IPA calls on China to overturn 'assault' on academic freedom

The International Publishers Association (IPA) is calling on the Chinese authorities to overturn its decision to censor articles in a Cambridge University Press journal, calling the act a "retrograde assault on freedom to publish and academic freedom".

The IPA president Michiel Kolman told The Bookseller he was "deeply concerned" following CUP's admission on Friday (19th August) it had omitted 300 articles from one of its flagship journals, China Quarterly, on the request of Chinese authorities, and will be raising the issue in a speech at this week's Beijing International Book Fair, which opens on Wednesday (23rd August).

"It is the IPA’s duty to challenge censorship wherever it occurs, including in China," said Kolman. "We are deeply concerned by last week’s blocking of online academic publications on Chinese affairs by Cambridge University Press, which was under pressure from Beijing to do so. In a speech this week to be delivered at Beijing International Book Fair, the IPA will call on the Chinese authorities to immediately overturn this act of academic censorship, which is a retrograde assault on both the freedom to publish and academic freedom. The IPA will continue to monitor this case as it evolves, in consultation with the Publishers Association of China."

The Publishers Association of China (PAC) was admitted as a member of the IPA in 2015. A stipulation of membership is the freedom to publish. The move has been controversial, particularly after five publishers went missing from Hong Kong around that same time for planning to print a book critical of Chinese president Xi Jinping. Swedish-Chinese bookseller Gui Minhai is still missing.

Pressure on CUP to cease its compliance with the Chinese authorities has been intensifying with academics now threatening to boycott the publisher. A petition spearheaded by a professor at the HSBC Business School Chistopher Balding in Shenzhen said it was "disturbing" to find China "attempting to export its censoship" and has garnered 272 signatures and counting.

CUP said on Friday it complied with the request to remove articles to sustain the flow of other research and educational materials to China. 

“We can confirm that we received an instruction from a Chinese import agency to block individual articles from the China Quarterly within China,” CUP’s statement said. “We complied with this initial request to remove individual articles, to ensure that other academic and educational materials we publish remain available to researchers and educators in this market.”

Blocked articles span subjects such as the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong and the Cultural Revolution from it’s the China Quarterly journal on the instruction of Chinese import agencies CEPIEC and CNPIEC.

CUP added: “We are aware that other publishers have had entire collections of content blocked in China until they have enabled the import agencies to block access to individual articles. We do not, and will not, proactively censor our content and will only consider blocking individual items (when requested to do so) when the wider availability of content is at risk.”

The publisher has also stressed it will not “change the nature of our publishing to make content acceptable in China” and emphasised it remained “committed to ensuring that access to a wide variety of publishing is possible for academics, researchers, students and teachers in this market”.

China Quarterly’s editor, Tim Pringle, expressed his “deep concern and disappointment” over the censorship of the articles and reviews in a letter on Twitter, warning too that this was not an isolated move but "an extension of policies that have narrowed the space for public engagement and discussion across Chinese society”.

However, the press has come under fire for agreeing to remove the articles.

Jonathan Sullivan, director of the China Policy Institute and a member of CQ’s Executive Committee, said the publisher had put it business priorities ahead of its reputation by kowtowing to Chinese demands.

Writing on his blog in a personal capacity, he said: “My view is… that CUP’s decision to accede to the demands is a misguided, if understandable, economic decision that does harm to the Press’ reputation and integrity.”

However, Stephen Lotinga, c.e.o. of the UK’s Publishers Association, said “all publishers operating in China face restrictions”.

“They are required to work through Chinese partners and comply through those partners with local law to be allowed to do so, as Cambridge is doing,” he argued. “It is for this reason that the Publishers Association has for many years been making the case in the strongest terms about the importance of freedom to publish to both the UK and Chinese governments.”

He added: “We have to recognise that making progress on this is a long-term challenge, but in the meantime, we also believe it is important that Chinese academics and scientists have access to as much as possible of the latest published research so they are able to interact with the findings of their international counterparts to the fullest extent legally allowed."