Is the Chinese regime’s relationship with the US ruling family a factor behind these arrests? 

 

Vincent Kolo,      chinaworker.info

 

Three Chinese activists have been detained and face criminal charges after an undercover investigation of working conditions at two factories belonging to the Huajian Group, a supplier of shoes for the Ivanka Trump fashion label. The arrests came just weeks after the brand owned by the US president’s daughter secured three new exclusive trademarks in China.

 

On 5 June the US State Department called for the release of the three men. No statement has been issued by Trump or her father however. The Chinese authorities immediately rejected the US call, stating on 6 June that foreign countries have no right to “interfere” in China’s judicial sovereignty and independence. This is a standard response from the Chinese dictatorship using nationalism to avoid deeper scrutiny of its increasingly repressive rule.

 

The past few years, especially since Xi Jinping came to power, have seen a deepening crackdown on labour activists, lawyers, feminists, NGOs and social media. A raft of new laws under the banner of “state security” is being used to criminalise peaceful protests and actions to expose human rights abuses, environmental crimes and violations of workers’ legal rights. Forced disappearances, televised ‘confessions’, taking family members or colleagues hostage, and torture, are all features of this crackdown.

 

See also: China feminists gagged over Trump criticism ➵ 

NGOs with “foreign ties” – as in this case – are particularly being singled out for attack with Xi’s regime convinced it could at some point face a “colour revolution”. This is the term it uses to describe the Arab Spring of 2011 and other mass revolts, alleging that foreign-funded groups are plotting its overthrow. In reality, foreign and domestic NGOs do not question China’s dictatorial system. Their activities are linked to achieving relatively modest, sectional improvements.

 

The shoes production at Dongguan factory of Huajian Group.

 

15-hour work a day

 

The three men – Li Zhao, Su Heng and Hua Haifeng – were engaged by the US-based NGO China Labor Watch (CLW) to investigate reports of extreme working hours, low pay and exploitation of student labour by Huajian. A letter to Ivanka Trump from CLW said workers at the two factories regularly work more than 15 hours a day, with just two days off a month, and suffer verbal abuse from managers. Huajian Group produces around one-third of Ivanka Trump branded shoes – more than 100,000 pairs per year.

 

CLW has previously published exposés of Chinese production facilities used by Samsung, Apple and Disney, involving illegal practises such as the use of child labour. The NGO sounded the alarm after it lost contact with its three investigators in late May, describing their detention on criminal charges as “unprecedented”. Their plight looks increasingly grim as the Chinese authorities – utilising a completely rigged regime-controlled judicial system – announced a string of potentially serious charges.

 

Based on state media reports, the three activists face charges of using “illegal surveillance equipment” and “sending industrial secrets abroad”. A CLW spokesperson denied the charges, while at least one legal expert has questioned whether the charge of using “illegal surveillance equipment” even exists in China. Probably, the state’s case against the activists rests on their possession of smart phone/cameras – devices that 695 million Chinese own.

 

Foreign office spokeswoman Hua Chunying told US media the men were being held on “suspicion of interfering with the company’s normal operations and production activities” – wording that suggests any form of strike, go slow, or collective stoppage by workers would likewise constitute a criminal offence.

 

Li, Su and Hua are reportedly being held in Ganzhou in Jiangxi province, where one of the factories under investigation is located. Hua’s wife said he is being held in a cell with 20 other prisoners who have been ordered not to speak to him. He has to sleep next to the toilet bucket.

 

Shifting priorities

 

In previous years dozens of such undercover investigations have been conducted at Chinese factories, helping to expose appalling conditions. These were largely tolerated by the Chinese regime in the past, which saw such investigations as a way to shame factory owners into dealing with some of the worst forms of abuse and thereby defuse potentially destabilising worker unrest. The ‘Ivanka arrests’ point to a shift in regime priorities – with profits squeezed and the economy in trouble the authorities are more anxious to discourage workers’ demands.

 

Accordingly, we can speak of a new chapter in the state’s crackdown against labour rights advocates. Hundreds of worker activists have been arrested in the past year for organising strikes and other protests which are illegal in China. The high profile trials and televised ‘confessions’ of three labour activists in Guangdong province last year, resulting in suspended prison sentences, was a further attempt to stem the rising tide of strikes.

 

In stark contrast to the vociferous China-bashing of her father during his election campaign (now abruptly dropped to appease Wall Street), China is a key market and production base for Ivanka Trump’s company. Imports to the US of Ivanka branded products rose 166 percent in 2016, almost all of them made in China. The company’s gross profits rose to $840.9 million for the 2017 fiscal year.

 

Court applies for fourth verdict deferral for Chinese activist who voiced support for Occupy protests

WRIC  

 

A Guangxi court has applied for the verdict for women’s rights activist Su Changlan to be deferred for the fourth time, her lawyer has said. Su was detained in October 2014 after making comments on social media in support of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy Occupy movement. She previously worked as a volunteer for the New York-based Women’s Rights in China group, and has been a long time campaigner for women’s and children’s rights.

 

 

Lawyer Liu Xiaoyuan posted on his Twitter account on Sunday that he called the Foshan court and was told that it had applied to the Supreme Court before Lunar New Year to defer the verdict by another three months. If approved, it will be the fourth time that it has been deferred, each time for three months.

 

She pleaded not guilty at a Guangdong court at her trial in April to charges of “incitement to subvert state power.” Liu told US-backed Radio Free Asia at the time that “she had no intention in that direction, and the case basically rested on a few articles she wrote.” Three articles and three WeChat messages were cited in allegations of incitement against her, he said in a tweet.

 

Su has thus far been detained for 27 months without being sentenced.

 

Special extensions

 

According to China’s Criminal Procedures Law, the court must announce a verdict within three months at the latest after accepting the case. Further extensions may be granted in special circumstances with the approval of the Supreme Court.

 

“This way, the local courts can use special circumstances as a reason to apply to the Supreme Court for approval to extend the verdict numerous times, detaining the defendant long-term,” Liu wrote.

 

Liu asked the court for an explanation as to why the verdict was deferred but received no answer. He was also unable to obtain an explanation from the court’s supervisory department. He previously made a complaint at the Supreme Court in November, but still has not received a response.

 

Patrick Poon, a researcher at Amnesty International, told HKFP that deferments for such cases were extremely rare.

 

“The delayed verdict of Su Changlan’s case once again explain[s] the bizarre practice of the criminal justice system in China. A person can be almost detained indefinitely as the court continues to apply for delaying to deliver its verdict. If the allegations were sound, why would this be the case?”

A ruling for Chen Qitang, another Guangdong activist also charged with inciting subversion, was also delayed three times, and the court looks likely to apply for another extension, Liu said.

 

The presiding judge for Su’s case has said that he is unable to decide the verdict, according to Liu. “It’s not only the court that can’t decide it, it’s also the Foshan Intermediate Court – otherwise, they wouldn’t drag the verdict out repeatedly. The direction of these two [Su and Chen’s] cases must have met with interference from the powerful organs above.”