Passports and visas are a weapon the Chinese regime uses to control Chinese citizens and foreigners.
The renowned artist and activist Ai Weiwei was detained this past Sunday and is under police custody. His arrest didn’t surprise me since so many human rights lawyers and activists have recently been abducted.
According to the Hong Kong-based China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, more than 30 activists have suffered what the U.N. calls “forced disappearance.” Eight of them are rights lawyers who were arrested in February after the first Jasmine Assembly—an effort in which activists, inspired by the Middle East’s Jasmine Revolutions, would gather in China’s big cities.
Actually, the first case, in which three lawyers—Teng Biao, Jiang Tianyong, and Tang Jitian—suffered forced disappearance at the hands of the police, was not about the Jasmine Assembly. The lawyers had tried to help the famous blind lawyer Chen Guangcheng.
What surprises me is the way Ai Weiwei was detained. Ai was detained at the Beijing Airport where he was about the take a flight to Hong Kong. China’s customs is well-known for having an alarm system that signals when a person’s name matches one of the names on its list.
However, Ai Weiwei’s situation is different. His home was searched three times by the police only a few days ago. The police had no reason to wait until he reached customs to take him away. The only explanation that I can think of is that doing so was very convenient for the police.
This is not the first time that the country’s entry-and-exit control system has been used as a convenient tool by different levels of Chinese authorities. Only last week, three cases were reported.
Several days ago, German journalist and sinologist Tilman Spengler was refused an entry visa by Chinese authorities when he was supposed to accompany German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle on a trip to Beijing, where the art exhibition Art of the Enlightenment was about to open.
The reason given was that Spengler was “not a friend of the Chinese people.” Well, the true reason probably is that he spoke at the awarding of the Hermann-Kesten Medal to Liu Xiaobo in September last year.
Two other cases involved the denial of exit to Chinese citizens. Liao Yiwu, the author of several books and a critic of the Chinese regime, was prohibited for “national security” reasons from traveling to the United States and Australia on March 28 for his new book. This is the 15th time out of 16 tries that his attempt at overseas travel has failed.
On April 1, Du Mai, the 18-year-old daughter of Wu Huaying, was intercepted at customs at Xiamen Airport when she was about to take a flight to Japan to study. The explanation was the same—“national security” reasons. Wu Huaying had visited the state appeal offices for nine years on behalf of her brother, who had been tortured into a false confession regarding an explosion. She was also sentenced to one year in prison for helping the mother of a rape and murder victim in Fujian Province.
When the regime started to use the entry-and-exit system as a weapon for punishing both Chinese citizens and foreigners is not clear. The first known large-scale list of those banned from entering China was made up of the students who escaped from China after the Tiananmen Massacre in 1989.
Those who sympathized with the 1989 democracy movement are also on the banned list. Perry Link, a professor at Princeton University and a China expert, was denied a visa many times for that reason.
Some of the political dissidents died in exile in their 70s and 80s. Among them are Liu Binyan, one of the most famous Chinese authors and journalists; Wang Ruowang, a writer and, in the words of the Dalai Lama, “freedom fighter”; and Lin Xiling, the “last Rightist.” They were not able to go back to their homeland because they refused to accept the conditions imposed by the regime.
Read More...The ways the regime uses punish
The ways the regime uses to punish those who dare not to follow it are different, depending on the status of the victim. It could be denial of entry or of passport renewal for Chinese citizens and the rejection of visa applications for foreigners.
The renowned artist and activist Ai Weiwei was detained this past Sunday and is under police custody. His arrest didn’t surprise me since so many human rights lawyers and activists have recently been abducted.
According to the Hong Kong-based China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, more than 30 activists have suffered what the U.N. calls “forced disappearance.” Eight of them are rights lawyers who were arrested in February after the first Jasmine Assembly—an effort in which activists, inspired by the Middle East’s Jasmine Revolutions, would gather in China’s big cities.
Actually, the first case, in which three lawyers—Teng Biao, Jiang Tianyong, and Tang Jitian—suffered forced disappearance at the hands of the police, was not about the Jasmine Assembly. The lawyers had tried to help the famous blind lawyer Chen Guangcheng.
What surprises me is the way Ai Weiwei was detained. Ai was detained at the Beijing Airport where he was about the take a flight to Hong Kong. China’s customs is well-known for having an alarm system that signals when a person’s name matches one of the names on its list.
However, Ai Weiwei’s situation is different. His home was searched three times by the police only a few days ago. The police had no reason to wait until he reached customs to take him away. The only explanation that I can think of is that doing so was very convenient for the police.
This is not the first time that the country’s entry-and-exit control system has been used as a convenient tool by different levels of Chinese authorities. Only last week, three cases were reported.
Several days ago, German journalist and sinologist Tilman Spengler was refused an entry visa by Chinese authorities when he was supposed to accompany German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle on a trip to Beijing, where the art exhibition Art of the Enlightenment was about to open.
The reason given was that Spengler was “not a friend of the Chinese people.” Well, the true reason probably is that he spoke at the awarding of the Hermann-Kesten Medal to Liu Xiaobo in September last year.
Two other cases involved the denial of exit to Chinese citizens. Liao Yiwu, the author of several books and a critic of the Chinese regime, was prohibited for “national security” reasons from traveling to the United States and Australia on March 28 for his new book. This is the 15th time out of 16 tries that his attempt at overseas travel has failed.
On April 1, Du Mai, the 18-year-old daughter of Wu Huaying, was intercepted at customs at Xiamen Airport when she was about to take a flight to Japan to study. The explanation was the same—“national security” reasons. Wu Huaying had visited the state appeal offices for nine years on behalf of her brother, who had been tortured into a false confession regarding an explosion. She was also sentenced to one year in prison for helping the mother of a rape and murder victim in Fujian Province.
When the regime started to use the entry-and-exit system as a weapon for punishing both Chinese citizens and foreigners is not clear. The first known large-scale list of those banned from entering China was made up of the students who escaped from China after the Tiananmen Massacre in 1989.
Those who sympathized with the 1989 democracy movement are also on the banned list. Perry Link, a professor at Princeton University and a China expert, was denied a visa many times for that reason.
Some of the political dissidents died in exile in their 70s and 80s. Among them are Liu Binyan, one of the most famous Chinese authors and journalists; Wang Ruowang, a writer and, in the words of the Dalai Lama, “freedom fighter”; and Lin Xiling, the “last Rightist.” They were not able to go back to their homeland because they refused to accept the conditions imposed by the regime.
Read More...The ways the regime uses punish
The ways the regime uses to punish those who dare not to follow it are different, depending on the status of the victim. It could be denial of entry or of passport renewal for Chinese citizens and the rejection of visa applications for foreigners.
Since the persecution of Falun Gong in July 1999, the denial of passport renewal became common practice for Chinese consulates in Western countries even though such denial is not limited to Falun Gong practitioners. Hundreds of Falun Gong practitioners’ passport renewal applications were denied. The typical reason given by Chinese officials was, “You know why.”
Most of the cases were never heard or reported on by the media and the public. Immigration offices that handle asylum cases hear about these cases regularly.
However, someone did make this abuse public. In 2002, Chen Xiaoping, a visiting scholar at Harvard University, filed a lawsuit against the Chinese Consulate in New York, the Chinese National People’s Congress, and its standing committee.
Chen was a very famous scholar in constitutional law in China before he was put in jail for supporting Tiananmen students in 1989. He came to United States as a visiting scholar 1997 with a valid passport and visa. However, when his passport reached the expiration date, the Chinese consulate general in New York refused his passport renewal application without any explanation.
Chen studied his own case and found out that the New York Consulate, by refusing his passport renewal, violated the Chinese Constitution, the Nationality Law, the Passport Law, and the Law on Control of the Entry and Exit of Citizens.
Using entry-and-exit control for political purposes doesn’t stop at the border of mainland Chinese. The method has been used many times in Hong Kong.
On March 9, a landmark court ruling in Hong Kong overturned the Immigration Department’s decision to refuse entry to six key members of the Shen Yun Performing Arts company last year.
That the Hong Kong Immigration Department would have an interest in collecting the names of individuals and organizations that the Chinese regime considers “not a friend of Chinese people” and then put them on an entry-refusal list is hard to imagine. The list, the order, the method, even the act of identifying those on the list, can only come from the regime’s security forces.
As for discussions about whether there is rule of law in China, there is nothing to be discussed actually. From these cases that have happened right under our noses, outside mainland China, in the United States and the rest of the world, we can clearly see that the violation of the Chinese Constitution and laws comes directly from the top, from the ruling party, systematically and intentionally.
The question raised by the abuse of the entry-and-exit control system is not whether the regime should or can learn the rules and responsibilities that govern members of the international community. The regime knows the rules. Is has even created the laws for that matter. It is just that the rulers never thought they should have to follow the laws.
With the development of the Chinese economy, the regime’s rulers seem to have less and less confidence about themselves. Can we expect them to change, to have more confidence, to respect their own laws, to respect the basic rights of the people? I don’t see it.
Most of the cases were never heard or reported on by the media and the public. Immigration offices that handle asylum cases hear about these cases regularly.
However, someone did make this abuse public. In 2002, Chen Xiaoping, a visiting scholar at Harvard University, filed a lawsuit against the Chinese Consulate in New York, the Chinese National People’s Congress, and its standing committee.
Chen was a very famous scholar in constitutional law in China before he was put in jail for supporting Tiananmen students in 1989. He came to United States as a visiting scholar 1997 with a valid passport and visa. However, when his passport reached the expiration date, the Chinese consulate general in New York refused his passport renewal application without any explanation.
Chen studied his own case and found out that the New York Consulate, by refusing his passport renewal, violated the Chinese Constitution, the Nationality Law, the Passport Law, and the Law on Control of the Entry and Exit of Citizens.
Using entry-and-exit control for political purposes doesn’t stop at the border of mainland Chinese. The method has been used many times in Hong Kong.
On March 9, a landmark court ruling in Hong Kong overturned the Immigration Department’s decision to refuse entry to six key members of the Shen Yun Performing Arts company last year.
That the Hong Kong Immigration Department would have an interest in collecting the names of individuals and organizations that the Chinese regime considers “not a friend of Chinese people” and then put them on an entry-refusal list is hard to imagine. The list, the order, the method, even the act of identifying those on the list, can only come from the regime’s security forces.
As for discussions about whether there is rule of law in China, there is nothing to be discussed actually. From these cases that have happened right under our noses, outside mainland China, in the United States and the rest of the world, we can clearly see that the violation of the Chinese Constitution and laws comes directly from the top, from the ruling party, systematically and intentionally.
The question raised by the abuse of the entry-and-exit control system is not whether the regime should or can learn the rules and responsibilities that govern members of the international community. The regime knows the rules. Is has even created the laws for that matter. It is just that the rulers never thought they should have to follow the laws.
With the development of the Chinese economy, the regime’s rulers seem to have less and less confidence about themselves. Can we expect them to change, to have more confidence, to respect their own laws, to respect the basic rights of the people? I don’t see it.
