Home > Insight

Plight of the jailed journalist
By Geof Wollerman
gwollerm@mscd.edu

In September 2004 a researcher for The New York Times, Zhao Yan, was arrested in Beijing on the charge of providing state secrets abroad. The charge stemmed from an article published in the Times asserting that a former president of China had offered to resign as military chief. On the scale of state secrets, the information lacked the weight of, say, a report about nuclear capabilities. Nonetheless, Zhao has been detained for almost two years, and despite being acquitted of the charge last week, he was found guilty of a lesser charge of fraud, for which he will spend at least another year in prison.

The conclusion of Zhao’s trial is a not-so-subtle reminder to other would-be Chinese journalists to keep their mouths shut, and will no doubt perpetuate what the industry calls the “chilling effect.” But more importantly, it is the latest indication of the lengths China is willing to go to in order to suppress political dissent.

Before joining the Beijing bureau of the Times, Zhao was known as a muckraking journalist who, according to the Times, “earned a reputation for writing articles that exposed officials’ abuse of farmers and other ordinary citizens.” It is from this period of his life that he earned the fraud charge. According to the Times, the charge states that Zhao agreed “to write an article and intervene on behalf of a person with legal problems in exchange for money.” Zhao was charged with this only after he had been detained for the state secrets charge, and to this day he denies involvement in either case.

But even if Zhao – who, his lawyers say, will probably appeal the verdict – is finally found innocent, the damage done to him and his profession is irreparable. By continuing to hold Zhao despite a lack of evidence, and eventually charging him with a lesser, unrelated crime, the Chinese government is telling all journalists inside its borders to watch what they criticize, investigate and publish, or wind up in prison. This comes from a country that has expressed interest in joining the world economy, opening up its borders and embracing aspects of democracy.

Just not all of them.

But if China truly wants to join the global economy and gain the trust of multinational companies, it will eventually have to admit that trust necessitates transparency. Yahoo! and Google, in a bid to gain ground in a burgeoning market, might be helping China keep tabs on its cultural and political dissidents, but on the whole, the world will not put up with China’s obstinacy for much longer.
Unfortunately, the United States government holds little bargaining power over China.

According to the Atlantic Monthly, in 2005 China had a $242 billion stake in the United States’ national deficit. In other words, the United States admonishing China about human rights issues is like a yapping lapdog biting the indifferent hand that feeds it: it doesn’t do any good, and it might cause some trouble. Still, Bush has broached the topic with China’s president Hu Jintao, who has understandably responded with polite nods and noncommittal smiles.

Thomas Friedman, in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, hails globalization because he claims it will force countries to be more transparent and therefore more sensitive to issues of democracy and human rights.

In China’s case, Friedman believes transparency will begin with its business sector as more foreign companies show an interest in dealing with China and more journalists show an interest in covering its ins and outs.

But if China continues to show that even small revelations about its inner workings are grounds for imprisonment, these companies will grow distrustful and eventually withdraw their support.
As the Bush administration holds fast to its policies of spreading global democracy, its country’s sticky relationship with one of the world’s worst human rights offenders will continue to be an issue – one its policy architects will not be able to ignore in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Hu’s evasions, even amid international dilemmas like Iran’s nuclear program and rising tensions in the Middle East, should not be tolerated for long. This is, after all, the 21st century, and globalization cannot work when one of its major players is still living in the 20th.