Uygur: OPEN LETTER FROM AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL TO EU GOVERNMENTS ON THE EVE OF EU-CHINA HUMAN RIGHTS DIALOGUE

[Mehmet Tutuncu]

Ref.: TG ASA17/99.01 AI Ref: NS026/99

4 February 1999


OPEN LETTER FROM AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL TO EU GOVERNMENTS ON THE EVE OF
EU-CHINA HUMAN RIGHTS DIALOGUE


As EU governments prepare for their next round of human rights dialogue
with China on 8 February, and as the 55th UN Commission on Human Rights
approaches, there has been a serious deterioration in human rights in China.

Since October 1998, more than 70 dissenters  have been detained and at
least 15 high profile dissidents given heavy prison sentences or assigned
to "re-education through labour" in the face of international protests.
The Chinese authorities have begun to use draconian national security
provisions in the revised Criminal Law against people exercising
fundamental freedoms of expression and association. A widespread crackdown
on suspected Uighur nationalists and independent Muslim leaders continues
in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR). Reports persist of the
torture and death in custody of prisoners of conscience in Tibet and an
ongoing "patriotic education" campaign involving closure of monasteries or
the expulsion of "unpatriotic" monks and nuns. Unofficial Christian groups
also reported intensified repression at the end of 1998, involving numerous
arrests.

These developments detailed in the attached briefing  constitute one of the
most disturbing crackdowns seen in China in the past decade. They are not
simply serious abuses of human rights, but strike at the heart of the EU
and other human rights dialogues.  They call into question China's
sincerity in signing key human rights conventions in 1997 & 1998 and
represent a serious setback on many of the core issues the EU and others
have claimed to be pursuing.

The timing of  recent trials of high profile dissidents is significant,
coming in the lead-up to the Human Rights Commission and what Chinese
foreign ministry representatives had termed "the most important dialogue"
with the US government.  It would appear the Chinese government has
calculated it is secure from any significant international censure and can
afford once again to intensify its repression of non-violent advocates for
change.

Even the rhetoric has gone backwards. The Chinese government has once again
rejected criticism as interference in "the domestic affairs of  China" and
stated it does "not wish to hear irresponsible remarks from other
countries"(14.1.99). Foreign ministry spokesmen have also boasted of the
lack of change: "In spite of some  international and domestic turbulence
and the political and economic pressures from the West, the reforms and
opening up policy of the Chinese government and its human rights policy
have remained unchanged for the past two decades".(14.1.99).

The developments come at a time when China's economic reforms have reached
a critical juncture. With the restructuring of state enterprises leading to
unemployment on an unprecedented scare, rampant corruption and numerous
other problems, the authorities cannot afford to exacerbate existing
tensions. Recent crackdowns have been justified as necessary to "ensure
stability". Amnesty International believes that allowing people to air
their views and grievances without persecution is essential to stability.
Measures to "ensure stability" should be aimed at establishing credible
public participation, scrutiny and accountability not at curbing freedom of
expression and association.

Amnesty International's worldwide membership is deeply concerned at these
recent developments in China and is calling on EU and other governments to
reevaluate their approach and use all the means available to them to ensure
serious consideration of human rights in China.

Amnesty International has never been opposed to dialogue with China.  The
organization has for many years pursued any opportunity to raise its
concerns with relevant Chinese officials, as it does with  governments
worldwide.  On this basis, Amnesty International has itself been prepared
to participate in good faith in some dialogue sessions. However, the
organization has become progressively disenchanted with the process, with
the continuing lack of transparency and limits on participation, circular
argumentation, indications of a lack of serious intent, and fundamentally
the lack of concrete improvements in human rights.

A willingness on the part of Chinese officials to speak on a limited range
of human rights issues, behind closed doors, to a carefully vetted foreign
audience cannot be deemed progress when outside, Chinese citizens who
discuss similar issues, who attempt to provide UN mechanisms and foreign
observers with information on human rights violations, or who attempt to
organize around their concerns are increasingly being harassed and imprisoned.

Amnesty International believes human rights dialogue is a means to an end,
but is corrupted when it becomes an end in itself.  The value of dialogue
can only be measured in terms of concrete improvements for victims of human
rights violations.  As EU Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan himself warned in
February 1998, "a dialogue without results will soon run out of steam and
will not be acceptable to public opinion in Europe."

Amnesty International recognizes that engagement with China is a long term
process and that dialogue cannot be expected to produce major changes
overnight.  But the potential of dialogue to produce results over time will
be fatally compromised unless a line is drawn on fundamental issues from
the very beginning.

Dialogue relies for its very effectiveness on accompanying public pressure,
both bilaterally and through the UN's mechanisms. There is a grave risk
that EU and other governments are becoming captive to the dialogue process
in the face of Chinese pressure to remain silent on human rights in other
forums.  As Wang Guangya, the vice-minister of foreign affairs, warned in
January 1999, "any country which wishes to  resume the Geneva scenario
would certainly do damage not only to the bilateral relations but also to
the possibility of continuing the human rights dialogue".

It is not acceptable that bilateral co-operation programmes, opportunities
to discuss human rights and bilateral relations in general, are openly held
hostage to silence in relevant international human rights mechanisms.
Reducing human rights concerns to bargaining chips risks undermining the
credibility of the mechanisms themselves, with implications far wider than
China.

As the EU General Affairs Council (GAC) undertook in February 1998, "The EU
will continue, as required and including in the UN framework, to make
public concerns regarding the human rights situation in China".  At the
last Commission on Human Rights, the EU promised to keep the question of a
resolution on China "under close review in the light of progress in the
dialogue and developments on the ground..."

The time has now come to honour those commitments.  Amnesty International
calls on EU governments to:

protest recent developments in China publicly and unequivocally

take preparatory steps towards tabling a resolution at the forthcoming
Human Rights Commission highlighting concerns and the need for concrete
progress
evaluate the dialogue progress, with a view to
          setting concrete objectives and a time frame for their achievement
          improving public accountability and reporting on the content of
          dialogue sessions
          ensuring the format of dialogue allows for the greatest possible
          diversity of participation on both sides
          improving coordination with other dialogue partners (such as the US,
          Australia and Canada) to avoid duplication and maximize effect


Pierre Sane
Secretary General
Amnesty International



.


                             FEBRUARY 1999
     Arbitrary Detention

Since China signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) in October 1998 Amnesty International has monitored the detention
of over 70 political activists as well a concerned citizens previously
unknown to the organization. At least half are believed to be still be in
detention, most of the rest  had been  detained repeatedly during 1998.
Many were detained after taking their government's signature of the
convention at face value, exercising their right to freedom of association
by simply attempting to register organizations such as "China Labour
Monitor", "Chinese People's Civil Rights Organization", "Corrupt Behavior
Observers". They are being detained and new restrictive regulations have
been published governing the formation of "social organizations" whilst
Chinese government representatives in bilateral dialogues repeatedly assert
that their government highly value the role of non-government organizations.

Imprisonment for offences against national security

In one category alone - those identified as Chinese dissidents - Amnesty
International knows of at  least 28 prisoners of conscience and possible
prisoners of conscience who  have been sentenced since January 1998. They
either received long prison terms after unfair trials or were assigned
without trial to up to 3 years' re-education through labour. The majority
were prosecuted under revised national security offences in the 1997
Criminal Law, which the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention believes
have significantly increased the potential for the imprisonment of people
simply exercising fundamental rights. This legislation, and its
incompatibility with international standards has been a central concern in
several dialogues. In response, Chinese government representatives had
given assurances that the draconian provisions would not be used as
frequently as the Counter-Revolutionary crimes they replaced. Meanwhile EU
calls for a review of the cases of  nearly  2,000  prisoners convicted of
Counter-Revolutionary crimes which no longer exist in the law have been
consistently rebuffed.

Prominent dissidents Xu Wenli, Qin Yongmin and Wang Youcai, who had
attempted to register  the Chinese Democratic Party, were tried in December
in different cities and sentenced to prison terms of 13,12 and 11 years
respectively on charges of "plotting to subvert the state power". Only Xu
had a lawyer, appointed by the State. Wang's chosen lawyer was reportedly
detained several times to prevent him undertaking the defence, and Qin's
family was unable to hire a defence lawyer after lawyers in their  home
city of Wuhan were reportedly warned against defending him.

Several people were punished for "divulging state secrets" after providing
foreign media with information on human rights concerns. Labour activist
Zhang Shanguang was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in December 1998,
accused of "illegally providing information to overseas hostile
organizations and individuals" reportedly for speaking about farmers'
protests in his province in a Radio Free Asia interview.  Li Yi and Wu
Ruojie, a businessman and a rock singer from Guiyang, Guizhou province were
 accused of "divulging state secrets" when they informed foreign
journalists and friends outside China about the arrest of Wu's brother and
three other poets who had been planning to launch an independent literary
magazine. The pair were sentenced without charge or trial to three years
"re-education through labour".

In December 1998 a general crackdown on illegal publications was initiated
with several people jailed for up to seven years for printing and selling
books containing "serious political problems". Computer software
developers, artists, the media and publishing industries were warned that
endangering "social order" or attempting to "overthrow state power" could
be punished by life imprisonment. In January 1999 Lin Hai was sentenced to
two years' imprisonment for "inciting the subversion of state power" for
passing on E-mail addresses to an overseas Chinese E-mail news network.

Disregard for criminal procedures

In several of the  high profile prosecutions of prisoners of conscience in
1998, the authorities blatantly disregarded  provisions in the 1996 revised
Criminal Procedure Law which provide for  greater access to legal
representation, notification of relatives and public trial. These
provisions had been welcomed internationally as positive steps towards
enhancing protection for defendants.  For example, in April 1998 Turgan
Tay, a 27 year-old Uighur businessman from Gulja (Yining), XUAR, was
reportedly sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for involvement in "illegal"
religious activities. His trial was reportedly held in secret with no
lawyer or relative present.

Targeting of those who attempt to contact human rights monitors

Not one of the dialogue  or other high profile diplomatic visits in 1998
were given unimpeded access to the full range of public opinion in China.
High profile dissidents were routinely detained, moved or placed under
house arrest or surveillance for the duration of such visits. Those Chinese
citizens who attempted unauthorized contact suffered serious consequences.
Chu Hailan, wife of dissident Liu Nianchun was detained and beaten up when
she attempted to meet UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Mary Robinson,
in Beijing. Two Tibetan monks, Kyonmed and Samdrul, have  reportedly been
detained since December on suspicion of involvement in preparing a letter
for presentation to Mary Robinson during her  visit to Tibet. Prisoners
have also faced severe reprisals for protests timed around visits by
international delegations, for example during the UN Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention's visit to Drapchi Prison in October 1997 and around
the time of the visit of the EU Troika representatives to the same prison
in Early May 1998.

The death penalty

The death penalty continues to be used extensively for a wide range of
crimes including non violent and economic offences. National statistics on
the use of the death penalty remain a state secret.

Most recently, publicity has been given to the resumption of executions for
"organizing prostitution" or "pimping"  in Beijing and Hangzhou, where
elsewhere in China police are themselves  authorized to collect tax from
"escort ladies". Reportedly following calls for a stronger anti-corruption
crackdown from Zhu Rongji, executions for corruption cases resumed in 1999,
reversing a 1998 trend towards  greater use of suspended death sentences
for these crimes. In Xinjiang, political prisoners are being  sentenced to
death.

Torture

As part of the 1998 anti-corruption campaign, reports of prosecutions of
the police for torture featured heavily in some local newspapers. However
in December 1998, some of the most active investigative  newspapers, such
as Southern Weekend, were reportedly ordered to stop their exposes and
concentrate on good news for the Party.

In cases of torture reported by unofficial sources, perpetrators are seldom
brought to justice. Allegations do not appear to be properly investigated.
Several prisoners of conscience died in custody in 1998 in suspicious
circumstances following allegations of torture and ill-treatment. All these
deaths were officially passed off  as "suicide" once they were brought to
international attention.