|
Human rights group splits over leadership and direction Nick Young A major rift has occurred in Human Rights in China (HRiC), a well-known US-based NGO founded in 1989, with a dozen Board members resigning and claiming in a joint, public statement that the organisation has 'abandoned the idea that human rights are universal, non-partisan and non-political. ' The resigning members include dissident Chinese intellectuals living abroad, volunteers who have worked for the organisation for ten years, one founding member, and the Board's co-Chair. They allege that HRiC President Liu Qing, who has occupied the post for thirteen years, has diverted funds to other 'political' organisations that he leads - notably Citizens Forum, which some observers see as a political party in the making. They also say that HRiC has broken its own rules by not holding regular, three-yearly elections for the presidency post. Members of the resigning group contacted by China Development Brief clarified that they are not alleging personal corruption but, rather, that 'financial resources have been diverted toward the building of Liu Qing's personal political capital.' Speaking on the phone from Paris, where she is currently researching political philosophy, Sichuan native and HRiC founding member, Ms. Liu Xiaorong, told China Development Brief that there had been a growing schism in the organisation. She and other resigning members felt it should do more to support 'the growing movement of individuals inside China who are trying to act on behalf of disadvantaged people or disenfranchised groups.' HRiC, she said, 'is becoming more detached, moving its own way, with its own set of operations. [We felt they should] support individuals in China more aggressively.' According to the resigning members, HRiC's annual budget is nearly USD 3 million, of which USD 100,000 is allocated to a 'Humanitarian Aid Fund' to support individual human rights activists. Liu Qing, they say, tightly controls this fund and dips into it to support other organisations he leads. Liu Xiarong added that she and her colleagues felt 'growing concern that money was spent on the organisation rather than on people inside [China] doing the battle. When people hear about the salaries the top executives are making, there is this shocked reaction. Maybe compared to US organisations in New York the salaries aren't that high, but compared to other [dissident] Chinese organisations they certainly are.' Speaking from New York, Taiwan-born poet and short story writer Ms. Wang Yu, who worked as a volunteer for HRiC for ten years and has now also resigned, said that 'Two years ago the Chinese board members felt that Liu Qing didn't use the money to help the people in China. It was then that people remembered the rules [about elections to the Presidency].' But, says Wang, Liu 'didn't listen to other people's suggestions.' She claims that the organisation lacks transparency, and likens the Executive Committee to 'a black box.' This worried her because 'In democracy, you don't trust the person, you trust the system.' Wang also points out that the resigning cohort includes 'nearly all of the old Chinese members, and 90 per cent of them have worked for this organisation for more than ten years. There are still five Chinese people left on the Board; all but one of them was recruited by Liu Qing - including [Hong Kong-based labour right activist] Han Dongfang, who is a very nice person.' The organisation, she implies, stands in danger of losing its Chinese character. The only non-Chinese Board member in the current round of resignations is Princeton University Professor of East Asian Studies, Perry Link. In a resignation letter, a copy of which was also circulated with the public statement, he writes that 'Other [Overseas Chinese] groups . . . have dwindled and foundered because a single leader demands that his group become his faction, turns rivalrous towards leaders of other groups, and in the end alienates all the followers who had begun from more generous ideals. Until very recently I did not realise that this pattern was also developing within HRiC.' Rebuttal Speaking from New York, HRiC Executive Director, Sharon Hom, vigorously refuted the charges laid against the organisation, and deplored the public way they have been made. 'They have helped the Communist Party more than they can imagine,' she says. 'We tried to do a lot of negotiation: when we left the Board meeting on Saturday they had agreed to Hu Ping being a mediator but, to our shock, on Sunday they had already gone to the Chinese media.' 'If you lose the vote, it's unfortunate but its how democracy works.' On the question of diversion of funds, Ms. Hom says that 'One of the resigning board members was in the three-person group who approved every single disbursement in a weekly meeting with Liu Qing and myself. The level to which she could not understand finances was a serious problem. She did not understand how difficult it is to get money into China.' Ms. Hom rubbished the charge that HRiC is becoming remote from human rights activists in China. 'We are completely, every single day in touch with people in China. We had over 170 direct submissions to huaxia from people all over China, and not just intellectuals. The work on the ground is really complex which these people don't understand because they are so out of touch.' On her appointment as Executive Director in 2003, Ms. Hom says, she felt that 'it was a not very professional Board that did not understand what a Board is. Many of them were not functioning, not contributing . . . They knew nothing about bilateral processes and when we tried to report on it they thought it was irrelevant.' Ms. Hom argues that it is wrong to see those who have resigned as an'ideological clique.' Rather, 'they all have different personal reasons.' She adds that 'A number of statements [in the circulated documents] are defamatory. We have consulted with legal counsel, but at this point we do not want to raise the ante . . . We're hoping that when they eventually calm down they may decide to do things with us again.' Report by Nick Young, February 15, 2005 (03/04/2005 15:27) |