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