#WhereIsPengShuai: World calls for transparency from China

China’s tennis star Peng Shuai took part in a video call with Olympic officials on Sunday, nearly three weeks after disappearing from the public eye. But tensions remain high as fans and the international community continue to question Ms. Peng’s whereabouts.

Mark Schiefelbein/AP/File
China's Peng Shuai waves at the Australian Open in Melbourne, Australia, Jan. 15, 2019. After accusing a former Chinese official of sexual assault, Ms. Peng disappeared from public view for three weeks.

A video call between Olympic officials and Chinese tennis player Peng Shuai, whose nearly three-week disappearance from public view sparked an outcry, was meant to reassure the world that she was safe – but instead has raised more questions.

Concern grew in the last week for the former No. 1-ranked doubles player – who hadn’t been seen since accusing a senior Chinese official of sexual assault on Nov. 2. Tennis stars and fans alike demanded to know #WhereIsPengShuai, and the head of the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) threatened to pull lucrative events from China.

On Sunday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) said Ms. Peng spoke to officials, including IOC President Thomas Bach, in a 30-minute video call from Beijing. According to the organization’s statement, she reassured them that she was well and thanked them for their concern – while asking for privacy.

The IOC posted a photo that shows Mr. Bach facing a screen on which Ms. Peng appears but did not release video of the call. On the same day, China Open posted videos and photos of her appearance at a youth tennis tournament in Beijing that morning.

The IOC’s short statement, which offered few details and no follow-up on her allegations, seems unlikely to close the door on Ms. Peng’s case – and it’s leading to increasing criticism of the sports body, which was already facing calls for a boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics, which open on Feb. 4.

Even after the statement was published Sunday, the WTA repeated what chairman and CEO Steve Simon has been saying for more than a week, calling for a full, fair, and transparent investigation “without censorship.”

The IOC was already under pressure because of allegations that China has committed human rights violations against Uyghur Muslims, Tibetans, and other minorities. China denies the accusations. “We are firmly opposed to any words and deeds that politicize sports in violation of the Olympic spirit,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said Monday, when asked about a possible boycott.

The Olympic body has responded to criticism by saying its policy is “quiet diplomacy” and it may argue that its access to Ms. Peng shows that works.

But critics say the move makes the body an active partner in delivering Beijing’s message – while not providing Ms. Peng with an open forum to discuss her allegations.

Yaqiu Wang, a spokeswoman for Human Rights Watch, tweeted that the IOC is now “actively playing a role in the Chinese government’s enforced disappearance, coercion, and propaganda machinery.”

An email seeking comment on criticism of the IOC’s handling of its contact with Ms. Peng was sent to the Olympic body.

This is the second time this year that the IOC has been in the spotlight for pushing ahead with an Olympics: Many wanted the body to call off the Summer Games in Tokyo because of concerns about the coronavirus pandemic. Critics note that IOC has a strong interest in holding the events because it generates 91% of its income from sponsors and selling broadcast rights at the Games.

Ms. Peng is just one of a number of Chinese businesspeople, activists, and ordinary people who have disappeared in recent years after criticizing party figures or in crackdowns on corruption or pro-democracy and labor rights campaigns.

While the ruling Communist Party is quick to blot out any criticism, the fact that this time it came from an athlete made it especially sensitive. State media celebrate athletes’ victories as proof the party is making China strong – and the party is vigilant about making sure they cannot use their prominence and public appeal to erode its image.

The tennis star accused a former member of the Communist Party’s ruling Standing Committee, Zhang Gaoli, of sexual assault in a social media post that was removed quickly.

She wrote in part: “I know that to you, vice minister Zhang Gaoli, a person of high status and power, you’ve said you’re not afraid. With your intelligence, you certainly will deny it or you can even use it against me, you can dismiss it without a care. Even if I’m destroying myself, like throwing an egg against a rock, or a moth flying into a flame, I will still speak out the truth about us.”

Concerns about the censoring of her post and her subsequent disappearance from public view grew into a furor, drawing comments from tennis greats like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Naomi Osaka, Serena Williams, and Martina Navratilova.

All the while, news of her allegations was blacked out at home. CNN reported that its signal in China had been blocked during reporting on Ms. Peng.

A search for her name Monday on Weibo, one of China’s leading social media platforms, produced only a few posts, and none that refer to the sexual assault allegation or the questions about her whereabouts.

Still missing is Mr. Zhang. He left public life about three years ago after being one of seven members of the Politburo Standing Committee – the apex of political power in China.

The WTA is the first sports body to defiantly stand up to China’s financial clout – in what many see as a sharp contrast to the IOC, which says it is powerless to intervene in China’s internal policies.

“The statements make the IOC complicit in the Chinese authority’s malicious propaganda and lack of care for basic human rights and justice,” Global Athlete, a lobby group for athletes, said in a statement.

“The IOC showed a complete disregard for allegations of sexual violence and abuse against athletes,” the statement said. “By taking a nonchalant approach to Peng Shuai’s disappearance and by refusing to mention her serious allegations of sexual assault, IOC President Thomas Bach and the IOC Athletes’ Commission demonstrate an abhorrent indifference to sexual violence and the well-being of female athletes.”

This story was reported by The Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Give us your feedback

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

 

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.