The Silencing of IndieChina: A Case Study in Transnational Repression

In late October, Zhu Rikun, director of the IndieChina Film Festival in New York, received a disturbing series of calls. Filmmakers were abruptly withdrawing from the festival, initially prompting Zhu to consider logistical adjustments. He soon realized the situation was far more serious: the festival, slated to launch within a week, was effectively being shut down.

Thirteen Chinese filmmakers cancelled their participation. Requests flooded in to remove films from the program – not just those with overt political themes, but works depicting everyday life: a documentary following a Beijing couple navigating a child’s leukemia diagnosis, a fictional narrative about pandemic-era job loss, and a simple story of a couple’s long walk together. “In the end, I found that as long as the film festival continued, many people were still being harassed,” Zhu explained to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).

While independent film festivals within China frequently face scrutiny from local authorities, this instance marked a significant escalation. The pressure extended beyond China’s physical borders, signaling a clear intent to suppress the festival entirely. “Their message was quite clear: They wanted to stop the film festival from taking place,” Zhu Rikun stated.

A Global Pattern of Coercion

The targeting of the IndieChina Film Festival is not an isolated incident. From New York City and the United Nations headquarters in Geneva to smaller towns in the United Kingdom and Australia, Chinese and Hong Kong authorities – and their proxies – are increasingly employing tactics to coerce, control, or silence critics and independent voices who have sought refuge overseas. This phenomenon, known as transnational repression, is demonstrably expanding, according to recent reports from the U.N. and the European Parliament, which identify China as a leading perpetrator alongside Russia and Iran.

Earlier this year, ICIJ’s China Targets investigation exposed the breadth and severity of Beijing’s campaign against overseas dissidents. The investigation, conducted in collaboration with 42 media partners, revealed the Chinese government’s misuse of international institutions, including the U.N. and Interpol, to target individuals critical of the regime. It also highlighted the often-passive response from democratic nations.

Did You Know?

The U.N. as a Battleground

Despite the U.N.’s recent publication of its first-ever guidelines on transnational repression, and the European Parliament’s resolution urging member states to confront authoritarian tactics, the organization’s own premises are not immune to these pressures.

ICIJ’s investigation revealed that Beijing has effectively transformed the U.N.’s Palais des Nations in Geneva into a hostile environment for critics of President Xi Jinping. Activists and lawyers reported surveillance, harassment, and intimidation by individuals believed to be Chinese diplomats or government proxies, including delegates from non-governmental organizations. Threats of physical assault, rape, and even death have been reported.

A recent documentary by Yle, a Finnish broadcaster and ICIJ partner, has corroborated these findings, revealing that a Chinese military spy operated as a high-ranking official within China’s U.N. mission in Geneva. Identified as “Victoria,” the agent allegedly attempted to obtain NATO secrets from an Estonian scientist while operating under the guise of a think tank.

The investigation uncovered that “Victoria” was a member of China’s Central Military Commission’s intelligence bureau and served as the second secretary of China’s Permanent Mission between 2012 and 2014. Following her U.N. assignment, she allegedly participated in a scheme to extract classified information related to cybersecurity and maritime strategy in the Baltic Sea and Arctic regions. The case highlights the vulnerability of international organizations to espionage and the potential for diplomatic cover to facilitate intelligence operations.

What level of scrutiny should be applied to individuals representing nations with documented histories of transnational repression within international organizations?

The Human Cost and the Need for Action

The impact of transnational repression extends beyond the silencing of voices; it has devastating consequences for individuals and their families. Zumretay Arkin, vice president of the World Uyghur Congress, shared her experiences with ICIJ, stating, “We’ve been followed by Chinese diplomats from the mission itself…and our family members were retaliated against because of our presence in that [U.N.] space and our work.”

Recent cases include the detention of Zhang Yadi, a Tibetan rights activist residing in France, and Hu Yang, a student in the Netherlands, upon their return to China for the holidays. Both were charged with politically motivated offenses, allegedly stemming from their advocacy work while abroad. These incidents suggest that Chinese authorities were actively monitoring these individuals even while they were living overseas.

Pro Tip:

While the U.N. and the European Parliament have taken steps to address this growing threat, advocates argue that more robust action is needed. Philippe Dam, advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, emphasized that the EU’s response remains “too limited,” and domestic protections are “quite inexistent.” The challenge lies in balancing national security concerns with the fundamental rights of individuals to express themselves freely without fear of retribution.

How can democratic nations effectively protect dissidents and human rights advocates from the long arm of authoritarian regimes without compromising international relations?

Frequently Asked Questions About Transnational Repression