Letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair

The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair
10 Downing Street
London
Via fax : 00 44 20 79 25 09 18

Re: E.U.-China Summit

Dear Prime Minister,

We write to urge that human rights issues in China have a prominent place on the European Union’s agenda at the upcoming E.U.-China Summit to be held on September 5 in Beijing. This letter has two parts: a discussion of the conditions under which we believe the E.U. arms embargo could be lifted, and a resume of current human rights problems that should receive highest level attention at the summit and thereafter.

For the E.U. and its credibility, no issue is more important than the arms embargo imposed subsequent to the June 1989 military massacre of unarmed protestors in and around Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. Human Rights Watch remains greatly concerned by the E.U.’s apparent willingness to consider prematurely lifting its embargo on arms sales to China. When imposing the embargo, E.U. ministers acted in response to the "brutal repression taking place in China" and requested “Chinese authorities to stop the executions and to put an end to the repressive actions against those who legitimately claim their democratic rights.”

Today, sixteen years after the Tiananmen massacre, the E.U. must recognize that the Chinese leadership has shown no willingness to change its verdict that those who joined the 1989 peaceful protests aimed at bringing democracy to China took part in a “counterrevolutionary” rebellion. It has refused calls for an independent investigation of events surrounding the massacre and it has refused to publicly hold anyone accountable for ordering the army to fire on unarmed, peaceful demonstrators.

In fact, no official statistics on civilian deaths or injuries are available. The few individuals who continue to try to collect such information have been met with arrests and threats. Family members of victims are refused permission to publicly mourn. Lifting the embargo is therefore not, as many in the E.U. argue, a purely symbolic act. It raises the spectre of Chinese military or security forces using internationally procured arms against its citizens. The military and police are regularly deployed to control protests throughout China. In August 2005, state media announced the formation of special anti-terror and anti-riot police units, which are reportedly in the process of formation in 36 major cities. If the embargo were lifted, the arms deployed by these units might be European-made. Given the amount of unrest in China, it is predictable that such weapons will one day be used on civilians.

Human Rights Watch strongly urges the E.U. to make clear to the Chinese government that the 1989 E.U. arms embargo will remain in place until the Chinese leadership seriously addresses the bloody crackdown in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square 15 years ago by:

undertaking transparent, credible investigations into the Tiananmen killings;
establishing who ordered the army to fire on unarmed and peaceful demonstrators, and initiating transparent prosecutions of those people;
establishing how many individuals were killed;
establishing how many individuals were sentenced for their peaceful participation in the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations throughout China and ensuring their unconditional release;
providing appropriate compensation to victims; and
allowing relatives and friends of the victims to publicly mourn their dead.

It is vital that the EU, the largest group of democracies in the world, make these demands at the highest level, and publicly. It is not clear that China takes E.U. concerns over human rights seriously anymore. Lifting the embargo without these basic conditions being met would be a major setback for human rights in China and the E.U.’s reputation as a serious advocate for human rights in China. Given the continuing critical human rights situation in China, we urge the E.U. to raise a number of additional human rights concerns. These are described in some detail below. Although there are many other areas of concern, we have chosen a group of issues that we believe merit the E.U.’s special attention. Some are subjects that the E.U. has consistently brought to the attention of Chinese officials; others are longstanding human rights violations that have acquired a new urgency. These are:

restrictions on access to China for U.N. human rights monitoring mechanisms;
a renewed crackdown on freedom of expression in the media and on the Internet;
rule of law concerns, such as excessive use of the death penalty and inadequate death penalty review procedures, the persistence of administrative sentencing, including by reeducation through labor, and inadequate protections for defendants’ rights;
persistent mistreatment of petitioners who, in conformity with Chinese regulations, attempt to obtain redress for violations of the law by state agencies or officials;
forced evictions of home owners and tenants and inadequate or no compensation for rural lands acquired by developers with the assistance of local officials;
violations against people living with HIV/AIDS, harassment of AIDS activists, and restrictions on civil society organizations which address HIV/AIDS-related issues; and
a renewed crackdown on and interference with religious practice which has targeted, among others, Uighur Muslims in the name of the global “war on terror”, Protestant congregations which fail to register, and Tibetans loyal to the Dalai Lama and to the Panchen Lama he chose.

1. RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESS TO CHINA FOR U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORING MECHANISMS

Since the E.U. has a strong record of supporting and promoting United Nations Special Human Rights Mechanisms, we would like to bring to your attention particular concerns regarding restrictions on access to China for U.N. human rights monitoring mechanisms and China’s failure to implement extant recommendations of working groups and special rapporteurs. Indeed, no recommendations made to China by either the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention or the Special Rapporteur on Religion have ever been implemented. We are aware that an invitation has been extended to the Special Rapporteur on Torture and a date set. This is welcome, and we appreciate efforts made by the E.U. and its member states in urging China to agree to this visit. We hope that China does not repeat past instances in which it insists on terms of reference which would require the Special Rapporteur to compromise his mandate, and then blame him when negotiations become deadlocked. We are also concerned that, although an invitation has been extended, no date has been set for a promised visit by the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief.

We ask that you:

reiterate that for visits by special rapporteurs and working groups to take place, all the terms of reference must be respected;
emphasize the E.U.’s on-going concern that the issues raised by special rapporteurs and working groups are not seriously addressed; and
urge China to issue standing invitations to all rapporteurs and working groups.

II. RULE OF LAW

The rule of law remains a distant goal in China. There are a myriad of rule of law problems deserving attention. Among the most important are China’s excessive use of the death penalty, the lack of meaningful review of death sentences, the misuse of administrative detention, and the lack of fair trials by weighting trial and pre-trial procedures in favor of the state. Although the exact figure bizarrely remains a state secret, China is reported to execute more people than any other country. The death penalty may be imposed for an astonishingly long list of offenses––some 68 in all. This epidemic of executions occurs in a country that lacks an independent judiciary, relies for evidence on forced confessions, conducts trials that do not conform to the most basic of standards, and refuses to recognize the presumption of innocence. It is our understanding that the government is considering removing economic crimes from the list of capital crimes, a move that could result in cutting the number of death penalty cases by one-third. It is also considering review of all death sentences by the Supreme Court. Yet both of these modest reforms have met with resistance.

We urge the E.U. to:

continue insisting on the abolition of the death penalty;
in the meantime, China should be pressed to announce a moratorium on its use while the criminal law is amended to allow use of the death penalty only for the most serious crimes, the judiciary is separated from the CCP and allowed to act independently, and observance of fair trial standards becomes the norm in China. The E.U. could offer technical assistance to China once China agrees with these initiatives.

We appreciate E.U. efforts to end the reeducation through labor system in China, which has been used to detain millions of Chinese citizens without a trial or recourse to the judiciary. While there had been great hopes for substantial reforms or even the abolition of the system, it is our understanding, however, that within China the impetus for reform has come under substantial attack and has now stalled. We are also concerned that the proposed new regulations are still arbitrary and fall far short of a system complying with international standards as set forth in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Furthermore, recommendations for the reform of reeducation through labor leave in place other forms of administrative sentencing, particularly those applicable to prostitutes and drug users.

We urge the E.U. to:

intensify its efforts to convince the Chinese government that it must abandon this retrograde practice;
continue to work with reformers within China’s legal community to eliminate not just reeducation through labor, but all forms of administrative sentencing.

Human Rights Watch continues to be concerned with trial and pre-trial procedural defects that compromise defendants’ rights. Among the most egregious are those that prevent a lawyer from meeting his or her client during the investigatory phase of a case. It is during this period, which can be lengthy, that suspects are in most danger of being subjected to torture or other mistreatment. Defense lawyers cannot begin their investigations until the official investigation is concluded, by which time an official decision on guilt or innocence has usually been made. Witnesses are not required to appear in court and, therefore, are not subject to cross-examination by the defense. The trial itself continues to be largely a prepared piece of theater, not an effort to establish guilt or innocence through the neutral presentation of evidence to an independent arbiter. Additionally, China’s Section 306 of the Criminal Law provides that defense lawyers may be prosecuted for falsifying evidence should a witness change his statement during trial. Indeed, the development of a criminal defense bar, touted as an important advance, has been significantly impeded by the large number of criminal defense lawyers arrested, threatened, or physically attacked for carrying out their professional duties.

We urge the E.U. to:

press for the right of lawyers to have access to their clients and to begin their investigations from the moment of detention;
urge that witnesses be required to appear in court to offer evidence and that defense counsel have the opportunity to test the prosecution’s case, including through cross-examination;
insist that Section 306 of the Criminal Law be repealed; and express its strong concern about retribution against criminal defense lawyers.

III. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

There has been significant progress over the past decade in freedom of the press and freedom of personal and private communications. Previously unthinkable criticisms of government and officials can now be read regularly in the Chinese press, particularly when it comes to corruption at the local level. China’s leaders apparently consider allowing such criticisms to be a necessary steam valve in an increasingly unstable and unequal society. Yet China remains a heavily censored country, with punishments handed out regularly and arbitrarily for peaceful expression and no one exactly sure what is allowed and not allowed. Public criticism of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its senior and national-level leaders remains extremely risky, while calling for the end of CCP rule and the creation of a genuine democracy is often a ticket to prison. Self-censorship on sensitive political subjects due to fear of arrest remains the norm for most journalists and members of the public. To stop its citizens from learning about the reality of life in China or communicating with the outside world, or indeed among themselves on sensitive subjects, China’s has created the most ambitious and sophisticated Internet firewall in the world. During 2005, officials ordered an extended effort to eliminate “illegal” publications and shut down university Internet message boards. They mandated ideological training for non-government journalists, and blocked access to sites of stories they did not want to circulate within or outside China. Authorities also called for greater controls on the internet, upgraded filtering of internet content, began an announced closure of all unregistered websites, and required that chat room users register their real names. Websites and emails using the terms “human rights,” “democracy,” “Tibet,” and “Taiwan” are regularly blocked. This is anathema to the democracies of the E.U. and deserves a clear and public rebuke. Media censorship is all the more invidious owing to its usefulness to the government in prosecuting cases of alleged state security and state secrets crimes. The vaguely defined crimes of “subversion,” “endangering state security” and “leaking state secrets” make it remarkably easy to detain, indict, and sentence intellectuals, academics, journalists, and dissidents who criticize the government or CCP or raise issues that China’s leaders prefer to keep out of the public domain. In July 2005, the Independent Chinese PEN Center listed the names and charges against 46 imprisoned writers, of whom many, if not most, were detained on charges of subversion or the leaking of state secrets. In late 2004, Beijing-based PEN officers were warned that they could be charged with subversion should they persist in critiquing the government and CCP on the Internet.

We urge the E.U. to press the Chinese government to:

amend its criminal law and national security laws to conform to international standards to ensure that the peaceful expression of political and other views is protected;
amend the State Secrets Law to narrow its scope, such as by eliminating the practice of declaring public material a “secret” only after someone has been arrested for its dissemination or ending the practice of classifying information in the public domain as a state secret when it is disseminated abroad; and
remove restrictions on Internet message boards and blogs, and cease censoring and filtering e-mail and websites.

IV. RELIGIOUS REPRESSION

China’s new Regulations on Religious Affairs became effective March 1, 2005, but it is already clear that the changes are little more than a continuation of long-established policies that limit religious freedom. Independent, unregistered religious groups, still viewed as threats to the state, are by definition illegal and their clerics and adherents subject to monitoring, harassment, arrest, and severe ill treatment. Since March, several large-scale raids on unregistered Protestant churches have targeted leadership training sessions, bible classes, and missionary activity. Although government-recognized and controlled religious organizations do not suffer the same harassment, they must agree to “adapt” to socialist society, turn over their membership lists, have their leaders vetted for “patriotism,” their finances inspected, and their literature censored. Throughout China, there appear to be unspecified limits on religious education for minors. China has reserved for itself the right to distinguish between a “religion” and a “cult” and to severely limit the activity of the latter. The crackdown on Falungong practice is the most egregious example of the treatment of a so-called cult. Some unregistered church groups are deemed cults; others, theoretically, could apply for registration. For Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang and Tibetans in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and Tibetan communities in Chinese provinces, the state-sanctioned crackdown on religious activities is stricter than in other parts of China. This is motivated by fears of secessionist activities in both areas, brought on by popular disaffection with Chinese rule. The similarities between the persecution of Uighurs and that of Tibetan monks and nuns are striking: imams and monks are vetted for patriotism and subject to repeated “reeducation”; all religious publication is controlled; religious celebrations are curtailed if not banned altogether; observant students face expulsion from school; there are caps on the number of Tibetan monks, monasteries, as well as the number of mosques allowed. Reports from Tibet and Xinjiang indicate that one of the most destructive practices is the state’s preventing the current generation of master teachers from imparting their knowledge to an upcoming generation of would-be monks and scholars. The policy applies at all levels. In Xinjiang in July, three people were detained after a religious text was found among their belongings. In August a woman teaching a religious class was detained for “illegally possessing religious materials and subversive historical information.” Thirty-seven of her young students were detained. (For more information on religious repression in Tibet and Xinjiang, please see the recent Human Rights Watch reports Devastating Blows: Religious Repression of Uighurs in Xinjiang and Trials of a Tibetan Monk: The Case of Tenzin Delek.

We ask that the E.U. press the Chinese government to:

release immediately and unconditionally, from any form of detention, all those held for peaceful practice of activities associated with religious beliefs; (Please note that Chinese authorities insist that no one is incarcerated for their religious beliefs but for breaking the law.) Tenzin Delek, a Tibetan serving a life term, is of particular concern;
remove all references to “sects” and “evil religious organizations” from China’s criminal code and rescind all applicable explanations, interpretations, and decisions;
adopt an explicit provision guaranteeing freedom of belief and religious practice for those under eighteen and the right of parents to educate their children in the belief system of their choice; and,
allow access for members of the Committee on the Rights of the Child to the Panchen Lama designated by the Dalai Lama;
determine dates for a visit to China by the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief.

V. FORCED EVICTIONS

In the rush to modernize and develop Chinese cities, Chinese local authorities and developers are forcibly evicting hundreds of thousands of homeowners and tenants without due process or proper compensation. Evicted residents have increasingly taken to the streets to protest, only to meet harsh police repression, and many housing rights activists have been imprisoned. A Human Rights Watch report, Demolished: Forced Evictions and the Tenants' Rights Movement in China, documents such abuses. In Beijing, the number of cases of illegal forced evictions is likely to increase in the run-up to the 2008 Olympics as venues are built and the city intensifies its modernization efforts. Senior legal experts and even some government-controlled news media have openly criticized the government's failure to protect the rights of homeowners and tenants. In response, the Chinese government has enacted some legal reforms, including a constitutional amendment to protect property rights. However, provisions of the Chinese constitution are not directly enforceable and courts have not generally upheld the rights of evicted residents. Lawyers active in protecting housing rights have been imprisoned.

We urge the E.U. to press the Chinese government to:

establish laws and regulations consistent with the provisions of the Chinese Constitution protecting private property from being taken arbitrarily or without appropriate compensation;
ensure that the courts and administrative tribunals uphold the rights of individuals and hold officials accountable for failure to enforce existing regulations that protect the rights of evicted residents; and
release Zheng Enchong, Ye Guozhu, Xu Yonghai and other human rights defenders imprisoned for advocating for the rights of evicted residents.

VI. PETITIONERS

Due to the multiple weaknesses and failures of the Chinese legal and bureaucratic systems, particularly at the local level, many impoverished rural Chinese can only obtain redress or compensation for wrongs through the intervention of higher ranking officials, either at the local level or in Beijing. In cases ranging from official corruption to forced evictions and police brutality, Chinese law permits petitioners to appeal to or “petition” authorities further up the administrative hierarchy for assistance. In response to petitioner demands, the national government frequently blames local officials, first ordering them to “resolve” petitioner demands at the provincial level or below. To escape blame and meet the demand, provincial authorities often attempt to prevent petitioners from making their complaints known in Beijing. They send police and private enforcers to Beijing to physically assault petitioners and forcibly return them to their home locales. Detentions and “reeducation through labor” sentences, accompanied by further abuse, often follow. National authorities rarely intervene to stop these abusive practices. A newly announced program mandates that petitioners be sent to their home areas to meet with local police chiefs, in many cases the very officials who are responsible for the initial violations. To draw attention to this problem, petitioners have mounted an increasing number of public protests. In response, police have jailed petitioner activists and have cracked down on those applying for permits to hold legal demonstrations and on lawyers who defend petitioners. The number of petitioners is soaring: official statistics show that tens of thousands descend on Beijing every year. Brought on by arbitrary and illegal action by officials and the lack of official accountability, the burgeoning petitioner movement has turned into a pressing social issue for China’s leadership.

We urge the E.U. to press the Chinese government to:

investigate the use of police and private enforcers to beat and kidnap petitioners;
use criminal and administrative measures to hold accountable the individual police officers and provincial authorities who are responsible for such attacks ; and
release all petitioners detained in retaliation for exercising their legal right to petition and all petitioner activists imprisoned for participating in peaceful protests and for applying for permits to hold legal demonstrations.

VII. HIV/AIDS

Two decades after the first case of HIV/AIDS was diagnosed in China, the country faces what could be the largest AIDS epidemic in the world. In recent years, senior Chinese officials have shown a growing awareness about the need to confront the epidemic. However, AIDS activists continue to be harassed and bureaucratic restrictions continue to be imposed on civil society groups fighting the epidemic. A recent Human Rights Watch report, Restrictions on AIDS Activists in China, documents some of the problem. Activists conducting AIDS information workshops or working with those at high risk of contracting HIV have been harassed or detained at the local level and pornography laws are being used to censor websites providing AIDS information to gay men and lesbians. In countries that have successfully contained the spread of HIV/AIDS, people with AIDS have been at the forefront of the effort. In Henan, HIV-positive villagers have mobilized services in affected villages. They have demonstrated to draw attention to the need for access to antiretroviral treatment and care, and have decried health workers’ misappropriation of AIDS funding. However, state censorship and the systemic violation of rights to freedom of association and assembly create numerous obstacles for such grass-roots organizations.

We urge the E.U. to press the Chinese government to:

revise national regulations to remove burdensome restrictions that limit the registration and growth of non-governmental organizations, particularly those working against the spread of HIV/AIDS;
invite grass-roots HIV/AIDS organizations to share their input on policy and legal reform and to monitor implementation of government aid programs;
enact and enforce national legislation prohibiting discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS; and
cease detaining AIDS activists for protesting or advocating for access to treatment and care.

We are aware that this is a large and ambitious human rights agenda. However, it is the failure of the Chinese authorities to address these and other issues that requires so many human rights problems to receive attention at the highest level.

Thank you for consideration. We wish you a fruitful summit in Beijing.

Sincerely,

Brad Adams Executive Director Asia Division

Lotte Leicht Brussels Director

Cc : Mr Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary Mr Julian King, UK PSC ambassador