The NBA, Chinese Repression, Hong Kong Protests and Lessons in American Liberty
The Rockets had heretofore been the most popular team in China based on the drafting of Yao Ming in 1997. Ming, a Chinese national, was an eight-time NBA All-Star in a successful 14-year career. He remains one of the most famous and beloved athletes in China. Yet, within days of Morey’s tweet, all information on the Rockets has been deleted from Chinese internet and references to the franchise such as banners and basketball court decorations removed. Morey quickly deleted his post and made an apology. The NBA also issued an English statement and a second groveling statement in Chinese.
Rockets star James Hardin gave a full-throated apology as well:
http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=27790678
The NBA’s willingness to censor an American citizen making a political statement on US soil combined with its initial reluctance to stand up for bedrock American principles such as freedom of speech, political dissent and support of universal democracy drew intense criticism in the US from fans all the way to presidential candidates. The NBA’s stance appeared particularly hypocritical in light of the league’s aggressive promotion of social justice issues in the US.
The initial weak response and anger of American fans forced NBA Commissioner Adam Silver to clarify the league’s position on free speech. As of today, the matter remains unresolved and is not likely to fade away soon.
I will leave commentary about greed over principle and/or hypocrisy to others. However, I am interested in the Chinese response insofar as it illuminates a frequent theme of this blog: the development of individual rights and system of limited government in the United States. I have found that my students and indeed most Americans give little thought to the wonderful freedoms we enjoy and do not realize just how rare and special it is to live in 21st century America. There is much we can learn from current events about how an autocracy holds 1.4 billion Chinese people under the boot of coercive brute force. The blessings we enjoy today began developing by virtue of the unusually prescient foresight of our American founders. The Constitution and Bill of Rights established a system of government specifically designed to prevent the rise of a violently repressive communist regime like the one in China today.
Why Hong Kong?
One might wonder why a single sentence tweet that expresses only a very generalized support for the people of Hong Kong would create such a firestorm. Morey’s words did not stir up controversy in the US. Further, Twitter is blocked in China, so the claim that millions of Chinese people were offended seems unlikely. The controversy over Hong Kong stems from the Chinese communists’ extreme sensitivity to criticism. Specifically, criticism supporting massive protests that erupted in Hong Kong this summer over a proposed law.
Hong Kong is not just another part of China. The British founded modern Hong Kong in 1841 and maintained control until 1997. The island city merged into China under a doctrine of “one country, two systems.” The residents of Hong Kong enjoy more autonomy; individual freedoms such as the rights of assembly and speech; a separate legal system with safeguards; and protections not available on the mainland.
Umbrella protests
The bill sparking widespread protests mandated that certain defendants be tried and sentenced in mainland China. The proposed law exposed journalists and political activists in Hong Kong to Chinese repression which as we will see below is considerable. These protests were really over more than one proposed law. The Chinese government began violating Hong Kong’s autonomy well before this year. For example, in the last three years, the mainland government proscribed pro-democracy candidates from running for local offices. The Chinese government has gone so far as to ban entire political parties it defines as a “threat to national security.” Citizens of Hong Kong considered the bill introduced earlier this year to be the last straw in growing trend toward infringement of their legal rights and limited sovereignty.
Massive demonstrations calling for retraction of the bill began in June. Violence has steadily escalated in clashes between protesters and riot police wielding clubs and shields who employ tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets to disperse crowds. In response, demonstrators began carrying umbrellas as a non-violent protection against police use of tear gas and pepper spray which inspired the description “umbrella protests.” Demands have expanded as well from retraction of the proposed bill to more broad democratic reforms. Ominously, the Chinese government has compared protesters to terrorists which could signal an impending crackdown. There is precedent here dating back to 1989 in the use of the People’s Army to crush protesters in Tiananmen Square.
Mainland China
The people of Hong Kong’s fears about coming under the thumb of the mainland government are well founded. China has become increasingly repressive in recent years. Current President Xi Jenping informally came to power in 2012 and since emerged as the Paramount Leader, General Secretary, President and Chairman of the Central Military Commission, all key political offices. During his rise, he purged political rivals in the Politburo and the bureaucracy installing political allies in their stead. Jenping has mandated that large Chinese corporations accept Party officials on their boards and management teams expanding communist influence into the private sector. The puppet legislature amended the Chinese constitution in 2018 removing term limits for Jenping who is now the ruler for life.
Censorship in China is pervasive. The Chinese government owns or controls virtually every form of communication. State owned China Central Television (CCTV) consists of more than 50 channels reaching an audience in excess of 1 billion. All programming must be pre-approved and is often little more than state propaganda. Radio, newspaper and other media outlets are also government owned.
The internet is filtered by the government’s Great Firewall which imposes broad restrictions. Posts that violate strict standards of content are blocked or pulled down by government censors who actively monitor the internet. Banned content includes any criticism of the government, the Communist Party, Chinese culture (as defined by the state), or that is considered immoral or subversive. Chinese internet providers and companies have begun covertly sharing data with the government to increase monitoring, streamlined by the forced addition of Party members to corporate management. The government also tightly regulates academia forcing professors and teachers to follow governmental guidelines on history, philosophy, politics, science, archaeology and other subjects. Those who fail to comply lose their jobs or worse are charged with crimes and jailed.
Journalists are similarly inhibited. Year in and year out China jails more journalists than any other nation. Reporters who criticize official policy and/or report on repression are jailed or exiled. Access for foreign journalists is restricted and they are pressured to submit only approved stories. When allowed to conduct interviews, the interviewees are government approved witnesses who have been threatened with severe repercussions if they stray from approved responses to questions. The Chinese government has gone so far as to kidnap critics in other sovereign nations. Author Gui Minhai is one such example. He disappeared in 2015 while in Thailand and reappeared in Chinese custody. His crime was publishing books that criticized the government and resulted in a two-year prison term. Significantly, though born in Hong Kong, Minhai was a Swedish citizen.
As the Minhai arrest indicates, the Chinese government’s censorship has begun stretching beyond its borders. That influence is often more subtle. The growing Chinese economy boasts the world’s largest consumer base holding the potential for billions in profits. Jenping has leveraged that economic muscle to impose restrictions on foreign businesses that wish to do business in China. Western movie studios have begun creating films that will pass muster with Chinese censors while corporations have agreed to modify their business practices in exchange for access to Chinese markets. The recent dust up with the NBA is one more example of Chinese exportation of censorship.
Comprehensive Repression
Chinese repression is far more comprehensive than censorship. The government has placed its stamp on nearly every aspect of human expression and activity. Religious practices and cultural traditions that are inconsistent with Chinese doctrine are banned and those who refuse to comply are persecuted and subjected to thought control to bring about compliance and coerced loyalty to the state.
American founders established the Constitution to protect individual liberties. Chinese Communists have different priorities. The primary legal focus is on maintaining social order. In other words, the Chinese legal structure enforces communist rule and dogma with no tolerance for dissent. The Chinese made their priorities plain in a chilling response to NBA Commissioner Adam Silver’s defense of Morey’s free speech rights:
“We are strongly dissatisfied and we oppose Silver’s claim to support Morey’s right of free expression. We believe that any speech that challenges national sovereignty and social stability is not within the scope of freedom of speech”
The criminal justice system is two-tiered. There are a set of laws to outlaw internationally recognized forms of criminal behavior such as theft, assault, murder, etc. However, Chinese law also criminalizes free expression and political activities and even thoughts that violate China’s Communist Party doctrines, and/or threaten state security. Using this approach, the Chinese government has established an oppressive scheme that closely monitors and censors its citizens, denies their rights to assemble; express themselves culturally and politically; and protest. Any form of dissent is legally defined as subversion of state power, extremism and/or terrorism. Outlawed cultural expression may be as mild as growing an “abnormal” beard; wearing a veil or headscarf; private and/or public prayer; fasting; abstaining from consumption of alcohol; refusing to watch state run propaganda programs; or possessing non-approved religious or non-Chinese cultural books or articles.
Extremism, subversion of state power or terrorism are broadly defined and oft used charges to detain and imprison individuals for extended periods. Once arrested, defendants are held incommunicado for up to 6 months with no right to trial, counsel or other legal protections. Often a defendant simply disappears without any notice to family and friends. Once in captivity, torture with electric shocks, forced medications, and other coercive measures ensue. Those charged may see their entire family rounded up and detained which exerts extra pressure on the defendant to make a false confession.
Chinese law recognizes only five religions, all others are defined as “evil cults” and are illegal. “Cults” like the Falun Gong are regularly harassed, arrested and sentenced to “re-education” camps where they are subjected to torture, deprivation and brainwashing.
For the five legal religions, the government defines acceptable practices re-writing religious beliefs and practices to meet approved doctrine. Religious groups are required to meet and worship in approved spaces and are banned from communicating with outside believers. If practitioners exceed legal limits set by the government, they are frequently imprisoned.
Xinjiang
Xinjiang, the northwestern province of China provides a useful example. The province is a typical central Asian region with numerous subcultures that have existed and interacted over thousands of years. They are difficult to define and even harder to separate geographically. Xinjiang has a population of about 23 million including Kazakhs, Han, Kyrgyz, Uyghurs, Tajiks, Tibetans, Turks, and others.
About 11 million of the residents are Uyghurs, an ethnic Turkic people. The mostly Muslim Uyghurs have been singled out by Chinese authorities. Since Jenping took power, the government has made elimination of Uyghur culture a priority. Use of Uyghur language in schools, public places and in religious services has been banned. Ownership of the Qur’an and other religious texts is similarly outlawed. As many as 1 million Uyghurs (10% of the entire population) are currently incarcerated in re-education camps where they are forced to learn Mandarin Chinese, praise the government and Chinese culture while shedding traditional customs. Those who resist re-education or are deemed to have “failed to learn” receive additional punishments such as prolonged solitary confinement, deprivation of necessities, and torture. Political prisoners are thrown in with hardened criminals which results in further abuse. Reports have come from relatives of prisoners that conditions have declined in detention centers recently from a lack of food and other necessities to declining health care. Ominously, the Chinese government has established boarding schools for the children of detained parents ringed with barbed wire fences where children as young as five endure re-education designed to destroy their cultural heritage.
Outside the prisons, Chinese authorities have divided Xinjiang with frequent checkpoints used to restrict travel within the province. Communication with outsiders is banned. Intense government oversight includes video surveillance, wiretapping, internet data collection, monitoring and even programs requiring Uyghurs and other minority ethnic groups to host state officials in their homes. The inhabitants of Xinjiang must also attend mandatory flag raising ceremonies and state-run political denunciation meetings where individuals are encouraged to report others for non-compliance with governmental policies. The Chinese government has severely restricted religious practices and have according to Human Rights Watch virtually outlawed the practice of Islam.
Implications of Chinese Repression for Americans
Reviewing the conditions in China should be shocking to any American. We enjoy freedoms and privileges that our Constitution and government actively enforce by statute and in the courts. One of the more difficult tasks in teaching American History and civil rights is making students understand just how unique and rare our system is in history and in the modern world. It is true that the American system has not always been just or equitable, but conditions today are exceptional. We exercise our rights without even thinking about it, much less worrying about governmental backlash.
Many of the tactics employed by the Chinese government are not new, though modern technology makes them far more effective and intrusive. Our founders saw these tactics used by the British and shortly after winning the Revolutionary War, took steps to prevent the very governmental repression now occurring in China.
If the Soviet Union and Cold War served any positive purpose, it would be a strong reminder about once a decade of what life would be like without a Bill of Rights (1948 Berlin Airlift, 1956 suppression of the Hungarian reform movement, the Berlin Wall (1961-1991), 1968’s Prague Spring repression, and martial law in Poland in the early 1980s). The First Amendment ensures Americans can all choose which religion they wish to follow (including no religion at all). Americans can openly follow the tenets of that religion privately and publicly. The government cannot set restrictions on reasonable practices nor legally define religious doctrine.
Freedom of religion protects far more than just a choice. It offers liberty of thought. Americans have unfettered access to a virtually unlimited array of information from which we can form our own conclusions over religious, political and cultural matters. Freedom of thought forms an important basis for other basic liberties in the First Amendment encouraging and enhanceing meaningful participation in a pluralistic society. The Chinese concisely expressed their conception of speech in response to Silver’s statement: “any speech that challenges national sovereignty and social stability is not within the scope of freedom of speech.” The Chinese formulation is antithetical to the US version of free speech. Instead of allowing citizens to express themselves, the Chinese have in essence eliminated free speech altogether. US citizens can assemble, speak their minds including criticizing government officials with broad rights and opportunities for protest. The press is privately owned and cannot be censored. Further, journalists cannot be imprisoned for reporting on government excess and corruption. Repression of thought and expression also leads to suppression of diverse cultures and practices that make the US a thriving democratic republic.
Most Americans have no idea that the Third Amendment exists. This provision bans the government from housing soldiers in private homes. The Chinese install Party officials in Uyghurs’ homes as spies to monitor and enforce thought control on a micro level. It is hard to imagine a more repressive measure. The mere fact that this method is still used provides ample evidence of its wisdom and continued necessity of the Third Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment ensures Americans shall be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure and no warrants issued without probable cause.” The Amendment further requires warrants must identify persons and places to be searched with specificity. Thus, the US government cannot arbitrarily enter one’s home and subject individuals to a witch hunt-like investigation. In China this protection is non-existent.
Chinese defendants are secretly arrested, detained indefinitely, denied legal counsel, often subjected to torture and coerced into false confessions. They are then imprisoned to endure further torture and brainwashing. The Fifth Amendment requires that no person shall be detained without an indictment laying out the reasons. Further, no defendant is required to testify against themselves. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “speedy” trial to prevent prolonged incarceration before conviction and must have the right to know the nature of charges and evidence to be produced against them. Defendants also have the right to legal counsel to assist in calling their own witnesses and gathering exculpatory evidence. The right against self-incrimination makes obtaining false confessions far more difficult. Chinese defendants have none of these substantive or due process protections.
The Chinese legal priority is state security which means individual rights have no value. The American system proceeds under the assumption that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty. The system is specifically designed to protect Americans’ liberty and prevent arbitrary government repression that takes place daily in China. Finally, the Eighth Amendment bans “cruel and unusual punishment” preventing American defendants from being subjected to torture and even murder before or after conviction which occurs on a massive scale in China.
When the Founders enshrined these rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it was more than mere self-interest. The Founders believed these rights were universal, created along with the Natural Laws that govern the universe, as undeniable as the laws of gravity. They were Natural Rights granted to every individual that no government had the right or power to abridge or violate. In China, no such presumption exists. State security, the continued autonomy of the Communist Party is the only consideration. In ignoring the Natural Rights of all, the Chinese government provides nothing to its people but unending suppression of any sort of individuality.
Thomas Jefferson once said “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” For a corporation like the NBA, money is blood. Let us hope that if the NBA must lose some money it will fertilize the “Tree of Liberty” providing Americans with a prescient reminder of all we take for granted. We enjoy rights and a system of government that allows us to go about our lives as we wish without fear of secret arrests, religious discrimination, re-education camps and the myriad other violations that the Chinese people live with daily. I hope this current controversy will serve as a warning of the necessity that all Americans zealously guard their rights and work to ensure the rights of others are not violated.
Amnesty International 2017-2018 Report: https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/POL1067002018ENGLISH.PDF
Human Rights Watch 2018 Report:
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/china-and-tibet
Anonymous, Up to One Million Detained in China’s Mass “Re-Education Drive. Amnesty International, September, 2018.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/09/china-up-to-one-million-detained/
Anonymous, Hong Kong Emergency Powers Are an Extreme Attempt to Quash Protests. Amnesty International, October 4, 2019. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/10/hong-kong-emergency-powers-are-an-extreme-attempt-to-quash-protests/
Kang, Dake, Mendoza, Martha, Wang, Yanan, US sportswear traced to factory in China’s internment camps. www.apnews.com, December 19, 2018
https://www.apnews.com/99016849cddb4b99a048b863b52c28cb
Mathis-Lilley, Ben, The NBA Forgot it Has American Fans Too. www.slate.com, October 7, 2019. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/nba-china-hong-kong-apology-backlash.html
Sudworth, John, China Muslims: Xinjiang Schools Used to Separate Children from Families. www.bbc.com, July 4, 2019.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-48825090Tudyka, Fritz, Intimidated, Imprisoned, Tortured. www.ostpol.de, February 12, 2019.
https://www.ostpol.de/beitrag/5290-intimidated-imprisoned-tortured
Yglesias, Matthew, The Raging Controversy Over the NBA, China and the Hong Kong Protests Explained. www.vox.com, October 7, 2019. https://www.vox.com/2019/10/7/20902700/daryl-morey-tweet-china-nba-hong-kong
Hi, – Gui Minhais name is mispelled as “Gui Mahai” – please correct the spelling? It’s very nice that you write about our Swedish citizen Gui Minhai, kidnapped by China 4 years ago this Thursday. On this day Oct 17, 2019, there are also rallies and vigils in Stockholm, and at the Frankfurt Book Fair. ps. Also, by now, he has been paraded on TV three times, not just one, as you wrote. ps. I would be happy to send you my updated list of news and reports about Gui’s case. It’s easy to look up my email at Cornell… Read more »
Thank you for the correction, I have updated my article. You can send any updates to jmcneer5001@yahoo.com