Follow-Up Family Statement On Verdict in Case of Chinese Journalist Dong Yuyu

WASHINGTON, December 6 – The Press Freedom Center at the National Press Club is releasing the following statement from the family of journalist Dong Yuyu.

Follow-Up Family Statement On Verdict in Case of Chinese Journalist Dong Yuyu

6 December 2024
(Issued by the Dong Family)

In response to the judgment of Chinese journalist Dong Yuyu’s espionage case by the Chinese authorities, Dong Yuyu’s family members raise the following ten questions: 

1. Since the Ministry of State Security of China has determined that a certain organ of the Japanese foreign service an “espionage organization” of Japan, and many former senior diplomats of the Japanese Embassy in China are “agents of the espionage organization,” why did China not take any measures against these “agents of the espionage organization” while they worked in the Japanese Embassy in China for more than 20 years, but let them conduct espionage activities in China? 


2. Since the Ministry of State Security of China has determined that Mr. Hideo Tarumi, the former Japanese ambassador to China, is an agent of a Japanese espionage organization, why did the Chinese government agree to let him come to China as ambassador to China and submit his letter of credence to President Xi Jinping? Isn’t it a shame for China that the agent of the Japanese espionage organization personally submitted the letter of credence to our country’s top leader? Why was Ambassador Tarumi not expelled from the country after Yuyu’s detention, but was allowed to serve until his term expired? 


3. Since the Chinese Ministry of State Security has determined that Mr. Masaru Okada is an agent of a Japanese espionage organization, Mr. Okada was appointed as the new Consular General of Japan in Shanghai on September 24, 2024. Why has the Chinese government not taken any measures against him so far, but has allowed him to continue to conduct espionage activities in China? 


4. When did the Chinese Ministry of State Security determine that these senior diplomats of the Japanese Embassy in China were agents of an espionage organization? If it has been determined long ago, please answer the above questions. If the Ministry of State Security determined it only after the Yuyu case occurred, then even the national security department did not know that these Japanese diplomats were agents of an espionage organization. Why should Yuyu, as an ordinary citizen, know that they are agents of an espionage organization? Ordinary citizens, even if they have a higher degree of education, longer work experience and more experience, would never think that the ambassador of Japan who personally handed over a letter of credence to the Chinese leader with the approval of the state would be a spy. The presumption that Yuyu knew that the other party was an agent of an espionage organization just because of his master’s degree, more than 30 years of work experience and many experiences abroad is not convincing. 


5. The Ministry of State Security considered the Japanese diplomats as agents of the Japanese espionage organization because the word “情報” appeared on the Japanese diplomats’ business cards. The Ministry believed that the meaning of the word in Japanese is the same as that in Chinese, which means “intelligence.” In fact, the word “情報” in Japanese also means “news” and “information,” which is a more common interpretation of the word. Which country’s spies would give away their identities as spies in their business cards? Do they want everyone to know they are spies upon introducing themselves? How is this logical? 


6. The procuratorate and the court found Yuyu guilty of espionage, but did not find that Yuyu obtained any money or other non-material benefits in the process of interacting with Japanese diplomats. So what was Yuyu’s motive and purpose for his alleged crime? Why did he accept the task of the agent of the Japanese espionage organization? Is it just to go to prison? For this point, the procuratorate and the court must provide a logical and reasonable explanation. 


7. Yuyu’s dining and chatting with Japanese diplomats was determined to be accepting tasks assigned by the agents of an espionage organization. Does this mean that any dining and chatting with foreigners in the future may be regarded as accepting so-called tasks? How did Yuyu endanger China’s national security by dining and chatting with the Japanese? Without clarifying this question, the judgment is not convincing. 


8. The contact information of the Japanese diplomats Yuyu knows is in the address book of his mobile phone and paper notebook. Isn’t it normal for the Japanese diplomats to have Yuyu’s contact information in their mobile phones? In addition to indicating that Yuyu and the Japanese diplomats know each other and are friends, what else can it indicate? The normal logic is that if they know each other but there is no contact information between them in their mobile phones, it would be suspicious. Isn’t it normal for Yuyu and the Japanese diplomats to have chat records in their mobile phones, such as greetings and agreed meeting time and place? What can it indicate? Can these be used as evidence of his espionage? 


9. Chinese law does not prohibit Chinese citizens from interacting with foreigners. The Guangming Daily’s foreign affairs management regulations and relevant requirements for participating in foreign-related activities are only management requirements for foreign affairs interviews and other foreign affairs activities for official business; there is no requirement to report personal interactions with foreign friends outside of working hours that are not related to work to the newspaper’s foreign affairs office. Why was Yuyu required to report to the newspaper’s foreign affairs office when he had dinner and chatted with foreign friends? Yuyu’s trips abroad were approved by the leaders of Guangming Daily. He did not violate any Chinese law or Guangming Daily’s foreign affairs regulations. 


10. Why did the court refuse to provide our family with a copy of the judgment? A legal judgment, by nature, is supposed to be public. Why don’t the family have the right to receive a verdict? Is this reasonable? 

See here for the Chinese version of this statement.

About The National Press Club

Founded in 1908, the National Press Club is the world’s leading professional organization for journalists. The Club has 3,000 members representing nearly every major news organization and is a leading voice for press freedom in the U.S. and worldwide.

Contact: Bill McCarren, 202-662-7534 for The National Press Club