Want access? Go easy on China

Paul Mooney, Foreign Correspondent

• Last Updated: June 21. 2008 8:54PM UAE / June 21. 2008 4:54PM GMT

James Millward, who teaches history at Georgetown University, contributed to a book that angered Chinese officials. Andrew Councill / The National

BEIJING // In 2004, a manuscript on China's Xinjiang region somehow fell into the hands of unknown Chinese. The book was quickly translated into Chinese - complete with the editor's marginalia - and copies were soon making the rounds of government offices in Beijing.

Chinese officials apparently mistakenly saw the book as a US government-funded effort to undermine its rule of the troubled Muslim area in China's far northwest. Most of the 14 contributors, all but one of whom were from the West, soon found themselves on China's docket of blacklisted scholars.

Four years later, these scholars remain persona non grata in China with no sign that the ban will be lifted anytime soon. "It's far easier to put the kibosh on someone than to lift it," said James Millward, a professor of history at Georgetown University and a contributor to the book.

All of the scholars, with the exception of one, have been refused visas to China, with only a few exceptions for special circumstances.

The message - which worried China scholars around the world - was clear. There are topics China will not tolerate discussion on and the government is prepared to do whatever it takes to keep a lid on them.

Foreign scholars are finding the China field an increasingly dangerous territory to navigate, and some readily admit to avoiding certain topics and to tweaking their research. And the situation is getting worse as China grows more economically and politically powerful.

One of the authors of the banned book - titled Xinjiang: China's Muslim Borderland - who declined to use his name, said Beijing is stepping up efforts to control how China is perceived internationally. "We're in a period where China's influence is expanding and they're seeking ways to control the message outside of China just as they do inside China."

Edward Friedman, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, said the effects are multiple: "People who do research in the country want continuing access. There is a tendency not to do anything that will threaten your ability to get access."

The problem is that it is not always clear where the invisible line is drawn. Scholars say that being purposely vague about what causes the problem subconsciously forces people to be more cautious than they probably need to be, a strategy that has been successful against intellectuals and the media in China.

"The Chinese government likes to set rules in people's minds," said Yu Maochun, a professor of history at the US Naval Academy. "There's a line you are not supposed to cross. There are certain things you don't do or say. As long as you observe these rules, you won't have a problem." Moreover, not knowing exactly what the rules are "is what keeps people mute", he said.

"This effect is hard to pin down and to measure because it operates deep in the privacy of individual minds, where even the user himself or herself might not always be aware of it," said Perry Link, a professor of East Asian studies at Princeton University.

Mr Link said he has been denied visas since 1996 and has never been given a reason, although he can cite several possibilities. "I am pretty sure that my example lurks in the minds of people in the field," he said.

Xinjiang observers concede that anything about the troubled region - home to a large Muslim population that resents Chinese rule - could be considered sensitive. But they said there was nothing particularly sensitive about their book. "It's not polemical, we don't address human rights issues directly and we certainly didn't support a separatist cause," Mr Millward said.

Mr Yu said China has improved significantly over the past decade, but there has also been a worrisome trend in the direction of self-censorship among those who study China.

"I have seen [Chinese and foreign] scholars who are brilliant, but when they make a speech they have a different view than when they speak privately," he said. "They have a different perspective. They censor themselves."

Experts said it was always difficult to quantify the effects of such apparent intimidation. In the case of the Xinjiang scholars, the obvious manifestation was that most of the 14 contributors to the book have had little or no access to a region they have spent their entire careers researching.

"When a group of scholars studying Xinjiang are all blacklisted, and they can no longer go to Xinjiang, and can no longer attend conferences in China on any topic, then learning in that field, and by scholars in any field, is less than it would otherwise be," Mr Link said.

Some describe the situation in terms of incentives and penalties.

Sin-ming Shaw, an independent scholar based in London, said if you do not upset Beijing, you will be wined and dined and considered a friend. "They may even slip you a few documents," he said. However, if you do offend anyone, "you're basically out of the China business".

"That is a heavy penalty, and so you stop saying things you don't want to say and you stop doing research you know is sensitive," he said. "If a journalist gets kicked out of China, he can always go to Tel Aviv, but not if you're an academic."

Some scholars - especially those just starting out- are turning away from projects that they otherwise would have pursued. Mr Link said some young scholars had asked him which topics might get them in trouble with the Chinese government.

He tells of a recent Princeton graduate in comparative literature who was considering translating a novel called Ru Yan@sars.com that provided a penetrating view of China's values crisis against the backdrop of the 2003 outbreak of Sars, a respiratory illness that killed hundreds in China and elsewhere.

The very popular book was banned in China, but it continued to circulate widely on the internet. The young man was drawn to the idea of translating the novel, but backed off when he learned that it had been banned, Mr Link said.

"Even students with relatively innocuous topics like the state-mandated village elections come to me asking how they can avoid trouble if they take on such a topic," he said.

Concern about the Chinese colleagues who assist with foreign experts also adds to the pressure on scholars.

"Your work always makes some Chinese hostage to your behaviour, and I don't want to get people in trouble," said a prominent political scientist in the United States, who declined to be named for fear of getting into trouble.

Nor does there appear to be a great deal of support for people who find themselves targeted by Beijing, either from colleagues or their own universities.

"There's a sort of Damocles sword hanging above your head and you are aware of it all the time," Mr Friedman said. "The way it works is if the sword falls, the question is 'Why was your neck stretched out?' rather than why did the sword fall." He said some members of the China-watching community actually blame colleagues who have been barred.

Universities, which have been falling over one another to set up exchange programmes in China, have for the most part remained reluctant to get involved. Mr Link and another Princeton scholar are unable to get visas to travel to China, but when Shirley Tilghman, the university president, led a Princeton delegation to China, she spoke publicly about the problems that Chinese students were having in getting US visas and said nothing about China's refusal to give US scholars visas.

Experts said universities could be doing more. "If you look at it in a cold way, China needs the West more than the West needs China," Mr Shaw said. "There is a lot more bargaining power on the US side than on the Chinese side."


pmooney@thenational.ae