When China denied veteran journalist Paul Mooney\u2019s visa request this past November, neither the State Department, Administration officials nor anyone on Capitol Hill said anything publicly about a U.S. citizen appearing to be punished for his speech. Similarly, when China failed to renew U.S. citizen and Al Jazeera English correspondent Melissa Chan\u2019s visa, forcing her to leave China in May 2012, a State Department deputy spokesperson merely expressed the Department\u2019s \u201cdisappointment\u201d very briefly during a regular Q&A session with the press: \u201cI would just say that we\u2019re disappointed in the Chinese Government \u2013 in how the Chinese Government decided not to renew her accreditation. To our knowledge, she operated and reported in accordance with Chinese law, including regulations that permit foreign journalists to operate freely in China.\u201d Such has been the extent of the Administration\u2019s public statements, until now.<\/p>\n
When China denied<\/a> veteran journalist Paul Mooney\u2019s visa request this past November, neither the State Department, Administration officials nor anyone on Capitol Hill said anything publicly about a U.S. citizen appearing to be punished for his speech.<\/p>\n Similarly, when China failed to renew<\/a> U.S. citizen and Al Jazeera English<\/i> correspondent Melissa Chan\u2019s visa, forcing her to leave China in May 2012, a State Department deputy spokesperson merely expressed the Department\u2019s \u201cdisappointment\u201d very briefly during a regular Q&A session<\/a> with the press: \u201cI would just say that we\u2019re disappointed in the Chinese Government \u2013 in how the Chinese Government decided not to renew her accreditation. To our knowledge, she operated and reported in accordance with Chinese law, including regulations that permit foreign journalists to operate freely in China.\u201d Such has been the extent of the Administration\u2019s public statements, until now.<\/p>\n It is certainly a positive development that Vice President Joe Biden, on his trip to Beijing last week,publicly rebuked<\/a> the Chinese government for its treatment of U.S. journalists, tying Beijing\u2019s actions to impacting \u201cuniversal human rights.\u201d While the comments at last Thursday\u2019s closed-door meeting with U.S. journalists were off-the-record, the fact that the meeting occurred was very much on-the-record, demonstrating that the Administration has finally realized the seriousness of the situation and the need to try a new tactic.<\/p>\n But one wonders if the Administration\u2019s changed strategy \u2013 publicly addressing the issue \u2013 is too little too late. According to reports<\/a>, the Chinese government is still toying with the visas of approximately 24<\/span>New York Times<\/i> and Bloomberg correspondents; without renewal by December 31, the <\/span>New York Times<\/i> and Bloomberg\u2019s China bureaus could <\/span>potentially shut down<\/a>, much in the way <\/span>Al Jazeera<\/i> <\/span>English<\/i>\u2018s Beijing office had to close, over a year and a half ago, when Melissa Chan\u2019s visa was not renewed before its expiration.<\/span><\/p>\n Why the U.S. Government Must Act \u2013 Protecting an American Brand<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n A free and vibrant press has been a central tenet of the United States; it was crucial to the success of the American Revolution, is encapsulated within the First Amendment and rarely if ever abridged.<\/p>\n For Americans, standing up for freedom of the press is important in and of itself, but becomes even more critical when journalists from one\u2019s own nation are being restricted. Congress or the Administration insisting that China allow access to foreign journalists is different from demanding access for other industries; it is not some mere effort to protect the domestic media establishment. Rather, speech is a core value of the American people, and condemning censorship is, as Hillary Clinton put it<\/a>, part of our \u201cnational brand.\u201d<\/p>\n This national brand goes beyond the U.S.\u2019 own borders. As recounted by Chinese journalist Liu Jianfeng in a special report<\/a> by the Committee to Protect Journalists<\/a>, it is often the foreign press\u2019 coverage of domestic events that provides the green light necessary for the Chinese media to cover more sensitive issues. Liu specifically points to the 2011 Wukan protests<\/a>, where over a thousand villagers demonstrated for months because of the local government\u2019s land seizures, to make his point. It was only because the foreign press started covering the event that the Chinese media was permitted to do so. Similarly, Melissa Chan filmed her report on China\u2019s black jails<\/a> in April 2009; in November 2009, a Chinese magazine ran a similar expose<\/a>. In February 2013, signaling official opprobrium, a Beijing court sentenced<\/a> 10 men to prison for illegally operating a black jail. Thus, the U.S.\u2019 promotion of freedom of its press in China benefits the Chinese people, bringing some accountability and transparency to their one-Party state.<\/p>\n Not Just a Moral Principle But Also Good for Business<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n China\u2019s attempted censorship of the foreign press \u2013 through its abuse of the visa process \u2013 certainly infringes upon free speech. But there is a more mercantile reason to guarantee that U.S. media companies are not censored: information and disclosure are key to efficient markets. Accurate information protects investors and businesses as it creates transparency in the market, placing all sides of a transaction on equal footing. This is especially true where an economy, like China\u2019s, is particularly opaque.<\/span><\/p>\n One of the apparent red lines for foreign reporters is the finances of China\u2019s leadership: the New York Times<\/i>\u2018 David Barboza wrote an October 2012<\/a> series concerning former Premier Wen Jiabao\u2019s protection of his family\u2019s investment in Ping An Insurance and Bloomberg published its June 2012 \u201cRevolution to Riches<\/a>,\u201d an expose on the children of China\u2019s revolutionaries and the power and wealth they have been able to accumulate. Both have also become Beijing\u2019s main targets.<\/p>\n What Beijing currently seeks to censor \u2013 articles about the overlap of its economy, major businesses and the power elite \u2013 are the exact articles necessary to inform potential market investors. Unfortunately as the <\/span>New York Times<\/i> and Bloomberg reporters appear on the cusp of a compelled departure, there are few news agencies that can \u2013 or will even want to \u2013 fill their role of hard-hitting financial reporting on China, a time-intensive endeavor.<\/span><\/p>\n But even articles about legal development, political unrest, growing wealth inequalities, environmental degradation and crackdowns on dissent, issues that Mooney and Chan fervently covered, are also important. Businesses who invest in China hire companies \u2013 like the Eurasia Group<\/a> \u2013 to inform them about these developments. It is vital to their investments to know if the village, town or county where their company or factory is located is a political powder keg.<\/p>\n But by continuing to harass, intimidate and effectively expel journalists who cross certain red lines, Beijing is sending a message to the remaining reporters. \u201cThe decision to deny Paul Mooney a visa has brought home to our membership the lengths the Chinese authorities will go to persuade foreign reporters not to report on things they don\u2019t like\u201d Peter Ford, president of the Foreign Correspondents Club of China<\/a> (\u201cFCCC\u201d) told China Law & Policy<\/i> in a phone interview. Foreign reporters who are left in China may not want to continue to take on these hard-hitting stories that could effectively terminate their livelihoods. Their editors may not let them. As a result, banks, investors and even the U.S. government will lose one of its most important resources for accurate and frank reporting on a country vital to America\u2019s position in the world.<\/p>\n \u2018It\u2019s Only Words\u2019\u2026Or is it Visa Retaliation?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n Right now, approximately 24 foreign correspondents<\/a> for the New York Times<\/i> and Bloomberg are waiting for their visa to be renewed. According to reports<\/a>, many have not received their press cards, the annual cards issued every November by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (\u201cMOFA\u201d) and necessary to apply for a visa renewal with the Public Security Bureau\u2019s (PSB) Exit- Entry Administration. Under China\u2019s new Exit-Entry Administration Law<\/a>, resident foreigners, such as foreign journalists, are required to apply for a visa renewal at least 30 days prior to the current visa\u2019s expiration (see<\/i> Article 32). In China, all journalists\u2019 visas have a December expiration which could be any day in the month, with the 31st as the last. Since it is already December 8, those journalists who have not received their press cards, are currently in violation of Chinese law. However, as Gary Chodorow<\/a>, a Beijing-based immigration lawyer, points out<\/a>, the law is silent as to any repercussions to applying late. But that is of little comfort to those reporters unsure if they will have to leave China on or before New Year\u2019s Eve.<\/p>\n \u201cThings are never going to get better if we don\u2019t do something reciprocal\u201d Mooney complained to China Law & Policy<\/i> last week in a phone interview and prior to Biden\u2019s Beijing visit. \u201cSome sort of stronger tactic would be helpful\u201d Mooney said.<\/p>\n But is Biden\u2019s public censure last week and meetings with journalists sufficient to stop a Chinese government that appears intent on essentially shutting down two major U.S. media outlets in China? Even in light of Biden\u2019s actions, the Chinese government appears to have dug in its heels with a MOFA spokesperson stating<\/a> on Thursday that \u201c[a]s for foreign correspondents\u2019 living and working environments in China, I think as long as you hold an objective and impartial attitude, you will arrive at the right conclusion.\u201d \u201cObjective\u201d was the same key word used in Mooney\u2019s visa interview<\/a> before his visa application was denied.<\/p>\n This type of stubborn behavior is precisely why some have begun to consider<\/a> reciprocal visa treatment as a way to deal with China\u2019s attempted censorship of the foreign press.<\/p>\n The U.S.\u2019 Immigration and Nationality Act<\/a> (\u201cINA\u201d) provides journalist visas \u201cupon the basis of reciprocity\u201d (see<\/i> INA Sec. 101(a)(15)(I)). Reciprocity is a foundational principle of the international order, guaranteeing that the treatment of one country to another will be returned in kind. Reciprocity \u2013 and the fear of negative reciprocity \u2013 is what induces international actors to act reasonably.<\/p>\n While visa reciprocity is usually in regards to fees and other procedural aspects<\/a>, reciprocal treatment can be used to deny entry to a foreign national. The INA also permits the State Department and its consular agents to deny a visa where entry of the individual would have \u201cserious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States\u2026.\u201d What is a \u201cserious adverse foreign policy consequence\u201d is left in the discretion of the State Department and its employees. In fact, the decision to deny a visa falls under the \u201cDoctrine of Consular Non-reviewability<\/a>\u201d and is rarely subject to judicial review (exception:Kleindienst v. Mandel<\/a><\/i>, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)).<\/p>\n With the U.S. issuing 989 journalist visas<\/a> to Chinese mainland reporters in 2012, many of which are issued to Chinese state-run media outlets, some have looked to deny one or two key visas as a form of reciprocity. At the very least, some have suggested slowing down the visa approval process much in the same way the Chinese government does to U.S. journalists in China.<\/span><\/p>\n While legal, it raises the question of is this who we want to be? The reason why the U.S. government should more publicly reprimand Beijing for its treatment of foreign journalists is because of the U.S.\u2019 commitment to freedom of the press. For the U.S. to refuse a visa to a Chinese journalist would undermine that commitment. While many of the Chinese reporters do work for the state-controlled media, they are still journalists and should be protected by freedom of the press. These also are not the individuals responsible for the Chinese government\u2019s actions.<\/p>\n The U.S. government, in calling on China to stop censoring its reporters through the visa process, has the moral high ground. Because of the principle of freedom of the press, the U.S. government is seeking to guarantee that its media outlets \u2013 outlets that often run critical stories on these same politicians \u2013 are able to report freely from China. Even if not reported in the Chinese press, this type behavior still resonates with the Chinese journalists both in the U.S. and in China.<\/p>\n If the U.S. government were to resort to visa reciprocity, it should not look to restrict or delay Chinese journalist visas. Instead, visa denials or delays of employees of MOFA or the PSB, the entities that are responsible for U.S. journalists current mistreatment in China, is likely more appropriate. Visa denial of responsible government officials would not be a first. The U.S. currently has a visa ban on approximately 128 Zimbabwe government officials<\/a> and their families. These high officials have been deemed to be partially responsible \u2013 along with President Robert Mugabe \u2013 in undermining Zimbabwe\u2019s nascent democratic practices. As a result, the U.S. has targeted them with visa denials<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u2018But Words Are All Have\u2019\u2026Other Options Open to the U.S.<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n There are still less extreme courses of action that the U.S. government can take. Biden\u2019s public statement in Beijing and meeting with U.S. journalists were a start. Public admonishment of China\u2019s behavior must continue and be regular. In speaking with China Law & Policy<\/i>, Ford, president of the FCCC, an organization which does not support using visa retaliation, stated that \u201cthe FCCC does not think it would be inappropriate for foreign diplomats to take every opportunity to remind their Chinese counterparts that Chinese journalists face none of the obstacles that foreign reporters in China are faced with. \u201d<\/p>\n In the U.S., this reminder must come from both Congress and the Administration. Although Mooney has reached out to members of Congress, including his representative, Nancy Pelosi, Capitol Hill and the White House have remained largely silent other than Biden\u2019s recent remarks in Beijing. China Law & Policy<\/i>\u2018s calls and emails to Representative Pelosi\u2019s office went unanswered.<\/p>\n Fortunately, to keep this issue front and center, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China<\/a>(\u201cCECC\u201d) will host a roundtable discussion<\/a> this Wednesday featuring Mooney, Bob Dietz, Asia Program Director at the <\/span>Committee to Protect Journalists<\/a>, and Sarah Cook, Senior Research Analyst for East Asia with <\/span>Freedom House<\/a>. How well attended that roundtable is will signal to Beijing just how far it can go in its abuse of the journalist visa process. Biden\u2019s gestures in Beijing were an important start but will senior Administration or State Department officials attend the roundtable? Will it be more than just Congressional interns in attendance? China knows how to read Capitol Hill tea leaves as well.<\/span><\/p>\n There is a chance that the New York Times<\/i> and Bloomberg reporters will have their visas renewed and the China bureaus will not be shut down. But while the immediate crisis might be avoided, as this series has demonstrated, Beijing will likely continue to find ways to censor foreign reporters through the visa renewal process or through direct pressure on the editors of key newspapers. The fact that this has risen to crisis level means that the U.S. government did not act boldly soon enough to protect one of its core values, freedom of the press.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When China denied veteran journalist Paul Mooney\u2019s visa request this past November, neither the State Department, Administration officials nor anyone on Capitol Hill said anything publicly about a U.S. citizen appearing to be punished for his speech. Similarly, when China failed to renew U.S. citizen and Al Jazeera English correspondent Melissa Chan\u2019s visa, forcing her to leave China in May 2012, a State Department deputy spokesperson merely expressed the Department\u2019s \u201cdisappointment\u201d very briefly during a regular Q&A session with the press: \u201cI would just say that we\u2019re disappointed in the Chinese Government \u2013 in how the Chinese Government decided not to renew her accreditation. To our knowledge, she operated and reported in accordance with Chinese law, including regulations that permit foreign journalists to operate freely in China.\u201d Such has been the extent of the Administration\u2019s public statements, until now.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[14,66,67,42,68,69],"topic":[],"class_list":["post-127","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-china","tag-freedom-of-speech","tag-freedom-of-the-press","tag-joe-biden","tag-paul-mooney","tag-us-china-relations"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/iuhrdf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/iuhrdf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/iuhrdf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iuhrdf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iuhrdf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=127"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/iuhrdf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/iuhrdf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iuhrdf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iuhrdf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127"},{"taxonomy":"topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iuhrdf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topic?post=127"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}