VZCZCXYZ0002
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGZ #2306/01 3250820
ZNY CCCCC ZZH (CCY AD4D3BC0 MSI7083-695)
R 210820Z NOV 06 ZDS
FM AMCONSUL GUANGZHOU
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5470
INFO RUEHOO/CHINA POSTS COLLECTIVE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC
RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI

C O N F I D E N T I A L GUANGZHOU 032306 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
C O R R E C T E D COPY TEXT 
 
STATE FOR EAP/CM 
STATE FOR CA/OCS/ACS/EAP 
PACOM FOR FPA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/21/16 
TAGS: CASC DENNIS DANFUNG PGOV PHUM SOCI CH
SUBJECT: Dongzhou Crackdown II: No Blood, but Amcit 
Journalist Detained and Released 
 
REF: A) Guangzhou 29575; B) Guangzhou 15624; C) Beijing 
06612; D) 05 Guangzhou 31940 
 
¶1.  (U) Classified by Consul General Robert Goldberg. 
Reason 1.4 (d). 
 
¶2.  (C) SUMMARY:  On November 18, in a scene reminiscent of 
the violent clash on December 6, 2005 in the same village, 
up to 2,000 armed police, using tear gas and flash bullets, 
secured the release of eight local officials held hostage 
by villagers for eight days in Guangdong's Dongzhou village, 
according to media sources.  The villagers had taken the 
officials hostage to protest the detention of a village 
activist who had been protesting corruption by local 
officials.  Police continue to surround the village and 
some sources claim that at least three villagers were 
arrested, while others (including Mainland media) report no 
injuries or arrest occurred.  Congenoffs were told by an 
Amcit freelance photo-journalist Danfung Dennis (pdob 1 
November 1981, Ithaca, NY, aka Donnoch Danfung Dennis; US 
passport 701515903 issued in Singapore 3 September 1999) 
that he was detained, struck in the head in a struggle 
during his detention, and later released. The villagers' 
main complaints (land compensation and release of a fellow 
villager) remain unresolved.  The one-year anniversary of 
the December 6 incident is approaching and the concerns, 
which led to a violent clash, have not been dealt with: 
some activists believe clashes could occur again.  Some 
journalists claim Beijing's tactics of tight control on 
reporting rural unrest incidents is effective, evidenced by 
a recent announcement of dramatically lowered protest 
numbers.  Others say this is simply a numbers game.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
Village Crackdown:  This Time No Blood 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶3.  (C) According to media sources (Reuters, Associated 
Press, South China Morning Post), on the morning of 
November 18, police (eyewitnesses said about 2,000 men) 
armed with guns, clubs, and dogs, stormed a temple 
containing local officials held hostage by villagers for 
eight days in the village of Dongzhou (Shanwei prefecture, 
eastern Guangdong province).  The South China Morning Post 
(SCMP) reports that on the morning of November 19, 
"tensions were still high" as police continued surrounding 
the village.  According to a well-connected Guangxi 
activist, the situation remains "dangerous for foreigners," 
as police maintain a cordon around the village and are 
checking identities closely.  The fallout from the incident 
is so far unclear.  Some overseas Chinese websites as well 
as Radio Free Asia reported villagers saying that at least 
two, possibly three villagers had been arrested (originally 
some villagers were claiming up to 20 deaths and three 
arrested foreign journalists).  Xinhua reported no injuries, 
arrest or deaths; a temporarily-detained Amcit freelance 
photo-journalist confirmed this information as well. 
According to the SCMP, internet and cell phone networks 
have been blocked, while the fixed phone network is still 
working. 
 
¶4.  (U) The cause of the incident stems from the November 9 
detention of Chen Qian, a local villager whose farmland had 
been confiscated without any compensation and who began a 
banner-hanging campaign criticizing corrupt local leaders. 
Radio Free Asia said police attacked Chen while detaining 
him.  However, Xinhua reported that Chen was detained 
because he had assaulted an official "over trifles."  On 
November 10, about 2,000 villagers went to the local street 
administration office to petition for the release of Chen 
and forced eight local officials as hostages in a nearby 
temple.  After six days, the government could still not 
negotiate the officials' release.  On the afternoon of 
November 16, several thousand armed police and policemen 
were reportedly dispatched to Dongzhou and were told to be 
ready to take action to free the officials. 
 
Dongzhou Background:  A Troubled Village 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶5.  (U) Dongzhou village drew international attention in 
December 2005 when police killed between three and 20 
villagers, quelling villager protests over inadequate 
compensation for land seized to build a power station (ref 
 
D).  According to the Washington Post, each farming family 
was promised the equivalent of USD 3,750 for the seized 
land when the project began, but the villagers claimed they 
"had not received a cent" and alleged corruption on the 
part of local officials.  In May, 2006, 13 Dongzhou 
villagers were convicted for crimes related to the protest 
- six sentenced to four years imprisonment, the other seven 
received between three to seven years imprisonment (ref B). 
Today, family members are allegedly monitored by local 
government officials and not allowed to leave their houses 
or contact outsiders.  The local government has threatened 
to extend sentences for the prisoners if their family 
members petition the central government.  To ease the 
tension, the Shanwei government, on July 26, allotted RMB 
60,000 (USD 7,500) to Dongzhou Township, to sponsor a local 
folk event. 
 
Amcit Detained, Struck in the Head and Released 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Amcit Danfung Dennis, 25, who has been working in 
Beijing for more than a year as a freelance photo- 
journalist, was detained in the incident.  Post never met 
with Dennis personally and was unable to obtain a privacy 
act waiver.  Dennis did, however, speak with Congenoff by 
telephone on November 19 and November 21; Dennis's 
relatives (sister and father) spoke with Post's Duty 
Officer several times; and Dennis' father told Post's Duty 
Officer that he personally informed the Associated Press in 
Hong Kong about the story.  According to Dennis, he has 
been working in Beijing on a business visa (he originally 
entered China on a tourist visa but later changed his visa 
status), but not as an accredited journalist.   After 
hearing about the hostage situation from Radio Free Asia 
reports, Dennis arrived in the village on the morning of 
November 18 by traveling on less-used back roads.  He did 
not notice a police presence at that time.  Dennis 
conducted interviews and took photos for several hours 
until 2 p.m. when he was told by villagers that the police 
were searching house-to-house for foreigners.  For the next 
16 hours Dennis evaded police by riding on a motorcycle 
with villagers to different locations.  During this time, 
Dennis contacted his sister in Beijing, telling her he was 
in hiding and could possibly be arrested.  The sister 
contacted the Duty Officer in Guangzhou at approximately 
5:30 p.m. and it was agreed by the sister that if the 
sister did not call the Duty Officer, this would be taken 
as indication that Dennis was safe.  Finally Dennis was 
taken to a hotel in the city of Shanwei, where he checked 
in on the morning of November 19.  A few minutes later, at 
6 a.m., the police arrived and detained him in hotel room 
at the same hotel.  Dennis assumes the hotel staff alerted 
the PSB to the presence of a foreigner. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Dennis tried to call his relatives as soon as he 
was detained, but the PSB forcibly confiscated his mobile 
phone and other possessions, including seven compact flash 
cards and two external hard drives from his camera 
equipment.  Dennis was held for 10 hours of questioning 
with interviewing conducted through an interpreter.  He was 
given access to water and a toilet.  Early in the detention, 
Dennis told the PSB that he was an Amcit and that he would 
not cooperate with the interrogation until he was allowed 
to speak with the U.S. Embassy.  At approximately 9 a.m., 
Dennis grabbed his mobile phone, locked himself into a 
bathroom and had a very brief conversation with his sister 
in Beijing (with sounds of the PSB knocking down the door 
in the background).  The sister then called the Duty 
Officer in Guangzhou, informing Post of the detention. 
According to Dennis, the PSB broke down the door and struck 
him "a couple of times" in the head and, during the 
struggle pushed him into a metal object, cutting his arm. 
Learning of his detention, Post's Duty Officer then 
informed Post's Consular Section Chief and American Citizen 
Services (ACS) Chief of the situation, who in turn alerted 
the Embassy in Beijing.  An ACS FSN called various 
authorities in Shanwei prefecture, in which Dongzhou is 
located, and Guangdong Province, attempting unsuccessfully 
to find out more details about the location and condition 
of Dennis. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) According to Dennis, the PSB initially did not 
allow him to put disinfectant on his wound, but eventually 
brought him some ointment.  Dennis said he was interrogated 
 
about his background, organizational representation, and 
his activities and contacts in Dongzhou.  Eventually the 
PSB produced three documents that Dennis was required to 
sign:  first, a transcript of the conversation; second, a 
confession of conducting "illegal interviews without 
Foreign Affairs Office (FAO) permission," agreement to the 
confiscation his camera equipment, and a promise to never 
engage in such activities again; and third, a list of the 
confiscated items.  After signing the documents, Dennis 
said everything went "smoothly" and at 4 p.m. he was put on 
a bus to Guangzhou, where he eventually took a flight to 
Singapore. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Meanwhile, at approximately 3 p.m., the Duty 
Officer informed the Director of the Guangdong FAO Consular 
Division, Luo Jun, of the situation and asked for 
assistance.  At 4:45 p.m., Luo called back confirming the 
release of Dennis.  It is unclear exactly what triggered 
the release: Dennis' cooperation or Congenoffs' 
intervention.  Dennis himself was also unable to confirm 
whether the release was related to Post's intervention or 
simply the completion of the investigation.  At 
approximately 6 p.m., Dennis, while traveling on a bus to 
Guangzhou, told poloff he did not require any additional 
medical attention.  On November 21, poloff spoke again with 
Dennis, who said his arm wound was healing and otherwise 
his health was fine. 
 
Future Unrest Likely? 
--------------------- 
 
¶10.  (C) Although Chinese activists have been involved in 
several South China protests, this does not appear to be 
the case in Dongzhou.  None of Post's South China contacts 
from the "Rights Protection Movement" ("Weiquan Yundong", 
ref C) had any direct contact with the latest Dongzhou 
incident, and some had not even heard about it.  Dennis 
himself did not believe the unrest was caused by outside 
influence.  Indeed, Dennis said that outside information 
seemed difficult to obtain in Dongzhou as there was no 
evidence of internet connections or an internet bar in the 
village.  Dalian-based rights activist Li Jian (protect), 
who is associated with Beijing's Rights Empowerment 
Institute, was the only activist Post knew who had been to 
Dongzhou.  Li had visited Dongzhou in March and believed 
the situation had been resolved in the short-term because 
the large police presence will likely prevent any immediate 
protest and because the immediate question of the eight 
hostages has been resolved.  Nevertheless, Li fears there 
will likely be another major problem nearer to the time of 
the one-year anniversary of the first Dongzhou incident on 
December 6.  This could be similar to the problems that 
occurred in the Taishi village (near Guangzhou) this past 
August (ref A).  Both Li and Dennis believed that a future 
confrontion between villagers and the authorities is likely 
because the fundamental complaints of the villagers (land 
compensation and the detaining of Chen Qian) as well as the 
"scars" of the December incident, have not been resolved. 
Dennis is also concerned about the safety of villagers that 
he photographed. 
 
Comment:  A Numbers Game? 
------------------------- 
 
¶11.  (C) On November 19, the Washington Post's Ed Cody 
argued in the article "China Reins in Rural Protests, but 
Not Resentment" that Dongzhou is a successful example of 
villagers' "simmering anger contained."  Moreover, the 
recent announcement of an annual drop of "mass protests" in 
China "proves" the efficacy of Beijing's new emphasis on 
improving the social factors behind protest (namely 
corruption, poverty alleviation and land compensation), 
coupled with increased surveillance.  In the Consulate's 
view, Cody's argument is misleading.  First, many consider 
Chinese protest numbers unreliable, due to unclear 
definitions of what a "mass incident" entails.  In January 
2006, the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) disclosed four 
different categories of "mass incidents" involving more 
than 100 citizens: crimes interfering with government 
business; mass gatherings that disturb public order; 
incidents of provocation; and mob fighting.  Others, such 
as Yu Jianrong, an expert on protests at the China Academy 
of Social Science, defines "mass incident" as a protest of 
more than five people. 
 
 
¶12.  (C) Cody and many other journalists point to the 
recent announcement by MPS Vice-Minister Liu Jinguo, that 
"mass incidents" over the period from January until 
September of 2006 numbered only 17,900, claiming it 
represented a 22.1 percent decrease from 2005's numbers. 
Liu's numbers contradict previous announcements from the 
Ministry of Public Security, which had said annual mass 
protests were on a steady rise: 58,000 (2003), 74,000 (2004) 
and 87,000 (2005).  Based on these numbers, the new figure 
of 17,900 protests would mean a 72.5 percent drop, not a 
22.1 percent one.  Additionally, Cody relies heavily on 
Shenzhen-based labor activist Liu Kaiming.  While Liu is 
respected in the world of urban labor rights, he is not 
known as a scholar of rural issues, particularly on an 
issue like Dongzhou, which is outside of the Pearl River 
Delta. 
 
¶13.  (C) According to the Los Angeles Times, the numbers 
are just made up to demonstrate the success in building a 
harmonious society and may be the result of recent rules 
requiring approval from the Propaganda Department before 
announcing mass incidents.  It is also possible that the 
lower number could be based on only one of the MPS 
subcategories of protests, but the lack of clear definition 
has led to ambiguity and a feeling by some observers that 
MPS is playing a numbers game. 
 
GOLDBERG