Wins and Losses

China, in its bid to win hosting rights to the Olympic games seven years ago said that “there will be no restrictions on media reporting and movement of journalists up to and including the Olympic Games.” This was one of the factors that the International Olympic Committee considered in deciding to go with China instead of the rival candidates Toronto, Paris, Istanbul, and Osaka.

In the past weeks leading up to the formal opening of the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, much controversy has been made out of the fact that China has decided to limit internet access of foreign press who are there to cover the events. This restriction, according to critics of China’s Olympics-related policy decision, is in
derogation of its promise to provide “free and unfettered access” in order to win the Olympic bid. Naysayers go a step further in saying that this type of restriction is in violation of basic human rights, in particular, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which includes the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media. These rights have been recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which has been adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, of which China is a member.

China, for the most part, defends its stand towards internet censorship by stating that what they had promised when they bid for hosting rights was “complete freedom to report”, clarifying that the freedom extended only to reports relating to “Olympic competitions”.

Kevan Gosper, a senior member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), in responding to criticisms regarding this particular issue, put it succinctly when he said that this (freedom) “didn't necessarily extend to free access and reporting on everything that relates to China."

China maintains that it is keeping its word by providing “sufficient” internet access to the foreign press. It is unapologetic in its restriction of websites deemed sensitive by Chinese authorities and its application of such restriction to both Chinese citizens and foreign press alike.

In the end, it all boils down to whether or not the agreement between the IOC and China reflected the true intention of both parties. China maintains that the “free and unfettered access” that it had promised pertains only to Games-related coverage and research. The IOC, on the other hand, insists that the Internet restrictions agreed upon were those “similar to those that exist in other countries”, such as pornographic sites and sites that were sensitive for national security reasons. Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that China is justified in restricting these sites because it considers them “threats to national security”, is it justified in applying that restriction to members of the foreign press?

Whether or not China can validly classify these sites as threats to its national security

Journalists stationed in Beijing for the Olympics have complained that they are unable to access the website of Amnesty International, a website which has consistently been critical of China for its failure to honor its human rights pledges. Other websites dealing with matters offensive to the government’s ideologies or deemed to contain subversive material have been firewalled by the country’s Golden Shield Project.

Other websites which have been blocked by the Golden Shield (though some have been unblocked) range from news websites such as China Times, BBC, and other news outlets which China has been unable to regulate, social networks sites such as MySpace, Multiply, and Facebook, Organization websites such as the United Nations, Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International, to even celebrity websites such as Andy Lau’s and Robert Scoble. It can be easily gleaned from this short-list of blocked websites that because of China’s political structure, a classification such as a “threat to national security” can and does amount to a nearly blanket prohibition that is governed mostly by the Communist Party of China’s (CPC) paranoia of a possible overthrow. But such is the law in China, and a person who is a subject of the PRC is bound to follow the country’s restrictive laws and policies. As to its citizens, then, China may validly censor access to the internet as it sees fit.


Whether or not China may validly impose its laws on censorship on foreign nationals

China may argue that its character as a sovereign body allows it to impose its laws on those who enter its territory. For one, it is not imposing these restrictions on the foreign press to keep them from learning about this censored information – they are free to look this information up once they are outside Chinese territory; such is the effect of the Golden Shield which operates as an across the board firewall for all things China deems dangerous to its political climate.

To counter this, the IOC and those critical of Chinese policy argue that its bid to host the Olympics and its promise to provide “free and unfettered” access operates to delimit its sovereignty in that it allowed itself to be bound by international customary norms regarding freedom of expression and freedom to information when it entered its bid to host the Olympics, thus submitting itself to IOC authority and agreeing to recognize vested rights of the nationals of countries who were thus participating.

As previously mentioned, China argues that it promised unrestricted access and complete freedom to report only to “Games-related matters” and nothing more. But even reporting of matters pertaining to the Olympic games have been hampered by bureaucratic policies. News agencies have complained of having permits (to shoot) rescinded, and of being forced to give notice a month ahead of time about the location of satellite trucks. They have also complained of harassment from bureaucrats regarding office space rental and getting parking permits for their vehicles. Although press stationed in Beijing are forbidden from accessing sites that the Communist Party deems dangerous, they are not precluded from reporting whether or not China is in fact meeting its most basic promise of a comprehensive coverage of the Olympics games. For now, all we can do is wait and see.


Whether or not foreign press access to the prohibited sites is relevant

The IOC is quick to remind everyone that the Olympics is first and foremost a sporting event, and as such it should not be used to intervene or to criticize political and policy decisions employed by China. In effect, they are stressing that the media’s rights and corresponding obligations (as to reporting) while in Beijing are limited to sporting issues. Hence, access to such prohibited sites is not material, as they are not even remotely connected to the issue of sports in any way. However, critics are quick to rebuff the IOC for its failure to respond to calls for them to regulate China’s lackadaisical violation of human rights in its attempt to “clean” Beijing. Protesters have been detained and made to work forcibly by the government in order to ensure orderliness throughout the course of the Olympic Games. In choosing China, it could be argued, they (the IOC) are indirectly responsible for these violations as well.


Balancing of Interests is Necessary

The situation can be argued from so many sides. From a contractual point of view, we can go into technicalities and argue as to what it was exactly that China promised in order to win the bid and what the IOC stipulated to China prior to its awarding the hosting rights. Also, while it is true that members of the foreign press are entitled to complete freedom as regards internet use, but is it relevant in light of the circumstances? Viewed from another perspective, is it even feasible for China to provide unrestricted internet access to foreign press without also running the risk of exposing its citizens to the very thing that it seeks to avoid? From China’s point of view, without the severity of its censorship laws, exposing its people to the sensitive information may very well lead to a true threat to national security.

The 2008 Summer Olympics officially begins today, and it is highly doubtful that China will bend in its position towards internet censorship now. They have too much to lose. Yet, it is ironic that in trying to bolster the new face of China through this year’s Olympics, it has lost much more than it realizes: the respect of free states and free men the world over.