Bao Tong’s essay on press freedom and the Olympics

Here is about 90 percent of the text of Bao Tong’s commentary on press freedom and the new regulations for foreign correspondents in China, recently aired on RFA’s Mandarin service broadcasts. The new rules take away (at least in theory) a major barrier to the reporting activities of foreign correspondents there, and may lead to more reporters being sent there in the run-up to the Games in 2008. But, as Bao points out, there’s a catch (surely not?):

“Last year the Foreign Ministry announced a new set of regulations, the most notewothy of which was No. 6: ‘From Jan. 1, 2007, foreign journalists will only need to obtain the consent of the organizations or people they wish to interview, and will not need to obtain the approval of the authorities first as in the past.’

On Jan. 1 and 17, Reuters did two interviews in quick succession with me, and the authorities didn’t interfere with their reporter’s activities at all. It looked as if the new rule was being put into effect, and I was very pleased.

The first time I was interviewed, the journalist asked me directly what I thought of the new rules. My answer was definite. I said, ‘This is a step forward. If it is put into practice for just a day, then that’s a day of progress. If it is upheld in the longer term, then that’ll be long-term progress.’ So the journalist wrote and sent his piece in English from this interview.

The next time, the journalist asked me how I remembered Zhao Ziyang. I said I thought that everyone had the right to do anything legal that they wanted to do, and that I recommended using civil rights activities as a way of commemorating him. “Everyone could do this, every day,” I said. “Zhao’s political ideal will be realised on the day that every Chinese citizen truly enjoys the rights bestowed on them by law.” That article was also sent out to the world in English.

Mainland media didn’t pick up these two pieces of wire copy, but I felt that was understandable. But there are three points here I think are worth examining.

<!–[if !supportLists]–>1. <!–[endif]–>There’s always a danger that while Reuters was allowed to interview Bao Tong, that other journalists may still be prevented from interviewing far more newsworthy citizens in future. However, I believe that this new rule could have a protective function, being able to ward off misfortune in the event of attempts by officials or departments having the gall to go against a State Council directive…

<!–[if !supportLists]–>2. <!–[endif]–>Some people complain repeatedly that allowing foreign journalists to report with the same freedoms that Chinese reporters have will make domestic media outlets less able to compete, weakening their competitiveness. Well, I’d like to put in a word on behalf of the State Council: this directive came from the Foreign Ministry, so it’s hardly surprising that it deals with foreign journalists; it doesn’t need to concern itself with Chinese reporters. It shouldn’t be read as the Chinese government giving preference to the rights and interests of foreign journalists. Nonetheless we should be vigilant, because there are still plenty of evil forces in China which would love to rip apart press freedom. Like the reporter from the China Trade Journal who was beaten to death after trying to get to the truth behind a mining disaster in Shanxi. Some said that even the president of China took notice of this case. I hope that this incident…will persuade the State Council to issue another order saying that Chinese reporters have the same freedoms and rights as foreign journalists when it comes to newsgathering, and that these rights should be respected by all and not infringed upon.

<!–[if !supportLists]–>3. <!–[endif]–>Article 9 of the new guidelines state: “These regulations come into effect on Jan. 1, 2007, and will be abolished on Oct. 17, 2008. Some people say it is hard to understand this clause. I have the same feeling. Could it be that the State Council’s regulation isn’t a good one? Why does it have to be boxed in like this? Could it be that our country is just playing power games and that its long-term view is in fact against press freedom?

In short, three things must be addressed: the second clause which deals with the abolition of the new rule; how will officials who flout the new rules be disciplined; and it should be made clear that of course Chinese journalists also enjoy the right to interview Chinese citizens. If these things can be resolved, then we will be much further along the road.”

Roland Soong, at EastSouthWestNorth has translated an article in the Guangdong-based Southern Weekend newspaper, in which some foreign correspondents voice concern that the relaxation may not yet have filtered through to most Chinese officials and other interviewees, who may maintain cautious habits in spite of the new regulations. The article says:

In 1980, China permitted foreign media to establish bureaus in China but the foreign correspondents were not allowed to gather news freely. This became the basis by which the outside world criticized China.

Under the new regulations, the space of activity for foreign correspondents has obviously been expanded. Although the new regulations came under the guise of “Olympics reporting,” it is nevertheless regarded as a landmark event in the opening of China to the outside world.

Meanwhile, Rebecca MacKinnon argues that foreign correspondents should be done away with entirely (…and replaced by ‘global correspondents’).

Image courtesy of Bao Tong.