Refugee Review Tribunal AUSTRALIA

RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE

Research Response Number: CHN35725 Country: China Date: 12 November 2009

Keywords: China – Charter 08 – Signing Online – Treatment of Signatories & their families – Internet Monitoring

This response was prepared by the Research & Information Services Section of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the RRT within time constraints. This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. This research response may not, under any circumstance, be cited in a decision or any other document. Anyone wishing to use this information may only cite the primary source material contained herein.

Questions 1. What is Charter 08? 2. Is it possible to sign the charter online? 3. Is it possible for a signatory to the Charter to be traced by Chinese authorities, with the result that family members in China were then questioned by the PSB?

RESPONSE

1. What is Charter 08?

Charter 08 is an open letter issued on 9 December 2008 by a group of 303 Chinese individuals including “writers, intellectuals, lawyers, journalists, retired Party officials, workers, peasants, and businessman”. Charter 08 calls for legal reforms, democracy and protection of in China. A translation of Charter 08 into English by (HRIC) is included as Attachment 1:

This year is the 100th year of China’s Constitution, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 30th anniversary of the birth of the Democracy Wall, and the 10th year since China signed the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. After experiencing a prolonged period of human rights disasters and a tortuous struggle and resistance, the awakening Chinese citizens are increasingly and more clearly recognizing that freedom, equality, and human rights are universal common values shared by all humankind, and that democracy, a republic, and constitutionalism constitute the basic structural framework of modern governance. A “modernization” bereft of these universal values and this basic political framework is a disastrous process that deprives humans of their rights, corrodes human nature, and destroys human dignity. Where will China head in the 21st century? Continue a “modernization” under this kind of authoritarian rule? Or recognize universal values, assimilate into the mainstream civilization, and build a democratic political system? This is a major decision that cannot be avoided.

…The “reform and opening up” of the late 20th century extricated China from the pervasive poverty and absolute power in the Mao Zedong era, and substantially increased private wealth and the standard of living of the masses. Individual economic freedom and social privileges were partially restored, a civil society began to grow, and the calls for human rights and political freedom among the people increased by the day. Those in power, as they were implementing economic reforms aimed at marketization and privatization, also began to move from a position of rejecting human rights to one of gradually recognizing them. In 1997 and 1998, the Chinese government signed two important international human rights treaties. In 2004, the National People’s Congress amended the Constitution to include language to “respect and safeguard human rights.” And this year, [the government] has promised to formulate and implement a “National Human Rights Action Plan.” However, this political progress stops at the paper stage. There are laws but there is no rule of law. There is a constitution but no constitutional governance. And there is still the political reality that is obvious for all to see. The power bloc continues to insist on maintaining the authoritarian regime, rejecting political reform. This has caused corruption in officialdom, difficulty in establishing rule of law, and no protection of human rights, the loss of ethics, the polarization of society, warped economic development, damages in the natural and human environments, no systematic protection of the rights to property and the pursuit of happiness, the accumulation of countless social conflicts, and the continuous rise of resentment. In particular, the intensification of hostility between government officials and the ordinary people, and the dramatic rise of mass incidents, illustrate a catastrophic loss of control in the making, and the anachronism of the current system has reached a point where change must occur (‘Charter 08’ 2008, Human Rights in China website, 9 December http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/press?revision%5fid=89851&item%5fid= 85717 – Accessed 23 July 2009 – Attachment 1).

The fundamental concepts of Charter 08 are freedom, human rights, equality, republicanism, democracy and constitutionalism. Specific demands of Charter 08 are as follows: • Amend the Constitution; • Separation and balance of power; • Democratise the lawmaking process; • Independence of the judiciary; • Public institutions should be used for the public; • Protect human rights; • Election of public officials; • Urban and rural equality; • ; • ; • Freedom of expression; • ; • Citizen Education; • Property Protection; • Fiscal Reforms; • Social Security; • Environmental Protection; • Federal Republic; and • Transitional Justice (‘Charter 08’ 2008, Human Rights in China website, 9 December http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/press?revision%5fid=89851&item%5 fid=85717 – Accessed 23 July 2009 – Attachment 1).

An article dated 30 January 2009 in The Washington Post reports that more than 8,100 Chinese people have signed Charter 08, making “Charter 08 the largest pro-democracy movement Beijing has know since the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests”. An article dated 27 June 2009 in The Huffington Post by Minky Worden, Media Director for Human Rights Watch (HRW) reports that Charter 08 has now collected close to 10,000 signatures (‘Virtual Groundswell’ 2009, The Washington Post, 30 January http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012903758.html – Accessed 11 November 2009 – Attachment 2; and Worden, Minky 2009, ‘Liu Xiabo and China’s Future’, The Huffington Post, 27 June http://www.huffingtonpost.com/minky-worden/liu-xiaobo-and-chinas-fut_b_221843.html – Accessed 12 November 2009 – Attachment 3).

2. Is it possible to sign the charter online?

According to Nicholas Bequelin of HRW, people are signing Charter 08 online (Adams, Jonathan 2009, ‘Charter 08 worries China’, The Christian Science Monitor, 7 January http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0107/p06s01-woap.html – Accessed 11 November 2009 – Attachment 4).

Charter 08 was circulated via websites, emails, blogs, message boards, chat rooms, instant messaging devices and text messages despite the “massive firewall operation of Chinese authorities.” The Chinese Human Rights Defenders report that beginning on the evening of 26 December 2008 searches for Charter 08 on three of China’s search engines, Baidu, Google and Yahoo, returned no relevant results, however, it continued to spread. According to The Christian Science Monitor, “Websites publishing Charter 08 have been blocked, though it’s easily found using a proxy server.” According to Nicholas Bequelin of HRW, “This text is having a lot of impact – people are debating and signing it online…This is a landmark in terms of its appeal, and [the] attention that it has provoked.” According to The Washington Post, “Thanks to that technology, the new democracy movement has been able to amass a virtual crowd of supporters” (Adams, Jonathan 2209, ‘Charter 08 worries China’, The Christian Science Monitor, 7 January http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0107/p06s01- woap.html – Accessed 11 November 2009 – Attachment 4; ‘Over One Hundred Signatories Harassed Since Launch of Charter 08’ 2009, Chinese Human Rights Defenders website, 9 January http://crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class98/200901/20090108141140_12945.html – Accessed 11 November 2009 – Attachment 5; and ‘Virtual Groundswell’ 2009, The Washington Post, 30 January http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012903758.html – Accessed 11 November 2009 – Attachment 2).

An article dated 31 January 2009 in The Irish Times reports that when Charter 08 first appeared online in mid December 2008, “its impact was limited”, that is until ordinary people started circulating the document and declaring themselves supporters. The article provides information on Tang Xiaozhao who received a copy of Charter 08 via email. Tang, a 30 year old cosmetology student from Shanghai agreed with the petition but did not want to get involved. After a few days, Tang “signed the document, sending her full name, location and occupation to a special e-mail address.” Tang posted a blog entry in December 2008 entitled “I signed my name after a good cry” and 17 of her online friends also signed. On 13 January 2009, Tang’s blog was shut-down by the Chinese authorities. Tang states, “I know exactly what may happen to me since I signed my name, but I am not afraid anymore.” The article provides further details:

WHEN TANG Xiaozhao first saw a copy of the pro-democracy petition in her inbox, she silently acknowledged that she agreed with everything in it but didn’t want to get involved.

Tang, a pigtailed, 30-something cosmetology student, had never considered herself the activist type. Like many other Chinese, she kept a blog where she wrote about current events and her life, but she wasn’t political.

A few days later, however, Tang surprised herself. She logged on and signed the document, sending her full name, location and occupation to a special e-mail address. “I was afraid, but I had already signed it hundreds of times in my heart,” Tang says.

Hers is the 3,943rd signature on the list that has swelled to more than 8,100 from across China. Although their numbers are still small, those signing, and the broad spectrum from which they come, have made the human rights manifesto, known as Charter 08, a significant marker in the demands for , one of the few sustained campaigns since the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Those who sign the charter risk arrest and punishment.

When the document first appeared online in mid-December, its impact was limited. Many of the original signers were lawyers, writers and other intellectuals long known for their pro- democracy stance.

The Chinese government moved quickly to censor the charter – putting those suspected of having written it under surveillance, interrogating those who had signed, and deleting any mention of it from the internet behind its great firewall.

Then something unusual happened. Ordinary people such as Tang with no history of challenging the government began to circulate the document and declare themselves supporters. The list now includes scholars, journalists, computer technicians, businessmen, teachers and students whose names had not been associated with such movements before, as well as some on the lower rungs of China’s social hierarchy – factory and construction workers and farmers.

…Yet, one significant aspect of Charter 08 is its less famous signatories, like Tang. By most measures, she is a model citizen. The spunky, 4ft 10in Sichuan native who lives in Shanghai loves her country, pays her taxes, volunteers at a school for migrant workers’ children, and is a major fan of one form of traditional Chinese opera.

She grew up the eldest of three girls in a rural area where she says the schooling was weak but she taught herself by reading everything she could get her hands on, from Japanese novels to political treatises about the Middle East.

She posted a blog entry in December titled “I signed my name after a good cry”, which Chinese censors have repeatedly knocked off-line. Nevertheless, it has been widely circulated via e-mail and on websites outside China.

“We all grew up by feeding on ‘political melamine’. Fear has been consolidated into stones in our bodies,” Tang wrote, referring to a recent scandal involving the chemical that was illegally added to infant formula.

Tang says that her fear turned to anger after she noticed that her blog entries and other references to Charter 08 kept being deleted by censors. One night, she says she was hit by a great sadness that she did not have freedom of expression. So she took action. “If me, a little frightened person, signed it, then maybe others will feel inspired,” she says.

Before her blog was shut down entirely on January 13th, the comments section was filled by online friends who said they had signed Charter 08. Tang counts 17 so far. “I also signed,” one person wrote. “I cried when I knew Xiaozhao had cried. I wasn’t moved to tears by her tears, but I cried out of frustration and helplessness.” Another saw hope in the censorship: “They wouldn’t have been deleting posts in such a crazy manner,” he wrote, referring to Chinese authorities, “if they were not scared” (Eunjung Cha, Ariana 2009, ‘Small green shoots of rebellion among ordinary Chinese’, Irish Times, 31 January http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0131/1232923379427.html – Accessed 11 November 2009 – Attachment 6).

3. Is it possible for a signatory to the Charter to be traced by Chinese authorities, with the result that family members in China were then questioned by the PSB?

The Chinese authorities monitor the Internet and their attempts to shut-down the spread of Charter 08 online, as discussed in Question 2, suggests that the Chinese authorities have the ability to trace signatories. Question 2 also reports that signatories were providing personal details which would make it easier for the Chinese authorities to trace them. The harassment, intimidation and arrest of signatories of Charter 08 suggest that the Chinese authorities have traced signatories. To date, only one organiser of Charter 08, , remains in detention. No information was found amongst the sources consulted on PSB officers questioning family members of Charter 08 signatories, however, Amnesty International reports that family members of human rights activists and political prisoners were targeted by the Chinese authorities in 2008.

The information provided in response to this question has been organised into the following three sections: • Treatment of Signatories; • Treatment of Family Members of Signatories; and • Internet Monitoring.

Treatment of Signatories

John J. Tkacik is a retired Foreign Service officer who was chief of China analysis in the US Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research during the Clinton administration. According to an article in The Washington Post dated 9 October 2009 by Tkacik, “Charter 08’s chief author was arrested, others lost their jobs, hundreds were threatened, and all are on the Ministry of State Security’s watch list.” On 19 October 2009, Minxin Pei, Director of the Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies at Claremont McKenna College was a panel member at a conference hosted by the Council on Foreign Affairs. Pei was asked whether the Charter 08 movement was a real nascent opposition movement. According to Pei, “Well, Charter 08, the good news is that it is not being totally repressed. I think except for one person, Liu Xiaobo who has been arrested, the rest of the signatories appear to be safe” (Tkacik, John J. 2009, ‘TKACIK: China: No longer “rising”‘, The Washington Post, 8 October http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/08/tkacik-china-no-longer-rising/ – Accessed 11 November 2009 – Attachment 7; and ‘Transcript – China 2025: Panel I: Challenges from Within: Emerging Domestic Challenges’ 2009, Council on Foreign Affairs website, 19 October http://www.cfr.org/publication/20663/china_2025.html – Accessed 11 November 2009 – Attachment 8).

Veteran dissident, Liu Xiaobo, who helped organise Charter 08 was detained on 8 December 2008 and held incommunicado for six months under a form of detention called “residential surveillance” at an undisclosed location in Beijing. On 23 June 2009, Liu was arrested for “alleged agitation activities aimed at subversion of the government and overthrowing of the socialist system” and faces up to 15 years in prison. Liu is expected to be tried and sentenced before President Obama visits China in November 2009. Liu remains in detention (Kine, Phelim 2009, ‘Free Liu Xiaobo’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 13 July http://www.feer.com/politics/2009/july58/Free-Liu-Xiaobo – Accessed 27 July 2009 – Attachment 9; and Leedom-Ackerman, Joanne 2009, ‘On its 60th anniversary, China is still crushing freedom’, The Christian Science Monitor, 1 October http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1001/p09s01-coop.htm?print=true – Accessed 12 November 2000 – Attachment 10).

By 9 January 2009, the Chinese Human Rights Defenders had documented 101 cases of “individuals who have been harassed, called in for questioning, or summoned (chuanhuan) by police across seventeen provinces and three municipalities” for signing Charter 08. The full list of Charter 08 signatories subjected to detention, interrogation and/or intimidation has been included as Attachment 5. The majority of those listed were of the original 303 signatories, however, 12 names were not in the original open letter. According to the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China, “Signers continued to report police questioning and surveillance during the first half of 2009” (‘Charter 08’ 2008, Human Rights in China website, 9 December http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/press?revision%5fid=89851&item%5fid= 85717 – Accessed 23 July 2009 – Attachment 1; ‘Over One Hundred Signatories Harassed Since Launch of Charter 08’ 2009, Chinese Human Rights Defenders website, 9 January http://crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class98/200901/20090108141140_12945.html – Accessed 11 November 2009 – Attachment 5; and US Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2009, Annual Report 2009, 10 October, p.48 – Attachment 11).

Treatment of Family Members of Signatories

The Christian Science Monitor reports that on 8 December 2008, Zhang Zuhua was questioned for 12 hours over Charter 08. Zhang was released, however, China Human Rights Defenders report that Zhang’s “interrogators sternly warned Mr. Zhang about ‘severe consequences’ to his family and friends if he continued to give media interviews or engage in any other activities promoting Charter 08” (Adams, Jonathan 2209, ‘Charter 08 worries China’, The Christian Science Monitor, 7 January http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0107/p06s01-woap.html – Accessed 11 November 2009 – Attachment 4).

Amnesty International’s Report 2009 – China reports that “[f]amily members of human rights activists, including children, were increasingly targeted by the authorities, including being subjected to long-term house arrest and harassment by security forces” (Amnesty International 2009, Report 2009 – China, 28 May – Attachment 12).

Internet Monitoring

The US Department of State’s 2008 Human Rights Report: China, published on 25 February 2009 reports that the Chinese Government maintained tight controls on the Internet:

During the year authorities monitored telephone conversations, facsimile transmissions, e- mail, text messaging, and Internet communications.

...Internet Freedom

During the year the China Internet Network Information Center reported that the number of Internet users increased to 298 million, 91 percent of whom had broadband access. The government took steps to monitor Internet use, control content, restrict information, and punish those who violated regulations, but these measures were not universally effective. A large number of Internet users used proxy servers to access banned content. During the year political dissidents successfully used Internet instant-messaging technology to hold large- scale, virtual meetings.

The MPS [Ministry of Public Security], which monitors the Internet under guidance from the Central Propaganda Department, employed thousands of persons at the national, provincial, and local levels to monitor electronic communications. Xinhua News Agency reported that during the year authorities closed 14,000 illegal Web sites and deleted more than 490,000 items of “harmful” content from the Internet. In 2007 authorities reported closing 62,600 illegal Web sites as part of a nationwide crackdown on “illegal and pornographic” publications. Many Web sites included images of cartoon police officers that warn users to stay away from forbidden content. Operators of Web portals, blog hosting services, and other content providers engaged in self-censorship to ensure their servers were free from politically sensitive content.

Individuals using the Internet in public libraries were required to register using their national identity card. Internet usage reportedly was monitored at all terminals in public libraries. Internet cafes were required to install software that allows government officials to monitor customers’ Internet usage. Internet users at cafes were often subject to surveillance. Many cafes sporadically enforced regulations requiring patrons to provide identification.

The government consistently blocked access to Web sites it deemed controversial, especially those discussing Taiwanese and Tibetan independence, underground religious and spiritual organizations, democracy activists, and the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown.

…Authorities employed an array of technical measures to block sensitive Web sites based in foreign countries. The ability of users to access sensitive foreign Web sites varied from city to city. Internet police were also able to automatically censor e-mail and web chats based on an ever-changing list of sensitive key words, such as “Falun Gong” and “Tibetan independence.” While such censorship was effective in keeping casual users away from sensitive content, it was defeated easily through the use of various technologies. Software for defeating official censorship was readily available inside the country. Despite official monitoring and censorship, during the year some dissidents continued to use voice-over-Internet and instant messaging software, such as Skype, to conduct online meetings and events.

Given the limitations of technical censorship, self-censorship by Internet companies remained the primary means for authorities to restrict speech online. All Web sites are required to be licensed by, or registered with, the Ministry of Information Industry and all Internet content providers inside the country faced the potential suspension of their licenses for failing to adequately monitor users of e-mail, chat rooms, and instant messaging services. The Internet Society of China, a group composed of private and state-run Internet companies, government offices, and academic institutions, cosponsored a Web site, China Internet Illegal Information Reporting Centre (ciirc.china.cn), which invited members of the public to report illegal online activity. Users were able to use the site to report crimes such as pornography, fraud and gambling, but also “attacks on the party and government.” Self-censorship by blog-hosting services intensified in the weeks before and during the Olympic Games.

…Regulations prohibit a broad range of activities that authorities interpret as subversive or slanderous to the state. Internet Service Providers were instructed to use only domestic media news postings, to record information useful for tracking users and their viewing habits, to install software capable of copying e-mails, and to end immediately transmission of so-called subversive material (US Department of State 2009, Human Rights Report: China, 25 February, Section 1f & 2a – Attachment 13).

For more information on Internet monitoring in China please see Question 1 of Research Response CHN35725 dated 15 September 2009.

List of Sources Consulted

Internet Sources: Government Information & Reports Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/ UK Home Office http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ US Congressional-Executive Commission on China http://cecc.gov/ US Department of State http://www.state.gov/ Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) Amnesty International http://www.amnesty.org/ Chinese Human Rights Defenders http://crd-net.org/ Council on Foreign Affairs http://www.cfr.org/ International News & Politics Asia Times http://www.atimes.com/ The Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/ The Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ Irish Times http://www.irishtimes.com/ Reuters http://www.alertnet.org/ The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/ Search Engines Google http://www.google.com.au/

Databases: FACTIVA (news database) BACIS (DIAC Country Information database) REFINFO (IRBDC (Canada) Country Information database) ISYS (RRT Research & Information database, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, US Department of State Reports) RRT Library Catalogue

List of Attachments

1. ‘Charter 08’ 2008, Human Rights in China website, 9 December http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/press?revision%5fid=89851&item%5 fid=85717 – Accessed 23 July 2009.

2. ‘Virtual Groundswell’ 2009, The Washington Post, 30 January http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012903758.html – Accessed 11 November 2009.

3. Worden, Minky 2009, ‘Liu Xiabo and China’s Future’, The Huffington Post, 27 June http://www.huffingtonpost.com/minky-worden/liu-xiaobo-and-chinas- fut_b_221843.html – Accessed 12 November 2009.

4. Adams, Jonathan 2009, ‘Charter 08 worries China’, The Christian Science Monitor, 7 January http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0107/p06s01-woap.html – Accessed 11 November 2009.

5. ‘Over One Hundred Signatories Harassed Since Launch of Charter 08’ 2009, Chinese Human Rights Defenders website, 9 January http://crd- net.org/Article/Class9/Class98/200901/20090108141140_12945.html – Accessed 11 November 2009.

6. Eunjung Cha, Ariana 2009, ‘Small green shoots of rebellion among ordinary Chinese’, Irish Times, 31 January http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0131/1232923379427.html – Accessed 11 November 2009.

7. Tkacik, John J. 2009, ‘TKACIK: China: No longer “rising”’, The Washington Post, 8 October http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/08/tkacik-china-no-longer- rising/ – Accessed 11 November 2009.

8. ‘Transcript – China 2025: Panel I: Challenges from Within: Emerging Domestic Challenges’ 2009, Council on Foreign Affairs website, 19 October http://www.cfr.org/publication/20663/china_2025.html – Accessed 11 November 2009.

9. Kine, Phelim 2009, ‘Free Liu Xiaobo’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 13 July http://www.feer.com/politics/2009/july58/Free-Liu-Xiaobo – Accessed 27 July 2009.

10. Leedom-Ackerman, Joanne 2009, ‘On its 60th anniversary, China is still crushing freedom’, The Christian Science Monitor, 1 October http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1001/p09s01-coop.htm?print=true – Accessed 12 November 2009.

11. US Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2009, Annual Report 2009, 10 October.

12. Amnesty International 2009, Report 2009 – China, 28 May.

13. US Department of State 2009, Human Rights Report: China, 25 February.