[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 76 (Thursday, May 8, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H3331-H3337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, May 3, was World Press
Freedom Day. Two years ago, in conjunction with World Press Freedom
Day, Congressman Mike Pence, Senator Chris Dodd, Senator Dick Lugar and
I established the Congressional Caucus for Freedom of the Press. Since
then, this bipartisan, bicameral caucus has sought to highlight the
importance of free expression around the world. The caucus is a forum
where Members of Congress can work to combat and condemn media
censorship and the persecution of journalists worldwide.
Our caucus works to send a strong message that Congress will defend
democratic values and human rights wherever they're threatened. We work
to highlight abuses of press freedom and foster reforms in support of
press freedom around the world. We have hosted panel discussions with
press freedom experts, journalists and victims of press freedom crimes.
We have written to the leaders of countries which jail journalists,
impose censorship, and allow harassment, attacks and threats to occur
with impunity. And we've spoken out here on the House floor and in the
media to call for reforms in countries that seek to censor freedom of
speech and expression.
The caucus enjoys the support of a wide range of organizations,
including Reporters Without Borders, Freedom House, the Committee to
Protect Journalists, the National Endowment for Democracy's Center for
International Media Assistance, as well as the legendary Walter
Cronkite.
World Press Freedom Day was first designated by the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in 1993 as an
occasion to pay tribute to repressed journalists and to reflect upon
the role of the media in general in advancing fundamental human rights
as codified in international law, regional conventions, and national
constitutions. In keeping with that tradition, we have hosted a Special
Order hour in honor of World Press Freedom Day each year since the
inception of the caucus.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a foundation of
the postwar human rights movement, guarantees freedom of expression in
article 19. ``Everyone has the right to freedom
[[Page H3332]]
of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of any frontiers.'' It may not
be as elegant as our first amendment, but its effect and its desire and
goal are the same.
For Americans, this day should spur us to consider the role that
journalists play in our society and to ponder what our Nation would be
like if this cornerstone of liberty were to be curtailed. Many
Americans take the concept of a free press for granted and don't
realize that an unfettered press is vital to America's national
security and to our democracy here at home.
Freedom of the press is so central to our democracy that the Framers
enshrined it in the very first amendment to our Constitution. Thomas
Jefferson so valued the principle of press freedom that he said, given
the choice between a free government or a free press, he would choose a
free press. He said, ``The basis of our governments being the opinion
of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and
were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government
without newspapers or newspaper without a government, I should not
hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.''
Journalists have jealously guarded their rights and American courts
have, in the main, carved out broad protections for the press. In the
United States, the press operates almost as a fourth branch of
government, the Fourth Estate, independent of the other three, and
positioned as an agent of the free people.
Winston Churchill agreed with the idea that a free press was almost
another independent branch of government saying, ``A free press is the
unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the
most dangerous foe of tyranny. Under dictatorship the press is bound to
languish, and the loudspeaker and the film to become more important.
But where free institutions are indigenous to the soil and men have the
habit of liberty, the press will continue to be the Fourth Estate, the
vigilant guardian of the rights of the ordinary citizen.''
From the pioneering work of journalists during the Civil War, to the
``muckrakers'' who were committed to exposing the social, economic and
political ills of industrial life in the early 20th century, to the
work of the Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein
in uncovering the Watergate scandal a year later, journalists have
performed a crucial role as watchdogs of American freedom.
But in order for the press to do its work properly, it must be free,
and journalists must be able to do their work without fear of
retribution. Information is power, which is precisely why many
governments attempt to control the press to suppress opposition and
preempt dissent.
Far too often, the reporters and editors who demand reform,
accountability and greater transparency find themselves at risk. The
censorship, intimidation, imprisonment, and murder of these journalists
are not only crimes against these individuals, they also impact those
who are denied access to their ideas and information.
Freedom of expression and a free press is not just a cornerstone of
democracy, it has also proven to play an important role in economic and
social development. James Wolfensohn, former President of the World
Bank, has long argued that ``a free press is not a luxury, it is at the
core of equitable development.''
The media exposes corruption, helps build a public consensus to bring
about change, and facilitates the transmission of innovative ideas and
valuable information that empowers people to share and shape their own
destinies. There is an emerging consensus among development
institutions that a skilled and a viable media sector is a society's
most promising tool for motivating government reform and poverty
reduction.
Regrettably, censorship, intimidation, imprisonment, and even murder
of journalists are far too common in countries all around the world.
The map to my right provides a visual representation of press freedom
rights by country. This map was provided by Freedom House, which
releases an annual index called Freedom of the Press: A Global Survey
of Media Independence. The countries that are highlighted in green are
listed as having a ``free'' press. The countries in yellow represent
countries that are ``partly free.'' And the countries colored purple
are countries they describe as ``not free'' in terms of press freedom
rights. And as you can see, in addition to problems here, we have vast
expanses in Africa, in Asia, in the Middle East, and in South Asia.
To break it down a little more, when taking population into account,
42 percent of the world's people live in countries that have a press
that is ``not free.'' Forty percent of the world's population live in
countries that have only a ``partly free'' press. That is exhibited
here in yellow. And in green we see that only 18 percent of the world's
citizens enjoy a ``free press.'' Quite remarkable; 18 percent ``free,''
42 percent ``not free,'' and the additional 40 percent only ``partly
free.''
More than 80 percent of the world's people, therefore, are denied
full access to information. This is not for economic reasons, as you
might expect, such as printing costs, lack of Internet connections or
illiteracy, all of which are problems in their own right. Eighty-two
percent of the world's population, 82 percent of the world is being
denied access to information because their governments don't want them
to have that access.
It's also important to note that even as the world continues to
globalize, tragically press freedom continues to slip. This was the
sixth consecutive year that Freedom House's index showed a reduction in
global press freedom, a worrisome trend.
As I mentioned, this is the third Special Order hour we have held in
recognition of World Press Freedom Day. The first year we launched our
caucus, we outlined the intention of our caucus and press freedom
abuses around the entire world. Last year, we decided that each year we
would focus on a particular hot spot and highlight a single country
where press freedom rights are particularly limited.
Last year, we focused on Russia. We profiled 18 journalists murdered
in Russia during the administration of outgoing President Vladimir
Putin. All of these journalists were believed to be killed due to their
work. Most of these murders remain unsolved to this day.
Tonight, I will focus on the lack of press freedom in China leading
up to the 2008 Summer Olympic games in Beijing this August. I have
chosen to highlight press freedom in China for a number of reasons,
including its failure to implement promised press freedom reforms
before the Olympics, its incarceration of more journalists than any
other country, its lack of independent media, and its censorship of the
Internet, all of which I will be discussing tonight.
As the world's most populous country, China denies more citizens
access to a free press than any other country. It is also tied for
181st place out of 195 countries in press freedom rights in Freedom
House's survey. To give you a bit of perspective, China ranks between
Syria and Iran in the survey. And Russia, which as I just mentioned
lost 18 journalists, murdered journalists, during one president's
administration, that country is ranked ahead of China on the survey.
As I speak here tonight, the Chinese Government limits more than 1
billion people's access to an open Internet and an independent media,
despite the fact that article 35 of the Chinese Constitution guarantees
freedom of speech, assembly, association and publication.
Unfortunately, other articles in its Constitution subordinate these
rights to what is called the ``national interest.'' This allows the
ruling communist party to maintain direct control over the news media
through the Central Propaganda Department, the CPD.
The Chinese Government has even proposed fines for domestic and
foreign news organizations that report ``sudden events,'' such as
protests, disease outbreaks, or national disasters without government
authorization. Some of these are public health emergencies, epidemics
that the Chinese government wants to have the ability to hide. These
are just a few of the examples that I've chosen to highlight China
tonight.
China is an enormously important country. China has emerged in a big
way on the world stage. And China is a
[[Page H3333]]
country of immense promise. It is important both to the Chinese
Government and to the Chinese people, as well as to the rest of the
world, that we help to promote press freedom in our largest neighbor in
the world, and one that will take a position of increasing importance
in the years to come.
{time} 2045
Before I continue, I want to thank all the press freedom advocacy
organizations that helped provide this information for tonight's
discussion: The Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without
Borders, the National Endowment For Democracy, and Freedom House have
all been chronicling press freedom abuses in China, and much of what I
will share with you tonight is a product of these groups' research,
investigation, and reporting. I want to thank them not just for their
efforts in helping us here tonight but, more importantly, for all of
their work to defend journalists and journalism around the world. And I
also want to take a moment to thank Sean Oblack of my staff for all of
his effort and leadership in helping to put this caucus together and
the presentation tonight.
During the Olympic bidding process, as international opposition grew
to rewarding the Olympics to China, the Chinese Government promised to
strengthen human rights in China. This included a commitment to press
freedom. In the days leading up to the Olympic vote, Wang Wei,
Secretary General of the Beijing Olympic Bidding Committee, said, ``We
will give the media complete freedom to report when they come to
China.''
Regrettably, though, China has not delivered ``complete freedom'' to
its own reporters. In September, 2007 Teng Biao and Hu Jia, two of
China's most celebrated human rights activists, in an open letter to
the international community, detailed China's failure to live up to its
Olympic commitments, including press freedom. Teng and Hu wrote:
``As of this writing, 35 Chinese journalists and 51 writers are still
in prison. Over 90 percent were arrested or tried after Bejing's
successful bid for the Olympics in July of 2001. For example, Dr. Xu
Zerong, a scholar from Oxford University who researched the Korean War,
was sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment for `illegally providing
information abroad.' Qingshuijun, Huang Jinqiu, a freelance writer, was
sentenced to a 12-year term of imprisonment for his online
publications. Some writers and dissidents are prohibited from going
abroad; others from returning to China.''
Due to this letter, due to this letter, Hu Jia now sits in jail. I
will be profiling his case later in the hour.
Human Rights Watch reports that Chinese journalists remain closely
observed by state security agencies to ensure that their reporting
reflects the official government position. The government's Publicity
Department heavily influences the weekly editorial content for print,
radio, and television platforms by preventing the reporting of
sensitive topics that fall under the vague metric of issues affecting
``social stability.'' Journalists that stray from the government line,
as Teng and Hu noted, face imprisonment, travel restrictions, or are
effectively deported.
Foreign correspondents do not experience ``complete freedom'' either
when reporting in China. On January 1, 2007, the Chinese Government
introduced a temporary measure that was intended to increase foreign
reporters' freedom in China before, during, and after the Olympic
games. This measure was set to expire in October, 2008. While some
foreign correspondents have experienced increased journalistic freedom
since the measure went into effect, most have not.
A Foreign Correspondents Club in China's survey showed that 40
percent of foreign correspondents have experienced harassment,
detention, or an official warning during the news gathering in Beijing
and other areas.
One foreign reporter in China that Human Rights Watch interviewed
experienced harassment and had difficulty renewing her work visa after
covering political dissidents and the highly publicized murder of
Chinese journalist Lan Chengzhang. She told Human Rights Watch, ``I
know the stories we have done have angered the Chinese Government, and
my visa renewal problems began after,'' after those reports.
Other foreign correspondents have been detained for legal reporting
activities. The New York Times Shanghai-based correspondent David
Barboza, his Chinese assistant, and a photographer were detained for
more than 10 hours by staff at a factory in Guangdong province while
doing a story about toxic lead paint discovered in the factory's
exports to the United States. Barboza was eventually let go after
writing a statement explaining the reason for his factory visit and
stating that he hadn't obtained permission to take the photographs.
At particular risk are the assistants and sources of foreign
reporters as they're helping on stories that domestic reporters cannot
cover. One local assistant of a foreign press correspondent was told by
security agents that it was his responsibility to notify the agents if
the reporter was uncovering anything sensitive and warned him and his
family of possible legal action if he did not. Sipa Press photographer
Natalie Behring described to Human Rights Watch the obstacles foreign
reporters face in finding a cooperative source: ``In light of the new
rules, the Chinese Government can't stop us from talking to anyone; so
they intimidate the subjects of our reporting rather than intimidating
the reporters.''
In the fall of last year, I, along with my Congressional Caucus For
Freedom of the Press co-Chair Mike Pence, wrote a letter to Liu Qin,
president of the Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic games,
expressing our deep disappointment in the government's failure to live
up to the promises that it made before the Olympic vote in 2001. The
letter expressed our frustration that Chinese journalists face
imprisonment for reporting stories unfavorable to the state, are forced
to toe the government line, and the ever-increasing restrictions on
accessible material on the Internet.
In the past the Olympic games have helped establish freedoms in
countries struggling to emerge from authoritarian rule. Most notably,
the 1988 summer Olympics in Seoul, Korea played a critical role in
helping to bring democracy to that country. It's my hope that China
begins to live up to its promise of complete freedom for journalists,
that it will cease the harassment and imprisonment of journalists, and
allow the Chinese people to experience the full communicative and
economic powers of the Internet and that the games will usher in a
newer, freer era in Chinese public life.
I'm now going to spend a few minutes talking about one of the extreme
measures that governments take to censor the media, and that is arrest
and detention. Unfortunately, it's become commonplace for some
governments to silence journalists simply by jailing them. And,
regrettably, there is no bigger offender in this regard than China.
And, again, this is one of the main reasons we have chosen to highlight
China here tonight.
Before I discus China's imprisonment of journalists, I would like to
give a brief overview of this problem around the world. And in fairness
and in completeness, while we are focusing on China because of the
magnitude of the problem there and because of the promises that were
made in advance of the Olympics, it's important to recognize this is by
no means a problem confined to China. Tragically, as we've seen in the
diagrams we had up earlier, press freedom is very limited in many
places around the world and under great assault in many places around
the world. So China is not unique in this respect. It is unique in its
size. It's unique in some of the technological instruments it has used
to effectuate censorship in this era of Internet journalism, but it is
not unique around the world for this problem.
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, as of December 1,
2007, 127 journalists were in prison around the world as a consequence
of their work. Of these more than 80 were being held by only five
countries, however: China, Cuba, Eritrea, Azerbaijan, and Burma.
This statistic only includes journalists that the Committee to
Protect Journalists can account for and that CPJ has confirmed are
being jailed. It does not include another alarming category that the
organization tracks, and that is journalists who have either
disappeared or have been abducted by
[[Page H3334]]
nonstate entities, including criminal groups and gangs, rebels, and
militant groups.
CPJ's research has found that nearly 17 percent of journalists jailed
worldwide in 2007 were held without any publicly disclosed charge. Many
for months, some for years, and some in secret locations.
The majority of journalists being imprisoned are being held on
spurious antistate allegations such as subversion or divulging state
secrets or acting against some undefined national interests. CPJ has
found out that about 57 percent of journalists in their survey are
jailed under these charges, and of those many are being held,
regrettably, by the Chinese Government.
These statistics demonstrate that China is not the only offender in
this practice but clearly one of the worst. As we have stated, we have
set aside this time tonight to highlight China. But while we are on the
subject of jailing journalists nationwide, I would like to take a brief
moment to discuss one particular case in Eritrea that was brought to my
attention by a constituent of mine who works with Amnesty International
Group 22 in Pasadena.
Eritrea is a country of only 4.6 million people; yet it imprisons the
third-most journalists of any country: 14. What's worse, the Government
of Eritrea will not even confirm whether the journalists in its custody
are alive or dead, and it also holds the most journalists in secret
locations.
One such journalist being held in a secret location in Eritrea is
Seyoum Tsehaye, a freelance reporter. His arrest and jailing was
believed to be part of the government's crackdown to eliminate
political dissent ahead of elections scheduled for December of 2001,
which were later cancelled. He was arrested on the street in September
of that year, the first day of a major round-up and imprisonment of
reformers in Eritrea. There are concerns about his health, but the
government has refused to provide details about his well-being. He has
never been allowed a family visit or a lawyer. He has never been
charged or appeared before any court. Last year Reporters Without
Borders honored him as their ``2007 Journalist of the Year.'' And
tonight we take a moment to think about Seyoum Tsehaye, freelance
reporter in Eritrea, held in custody in a secret location since
September of 2001.
So it's clear this is a problem not only associated with China. It is
also clear there are more cases of imprisoned journalists around the
world than we have time to discuss tonight or, for that matter, over
the course of a great many nights.
It's important, though, to cast a spotlight tonight on China because
of the significant role it plays on the international stage. It's one
thing to talk about Eritrea and the role it plays; it's another to talk
about one of the world's superpowers with all of its promise, with all
of its future, and with a current policy extremely inhibiting of a free
press.
In addition to hosting the summer's Olympic games, China's the world
most populous nation, permanent member of the United Nations Security
Council, and as I mentioned, an emerging superpower. Rightly or
wrongly, many countries look to China to set an example that others can
follow. In this case that is a great concern to the well-being of
global citizenry.
As I mentioned here tonight, China promised the world community to
improve press freedom in advance of the Olympics. For 9 years, however,
it has held the distinction of being the world's largest jailer of
journalists.
As the Internet continues to grow and more and more people around the
world have access to the Internet, more people are getting their news
online. Nowhere is this truer than in China. This is a fact that the
Chinese Government has not overlooked. And that is why 18 of the 29
jailed journalists worked online, according to CPJ. Reporters Without
Borders lists China as jailing an additional 50 ``cyber-dissidents.''
China's list includes imprisoned Internet journalist Shi Tao, an
award-winning journalist who is serving a 10-year sentence for e-
mailing details of a government propaganda directive to an overseas Web
site. We'll talk more about Shi Tao later tonight.
But the list of China's unenviable distinctions when it comes to
press freedom and the jailing of journalists includes one other
significant fact: CPA lists China as having the longest-serving
journalists in jail. Chen Renjie and Lin Youping were jailed in China
in July, 1983, for publishing a pamphlet titled Ziyou Bao Freedom
Report.
{time} 2100
And their co-defendant, Chen Biling was executed. We will profile
these journalists later tonight as well.
Journalists in China are also held in appalling conditions. Prison is
never pleasant no matter what country you are in, but Reporters Without
Borders reports that journalists in jail in China frequently experience
the harshest of conditions. They are placed in overcrowded cells,
subjected to forced labor and regularly beaten by their guards and
fellow prisoners. This ill treatment is at its worst in the first weeks
in custody when police try to extract confessions. Many of the charges
weighed against journalists in China are trumped up. For Americans,
these charges are pretty unimaginable. To give you some perspective on
why some of the journalists are sitting in jail right now, I am going
to briefly mention a few of their cases.
These cases are examples of journalists being jailed for what we in
the West would consider responsible journalism. I wouldn't even get
into some of the other journalism we see here, as well the rest of the
world, but for laudable journalism, for journalism we would applaud in
this country, these journalists are being jailed. Zhang Jianhong, for
example, the former editor of the now closed news website Aegean Sea,
was arrested in 2006 and charged with ``inciting subversion'' for
posting an essay criticizing China's human rights record and the poor
treatment of journalists, ironically ahead of the Olympic games.
Lawyer Yan Maodong, who also calls himself Guo Feixiong, and his
picture is here as well in the upper right-hand corner, was arrested in
September of 2006 because of his critical writings and human rights
activism. He was officially accused of selling a book using a false
publishing reference, but he says the book's content was what the
government objected to. But imagine being jailed since September of
2006 on the charges of using a false publishing reference.
According to the New York Times, Guo had repeatedly called on China's
Communist party leadership to liberalize the political system. His wife
and supporters in the international human rights community have said
that Guo has been tortured in custody and that the police coerced him
to confess to a nonpolitical crime. He was sentenced to 5 years in
prison in November of 2007 for ``illegal commercial activity.''
The New York Times has also reported that a Tibetan scholar, Dolma
Kyab, Dolma's picture is here to my far right, has been jailed since
2005 after writing an unapproved history of Tibet. Reporters Without
Borders reports that Dolma was sentenced to 10 years in prison at a
secret trial on September 16, 2005, by the Lhasa People's Intermediate
Court for ``endangering state security'' and for alleging spying. He
managed to smuggle a letter out of prison in September 2005 to the U.N.
Human Rights Commission saying he had been jailed for writing about
democracy, freedom and the situation in Tibet.
Zheng Yichun is another illustration of the problem in China. He was
sentenced to 7 years in prison followed by 3 years of deprivation of
political rights for writing a series of editorials that directly
criticized the Communist party and its control of the media.
Li Changqing, a journalist for the Fuzhou Daily, was sentenced to 3
years in prison for ``spreading false and alarmist information'' when
he reported about a 2004 dengue fever outbreak.
In May 2006, Internet writer Yang Tongyan was sentenced to 12 years
in prison for posting articles on overseas Web sites in which he simply
called for the release of Chinese dissidents.
In July 2006, Li Yuanlong, a reporter for the Bijie Daily, was
sentenced to 2 years in prison after he posted essays on foreign Web
sites in which he discussed the harsh living conditions of peasants in
the Guizhou province.
Yu Huafeng, I believe we have Yu's picture right here to my immediate
[[Page H3335]]
right, was the deputy editor and general manager of the Nanfang Dushi
Bao, Southern Metropolitan News. He was detained less than a month
after the newspaper reported a suspected SARS case in Guangzhou, the
first case since the epidemic died out in July 2003. Thankfully, Mr.
Huafeng was released earlier this year when his sentence was reduced.
Zi Beijia, of Beijing TV, was sentenced by the Beijing Number 2
Intermediate Court to a year in prison for the unusual crime of
``infringing on the reputation of a commodity.'' That is really quite
remarkable. Zi's arrest came amid widespread international reports
about food and product safety defects in China. After the arrest, CPJ
research found that domestic news reports about consumer safety were
noticeably tamer.
Imagine in this country if you could jail a journalist for infringing
on the reputation of a commodity, for taking issue with the safety of a
child's toy, lead paint, the safety of a train or an air bag. Imagine
if you could be jailed for that. And you can imagine the situation that
occurs in present day China.
Wu Lihong, an environmental activist, was jailed after criticizing
the ongoing polluting of Lake Taihu, the country's third biggest lake
and a major source of drinking water in the eastern province of
Jiangsu. He also denounced the uncontrolled dumping of industrial waste
by privatized city-owned firms. After being hounded by police and local
organizations, he was arrested in April 2007 and thrown in jail,
accused of demanding money from the firms. He was tortured during
interrogations and not allowed any defense witnesses at his trial. He
was sentenced to 3 years in prison for theft and extortion.
And again, it is hard to imagine what it would be like in this
country if reporting about contamination of drinking water or dumping
of toxics into a lake would end you up in prison for a matter of years
without any ability to present the defense. And unfortunately, that is
the situation that Wu Lihong found himself in.
An outbreak of disease, government corruption, public safety
concerns, to me these are stories that the press should be reporting.
Indeed, in terms of the interests of the Chinese people, these are
stories the Chinese people need to know. These are the stories that the
public has the right to know about, and the press has an obligation to
report. Articles like these were exactly what the framers of our
Constitution had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment. This is
exactly what Thomas Jefferson said and had in mind when he said that
``no government ought to be without censors,'' in his case he was
meaning critics, ``and where the press is free, no one ever will.''
The Chinese Government is not censoring the press out of national
security concerns, but instead to shield itself from what a free press
might uncover about corruption, inefficiency, human rights abuses,
environmental issues, health problems or any other afflictions that
might accompany authoritarian rule.
China's censorship and intimidation of media are not limited to
Chinese journalists. Freedom House has also highlighted the convictions
of two Chinese journalists working for the Beijing bureau of the New
York Times and Ching Cheong, a correspondent for Singapore's Straits
Times in China. Their convictions may have been intended to intimidate
foreign correspondents and newspapers. According to Reporters Sans
Frontieres, there were at least 25 incidents of arrests, threats or
assaults against members of the foreign press in 2006 alone.
So not only is the government in China jailing journalists to keep
information from its own people, but it is also seeking to censor
information to the rest of the world.
With this understanding of how and why the Chinese Government has
sought to jail journalists, I think it is important now to profile some
of the most egregious cases. The reporters involved here are true
profiles in courage. These journalists knew the consequences of their
writings in advance of their publication. And yet these Chinese
journalists believe so strongly that all citizens deserve access to
information, that they are willing to put their freedom on the line to
better inform the public. These journalists ought to be commended for
their work, not jailed. And that is what we are doing here tonight. We
are saying ``thank you'' to all the brave Chinese journalists, Eritrean
journalists, Cuban journalists, and all other journalists around the
world who have risked their safety and freedom to spread valuable
information around their countries and around the world, information
that we benefit from.
The concept of censorship of the media can be so strange to us here
in America that we often don't realize that journalism can cost one his
or her freedom or even their life, as we have seen in Russia and indeed
in China. So let's go to some of these profiles.
I would like to start the profiles tonight with the leading activist
named Hu Jia who called for greater attention to human rights around
the Olympics and was arrested on January 30 of this year according to
Human Rights Watch. Press Freedom--and Hu is pictured to my right--and
human rights organizations are concerned that Hu is being prosecuted
simply for exercising his rights to freedom of opinion and expression.
At issue is an open letter that he co-authored calling for the
international community to look beyond the veneer put in place in
Beijing for the Olympics and to seriously examine the extent to which
China had fulfilled the promises it made to improve human rights in
advance of the games.
Three months after publication of this letter, Hu was arrested at his
home. On April 3, 2008, he was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment for
``incitement to subvert state power,'' a charge regularly leveled
against activists and dissidents.
Reporters Without Borders has reported that Chinese authorities have
prevented Hu from appealing his sentence. One of his lawyers, Li
Fangping, was refused permission to see him 10 days after the sentence
was handed down. The authorities said he was undergoing a ``medical
examination'' prior to entering prison. He was again refused permission
to see him on a later date on the grounds that the deadline for filing
the appeal had already expired.
According to Reporters Without Borders, Li wanted to give him
official documents related to his appeal which he urgently needed for
him to sign. But the guards refused without giving any reason. Hu has
not been allowed to take any telephone calls, and his family is very
worried about the state of his health. The plight of Hu has been
recognized by leaders around the world. Earlier this year, it was
reported then when our Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, met with
President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao in Beijing, she
raised human rights issues and voiced concern about the situation of
political prisoners of Hu and Shi Tao, whom I will speak about next.
The following day, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao
insisted that Hu was being detained legally.
Earlier this year, the Paris City Council named Hu an honorary
citizen of Paris. This title was bestowed on Hu for his work as an
activist on behalf of human rights, free expression, the environment,
and HIV/AIDS sufferers.
Other people to have been declared honorary citizens of Paris include
Ingrid Betancourt, a Colombian politician with French citizenship
currently a hostage of FARC guerillas, and Burmese opposition leader
Aung San Suu Kyi.
Next I would like to profile Shi Tao. The Chinese Government often
uses vaguely worded laws to detain journalists, dissidents and others
in the peaceful exercise of their right of free expression, including
those arrested for the legitimate use of the Internet. This is despite
the fact that the right to freedom of expression is protected in
China's constitution.
One of the many unfortunate examples of this practice is the
continued imprisonment of Shi Tao--his photograph exhibited here--a
journalist and poet imprisoned solely for exercising his right to
freedom of expression and his right to seek, receive and impart
information.
Shi, the former editorial director at the Changsha-based newspaper
Dangdai Shang Bao, was detained near his home in Taiyuan in the Shanxi
province. In April 2004, Mr. Tao sent an e-mail from his Yahoo account
to a U.S.-based pro-democracy website in which he summarized a
government order directing
[[Page H3336]]
media organizations in China to downplay the upcoming 15th anniversary
of the Tiananmen crackdown.
In the anonymous e-mail sent several months before his arrest, Shi
transcribed his notes from the local propaganda department instructions
to the newspaper which included directives on coverage of the Falun
Gong and the upcoming 15th anniversary of the military crackdown on
demonstrators at Tiananmen Square. The official Xinhua News Agency
reported that the National Administration for the Protection of State
Secrets later certified the contents of the e-mail as classified, later
certified them as classified.
{time} 2115
On the basis of this e-mail, police arrested Shi 6 months later in
November of 2004, charging him with ``illegally providing state secrets
to foreign entities,'' as if Chinese efforts to downplay or fail to
report on Tiananmen were somehow a state secret. On April 27, 2005 the
Changsha Intermediate People's Court found Shi guilty and sentenced him
to a 10-year prison term in June.
In June, the Hunan Province High People's Court rejected his appeal
without granting a hearing. Court documents in the case revealed that
Yahoo had supplied information to Chinese authorities that helped them
identify Shi as the sender of the e-mail. In November of 2005 CPJ
honored Shi with its annual Internation Press Freedom Award for his
courage and defending the ideals of free expression.
On June 4, 2007 the 18th anniversary of Tiananmen Square, Shi
received an additional honor, the Golden Pen of Freedom Award. The
award is the annual press freedom prize from the World Association of
Newspapers, which is based in Paris and is the global organization for
the newspaper industry. It has awarded the Golden Pen annually since
1961.
Shi also was presented with PEN New England's Vasyl Stus Award in
2006. The award is presented to a writer who has been persecuted for
the peaceful expression of his or her views and whose courage in the
face of censorship and oppression has been exemplary.
This award is named after the poet, Vasyl Stus, who became a leading
voice of his generation and who was also the last Ukranian writer to
die in the Soviet Gulag. Unfortunately, all of these awards are
presented in absentia due to Mr. Shi's continued incarceration. His
mother accepted the Golden Pen of Freedom award from WAN on his behalf
in June of last year.
At the awards ceremony she expressed what the award meant to both her
and her son when she stated, ``In China, he was taken as a criminal,
but today WAN, made up of over 100 newspaper organizations, awards him
the Golden Pen of Freedom. It is not only an honor but also a huge
comfort to Shi Tao.
``It proves that my son is indeed innocent. He has only done what a
courageous journalist should do. That is why he has got the support and
the sympathy from his colleagues all over the world who uphold justice.
``Here and now, I am able to stand on the stage on behalf of my
son.''
What an arduous journey it has been to tell you the truth. I can't
believe it is true, and even the best human language in the world
cannot express the gratitude from the mother and son.
It's good to know that awards like these help provide at least a
little comfort for journalists like Shi. But, more importantly, these
awards should raise awareness surrounding press freedom abuses around
the world. Mr. Shi is clearly deserving of all these accolades. The
Chinese people and citizens around the world are thankful for his
dedication to true journalism.
Next I am going to speak about two dedicated Chinese journalists who
have been detained longer than any journalists in the world today, Chen
Renjie and Lin Youping. Twenty-four years after their imprisonment in
the early days of China's economic reform, Chen Renjie and Lin Youping
have been in prison longer than any journalists in CPJ's worldwide
census.
The two men, along with Chen Biling, wrote and published a pamphlet
entitled Ziyou Bao (Freedom Report). They distributed 300 copies of the
pamphlet in the southern Chinese City of Fuzhou, Fujian province, in
September, 1982.
The following July, they were arrested and accused of making contact
with Taiwanese spy groups and publishing a counterrevolutionary
pamphlet. According to government official records of the case, the men
used ``propaganda and incitement to encourage the overthrow of the
people's democratic dictatorship and the socialist system.''
In August, 1983, Chen was sentenced to life in prison and Lin was
sentenced to death with reprieve. Chen Biling was sentenced to death
and later executed.
Their case is so old, and with the lack of an independent and open
media, we have had a hard time finding out more information about Chen
Renjie and Lin. However, I would be remiss if I did not pay special
attention to highlight these two reporters who have endured more time
in jail, due to their effort to share information, than any other
journalist today.
The last topic I want to focus on tonight is Internet censorship.
According to Freedom House, China is the world's second largest
population of Internet users after the United States, with an estimated
210 million people online, or just under 16 percent of the country's
population.
However, access to China, to the Internet in China, is not the same
as access to the Internet here in America. Freedom House's 2008 press
freedom survey reported that last year in China was marked by
additional Internet restrictions, as well as the jailing of more online
journalists and bloggers.
According to their findings in 2007, at least nine additional
journalists and online writers were detained during the year for
information they had published on the Internet, particularly on U.S.-
based independent Chinese news Web sites. In China, Web sites that have
not established or not been established by an official news outlet such
as a newspaper or broadcaster are forbidden from gathering or editing
their own news or commentary.
Legally, they can only reproduce material that has passed through
sensors at approved media organizations. As we have mentioned tonight,
all media in China are government controlled.
China is not the only country to manage public opinion by controlling
the Internet. As of 2007, CPJ had documented Internet censorship in 22
countries worldwide, but China was first to launch a comprehensive
program to censor online speech and to monitor e-mail and text
messaging. Its censorship program is so expansive and technically
sophisticated that countries such as Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Thailand
have adopted its practices.
This gets back to what I have referred to earlier tonight, the fact
that because of its prominence China sets an example, for good or for
bad, in this case, regrettably, for ill. Due to technological
advancements and the efforts of overseas activists, the Chinese
government attempt to suppress information has become more difficult,
but that has not stopped the government's efforts to censor online
information.
Many have referred to Internet restrictions in China as the ``Great
Firewall of China.'' The government employs extensive surveillance and
filtering systems to prevent Internet users from accessing material
that the government considers obscene, harmful to national unity or
politically subversive.
In May of 2007 Reporters Without Borders launched a Web site in
Chinese, and it was blocked within hours of going live. Additionally,
all IP addresses linked to a Web site deemed undesirable are blocked
without warning.
As the web has become a new forum to distribute information, the
Chinese government continues to create new laws to suppress the free
flow of information on the Internet. In the 5 years after China first
allowed private Internet accounts in 1995, it has issued more than 60
sets of regulations to tighten its control of online content.
These regulations continue today. In 2005 the government introduced
new regulations that bar Web sites from distributing information that
violates Chinese constitutional provisions, endangers national
security, encourages illegal strikes or promotes unrecognized religious
groups. In March of 2007 the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of
Information Industries banned the opening of new Internet cafes,
113,000 were in existence at the time.
Many times Internet censorship is used as a political tool. Internet
censorship in China increased prior to and
[[Page H3337]]
during the 17th Party Congress in October of last year, during which
the party leadership for the next 5 years was endorsed. Between April
and September, access to over 18,000 Web sites was blocked.
The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that in September of
2007, security agencies in several regions ordered Internet data
centers, which host large numbers of Web sites and blogs, to suspend
their service, or disable interactive features such as bulletin boards
and comment sections during the Congress' meeting.
In an apparent effort to overcome difficulties monitoring audio-
visual content with automated filtering technology, the government
issued a regulation requiring Web sites with audio visual context to
apply for permits. I guess that would pretty well put YouTube and other
like Web sites out of business.
The regulation, which affects approximately 60,000 sites in China,
also banned audio-visual content deemed to fall into vaguely defined
categories such as opposing the principles of the People's Republic of
China constitution, harming national unity, contributing to ethnic
divisions or disrupting social harmony.
So if there were entrepreneurs who wanted to start a Chinese version
of YouTube, unless they register, unless YouTube registers, that would
be prohibited. Indeed the content on those sites would be strictly
scrutinized by the Chinese government. According to Freedom House, in
some instances restrictions were imposed on a local level, after
bloggers supported a protest against construction of a chemical
factory.
Near the southern City of Xiamen, the local government adopted
measures requiring Internet users to provide their real names when
posting material on more than 100,000 Web sites registered in the city.
The Chinese government demands that individual service providers
monitor content. These providers filter searches, block Web sites,
delete content and monitor e-mail traffic.
The Chinese language search engines of many U.S. firms filter search
results and restrict access to information about topics deemed
sensitive by the government. These include searches such as Falun Gong,
Tibetan independence, and human rights.
U.S. filters have to adopt certain restrictions. U.S. sites, like
YouTube and others, are subject to the same scrutiny. In 2007, more
than 20 companies, some American, were forced to sign a self-
disciplined pact which forces them to censor the content to blogs they
host in China as bloggers to provide their real identity and to delete
postings considered illegal and unhealthy.
Despite all this discouraging news there is a silver lining, though,
the government's efforts are not foolproof. Brave and determined
bloggers continually pop up, change addresses, hide behind proxy
servers, and use a range of tactics to side-step government censorship
and spread good information to the Chinese public.
But it's our hope that these bloggers and our journalists someday
will not have to use these extreme measures. We would like to see China
reconsider its regulation and censorship of the media. As we mentioned
at the outset tonight, press freedom provides a valuable, economic and
social benefit that is in China's best interest to ensure free and
independent media.
We in this country have a great admiration for the Chinese people.
They are extraordinarily talented, gifted, resourceful people with a
great future ahead of them. It's our sincere view that we do no service
to our relationship with China not to encourage in the most forceful
way freedom of the press in that country.
We hope, many of us, that the Olympic Games would give China that
opportunity to move forward and make progress, and we are disappointed
that we have not seen that progress that the Chinese government
representative would make, and, yet, we push forward.
Tonight we think about those journalists, some held longer than any
others in China, and we urge the Chinese government to step forward to
recognize the benefits to China itself of a free press and free media,
to free journalists who are imprisoned for doing work important to the
Chinese people.
We hope that these efforts will be undertaken soon, that some of the
journalists that we profiled here tonight will be released back into
the warmth of their own families and their own homes, whether they are
in China or Eritrea or in Cuba or in so many parts of the world. That
is our fond hope and desire and the raison d'etre of our caucus on
freedom of the press.
____________________