By: Jessica Ties
Impunity Watch, Asia

HANOI, Vietnam – Those detained in Vietnam for drug use are being held without due process, forced to labor without compensation and enduring physical violence according to a report by Human Rights Watch.

According to the report, “The Rehab Archipelago: Forced Labor and Other Abuses in Drug Detention Centers in Southern Vietnam,”  drug detention centers that are mandated to treat and rehabilitate drug users are being used as labor camps where those arrested for drug use are forced to work six days a week to sew garments, manufacture products and process cashews.

Those who are compensated receive only a few dollars a month, much of which is taken by the facility to pay for food and shelter, and are forced to work in unhealthy conditions.

The individuals interviewed by Human Rights Watch stated that they were not given a trial or informed of any process of appeal. Individuals who voluntarily entered the facility were not allowed to leave and had their detention arbitrarily extended by management officials at the center.

Punishment at the facility is severe and often involves torture. Those who refuse to work are beaten with batons, electrically shocked, kept in isolation, forced to work longer hours and deprived of food and water.

There have been several large escapes since the Vietnamese government issued an order increasing the mandatory period of treatment from one year to two years and the maximum period of treatment increased from one year to four years.

A former detainee described the punishment he was forced to endure after trying to escape: “First they beat my legs so that I couldn’t run off again… [Then] they shocked me with an electric baton [and] kept me in the punishment room for a month.”

Cashews are the most common product derived from forced labor in drug rehabilitation camps which contributes to Vietnam’s status as the largest cashew producer in the world.  Vietnam is the largest supplier of Cashew’s to the United States and is a large supplier of the nut to China and the European Union.

Human Rights Watch is calling the U.S. and Australian governments, the United Nations, the World Bank and other internationally donors to validate the facilities they are funding to avoid “indirectly [facilitating] human rights abuses.”

Last year the United States donated $7.7 million to Vietnam for methadone treatment and community based drug intervention. None of the individuals interviewed by Human Rights Watch; however, had received methadone or any other medical tool for fighting addiction.

As a result of the report Columbia Sportswear, located in Oregon, ended its relationship with a Vietnamese factory after it was discovered that the factory had subcontracted work with a drug detention center.

The drug use centers are a component of a Vietnamese system aimed at eliminating “social evils” including prostitution and drug use. As of early 2011, there were 123 centers across Vietnam which housed approximately 40,000 individuals.

Although Vietnamese officials claim that labor helps drug addicts by keeping them away from temptations, the official relapse rate of those who leave the camps is between 70 percent and 80 percent although most believe that the actually rate is closer to 95 percent.

For more information, please see:

Voice of America – Vietnam’s Drug Rehab Centers Under Fire – 9 September 2011

Associated Press – Rights Group: Forced Labor in Vietnam Drug Centers – 7 September 2011

Human Rights Watch –Vietnam: Torture, Forced Labor in Drug Detention – 7 September 2011

Radio Free Asia –Drug Detention Akin to ‘Labor Camps’ – 6 September 2011

Time – From Vietnam’s Forced-Labor Camps: ‘Blood Cashews’ – 6 September 2011

by Hibberd Kline
Impunity Watch, Asia

BEIJING, China — On September 2, Canadian newspaper, the Globe and Mail, published a story regarding official documents found in Tripoli detailing mid-July meetings at which representatives of three major Chinese state-controlled weapons manufacturing firms offered to sell $200 million worth of weapons to senior Gadhafi security officials.

According to the Globe and Mail, the documents contain evidence that representatives of the companies proposed to sell the Gadhafi regime “the entire contents of their stockpiles” including: truck-mounted rocket launchers, fuel-air explosive missiles, anti-tank missiles, and QW-18 surface-to-air missiles among other weaponry.

The Globe and Mail reported that the companies promised to manufacture additional supplies if necessary.

The newspaper further alleged that the Chinese representatives had emphasized the need for confidentiality during their meetings with the Libyans and had suggested the use of Algeria and South Africa, who had “previously worked with China,” to deliver the armaments without direct Chinese involvement in their transportation.

The documents found by the Globe and Mail listed the three state-controlled Chinese firms as: China North Industries Corporation (Norinco), the China National Precision Machinery Import & Export Corporation (CPMIC), and China XinXing Import & Export Corporation.

Norinco has been the target of US sanctions in the past for allegedly supplying missile parts to Iran in violation of China’s arms control rules.

The Globe and Mail’s publication put Beijing immediately on the defensive.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry quickly denied that any contracts had been signed, and that any weapons had been sold or supplied to Libya by Chinese firms.

Later in the week, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jian Yu acknowledged that a meeting did take place between Gadhafi’s officials and representatives of the Chinese firms and that invoices had been issued that listed weapons prices for inventory from small arms to rocket launchers.

However, Jiang firmly stressed that the meeting had occurred without the knowledge of the Chinese government. She pledged that China will continue to “strictly implement the UN resolution” and that it will also strengthen controls over arms exports.

Jiang went on to say that “competent authorities for military trade will handle the matter in a serious manner,” which some analysts have interpreted to mean that an investigation on the part of Chinese authorities will likely follow.

When asked about the possibility of whether the Chinese companies or their personnel might be punished for meeting with Gadhafi’s officials, Jiang responded that she was sure that the situation would be dealt with “in a serious and conscientious way.”

In February, as the Libyan uprising gathered steam China approved UN Resolution 1970, which banned all military assistance to Tripoli. China was also quick to open contacts with Libyan rebel leaders, whom it invited to Beijing for a consultation.

Furthermore, China has repeatedly stressed that it has provided humanitarian assistance to the Libyan people and has attempted to promote dialogue between the rebels and the Gadhafi regime for the purpose of resolving the situation without further bloodshed.

However, China has thus far refused to join the growing list of nations that recognize the victorious rebels’ National Transitional Council (NTC) as Libya’s legitimate government and has shown great reluctance to hand over frozen Libyan assets to the fledgling government.

Many analysts have suggested that China’s faltering relationship with Libya’s rebels may threaten the potential for Chinese firms to be awarded lucrative Libyan oil and reconstruction contracts.

Before the uprising began, Libyan oil shipments accounted for a strategically significant three percent of China’s supply. There has been much speculation that China had been courting both the rebels and Gadhafi simultaneously in order to hedge its bets and thereby guarantee future security of its oil supply.

NTC leaders do not yet appear to agree on a proper response to the meetings between the Chinese firms and Gadhafi’s officials.

Omar Hariri, chief of the NTC’s military committee said that he has reviewed the documents. He expressed outrage that the Chinese were negotiating the sale of arms to Gadhafi while rebel troops were suffering heavy casualties.

Mr. Hariri and several other rebel leaders suspect China and other nations of secretly delivering weapons, intelligence and other supplies to government forces during the fighting. Mr. Hariri said that the documents explained the presence of brand-new weaponry that he and his forces had faced on the battlefield.

Referring to the weaponry promised in the invoices, Hariri said that he was “almost certain that these guns arrived and were used against” his people.

However, other rebel leaders have responded with a more cautious and conciliatory tone. NTC spokesman, Jalal al-Gallal, said that he believed China’s assurances that it was unaware of any weapons sales.

Gallal went on to stress the importance of remembering that China is a superpower. “We all rely on products that come from China. We would have hoped they would have been on our side… But if it is in the interests of the Libyan people to deal with China, then we will deal with China… It is very expensive and time consuming to settle old scores.”

Gallal conceded that; “of course there will be some reaction.” He noted that Libya will “favor certain countries who stood by us.”

For more information, please see:

CBC News – Libya-China arms memos prompt Beijing pledge –  06 September 2011

Shanghai Daily- China sold no weapons to Gadhafi – 06 September 2011

BBC News – China confirms weapons firms met Gaddafi envoys in July – 05 September 2011

Guardian – Chinese arms companies ‘offered to sell weapons to Gaddafi regime – 05 September 2011

Reuters – China says didn’t know of arms sales talks with Gaddafi forces – 05 September 2011

Reuters – Libyans say China, Europe sent arms to Gaddafi – 05 September 2011

Globe and Mail – China offered Gadhafi huge stockpiles of arms: Libyan memos –  02 September 2011

By: Jessica Ties
Impunity Watch, Asia

 BEIJING, China – Two Beijing newspapers, Beijing Times and Beijing News, have been placed under the control of the Chinese Communist Party’s local propaganda department.

According to Qianlong, a website controlled and operated by the Chinese government, the newspapers were taken over in an attempt to control in an advertising war waged between them and to increase the influence and competitiveness of The Beijing News.

Critics; however, view the move as retribution for the outspoken and critical articles that both newpapers have become notorious for producing. One of the affected newspaper employees expressed concern at the affect the takeover will have by stating that “it means there will be so much we can’t do. Before there was news that other papers couldn’t do but we could.”

Prior to coming under the control of the Chinese government, Beijing News and Beijing Times were both overseen by the state-level Central Publicity Department which left them essentially untouched by the directives given by Beijing city authorities and thus more capable of candid reporting.

As a result both papers became well-known for consistently publishing stories, many of which other media outlets were prohibited from covering, that were critical of  local government’s around China.

Many journalists are alleging that this candid reporting is what led to the takeover. One example of the critical reporting done by the two newly censored papers was the high-speed train crash that occurred in Wenzhou in July and in which the papers harshly criticized the government’s response and poor safety standards.

In addition, Beijing News and Beijing Times both covered the controversial topic of school closures for the children of migrant workers in Beijing which has angered many human rights groups. According to a reporter at Beijing News, Beijing’s propaganda authorities had contacted the central publicity department several times to complain about what it perceived to be negative coverage.

Media analyst Wen Yunchao stated that “it’s been a headache for the Beijing propaganda authorities that they didn’t directly control the two newspapers.” According to Wen , prior to the takeover the Beijing propaganda authorities could only influence the content of the papers if they were assisted by the central publicity department but the new takeover will allow content to be controlled with greater ease.

Media experts, including Wen Yunchao, expect that the takeover will cause news content to rapidly change to alter coverage on sensitive and controversial topics in a way that will portray the Chinese government more favorably. 

Fear of increased government crackdown on dissent is further fueled by the recent discovery that Chinese authorities are considering a law that would allow individuals to be detained for up to six months without notification being given to family members.

Chinese authorities have denied allegations of a crackdown and have said that the editorial policies and senior staff would remain the same.

For more information, please see:

NDT – Propaganda Bureau Takes Over Two Beijing Newspapers – 6 September 2011

The Guardian – Propaganda Bureau Takes Control of Two Beijing Newspapers – 3 September 2011

The Diplomat – Beijing Papers Taken Over – 4 September 2011

Radio Free Asia – Newspapers Face New Controls – 4 September 2011

BEIJING, China – The self-immolation of a monk has led to three Tibetan monks being convicted as accessories to murder for allegedly helping a fellow monk burn himself to death in protest of government crackdown on Tibetan monks.

Two monks, Tsering Tenzin and Tenchum, were sentenced to ten and thirteen years respectively for “plotting, instigating and assisting” in the self-immolation of the monk.

The third monk, Drongdru, was sentenced to eleven years for “intentional homicide” after a trial lasting only one day. According to authorities the sixteen year old monk, Rigzin Phuntsog, was  kept in the Kirti monastery by Drongdru, his uncle,  for eleven hours following his March 16 self-immolation.

There is disagreement between Chinese authorities and local Tibetans regarding the circumstances surrounding the monk’s death.

While Chinese authorities maintain that he died as a result of self-immolation combined with being hidden by monks to prevent authorities from taking him to the hospital, rights groups are reporting a different story.

Tibetan rights groups insist that police put out the flames and then began to beat the young monk before other monks.  They say local villagers took him to the monastery to avoid the beating and then took him to the hospital a few hours later.

The U.S. State Department has expressed concern that the procedural rights of the three monks were not properly upheld. Other rights groups have expressed concern that the sentencing was a ploy to detract attention from the cause of the self-immolation and that sentences were handed down without evidence of the monks involvement.

Others however, found the sentences to be fair, expressing that “a monk who goes against dharma and against the law should be penalized.” The practice of self-immolation has been condemned by the Dalai Lama.

The death of Rigzin Phuntsog has caused renewed and heightened clashes between Chinese and Tibetans resulting in over 300 monks being taken from the monastery and the death of two villagers who were attempting to prevent the detention of the monks.

China repelled requests made by a U.N. human rights panel in June to provide information about the status of the 300 monks who had been taken from the monastery stating only that the monks were undergoing “legal education.”

“Legal education” refers to the Chinese government’s practice of systematically rounding up monks and forcing them to attend education sessions in which they are ordered to pledge their allegiance to China and denounce the Dalai Lama. This practice has largely fueled the conflict between China and Tibetans who feel that they are having their culture taken from them by the Chinese.

Although, the exact reason for the monk’s self-immolation is unknown, human rights groups have stated that the monk was protesting government policies in Tibet.

The relationship between Tibet and China has been severely strained since 1950 when the Chinese marched into Tibetan territory. Many Tibetans feel that their culture, freedom and worship are being suppressed by the Chinese government. Since fleeing Tibet after a failed uprising, the Dalai Lama has traversed the world advocating for increased Tibetan autonomy.

Some experts, such as Robert Barnett of Columbia University, fear that the stiff sentences given to the three monks at the monastery will aggravate tensions between China and Tibet because the sentences will “…be seen by the Tibetans as a manipulation of the law to intimidate people further.”

 

 

 

For more information, please see:

The Tibet Post –Int’l Rights Groups Condemn Unjust Sentencing of 3 Tibetan Monks – 1 September 2011

BBC – China Jails Two More Tibetan Monks Over Fire Death – 31 August 2011

The New York Time – China: Two Tibetan Monks Receive Lengthy Prison Terms – 31 August 2011

China Daily – Two Tibetan Monks Sentenced in Murder Case – 30 August 2011

Los Angeles Times –Tibetan Monks Get Stiff Prison Terms in Burning Death – 30 August 2011

BBC – Q&A: China and the Tibetans – 15 August 2011

By: Jessica Ties
Impunity Watch, Asia

BEIJING, China – Beijing is proposing a change in the criminal code that would allow suspects to be detained in an undisclosed location for up to six months without notification being given to family members or lawyers.

The proposed changes would essentially codify the longstanding and much criticized practice of detaining individuals for extended periods of time in unknown locations and without giving loved ones or attorney’s notification of their whereabouts or the reason for their detention.

Chinese law currently allows a suspect to serve up to six months of house arrest without being formally charged. The proposed change in the law would substitute house arrest with detention at a secret location in cases involving national security, terrorism and bribery when the police believe that holding the suspect at home would put a burden on the investigation.

In China, national security crimes encompass subversion which is frequently used to detain dissidents. Under this scheme rights activists and political commentators will be especially susceptible to the new amendment which will first have to be approved by the National People’s Congress.

According to Legal Daily, an official Chinese newspaper, in which the proposed change in the law was announced, the location of the detention would not be a “regular detention center or police station.” It is also reported that prior to detaining an individual under the proposed amendment, the police would be required to obtain permission from either a prosecutor or a public security agency.

Nicholas Bequelin, Human Rights Watch Senior Asia Researcher, stated that the changes would be a “worrisome expansion of the power of the police” and would violate international laws which require a court decision before an individual can be deprived of their freedom.

Some rights activists suggest that China’s attempt to amend the law is a result of widespread criticism the country has received from Western nations for their treatment of dissidents and that Beijing hopes to alleviate the criticism by legalizing the practice of forced disappearances and thereby strengthening China’s argument that their actions are not illegal.

This new proposal is believed to be another result of the call made for a “Jasmine” revolution last February in which Chinese citizens called for an uprising against the government. In the wake of February’s call for revolution, the Chinese government has cracked down on dissident voices, rights activists and lawyers. Many of these individuals, most notably artist Ai Weiwei, were detained in secret locations without notification being given to their families.

For more information, please see:

Reuters – China Announces Plans to Boost Secret Detention Powers – 30 August 2011

Irish Times – Beijing Considering Move That Would Allow Secret Detentions – 29 August 2011

Los Angeles Times – China’s Plan for Secret Detentions Alarms Rights Activists – 28 August 2011

Radio Free Asia – China May Legalize Secret Detentions – 28 August 2011

AFP – China May Legalize Secret Detentions – 27 August 2011