Dongzhou Crackdown II: No Blood, but Amcit

C O N F I D E N T I A L GUANGZHOU 032306 SIPDIS SIPDIS C O R R E C T E D COPY TEXT STATE FOR EAP/CM STATE FOR CA/OCS/ACS/EAP PACOM FOR FPA E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/21/16 TAGS: CASC DENNIS DANFUNG PGOV PHUM SOCI CH SUBJECT: Dongzhou Crackdown II: No Blood, but Amcit Journalist Detained and Released REF: A) Guangzhou 29575; B) Guangzhou 15624; C) Beijing 06612; D) 05 Guangzhou 31940 ¶1. (U) Classified by Consul General Robert Goldberg. Reason 1.4 (d). ¶2. (C) SUMMARY: On November 18, in a scene reminiscent of the violent clash on December 6, 2005 in the same village, up to 2,000 armed police, using tear gas and flash bullets, secured the release of eight local officials held hostage by villagers for eight days in Guangdong's Dongzhou village, according to media sources. The villagers had taken the officials hostage to protest the detention of a village activist who had been protesting corruption by local officials. Police continue to surround the village and some sources claim that at least three villagers were arrested, while others (including Mainland media) report no injuries or arrest occurred. Congenoffs were told by an Amcit freelance photo-journalist Danfung Dennis (pdob 1 November 1981, Ithaca, NY, aka Donnoch Danfung Dennis; US passport 701515903 issued in Singapore 3 September 1999) that he was detained, struck in the head in a struggle during his detention, and later released. The villagers' main complaints (land compensation and release of a fellow villager) remain unresolved. The one-year anniversary of the December 6 incident is approaching and the concerns, which led to a violent clash, have not been dealt with: some activists believe clashes could occur again. Some journalists claim Beijing's tactics of tight control on reporting rural unrest incidents is effective, evidenced by a recent announcement of dramatically lowered protest numbers. Others say this is simply a numbers game. END SUMMARY. Village Crackdown: This Time No Blood -------------- ¶3. (C) According to media sources (Reuters, Associated Press, South China Morning Post),on the morning of November 18, police (eyewitnesses said about 2,000 men) armed with guns, clubs, and dogs, stormed a temple containing local officials held hostage by villagers for eight days in the village of Dongzhou (Shanwei prefecture, eastern Guangdong province). The South China Morning Post (SCMP) reports that on the morning of November 19, "tensions were still high" as police continued surrounding the village. According to a well-connected Guangxi activist, the situation remains "dangerous for foreigners," as police maintain a cordon around the village and are checking identities closely. The fallout from the incident is so far unclear. Some overseas Chinese websites as well as Radio Free Asia reported villagers saying that at least two, possibly three villagers had been arrested (originally some villagers were claiming up to 20 deaths and three arrested foreign journalists). Xinhua reported no injuries, arrest or deaths; a temporarily-detained Amcit freelance photo-journalist confirmed this information as well. According to the SCMP, internet and cell phone networks have been blocked, while the fixed phone network is still working. ¶4. (U) The cause of the incident stems from the November 9 detention of Chen Qian, a local villager whose farmland had been confiscated without any compensation and who began a banner-hanging campaign criticizing corrupt local leaders. Radio Free Asia said police attacked Chen while detaining him. However, Xinhua reported that Chen was detained because he had assaulted an official "over trifles." On November 10, about 2,000 villagers went to the local street administration office to petition for the release of Chen and forced eight local officials as hostages in a nearby temple. After six days, the government could still not negotiate the officials' release. On the afternoon of November 16, several thousand armed police and policemen were reportedly dispatched to Dongzhou and were told to be ready to take action to free the officials. Dongzhou Background: A Troubled Village -------------- ¶5. (U) Dongzhou village drew international attention in December 2005 when police killed between three and 20 villagers, quelling villager protests over inadequate compensation for land seized to build a power station (ref D). According to the Washington Post, each farming family was promised the equivalent of USD 3,750 for the seized land when the project began, but the villagers claimed they "had not received a cent" and alleged corruption on the part of local officials. In May, 2006, 13 Dongzhou villagers were convicted for crimes related to the protest - six sentenced to four years imprisonment, the other seven received between three to seven years imprisonment (ref B). Today, family members are allegedly monitored by local government officials and not allowed to leave their houses or contact outsiders. The local government has threatened to extend sentences for the prisoners if their family members petition the central government. To ease the tension, the Shanwei government, on July 26, allotted RMB 60,000 (USD 7,500) to Dongzhou Township, to sponsor a local folk event. Amcit Detained, Struck in the Head and Released -------------- --- ¶6. (SBU) Amcit Danfung Dennis, 25, who has been working in Beijing for more than a year as a freelance photo- journalist, was detained in the incident. Post never met with Dennis personally and was unable to obtain a privacy act waiver. Dennis did, however, speak with Congenoff by telephone on November 19 and November 21; Dennis's relatives (sister and father) spoke with Post's Duty Officer several times; and Dennis' father told Post's Duty Officer that he personally informed the Associated Press in Hong Kong about the story. According to Dennis, he has been working in Beijing on a business visa (he originally entered China on a tourist visa but later changed his visa status),but not as an accredited journalist. After hearing about the hostage situation from Radio Free Asia reports, Dennis arrived in the village on the morning of November 18 by traveling on less-used back roads. He did not notice a police presence at that time. Dennis conducted interviews and took photos for several hours until 2 p.m. when he was told by villagers that the police were searching house-to-house for foreigners. For the next 16 hours Dennis evaded police by riding on a motorcycle with villagers to different locations. During this time, Dennis contacted his sister in Beijing, telling her he was in hiding and could possibly be arrested. The sister contacted the Duty Officer in Guangzhou at approximately 5:30 p.m. and it was agreed by the sister that if the sister did not call the Duty Officer, this would be taken as indication that Dennis was safe. Finally Dennis was taken to a hotel in the city of Shanwei, where he checked in on the morning of November 19. A few minutes later, at 6 a.m., the police arrived and detained him in hotel room at the same hotel. Dennis assumes the hotel staff alerted the PSB to the presence of a foreigner. ¶7. (SBU) Dennis tried to call his relatives as soon as he was detained, but the PSB forcibly confiscated his mobile phone and other possessions, including seven compact flash cards and two external hard drives from his camera equipment. Dennis was held for 10 hours of questioning with interviewing conducted through an interpreter. He was given access to water and a toilet. Early in the detention, Dennis told the PSB that he was an Amcit and that he would not cooperate with the interrogation until he was allowed to speak with the U.S. Embassy. At approximately 9 a.m., Dennis grabbed his mobile phone, locked himself into a bathroom and had a very brief conversation with his sister in Beijing (with sounds of the PSB knocking down the door in the background). The sister then called the Duty Officer in Guangzhou, informing Post of the detention. According to Dennis, the PSB broke down the door and struck him "a couple of times" in the head and, during the struggle pushed him into a metal object, cutting his arm. Learning of his detention, Post's Duty Officer then informed Post's Consular Section Chief and American Citizen Services (ACS) Chief of the situation, who in turn alerted the Embassy in Beijing. An ACS FSN called various authorities in Shanwei prefecture, in which Dongzhou is located, and Guangdong Province, attempting unsuccessfully to find out more details about the location and condition of Dennis. ¶8. (SBU) According to Dennis, the PSB initially did not allow him to put disinfectant on his wound, but eventually brought him some ointment. Dennis said he was interrogated about his background, organizational representation, and his activities and contacts in Dongzhou. Eventually the PSB produced three documents that Dennis was required to sign: first, a transcript of the conversation; second, a confession of conducting "illegal interviews without Foreign Affairs Office (FAO) permission," agreement to the confiscation his camera equipment, and a promise to never engage in such activities again; and third, a list of the confiscated items. After signing the documents, Dennis said everything went "smoothly" and at 4 p.m. he was put on a bus to Guangzhou, where he eventually took a flight to Singapore. ¶9. (SBU) Meanwhile, at approximately 3 p.m., the Duty Officer informed the Director of the Guangdong FAO Consular Division, Luo Jun, of the situation and asked for assistance. At 4:45 p.m., Luo called back confirming the release of Dennis. It is unclear exactly what triggered the release: Dennis' cooperation or Congenoffs' intervention. Dennis himself was also unable to confirm whether the release was related to Post's intervention or simply the completion of the investigation. At approximately 6 p.m., Dennis, while traveling on a bus to Guangzhou, told poloff he did not require any additional medical attention. On November 21, poloff spoke again with Dennis, who said his arm wound was healing and otherwise his health was fine. Future Unrest Likely? -------------- ¶10. (C) Although Chinese activists have been involved in several South China protests, this does not appear to be the case in Dongzhou. None of Post's South China contacts from the "Rights Protection Movement" ("Weiquan Yundong", ref C) had any direct contact with the latest Dongzhou incident, and some had not even heard about it. Dennis himself did not believe the unrest was caused by outside influence. Indeed, Dennis said that outside information seemed difficult to obtain in Dongzhou as there was no evidence of internet connections or an internet bar in the village. Dalian-based rights activist Li Jian (protect), who is associated with Beijing's Rights Empowerment Institute, was the only activist Post knew who had been to Dongzhou. Li had visited Dongzhou in March and believed the situation had been resolved in the short-term because the large police presence will likely prevent any immediate protest and because the immediate question of the eight hostages has been resolved. Nevertheless, Li fears there will likely be another major problem nearer to the time of the one-year anniversary of the first Dongzhou incident on December 6. This could be similar to the problems that occurred in the Taishi village (near Guangzhou) this past August (ref A). Both Li and Dennis believed that a future confrontion between villagers and the authorities is likely because the fundamental complaints of the villagers (land compensation and the detaining of Chen Qian) as well as the "scars" of the December incident, have not been resolved. Dennis is also concerned about the safety of villagers that he photographed. Comment: A Numbers Game? -------------- ¶11. (C) On November 19, the Washington Post's Ed Cody argued in the article "China Reins in Rural Protests, but Not Resentment" that Dongzhou is a successful example of villagers' "simmering anger contained." Moreover, the recent announcement of an annual drop of "mass protests" in China "proves" the efficacy of Beijing's new emphasis on improving the social factors behind protest (namely corruption, poverty alleviation and land compensation), coupled with increased surveillance. In the Consulate's view, Cody's argument is misleading. First, many consider Chinese protest numbers unreliable, due to unclear definitions of what a "mass incident" entails. In January 2006, the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) disclosed four different categories of "mass incidents" involving more than 100 citizens: crimes interfering with government business; mass gatherings that disturb public order; incidents of provocation; and mob fighting. Others, such as Yu Jianrong, an expert on protests at the China Academy of Social Science, defines "mass incident" as a protest of more than five people. ¶12. (C) Cody and many other journalists point to the recent announcement by MPS Vice-Minister Liu Jinguo, that "mass incidents" over the period from January until September of 2006 numbered only 17,900, claiming it represented a 22.1 percent decrease from 2005's numbers. Liu's numbers contradict previous announcements from the Ministry of Public Security, which had said annual mass protests were on a steady rise: 58,000 (2003),74,000 (2004) and 87,000 (2005). Based on these numbers, the new figure of 17,900 protests would mean a 72.5 percent drop, not a 22.1 percent one. Additionally, Cody relies heavily on Shenzhen-based labor activist Liu Kaiming. While Liu is respected in the world of urban labor rights, he is not known as a scholar of rural issues, particularly on an issue like Dongzhou, which is outside of the Pearl River Delta. ¶13. (C) According to the Los Angeles Times, the numbers are just made up to demonstrate the success in building a harmonious society and may be the result of recent rules requiring approval from the Propaganda Department before announcing mass incidents. It is also possible that the lower number could be based on only one of the MPS subcategories of protests, but the lack of clear definition has led to ambiguity and a feeling by some observers that MPS is playing a numbers game. GOLDBERG