With the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing fast approaching, the People’s Republic of China continues to turn heads as it unveils modern architectural wonders constructed for the games. However, behind the splashy designs lie the human consequences of the blistering pace of infrastructure development – the nearly 1.5 million Chinese citizens displaced by construction connected with the Games of the 24th Olympiad. Western media outlets are paying close attention to the plight of the displaced as tensions over China’s unclear property laws simmer both in urban centers and the rural hinterlands. Increasingly sensitive to its international image in advance of the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese government – which received a poor score of 2.67 out of 7 for its protection of property rights in the 2007 Countries at the Crossroads report – has cracked down, resulting in increased criticism regarding public ownership of all land in the Middle Kingdom.
A new property law adopted in 2007 was hailed by the Economist as a “breakthrough” and offered new legal protections, predominantly for urban “landowners” (70-year lessees) within the rapidly emerging Chinese middle class anxiously seeking protection for their assets. The article notes that the very passage of such a law is an indication that “the party is showing itself somewhat more responsive to public opinion than it was in the past.” This latest property law, however, stops well short of a revolution in Chinese land ownership rights. Indeed, recent episodes in the run-up to the Olympics have underscored the ever-present threat of expropriation in a nation where the state owns all of the land. At the root of the issue is the fact that, as in many developing countries, a massive gap still exists between Chinese property rights in theory and in practice, with images of forced evictions starkly contrasting the Chinese government’s stated aims of “protecting private ownership” and “promoting social harmony.”
Chinese officials vehemently deny any wrongdoing in relocating people in advance of the games, adding that individuals have been adequately compensated by the state for the inconvenience. But the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), a Geneva-based NGO advocating for property rights, is not convinced, naming the Beijing Municipality and the Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games (BOCOG) its Housing Rights Violator of 2007. Government compensation is hardly far-reaching, with many individuals fully excluded from receiving any remuneration. COHRE observed that “the process of demolition and eviction is characterized by arbitrariness and lack of due process.”
In spite of efforts by the government to limit discussion, China’s broader human rights record will inevitably be under the microscope during the games. Commenting directly on the recent Chunlin case, President Bush pledged to raise human rights concerns during the Olympics with President Hu Jintao and push for greater freedoms for Chinese citizens. Trying to appear accommodating, China has also stated in recent days that it would be amenable to reopening a pre-existing but stalled set of discussions regarding its rights record.
Property rights issues were again thrust into the foreground this past week as the trial of a land rights activist in China garnered international attention. Yang Chunlin, 52, faces charges of “subverting the power of the state,” as the laid-off factory worker was imprisoned after collecting 10,000 signatures on a petition entitled “We Want Human Rights, not the Olympics.” Chunlin had spent recent years helping farmers in the northeast province of Heiliongjiang receive remuneration for property seized by local officials. Through its recent actions, the Chinese government is sending a clear signal that the screws will be tightened in the coming months to prevent land rights activists from creating a stir in conjunction with the Olympics.
While property disputes are becoming increasingly common in China, the controversy has not been limited to urban areas. Indeed, the land rights issue is acute in the Chinese countryside, where millions of peasant farmers are subject to arbitrary land seizures by local officials without adequate compensation. The uneven application of the property law is creating an additional disparity between urban and rural dwellers beyond the income gap, as the latter lack sufficient economic and political clout to pressure the Chinese state. However, as the Financial Times observes, Chinese peasants are growing increasingly restive, with thousands of rural farmers whose land has been seized protesting every month. While not a new occurrence, land rights demonstrations are now becoming increasingly organized. Some farmers across the country now utilize modern communications technology to coordinate their protest actions, thereby amplifying the attenuated voice of the victims whose land has been seized.
Although their outlook varies greatly from that of urban “landowners,” the underlying source of discontent for the rural peasantry is fundamentally the same: the absence of adequate property rights and protection against land grabs. All indications point toward increasing tensions in the Chinese system of land tenure, as both segments of society continue to pressure the state for more rights.
Photo Credit: Flickr user tashu1
