Amnesty International recently gave a press release with the assertion that because of the Olympics, human rights abuses have actually increased. This is due to the fact that Chinese government officials are increasingly worried about dissent and news that sheds a bad light on their country around the time of the Olympics. As such, they are making an increased effort to stymie such activities, at least around the time of the Games. The release states:

“The pre-Olympics “clean-up” has also resulted in the detention of thousands of activists in Beijing, with many being sent back to their home provinces. Such practices are reminiscent of “Custody and Repatriation,” a system of detention pending repatriation for internal migrants which was abolished in 2003 with great fanfare and heralded in China as an important step forward for human rights. Some activists have also been assigned to “Re-education through labor” — another abusive system of detention without trial, which has been stalled on China’s reform agenda for many years.”

And indeed, as documented numerous times, Amnesty is of course stating what appears to be obvious in the light of international reports. But what does this mean in the long run for human rights in China? With an increased crackdown because of the Olympics also comes vastly increased coverage. In examining the New York Times coverage of China from the initial reports of the Tibet crackdown (March 11) to April 1, there has been a startling excess of coverage towards China’s human rights violations:

In this period, news about China’s human rights abuses have only failed to grace the A section 3 times. These stories have made the front page 32 percent of the time, and were on pages 1-3 50 percent of the time. So can this increased focus turn into long term momentum that can enact serious change? I hope so. If the New York Times coverage is indicative of such increased coverage world wide, then this cannot possibly sit well with the Chinese government. As grassroots movements gain increased membership and funding to launch campaigns, their government may have no choice but to respond in a positive manner. In any event, it appears that my previous question may not be answered for quite some time.