about the use of torture to extract confessions and the lack of effective defense.
In an annual report in March, Chinese Supreme People’s Court Chief Justice Zhou Qiang (周強) cited the harsh punishments imposed on rights defenders as the legal system’s top accomplishment last year.
“The crackdown on human rights defenders and activists has been getting more serious,” Amnesty International China researcher Patrick Poon (潘嘉偉) said.
The exact conditions of Liu’s parole are not known, but activists said he would likely be kept under police surveillance.
Close friends said his wife, Liu Xia (劉霞), who has been under house arrest in Beijing since 2010, has been allowed to visit him.
The US embassy in Beijing on Tuesday called on China to release the couple and allow Liu to choose his own doctors.
“Liu will never be free. He will still be tightly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party as his wife has been for so many years,” Chen said.
Activists are demanding to know if Liu received any medical treatment while he was in jail and why he was not given parole earlier.
“It’s very difficult to understand why his illness is only being treated at the last stage,” Poon said.
However, Richardson said China had a history of allowing “peaceful critics to become gravely ill and sometimes die in detention.”
Among them are Tibetan monk Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, who was 13 years into a life sentence for terrorism and separatism when he died in prison in July 2015.
Dissident Cao Shunli (曹順利) passed away in custody in March 2014 after allegedly being denied medical treatment for months.
“If Xi is going to stand up in public and say that China is a country governed by rule of law, how has this been allowed to happen,” Richardson said, calling for Xi and other officials to be held accountable.
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