On the occasion of the 36th anniversary of the “June Fourth Incident”, the human rights organization Safeguard Defenders, based in Madrid, Spain, has released its latest report: “China Travel Magazine: Dissident Edition”. The report focuses on a particular method of detention used by the Chinese Communist Party police on dissidents and human rights defenders during politically sensitive periods.
The report exposes the absurd and illegal method of “forced travel” as a means of maintaining stability and control. It states that its purpose is to “document human rights abuses in Beijing, serve as a testament to history, and raise public awareness.”
For the first time, the report detailed the absurd method of “forced travel” through interviews and media reports, showcasing the actual situations of “forced travel” during sensitive political periods, changes during the pandemic, and its evolution in the post-pandemic era.
Each year, around major political events or sensitive anniversaries, the CCP systematically subjects activists and petitioners to “forced travel”. The ones forced to travel are often veteran rights defenders, lawyers, journalists, and intellectuals. Today, with so many sensitive dates, these individuals are routinely subjected to “forced vacations” multiple times a year. Regardless of their age or health, almost without exception, they are “escorted on holidays” by public security or government officials to prevent them from causing trouble locally.
The report cites examples from the 2022 National Congress of the CCP, where publisher and human rights activist Bao Pu and his wife were taken to the outskirts of Beijing by the police before the meeting, while the then nearly 80-year-old journalist Gao Yu was sent to Huairou in Beijing, and veteran rights lawyer Pu Zhiqiang was sent to Changping in Beijing. The report mentions that during her forced outing, Gao Yu ran out of medication and only had a 14-day supply. On the 16th day, the police were still accompanying her on her “vacation,” but she started feeling unwell without her medication.
Forced travel is described as arbitrary detention, forcing rights defenders to leave their homes and be monitored by police or government officials while “vacationing”.
Through interviews and media research, Safeguard Defenders organization identified 84 cases of forced travel between 2018 and March 2025.
Some cases involved group events, such as individuals from the same underground church.
Since many cases of forced travel go unreported, the actual numbers may be much higher than documented.
The primary objective of forced travel is to suppress rights defenders, preventing them from gathering, protesting, petitioning, or interacting with foreign officials or media during sensitive political periods. For the CCP, forced travel appears more repressive than detention or house arrest, making it less likely to attract criticism from the international community. Additionally, forced travel bypasses the legal system, eliminating the need to justify the measure’s legality to the judicial system (prosecutors).
Forced travel comes in various forms, from strict confinement in locked hotel rooms to sightseeing trips or dining outs under police surveillance, sometimes with occasional monitored out-of-town trips. Victims may be taken to distant provinces or driven to the outskirts of their city. The duration can range from days to weeks. While usually targeting individuals, family members are sometimes allowed to join. In some cases, the targets may negotiate the destination and activities, especially if they are prominent figures regularly subjected to forced travel.
For instance, in June 2018, CCP officials informed the late Hunan activist Ouyang Jinghua that he had to travel with them before the anniversary of June Fourth. Despite suggesting Xiamen or Guangxi, he was rejected as it was considered too far for a five-six day trip. Instead, he was arranged to visit Mao Zedong’s former residence. When Ouyang refused to go, the police kept him in the car under the driver’s watch. That night, Ouyang fell asleep in the hotel, while the police played cards next to his bed.
A few instances of forced travel take on the form of detention, where prominent activists are taken to remote hotels after release to prevent them from media interviews. In all forms, victims are prohibited from media interviews or posting any sensitive information about their forced travel.
Resistance often leads to additional punishments. In August 2024, journalist Gao Yu had her phone, internet, and air travel services cut off as punishment for rejecting the police’s “suggestion” to leave the city ahead of the China-Africa Cooperation Forum. In 2023, veteran rights defender Hu Jia was forcibly taken out during a session while his father was critically ill with pancreatic cancer. Eventually, the police allowed him to return home just days before his father passed away.
Forced outings are typically orchestrated by police or local government officials as part of CCP’s stability maintenance program, included in the stability budget.
The earliest reports of forced travel emerged in 2007 when a local government in Hubei province took an activist on a six-day “forced trip” to prevent her from advocating for increased teacher retirement benefits. By 2021, a member of the Guizhou Human Rights Forum, a group of individuals subjected to forced travel long-term, stated they were first forced to travel in 2008. By 2009, forced travel cases were widely reported, leading activists to adopt a new term, “been traveled”.
In the following years, international media frequently covered forced travel incidents. The CCP implemented stricter measures to prevent human rights defenders from meeting foreign officials and punished those attempting to do so. For instance, in an effort to prevent human rights lawyer Yu Wensheng and his wife from meeting with Jorge Toledo, the EU Ambassador to China, CCP police detained them on their way to the meeting. A year later, the couple was sentenced to several years in prison. Xu Yan was released in early 2025.
According to the report, during the pandemic from 2020 to 2022, the number of forced travel incidents decreased. Local governments regularly imposed lockdowns on cities and regions, making forced travel unnecessary and challenging.
In the post-pandemic era, facing economic challenges, the CCP reduced stability funds, with reports indicating that the 2024 stabilization funds were only around 227.6 billion yuan, approximately half of the amount in 2010.
With the reduction in stability funds, forced travel has been affected in several ways:
1. Shorter travel itineraries, confined to the city outskirts.
2. Reduced durations.
3. Sometimes replaced by soft confinement, with police warning individuals to stay home during sensitive periods and avoid media interviews.
In the summer of 2024, as the 35th anniversary of the “June Fourth” approached, rights defender Ji Feng told the media that his forced travel was limited to the surrounding areas of Zunyi City, Guizhou Province where he resides. Other rights defenders stated that during the sensitive period last year, some were allowed to return home early, while others were “monitored” and would be followed if they left their homes.
This year, many dissenters who are typically taken to other provinces, such as veteran rights lawyer Pu Zhiqiang, have reportedly been confined to their homes.
Forced travel violates Article 37 of the Chinese Constitution, which states: “No one may be unlawfully deprived of freedom or restricted in personal liberty.” Similarly, it infringes upon the rights to freedom and movement as outlined in Articles 9 and 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
When police or government officials share a hotel room with a forcibly traveled individual for close surveillance, it violates their right to privacy. Article 12 of the UDHR states: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy, family.”
Because forced travel is a preventive measure, silencing activists and rights defenders during specific periods, it infringes upon the right to freedom of speech. This violates Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
For more extreme forms of forced travel, such as enforced disappearance as part of the National Repatriation Program (NRR) or cases where individuals are missing and unable to use phones, these can be classified as forced disappearances. The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance definitively categorizes forced disappearances as human rights violations.