Flying Yangban

Freedom House: Chinese methods of media control

In what looks like will be a regular feature here at Flying Yangban, I am passing on a press releases on east-Asian issues from Freedom House.  This one deals with the methods that the state uses to repress freedom of the press.

(Release in black)

Freedom House: New Report Details China Censorship Mechanisms

Repressive Model Relies on Elaborate Instruments of Control

February 9, 2006 – Freedom House today released a special report that pinpoints the previously unknown mechanisms used by the Chinese authorities to muzzle its media.

The report, “Speak No Evil: Mass Media Control in Contemporary China,” (pdf file) presents a detailed account of the elaborate means by which the Chinese government successfully limits freedom of speech. It reveals how a system of control that originated under classic totalitarian conditions is being adjusted, refined and modernized to meet the current needs of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) leadership. The report is available on Freedom House’s website.

The report, authored by Dr. Ashley Esarey, a professor at Middlebury College and an expert on Chinese media, is especially timely in light of a series of recent repressive measures taken by the regime to rein in journalists, news researchers and content on the Internet.

“Beijing’s control of the Internet has been in the news lately, but it represents just one facet of an intricate system of restrictions on the free circulation of ideas in China,” said Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Freedom House. “The Chinese government is hoping to enjoy the benefits of the global economy without jeopardizing its political control.”

State control over the news media in China is achieved through a complex combination of party monitoring of news content, legal restrictions on journalists, and financial incentives for self-censorship.

The report explains how senior media managers appointed by the CCP are responsible for the news content of the media organizations they oversee -- and how they are expected to censor content deemed unfavorable or divisive. These media managers’ career prospects depend on their effectiveness in producing media content that is both attractive to consumers and politically uncontroversial. Managers, editors and journalists’ salaries are determined in large part by the nature of the news they produce.

“What is particularly insidious about this model of control is its adaptability and its recognition of the modern market,” said Christopher Walker, Director of Studies at Freedom House. “The old system of control relied primarily on repression and direct censorship. The new Beijing model relies on carrots and sticks and increasingly on self-censorship”.

The report details, among other tools of control, the use of “propaganda circulars,” documents produced and disseminated by the CCP that contain specific instructions for the media nationwide. The primary function of these circulars is to identify stories that should not appear in news reports and provide guidance for treatment of certain sensitive stories.

The report also points out that the government’s control of the media may loosen with time. Creeping privatization through state subcontracting of private media enterprises may continue, and competition between local and national state-owned media organizations could encourage stories on a wider range of topics of interest to consumers. Most important, an increasing availability of information from abroad not subject to the elaborate system of state control, such as from the Internet and foreign media outlets, will remain a major challenge to the government.

In its 2005 survey of press freedom, Freedom House rated China as having a "Not Free" environment for the media, ranking it in 177th place out of a total of 194 countries. Freedom House also ranked China as "Not Free" in its most recent annual survey of political and civil rights, Freedom in the World.

Additional information about China is available online at:

Freedom of the Press 2005: China

Freedom in the World 2005: China

'FREEDOM HOUSE CONDEMNS LATEST ACT OF MEDIA REPRESSION IN CHINA'

During the course of my work on the Seoul Summit for Human Rights in North Korea last December, I must have gotten on Freedom House's media list.  Here is a release from them (in Black):

Freedom House today expressed its serious concern over the Chinese authorities’ closure on January 24, 2006, of the influential weekly newspaper, “Freezing Point” [“Bing Dian”], which often covered sensitive social and political issues. The Chinese government’s crackdown on the publication is part of a larger pattern of media repression that has escalated over the last two years.

The closure came as the online search engine Google announced it had agreed to self-censor in exchange for greater access to the world’s fastest-growing Internet market. Under an arrangement with the Chinese authorities, Google will be able to provide a China-based search service. It will not, however, offer email and blogging services to Chinese customers due to the risk of being ordered to provide users’ personal information to the Chinese government.

Freedom House executive director Jennifer Windsor said, “The Chinese government’s closure of Freezing Point is the most recent illustration of the commitment by the Chinese Communist Party to smother free expression.”

“Equally troubling is the reality that western firms are effectively facilitating censorship in China and jeopardizing the welfare of journalists,” Windsor added. “Fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, should not be negotiated away in return for market access. Western businesses have a leadership role to play in encouraging best business practices in local markets, including in the information sector.”

Recent examples of media suppression in China include the cases of:

• Ching Cheong, a Hong Kong-based correspondent for The Straits Times, who was detained in April 2005 on suspicion of harming state security by working for Taiwan as a spy;

• New York Times researcher Zhao Yan, who was imprisoned in an investigation concerning the alleged leaking of state secrets regarding former President Jiang Zemin’s resignation from one of the former president’s high government posts, the Military Affairs Commission.

• Shi Tao, a reporter for Contemporary Business News in Hunanprovince, was arrested for violating state secrets laws, after emailing a one-page document to the New York-based website, Democracy Forum. Online search engine Yahoo, which claims it was legally compelled by the authorities to provide the information, helped the Chinese government trace Shi Tao. In April 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in prison.

Ching Cheong and Zhao Yan remain in custody and are expected to receive prison sentences next month. These cases and others like them add up to a media environment that is highly capricious and dangerous for independent-minded journalists.

Freezing Point was accused by the authorities of “viciously attacking the socialist system” by publishing a story that criticized history textbooks used in secondary schools.

The action against Freezing Point comes less than a month after the authorities’ firing of the editor of Beijing News, another publication known for reporting on sensitive subjects.

Freedom House will be releasing a report on Chinese control of the mass media next month.

In its 2005 survey of press freedom, Freedom House rated China as having a “Not Free” environment for the media, ranking it in 177th place out of a total of 194 countries and territories worldwide. Major concerns cited in the report include legal restrictions; overt censorship by authorities of all forms of media, including the Internet; self-censorship on the part of journalists; and the highest number of imprisoned journalists in the world.

Freedom House also ranked China as “Not Free” in its annual survey of political and civil rights, Freedom in the World. The survey gave China a score of seven for political rights and a six for civil liberties. The lowest score possible in both categories is a seven.

Freedom House, an independent non-governmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world, has monitored political rights and civil liberties in China since 1972 and press freedoms in China since 1980.

Additional information about China is available online at:

Freedom of the Press 2005: China

Freedom in the World 2005: China

Historical memories limit China’s influence on North Korea

(This is a post that was rejected by Tech Central Station.  I figured I'd at least let it see the light of day.)

With the Six Party talks about to restart, the world’s attention returns to Beijing.  From the beginning of the Six Party process, the Bush Administration has emphasized a leading Chinese role in the hope that they would be able to use their influence over Pyongyang to help make a lasting and verifiable denuclearization agreement.

But North Korea’s historical memory of Chinese domination and how that memory affects North Korean policy and ideology puts limits on China’s “soft power” with Pyongyang. Koreans have had to deal with invasions or domination from China since at least 108 BC, when Chinese forces invaded and established military colonies in Korean lands.  Understanding those memories would help the administration better know what China can and cannot accomplish in the negotiations.

North Korean mythology is most closely connected with Goguryeo, the northernmost of Korea’s ancient three kingdoms, which occupied the northern half of the Korean peninsula and most of modern Manchuria.  The greatest hero of Goguryeo was Ulji Mundeok, who defeated Chinese invaders in 612.  When a 300,000-man detachment from a much larger Chinese force crossed the Yalu River, Ulchi retreated down to near present day Pyeongyang.  With the Chinese exhausted and their supply lines stretched to the breaking point, Ulchi counter attacked and decimated the invaders (a strategy to repeated by Mathew Ridgeway in the Korean War).  In 667 the Tang Chinese cooperated with the southern Korean kingdom of Shilla to destroy Goguryeo.  Korea never recovered the lands it lost north of the Yalu as a result of that invasion. 

During the Joseon period (1392-1910) Korea became a tributary state of Ming, then Qing China.  While that acquiescence to Chinese overlordship and integration into the tributary system provided Korea with access to Chinese goods and technology, it also embroiled Korea in two disastrous wars (with the Japanese in 1592 and the Manchus in 1636) while maintaining Seoul’s subservience to Beijing.

It is with Korea’s history of invasion and subservience to China at least partially in mind that Kim Il-sung developed his ideology of Juche (self-reliance) after the Korean War.  One of its central tenants was economic and political independence from all foreign powers, including its allies.  While Juche was an unmitigated economic failure, it provided North Korea with an ideological foundation for limiting Soviet and (especially) Chinese influence on Pyongyang.

North Korean mistrust of the Chinese influenced their actions even when faced with defeat during the Korea War.  In a 1995 article (translated for the Cold War International History Project) Chinese scholar Shen Zhihua discussed relations between North Korea and China during the war.  Despite giving the appearance of being as close as ‘lips and teeth, ’ the North Koreans refused Chinese offers of intervention in the first few months of the war and resisted Chinese leadership of the war effort after they did intervene:

Two factors led the North Korean leaders initially to refuse direct military assistance from China.  The first was Kim's excessive confidence in his estimates of the military situation.  The second was the long history of Chinese intervention in Korean affairs, which gave North Korean leaders cause for alarm.  For these two reasons, Kim preferred to depend on Soviet aid and avoid having Chinese intervene in the war.  Even after Chinese troops entered the war, these two issues would continue to strain Sino-Korean relations (emphasis mine).

While China and North Korea have remained allies since the war, by all appearances it is a marriage of convenience rather than love.

North Korean attempts to limit Chinese influence even extend to how they write.   Centuries of Chinese influence have left a strong imprint on the languages of the region in the form of loan words and writing.  Today, Japan and South Korea still make extensive use of Chinese characters in their writing.  However, the North Koreans have eliminated Chinese characters entirely and rely completely on Korea’s native Hangeul writing system.

So China has considerably less influence over the North Koreans than is generally believed.  The Chinese are also highly unlikely to cut off aid to North Korea since they fear instability on their border if they did so.  That leaves the use of their good offices and cajoling the North Koreans as the only arrows in their diplomatic quiver.

While bringing China on board is an important part of finding a solution to the North Korean nuclear issue, the Bush Administration must recognize that the Washington and (to a lesser extent) Seoul have more influence than Beijing over North Korea’s actions. The current round of talks was suspended after the Chinese failed to convince the North Koreans to sign a Chinese-drafted text that five of the six parties agreed to.  Recognizing the uses and limits of Chinese influence on North Korea will help insure that the Six Party process does not break down again.

How Chinese domination of the Choseon dynasty changed the course of the Korean war

A complaint

Last week I did a post on an attempt by a group called VANK to change a description of Korea in a British museum.  Their complaint was that, while the Choseon dynasty was a vassal of Korea, the description could lead people to believe that Korea was always a vassal of china, including during the Three Kingdoms, Unified Shilla and Koryo periods.  I said that they had a point and thought that the description should be changed to reflect the fact that Korea was not always a vassal of China.

While a couple of guys commented that the VANKers were being wankers about this, the most interest comment went the other way.  It read in part:

The relationship between China and Korea is drastically damaged when we boil it down to whether Korea was "independant" or a "vassal" state. Korea - the government and society - benefited much from its relationship with China even though it eventually led in part to the weakness Korea found itself in during the 19th century when the industrial world's geopolitical ideas took over the weaker East Asia idea of the Middle Kingdom....

It hurts more than it helps to look at geopolitical situations by trying to make a definitive statement about whether country X was "truly independent" or a "vassal state" or similar argument.

My reply

When I said that the Choseon dynasty was a vassal of China, I wasn't making anything up.  I said that Choseon was a vassal of China because Choseon was a vassal of China.

Tribute to Beijing?  Check.

King of Korea prostrating himself before the emperor's messenger?  Check.  (BTW, the writer of this piece states that China's relationship with its Korean vassal was usually one of benign neglect until the 19th century.)

So, why didn't I just handle this in the comment section?  Because I came across an item recently which demonstrated a direct relationship between Chinese domination of the Choseon dynasty and the course of the Korean war.  In fact North Korean fear of Chinese domination may have cost them victory in the summer of 1950.

As Paul Harvey used to say, now for the rest of the story.

Where is VANK when you need them? (Chinese try to slip one in on Koguryo)

While I was doing some research this morning, I came across this article: China's ancient Koguryo Kingdom site added to World Heritage List.  The article included gems like:

The site of capital cities and tombs of the ancient Koguryo Kingdom of China has been inscribed into the World Heritage List, sources close to the ongoing 28th session of the World Heritage Committee said Thursday in Suzhou.

And:

Wei Cuncheng, a professor of the Jilin University and expert on Koguryo issue, said, "Koguryo was a regime established by ethnic groups in northern China some 2,000 years ago, representing an important part of Chinese culture."

Wei here gives a classic example of being disingenuous without actually lying.  Yes, Koguryo was established by ethnic groups (NOTE: so was China, France, America and most other nations in the world).  Of course, Wei fails to mention that the dominant ethnic group was Korean.  Also, Goguryeo was an important part of Chinese culture.  After General Ulji Mundeok (pictured right) handed the Chinese their butts in 612, the Sui dynasty fell.  I would say that was a major influence on Chinese culture.

Normally, I would just brush off the article as typical Chinese posturing.  But this piece was at About, a web site used by many Americans to get information about, well, almost everything.  Perhaps the folks at VANK should worry less about British museums and start countering Chinese claims in the Internet.

The Chinese are goons. Is this news?

I guess I should jump on the soap box about the latest bit of Chinese arrogance but its really hard to.

Yeah, they were jerks to shut down a news conference being conducted by an official guest to their country but does anyone really expect better of them.

The only thing that surprises me is that anyone is surprised by it.

June 4, 1989: Tiananmen Square Massacre

When shown the image above, most people would recognize it as from the the date of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. However, many of us have forgotten about it.

On the late evening of June 3 fifteen years ago, the Chinese government order tanks to roll into Tiananmen Square to attack pro-democracy protesters would have held the square for several weeks. By early morning of the next day, hundreds or thousands of students and their supporters lay dead. Here is a brief report by the BBC:

Several hundred civilians have been shot dead by the Chinese army during a bloody military operation to crush a democratic uprising in Peking's (Beijing) Tiananmen Square.
Tanks rumbled through the capital's streets late on 3 June as the army moved into the square from several directions, randomly firing on unarmed protesters.

The injured were rushed to hospital on bicycle rickshaws by frantic residents shocked by the army's sudden and extreme response to the peaceful mass protest.

Demonstrators, mainly students, had occupied the square for seven weeks, refusing to move until their demands for democratic reform were met.

The military offensive came after several failed attempts to persuade the protesters to leave. Throughout Saturday the government warned it would do whatever it saw necessary to clamp down on what it described as "social chaos".

But even though violence was expected, the ferocity of the attack took many by surprise, bringing condemnation from around the world.

US President George Bush said he deeply deplored the use of force, and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said she was "shocked and appalled by the shootings".

Amid the panic and confusion students could be heard shouting "fascists stop killing," and "down with the government".

At a nearby children's hospital operating theatres were filled with casualties with gunshot wounds, many of them local residents who were not taking part in the protests.

Early this morning at least 30 more were killed in two volleys of gunfire, which came without warning. Terrified crowds fled, leaving bodies in the road.

Meanwhile reports have emerged of troops searching the main Peking university campus for ringleaders, beating and killing those they suspect of co-ordinating the protests.

I should note here that most of the killing took place on the streets around the square as soldiers killed people trying to protect the students. There was comparatively little violence used in the capture of the square itself.

Pictures taken from here and here. You can find more pictures here.

Considering the similarities between the Tianamen Square and Gwangju Massacres, you would think that Korean students would show some solidarity with their Chinese counterparts.

You would think.

Bits and pieces and more bits and pieces

OK, I haven't done a link fest in a while, you y'all will have to endure this one:

Now, somebody, anybody please tell me that the picture on the left is not of 15-year-old Michelle Wie (Chosun Ilbo pic). That picture was taken after she won the Laureus Newcomer Award in Lisbon, Portugal.

Will the last Underwood out of Korea please turn off the lights?
The Chosun Ilbo reports that Horace H. Underwood will be moving to the United States soon. The Underwood family has been serving Korea for four generations since 1885. The first Underwood, Horace G., founded Yonsei University and Korea's Presbyterian church. The family has literally shed blood for Korea: The wife of Horace Horton (the second Underwood) was killed by dirty commies in 1949.

A question for both of my loyal readers
Should I join The Marmot's evil plot to finally complete his conquest of the Korea Bloggeristas?

Warning! The Infidel might fold his blog again!
In a mysteriously related note, The Infidel is thinking about shutting his new blog down. Now, I personally like having his maximum lobes in K-bloggerland. So go check out some of his stuff and then let him know what you think.

I especially like his stuff on China (well, most of the time).

It's good to see that Koreans can stand up to the Chinese sometimes.
Check out this from Yonhap:

South Korea's coast guard seized two Chinese fishing boats in separate locations Tuesday for illegally entering the country's territorial waters.

The two boats were operating inside the country's Exclusive Economic Zone in the central and southern areas of the Yellow Sea, the body of water between China and the Korean Peninsula, maritime police officers said.

Tough enough. However, please note that they did not call it the "West Sea."

Chinese Imperialism site of the day: East Turkistan Information Center

I've gotten bored with the Norks. Yeah, there is some news about those guys who went to Norklandia but it was so useless that I won't even link to it.... Oh heck, here's a link.

Anyway, I want to talk about another aspect of Chinese imperialism. I've already talked about Taiwan, Korea and hinted at Tibet (BTW, It Makes a Difference to the Sheep has a much better post about China and Korea).

Now, I want to talk about.....
East Turkistan

More specifically, I want to share a link to the East Turkistan Information Center.

The site has sections on Uyghur (the name of the people of East Turkistan) history, human rights and even coverage of the East Turkistan National Congress.

So, if we hear so much about Tibet, why not East Turkistan? I have a guess. Uyghurs are mostly Muslim, which means that they are not nearly as cuddly as Tibet's Buddhists in the minds of westerners: That, and the fact that the Chinese can claim with some legitimacy that at least some Uyghur independence fighters are terrorists or support terrorists. In that accusation, the Chinese have at least some support from the USA:

The US may have decided to back Beijing's original call for action against ETIM (Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement) partly as a way of repaying China's support for its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to some observers. At the same time, they say, Washington seems to have agreed to overlook Chinese human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

So, baring major instability in Beijing, it looks like the Chinese are in East Turkistan for the long haul.

Chinese suzerainty over Korea in the late 19th century

I'm currently reading The Clash: U.S.-Japanese Relations Throughout History by Walter LaFeber. I've just gotten to the part which briefly goes over the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-95. That combined with some history pieces at the Marmot's Hole (on some Koreans who sold out to the Japanese) and Budaechigae (on Queen Min) got me hyped about doing my own digging.

First, here is a very brief history of the war:

1894–95, conflict between China and Japan for control of Korea in the late 19th cent. The Li-lto Convention of 1885 provided for mutual troop withdrawals and advance notification of any new troop movements into Korea. Accordingly, when a Korean revolt erupted in 1894, both countries sent troops. However, after the insurrection had been suppressed, Japan refused to withdraw its troops and induced the Korean court to abrogate its agreement with China. The fighting that ensued between Chinese and Japanese forces ended with an easy victory for the more modern Japanese army.

I just want to go over that first sentence again: 1894–95, conflict between China and Japan for control of Korea in the late 19th cent. Japan's colonization of Korea is relatively well known but China's own imperialistic relationship with the Chosun Dynasty is much less well-known and generally swept under the rug by Chinese nationalists who insist that there was no such thing as Chinese imperialism.

Another sign of the relationship between China and Korea is indicated in Michael Breen's book, The Koreans. Breen states:

In 1873, the Tanwon-gun [regent] was retired and King Kojong began to face the inevitable question of how to deal with the outside world. Japan pressured the throne into signing its first modern treaty, one which cleverly identified Korea and Japan as independent states, thereby undermining Chinese claims over Korea. (page 99)

Of course, such a declaration would hardly be necessary if China did not excercise suzerainty over Korea. The treaty between the Japan and Korea was hardly equal, however and Japan eventually colonized Korea.

Korean scholars also acknowledge Chinese influence over Korea. Check out these two blurbs from an article by Kim Young-Sik, at the Association for Asia Research web page. The first demonstrates Korea's protectorate status with China:

The Chosun court archives (kojong silrok) show that in 1855 and also in 1865, a number of shipwrecked American sailors were picked up on the Korean shores. They were fed and treated well by the Korean populace, and then sent to China for repatriation to the United States. In those years, Korea sealed itself in ("Hermit Kingdom") and let China handle Korea's foreign affairs.

However, by the time Korea and the United States signed a friendship treaty, Chinese influence over Korea had lessened considerably:

It should be noted that Commodore Shufeldt rejected the Chinese request to incorporate Chinese suzerainty over Korea in the treaty, and he made it clear that the United States recognized Korea as an independent nation.

So it seems pretty clear to me that China exercised suzerainty over Korea until the later was opened up (and later colonized) by Japan. Interestingly enough, that is a similar relationship that China had with Tibet until 1949 and we can all see the relationship between those two nations today.

(UPDATE: Go on to the comments section. It has some good stuff.)