Censorship in China – Congressional Testimony

On February 1, 2006, Amnesty International USA presented testimony before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus of the United States Congress on the subject of human rights and the internet in China.

Below is the summary and recommendations from the testimony:

Despite AI’s reporting on the issue of Internet censorship and related human rights abuses since 1999, the Chinese Government’s determination to crack down on peaceful Internet users seems only to have grown. This trend is disturbing but not surprising, given the Chinese Government’s widely acknowledged practice of silencing political dissidents and others who express their views peacefully.

What is new about recently reported abuses is the willingness of U.S.-based companies to join hands with the Chinese Government in aiding such practices.

What does censorship look like in China?

There is a tendency in public discourse to sanitize the issue of freedom of expression and access to information in China, creating the perception that it is simply about not having access to a few controversial websites. This is far from the reality. In China, individuals can be sentenced to death for publishing information on the Internet that the government considers a “state secret” – the definition of “state secret” can change on a daily basis, and can include important public health information (for instance on SARS or HIV/AIDS) or simply an opinion about a labor dispute. Scores of people have been imprisoned in China for using the Internet, and, of those arrested, some have died as a result of torture by the police. Those detained to date range from political activists and writers to Falun Gong practitioners and members of other religious groups banned by the authorities.

Individuals who are active on the Internet, and who challenge the government, can experience continuous harassment. Such harassment includes but is not limited to temporary detention, threats to one’s family, business or career, and being followed and intimidated by the police.

Internet companies’ assistance to the Chinese Government

Several international companies provide Internet services in China and many have headquarters within the United States. Some of these companies, including Cisco Systems (CSCO) and Sun Microsystems (SUNW), have helped to build the infrastructure that makes Internet censorship possible while others, including Yahoo! (YHOO), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google (GOOG) are increasingly complying with government demands to actively censor Chinese users by limiting the information they can access.

In the most egregious case that we know of, Yahoo! (YHOO) sacrificed the privacy of one of its users to facilitate his subsequent imprisonment for peacefully expressing opinions over the Internet. These companies not only put profits above principle but also willingly ignore international human rights standards. Amnesty International is concerned that, in the pursuit of new and lucrative markets, these IT companies are contributing to human rights violations. Unless a strong action is taken by the U.S. Government and the Congress, this type of practice will not only increase but is likely to move into other areas, which will lead to disastrous impacts on the well-being of the Chinese people and significant risks for U.S. companies operating overseas.

Yahoo! (YHOO) denies U.S. Family access to deceased Marine’s emails

While American IT companies seem to be falling over each other to help the Chinese Government in censoring its citizens, here in the United States, Yahoo! (YHOO) denied a family access to their deceased son’s email, citing privacy concerns. Their son was Justin Ellsworth, a 20-year old Marine killed in November by a roadside bomb while assisting civilian evacuations before a large-scale military offensive against insurgents in the city, said a report in the Detroit Free Press. But when Ellsworth’s father John tried to recover his son’s email account, he was barred due to Yahoo!’s seemingly unflinching policy of not giving personal user information to anyone besides the account holder. Apparently, this policy is only circumvented when the request comes from one of the world’s most repressive governments, with the goal of stifling free speech.

Double standards at home and abroad

There is a tendency in the international business community to deal with the Chinese Government on the basis of a different set of standards. The above mentioned John Ellsworth’s case is only one example. Human rights obligations apply to all states equally. Furthermore, nuanced interpretations of international standards on censorship are well documented, including by Amnesty International. This problem extends well beyond the IT sector. Nonetheless, this sector raises particularly troubling concerns, considering how lightly Internet technologies are regulated. When faced with the prospect of challenging the Chinese Government on their repressive practices, companies often claim that the Government is simply too powerful and that they have no alternatives but to comply with their requests, even those that run counter to international human rights norms, the company’s mission or standards, U.S. law, or even China’s own constitution. If U.S.-based IT companies are to do business in China (or anywhere else), they ought to apply their business standards universally. Another argument we often hear is that the Chinese Government will eventually ease its censorship, and that U.S. companies need to be poised for this imminent change. But there is absolutely no evidence that this is likely to happen. In fact, there is significantly more evidence to the contrary. Though our IT companies like to pretend that there is no stopping the swift march of information in China, we should not underestimate the state machinery of repression so deeply embedded in China’s infrastructure. The Chinese Government’s investments in Internet controls appear to be keeping pace with technological developments, and for companies to claim that such control is not sustainable for the Chinese is both naïve and dangerous. If we permit American companies to give in to the Chinese on censorship, their infrastructure for control only becomes more powerful. To ensure that this does not happen, we recommend the development of U.S. legislation regulating U.S. companies overseas, and other companies publicly traded on U.S. stock exchanges (which would include Baidu (BIDU), the primary Chinese competitor), prohibiting them from complying with violations of freedom of expression and freedom of information by repressive regimes.

Until the time that such regulations are instituted, in situations where companies claim exemption from international standards in order to do business in an emerging economy, those companies should be required to justify their presence in the country and disclose their double standards, while working in a multi-stakeholder process to develop and advance improved standards. As reported widely in the U.S. press on January 31, 2006, Microsoft has publicly stated their hope for the arrival of “a broad set of principles for (the) full range of Internet technology.” We support this recommendation and would expect the process to be open and transparent, including participation by NGOs as well as companies and government, and that it would provide not only principles, but explicit guidelines for implementation and evaluation.

The myth of “net positive” impact

IT companies often point to the “net contribution” that their company’s presence has had on the proliferation of freedom of expression and information in China. While the Internet has undoubtedly increased access to these freedoms generally, there is no evidence we have seen to demonstrate that the presence of U.S.-based IT companies has accomplished any more for the Chinese people than state companies such as Baidu (BIDU), the leading provider of internet technology in China. If every company operating in China is complying with the same standards of repression, it is hard to understand how using a different company’s search page to find the exact same limited information provides any added benefits to Chinese users. What is clear is that it provides added benefits to the U.S. company, in terms of profits.

Despite their claims, it appears that these U.S. companies are not very concerned about promoting the welfare of Chinese citizens. Take the recent announcements, first by Google (GOOG) and then by Microsoft (MSFT), that they would provide some disclosure to their users about the fact that their content had been censored “according to local laws and regulations.” As reported in The New York Times on February 1, this new policy would not have prevented the censoring of the Chinese blogger, Zhao Jing. So what is the net benefit of this policy to the Chinese people? They still cannot access information, and they do not learn anything specific about the nature of the censorship, such as which sources were blocked, for what specific aspect of the law. One thing the companies claim is true: each time the disclosure pops up the Chinese users receive a reminder that their government is the primary agent of that censorship (a reminder they probably don’t need). But the message they receive even more clearly is that now America’s most prominent IT companies are partners in that repression, and that they find it acceptable. This is a huge blow for human rights, and for the perception of American values abroad.

We are dismayed that these companies would claim the ethical high ground for a decision that appears to be purely financial. In order for the Internet to fulfill its role as a tool of democratization, a “liberating technology” as Bill Gates referred to it at Davos, companies must UNIVERSALLY ensure freedom of expression is protected and access to information is not suppressed. Where companies cannot, the burden of evidence should be on them to demonstrate the net positive impact of their presence, if such an impact truly exists.

Examples of U.S. IT Companies Aiding Human Rights Abuses

In November 2002, in the report State control of the Internet in China, AI cited several U.S. companies – including Cisco Systems (CSCO), Microsoft (MSFT), and Sun Microsystems (SUNW) - which had reportedly provided technology used to censor and control the use of the Internet in China. In January 2004 Amnesty released an updated report, Controls tighten as Internet activism grows, which indicated that there was a dramatic rise in the number of people detained or sentenced for Internet-related offences, an increase of 60 per cent in 2003 as compared to the previous year's figures. In addition, an unknown number of people remained in detention for disseminating information about the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) over the Internet. Additionally:

Yahoo! (YHOO)

Also of grave concern are the allegations that Yahoo! (YHOO) has cooperated with Chinese authorities in events which led to the detention of Shi Tao, a Chinese journalist. This case is particularly disturbing because the company provided specific information about an individual user. Linking email to a specific user is information only Yahoo! (YHOO) would have access to, and, seeing as such information was not demanded by a court order, it appears that its release was the result of nothing more than a political demand. Mr. Shi was imprisoned solely for the legitimate exercise of his right to seek, receive and impart information, as guaranteed under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which China has signed but not ratified. According to the court transcript of the Changsha Intermediate People’s Court of Hunan Province Criminal Verdict, evidence presented by the prosecutor that led to the sentencing of Mr. Shi included account-holder information provided by Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd. Yahoo! (YHOO) has admitted that their subsidiary provided this evidence by correcting the record to state that the information was provided not directly by Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd. but by Yahoo! China, which is held by Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd. On April 27, 2005, Mr. Shi received a ten-year prison term for sending information about a Communist Party decision through his Yahoo! (YHOO) email account to a website based in the United States. Mr. Shi’s appeal was denied on June 2, 2005.

Microsoft (MSFT)

According to recent reports, Microsoft’s search engine MSN blocks searches under certain key words, including “democracy”, “freedom”, “human rights”, Falun Gong”, “June 4”, and “demonstration”, among others. In China, users of the product Microsoft Spaces are also prohibited from using these and other words on weblogs they create. As a result, websites and webpages dealing with human rights, including those of Amnesty International and other human rights organizations, are inaccessible to internet users in China. In January 2006, stories surfaced that Microsoft (MSFT) had cooperated with Chinese authorities in shutting down a controversial blog.

Google (GOOG)

Most recently, Google (GOOG) launched a self-censoring Chinese search engine - the latest in a string of examples concerning global Internet companies caving-in to pressure from the Chinese government. The service curtails the rights of Chinese Internet users to the freedom of expression and freedom of information enjoyed in other countries. Amnesty International’s Secretary General, Irene Khan, released a statement from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, saying:
"While acknowledging that Google has taken a number of steps to ensure access of Chinese users to the Internet, Amnesty International is nonetheless dismayed at the growing global trend in the IT industry.
"Whether succumbing to demands from Chinese officials or anticipating government concerns, companies that impose restrictions that infringe on human rights are being extremely short-sighted. The agreements the industry enters into with the Chinese government, whether tacit or written, go against the IT industry’s claim that it promotes the right to freedom of information of all people, at all times, everywhere.”

Our Communications with the Internet Companies:

We have communicated with several IT companies about our concerns, including those named above. So far we have not received any substantive responses from these companies that address our concerns. In many cases these are the same companies that have refused the invitation to attend today’s testimony. We are shocked by their willingness on the one hand to collude with the repressive practices of the Chinese Government, and unwillingness to stand accountable in front of the democratic government of their home country.

Recommendations:

We feel strongly that the willing submission of U.S. companies to Chinese practices of censorship and related human rights abuses in China presents a challenge which must be faced head on and fast by companies, the U.S. Government and the Chinese Government, in close consultation with NGOs such as Amnesty International.

Amnesty International urges President Bush to:
  • Make his position clear on the internet companies’ involvement in colluding with the Chinese Government in the Chinese Government’s abuse of its citizens. The President should make a public statement condemning China’s behavior and the cooperation of IT companies.
  • To publicly raise US concern about the crackdown on Internet users in China, during his meeting with the Chinese President Hu’s State visit to the Unites States in April.
  • Get a commitment from President Hu on specific benchmarks to improve human rights in China, in the run-up to the Olympics in 2008.
Amnesty International urges Secretary Rice to:
  • Make public any assistance the United States Embassy in China offered to IT companies in promoting their businesses in China.
  • Make public any issues that were raised with the IT companies about their complicity with the Chinese Government in abusing Chinese citizens’ human rights.
  • Make public any interventions made with the Chinese Government about these abuses.
  • Support an industry-wide voluntary initiative for the IT sector, to develop global standards on human rights. The process should be open and transparent and include stakeholders from business, governments and NGOs, and should lead to not only a set of principles, but explicit guidelines for implementation and evaluation.
Amnesty International calls on the Congress to:
  • Initiate a study to fully examine U.S.-based multinational Internet technology corporations’ activities overseas.
  • Pass legislation regulating U.S. Internet technology companies operating overseas, and other companies publicly traded on U.S. stock exchanges (which would include Baidu (BIDU), the primary Chinese competitor), requiring them to report on their participation in government-ordered filtering/censorship wherever they operate and prohibiting them from complying with violations of freedom of expression and information by repressive regimes.
  • Contact Yahoo! (YHOO) directly, inquiring about the Shi Tao case and Yahoo!’s complicity with China’s brutal repression of peaceful political speech.
Amnesty International calls on U.S. companies to:
  • Use their contacts and influence with the Chinese authorities to bring an end to restrictions on freedom of expression and information on the Internet and to urge the release of Shi Tao and all those detained for Internet-related offenses in violation of their fundamental human rights.
  • Take immediate steps to ensure that all their units – the parent corporation and subsidiaries – stop any actions that could undermine human rights in any country in which they operate, and uphold human rights responsibilities for companies as outlined by the UN Norms for Business.
  • Develop an explicit human rights policy, ensuring that it complies with the UN Norms for Business.
  • Participate in an industry-wide multi-stakeholder process to develop global principles on IT and human rights, which is open and transparent and includes NGO representatives, and that leads not only to a set of principles, but explicit guidelines for implementation and evaluation.
  • Disclose any and all information about filtering/censorship occurring around the world.
Amnesty International calls on the Chinese Government to:
  • Allow freedom of expression, including on the Internet.
  • Release Shi Tao and other Internet dissidents immediately and unconditionally.
  • Set a time table to improve human rights in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics in 2008.

Download the full testimony.