China's state-run Xinhua news agency recently reported on a government investigation into a string of forced sterilizations and abortions in the village of Linyi in Shandong Province. The speed of the investigation -- said to have begun days after the kidnapping of Chen Guangcheng (
The story in Linyi is the kind of news that propaganda officials usually bury in the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) secret files. According to reports, local authorities in Linyi, seeking to avoid exceeding birth quotas under China's "one child" policy, forced several women to undergo abortions and forcibly sterilized many couples with more than one child. Villagers who hid to avoid the campaign reportedly saw their family members jailed. Some in Linyi alleged degrading treatment, torture and extortion.
Why investigate and report this scandal? The Xinhua reports, I believe, are best read as damage control.
China is trying to secure funding from the UN to improve reproductive health -- an effort that has been set back by reports of forced abortion. Central authorities did not investigate the Linyi abuse until news of the harassment of Chen -- and his abduction with the help of Beijing police -- spread into the international media. Chen had reported the abuses to officials and asked a non-governmental organization, the Citizens' Rights Defense Group, to investigate.
The group went to Linyi in May. A month later, the network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders reported the group's findings and demanded the intervention of the central government's Family Planning Commission (FPC).
As a volunteer for the network, I was in touch with Chen and followed events closely. In July, having failed to elicit any government response, Chen began seeking legal aid from prominent lawyers to prepare lawsuits on behalf of the victims, causing alarm among local officials. Pursued by police, Chen went into hiding.
My "personal safety was threatened," he wrote on Aug. 30 in the last e-mail he sent me.
Following strenuous international protests over Chen's kidnapping, the FPC decided to investigate. Xinhua announced that the local officials responsible for the violence might be prosecuted. Central authorities seemed to sense an immediate need to quell criticism of its controversial population-control efforts. Xinhua wasted no time in claiming that the abuses were limited to a few towns.
However, central government authorities have done little to halt intimidation of Linyi's villagers. Chen was released from detention but remains under house arrest, and was dragged back to the police station on Sept. 2 for unknown reasons.
Police refuse to return Chen's personal computer and cellphone. The village, too, is mysteriously without any telephone service. Meanwhile, through arrests, threats and bribery, authorities are forcing villagers to withdraw accounts of abuse and back out of their lawsuits, warning of the dire consequences of cooperating with Chen and the lawyers.
The FPC has declined to intervene, citing lack of law-enforcement powers. On Oct. 10, the villagers' lawyers were told that the court hearing scheduled for that day was canceled. On their way back to Beijing, thugs reportedly assaulted the lawyers.
Viewed in this context, the belief that the government's approach to Linyi reflects a new responsiveness to human-rights abuses seems naive. If the government were truly becoming more responsive, why have we not seen similar responses to other disputes over the theft of farmland, compromised investors' rights, or high-level corruption?
In all these cases, authorities have responded with repression, including the hiring of plain-clothes militias to kidnap or beat up people who attempt to publicize problems. China's belated bouts of openness about the spread of AIDS and the SARS epidemic clearly indicate that the central government sees little need to become more transparent.
Others argue that China's government is simply losing its grip over local authorities. This prospect is hardly encouraging. If abuses and repression in the provinces continue no matter how attentive the central government, or how assertive the press might have become, what then?
More likely, however, the central authorities are following a policy that most Chinese know well: neijin waisong, or "controlled inside, relaxed outside." Applied here, the policy means consolidating power at home while disarming critics abroad.
I believe that the government's loss of control in the provinces has been stage-managed. Chaos provides a cover for crackdowns. It is too convenient when unidentified strongmen beat and harass activists who question party rule, and it is too easy for officials to blame an out-of-control "criminal society" when international media start asking questions.
Suspiciously targeted "criminal" assaults have, indeed, occurred in places other than Linyi. Thugs thrashed civil rights activist Lu Banglie (
State media recently started releasing year-end "mass incident" statistics. Last year, the government said, there were 74,000 such incidents. Observers marvel that China's leaders admit to such a staggering number of protests. But here, again, the government is hiding in plain sight. State-run media organs have been forced to admit that these protests test the CCP's will to maintain power. They neglect to tell the real story of how the CCP exercises that will, trusting that the admission itself will satisfy us. We should not be so quick to play along.
Li Xiaorong is a human-rights researcher who specializes in reproductive rights and gender issues in developing nations. She taught philosophy at the People's University in Beijing.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS