BACKGROUND PRESS CALL
BY SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
ON CHINA AND INFORMATION RECIPROCITY
Via Teleconference
12:35 P.M. EST
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us for a background briefing on a China-related issue.
This call is embargoed until the end of the call. So, right at the end of the call, I will say that the embargo is lifted, but you can plan on the embargo being lifted right at the conclusion of the call.
So there’s going to be a Q&A. Today’s briefers include [senior administration officials].
Once again, each of our senior officials will give brief remarks and then we’ll go into a Q&A. And after the Q&A concludes, we will lift the embargo.
So, with that, I will turn it over to our first senior administration official.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Great. Thank, everyone. We want to update you on steps that the administration is taking to inject more reciprocity into the visa procedures affecting Chinese propaganda organs in the United States. So the objective here is to introduce a degree of fairness in our relationship with China and to stand up for the ability of American media outlets to keep reporting the news out of China.
The broader context for these steps is a sustained and deepening crackdown by the Chinese Communist Party on all forms of independent journalism inside China and even outside China’s borders.
In just the past few weeks, we’ve seen the disappearance of citizen journalists who were chronicling the Wuhan virus pandemic.
We’ve seen a book publisher, Mr. Gui Minhai, get coerced into giving up his Swedish citizenship and receiving a prison sentence for, in effect, publishing books that the Chinese government didn’t like. We also just saw the arrest of three Hong Kong thought leaders, including newspaper and magazine publisher, Jimmy Lai, in Hong Kong.
So we’re witnessing an assault on free speech inside of China that goes even beyond what it was a decade ago.
According to the Foreign Correspondents Club of China, we’ve also seen the expulsion of nine foreign journalists from China since 2013. Now, to put that into perspective, even the Soviet Union used expulsions sparingly at the height of the Cold War, as contrasted with Beijing today.
Foreign reporters who have been expelled tend to be reporters who have reported on topics that are critically important to an international audience. For example, the Chinese Community Party’s indoctrination camps and the use of forced labor to export products to U.S. consumers; high-level corruption and the ways that wealth and power are employed by top leaders, sometimes against the interests of American business; how a virus first started spreading.
And so it’s really no accident also that the expelled foreign journalists are ones who speak Chinese language very well.
So, in other words, these are all topics that are important to American and other international readers, including investors, business people, and policymakers. Our businesses and our money managers need this kind of information to be reported without fear or favor to make responsible decisions for their clients.
Our educational institutions need free-flowing information to make judgments about the security and the academic environment. And, of course, our public health experts need this kind of information in order to keep the American people safe and to allow us to work with international partners to contain and mitigate disease outbreaks.
So, irrespective of the reasons that the Chinese government may give for why it expels this or that reporter, it’s clear that the Chinese Communist Party simply doesn’t want any light being shed on a vast range of everyday activities, policies, and conditions inside of China. And, sadly, the cost of that approach will be greatest to China itself because fewer and fewer people, Chinese and Americans alike, will be interested in doing business in and engaging in such an opaque and information-poor environment.
So I want to contrast the restrictive environment that foreign reporters face in China with the complete openness and freedom that Chinese propaganda organs enjoy, and will continue to enjoy, inside the United States.
The United States has issued 3,000 I visas to Chinese nationals working in the media space, since 2015. So let me state that number again: We’ve issued 3,000 visas. By contrast, U.S. news outlets have only about 75 American or other non-Chinese citizens working for them inside of mainland China.
Also, the visas that we issue to Chinese propagandists have no duration of stay. They can stay indefinitely on those visas. By contrast, Beijing currently imposes duration of stay on all foreign reporters in China, some as short as 30 days. So, after 30 days, some reporters have to reapply for an extension.
So one step that we’ll be announcing in the near future is establishing limits on duration of stay for PRC nationals coming to the United States on I visas, which are the category for representatives of foreign media.
This merely creates some degree of reciprocity for foreign journalists in China who are increasingly getting these shorter and shorter durations of stay based on, frankly, how much Beijing dislikes their reporting.
So we’re going to address that disparity with PRC media personnel in the spirit of reciprocity. Chinese media workers here will, of course, be eligible to request extensions of stay when the duration expires.
Now, before I ask my colleague to explain the second step we’re taking, I want to draw the distinction between independent American news outlets doing actual journalism in China and the official organs the Chinese Community Party has charged with propagandizing the American people here in the United States.
Unless anyone is tempted to indulge in any false equivalency, I’d like to quote China’s leader on the subject. During a visit to the major state media outlets a few years ago, the Chinese leader said that, quote, “Media operated by the party and the government are a propaganda battleground. Their surname must be ‘Party.’” And he went on to say, quote, “We must uphold the correct way to guide public opinion and uphold the doctrine of primarily reporting positive news.”
So whereas American reporters in China are independent from any government and report news back to the world, Chinese propaganda outlets are explicit organs of the Chinese Communist Party, and their mission isn’t to inform so much as to influence on behalf of an authoritarian government.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Before [senior administration official] speaks, I just wanted -- we had a couple questions. Once again, this reminder that this call is attributable on background to “senior administration officials” and it is embargoed until the end of this call, at which point we’ll lift the embargo.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you. I’d just like to follow on with the activities -- the actions we’re taking today. Just to restate the PRC government’s continued efforts to limit the independent, international press, those efforts are unacceptable and they demand a strong response.
President Trump has made clear that Beijing’s restrictions on foreign journalists working in China are misguided. The U.S. government has long welcomed foreign journalists, including non-state-owned Chinese journalists, to report the news freely without threat of reprisal. We must respond as Beijing continues to use intimidation to silence members of a free and independent press.
And so the U.S. government will cap the number of PRC foreign missions personnel representing state media, specifically the five entities that were designated as foreign missions under the Foreign Missions Act of February 18, 2020. This cap limits the number of PRC citizens who may work for these organizations in the United States at any given time. This cap applies to the five Chinese media entities that have been designated as foreign missions and are effectively controlled by the PRC.
Unlike U.S.-based media organizations operating in China, these entities are not independent news organizations. We urge the Chinese government to immediately uphold its international commitments to respect freedom of expression, including for members of the press.
Finally, this administration seeks reciprocity across the bilateral relationship, and particularly in areas where we have suffered from longstanding lack of a level playing field. We note that, even after this cap is implemented, just these five PRC state-controlled media organizations will continue to employ more Chinese personnel in the U.S. than there are foreign reporters in all of the U.S. media outlets with operations in China.
It is our hope that this action will spur Beijing to adopt a more liberal and reciprocal approach to the U.S. and other foreign, independent press in China.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, Operator, before we open it up to questions, I just wanted to say that if you do have a question, the operator will recognize you. But if you could state your name and outlet before you ask the question. And just for sake of brevity, if we can stick to one question per outlet that is recognized.
And with that, Operator, we’ll turn it over to you.
Q Hi. This is Zhang Qi with China Caixin Media. I’m just wondering: Is this visa restriction only applied to the five state media entities? And you were saying about restricting the duration of stay and what exactly that will be. And also, right now, the visa -- I visa -- is single entry for PRC nationals. I’m wondering, will that change in any way? Thanks.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, thanks for the question. So I visas are these foreign media entity visas that we issue. And so, for PRC nationals who are outside of -- you know, really, within the mainland, all will be subject to duration of stay. But we’ll have more details in the coming weeks about that.
I don’t have anything for you in terms of other aspects of effects on visas. It's really just that one step that I announced. Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And then, as far as the organizations: Xinhua China Global Television, China Radio International, China Daily Distribution, and the Hai Tian Development. It's those five organizations, and we did not specify who. We're just simply going to limit the numbers of visas, so they can still bring in the people they want. So we're not going after individuals, as happened on the other side.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So just to put it -- for Caixin Media, there's no cap on how many people can apply for visas, I visas, to come to the United States. But all PRC nationals will see duration of stay applied to their I visas, just like duration of stay has always been applied to foreign reporters working in China. When the duration expires, they'll be able to apply for an extension.
Q Hey, it's Steve Holland with Reuters. Do you know how many people this applies to? And also, do any of these news organizations have daily access to the White House and have people here reporting on President Trump?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah. So, thanks, Steve. This does not affect the ability -- this in no way restricts the ability of people working for Chinese propaganda outlets to conduct their, you know, reporting activities. So there are no restrictions at the White House or anywhere else. (Line drops.) (Inaudible.)
Now, in terms of those five entities that are now subject to our Foreign Missions Act, there'll be a cap that, in effect, requires them to reduce somewhat the total number of employees that they employ. It's really going to be up to the Chinese Communist Party how they want to allot that cap across those five media organizations and how they want to allot it within those media organizations.
You could have a scenario where, you know, say the China Daily could actually increase the number of people who are producing content, even under this cap.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And also, you know, we issued 11,000 I visas for this sort of thing globally last year. And so any concerns about limiting the total number of journalists writ-large is -- there's no concern there.
Just want to confirm, though, that you understand that there's two actions happening here: that we're going to cap numbers of these state-media organizations, as described, and then the separate discussion about duration of stay is unrelated. But these are two different activities.
Q Hi, this Tracy Wilkinson from the Los Angeles Times. I understand this action is to send a message about press freedom to Beijing, and my question is whether President Trump's often-hostile rhetoric towards the American press at all undermines your argument. Thanks.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The first one is -- the main objective of this is to open up activity in China to something that resembles their commitments to free and open press. So, plain and simple. That’s what we're trying to get at.
And, you know, we don’t have many tools to effect this, but to allow this state-run media propaganda organs to operate freely in the U.S. while normal media cannot have the same -- don’t have the same access in China, it’s time to address that. This is house cleaning. We should've addressed this in the past, but we're getting at it now.
Q Hello, this is Carol Morello calling from the Washington Post. You went silent briefly, so forgive me if this was asked already, but I'm wondering what preparations you are making in China for potential retaliation against American and other foreign correspondents there. Thanks.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah. Hi, Carol. News organizations in China don’t -- by which I mean American news outlets in China -- aren’t part of the U.S. government. Right? That’s the beauty of our system. They are completely independent.
So if China -- it would be a shame if China decided it wanted to take things out on them, but, in the end, it would only end up hurting China because of that very information-poor environment that prevails right now in China. Kicking out more and more foreign reporters is only going to lead to a situation where China goes completely opaque. That’s going to have a massive knock-on effect on the willingness of investors, businessmen, and others to engage there.
Q Hi, I'm just following up on the call -- on the previous question. I'm from Voice of America.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Can you state your name and outlet, please?
Q Yes, sorry. My name is Patsy Widakuswara with Voice of America. So just following up on the last question: There are journalists, including journalists from the Voice of America, for example, as well as perhaps BBC or Deutsche Welle. Would we be expecting any kind of particular retaliation from the Chinese government? And if so, have you taken any measures to anticipate that? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Operator, we just went ahead and answered that question in the previous one, so let's go to the next question.
OPERATOR: We have no other questions at this time.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Great. Thank you very much everybody. Once again, this is -- this call was attributable -- any comments on the call are attributed to “senior administration officials” and the embargo is now lifted. Thank you very much.
END 12:53 P.M. EST
No comments:
Post a Comment