CHRIS ROPER: Made in China

If you want to see what Chinese state interference in African states looks like when it flexes its muscles, I invite you to consider the recent cancellation of RightsCon 2026 by the Zambian government.

RightsCon has been taking place every year since 2011. It is widely touted as one of the world’s most important conferences on human rights in the digital age. It convenes thousands of activists, technologists, policymakers and industry leaders to discuss issues such as surveillance, censorship, media freedom and the like.

But not this year. More than 2,600 in-person and 1,100 online participants, representing over 150 countries and 750 institutions, were informed, just a few days before RightsCon was due to start, that it had been cancelled.

Four of my colleagues were scheduled to attend, and they learnt of the cancellation only a few hours before the first flights were due to depart. Some delegates were already in Zambia, and many lost the money they’d paid for travel costs.

There were reports of immigration officers telling participants of the cancellation as they arrived. Well, the Zambian government announcement was that it had been “postponed”. As if any ethical organisation would ever submit itself to People’s Republic of China (PRC) puppet oversight. It’s cancelled.

It’s not like the signs weren’t there. The info provided by the organisers about the venue (“it’s even home to two zebras!”) includes this: “Participants should be aware that its newest wing was funded and constructed by the PRC which, while very common in parts of Africa, may represent a concern for some, and may influence desired individual safety or security measures.”

The Net Rights Coalition (NRC) of internet freedom activists issued a statement describing how organisers Access Now and thousands of stakeholders “have incurred huge financial and logistical losses as plans were under way for the event to start in three days. Zambia will also record significant economic losses that would have come from thousands of visitors. This will have a huge impact on Zambian small businesses that were engaged to provide services that will now be cancelled.”

RightsCon also said: “We believe foreign interference is the reason RightsCon 2026 won’t proceed in Zambia or online.” No kidding. As many have pointed out, it’s no coincidence that, just a couple of days before the cancellation, Zambia and China had signed a development co-operation agreement, including a $1.5bn investment into its energy infrastructure.

The official PRC release about this includes what the amateur linguist might describe as an unnecessary and revealing detail. “Zambian finance minister Situmbeko Musokotwane thanked the Chinese government for its support, noting that the signing is the culmination of decisions reached by the leaders of the two countries.” If you have to emphasise that you were also involved in making decisions, and absolutely an equal partner in this, it’s probably a case of the captured state doth protest too much, methinks.

The decision by the Zambian government to roll over and play dead is lamentable. The reasons given read like they’ve been copied from a Dictatorships for Dummies guide. “The postponement was necessitated by the need for comprehensive disclosure of critical information relating to key thematic issues proposed for discussion during the summit. Such disclosure is essential to ensure full alignment with Zambia’s national values, policy priorities, and broader public interest considerations.”

One struggles to see how, to take one human rights issue, the LGBTQ+ track of the conference could be reconciled with Zambia’s anti-gay laws.

Arguably this assault on inclusive, multistakeholder forums like RightsCon is also indicative of China’s broader authoritarian approach to digital governance

—  Michael Caster

One of my colleagues was due to speak on a panel called “Networked Authoritarianism: Unpacking the China-Russia FIMI [Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference] nexus in Ukraine, Taiwan and Sub-Saharan Africa”.

The subject matter will give you a clue to where the real objections came from. Access Now revealed that “on April 27, one day after a government press release endorsed RightsCon, we received a phone call from the ministry of technology & science about an urgent issue and were told that diplomats from the PRC were putting pressure on the government of Zambia because Taiwanese civil society participants were planning to join us in person”.

Seems that Zambia’s “national values” are made in China.

As Article 19’s Michael Caster put it in an excellent article for Tech Policy Press: “This should be a stark reminder that, even as we must now face rising threats to the freedom of expression and digital rights from previously aligned governments such as the US, old-school authoritarian actors remain significant threats.

“To be sure, China has seized on geopolitical shifts and recent US funding cuts to expand its already significant influence in ways that continue to threaten human rights in the digital domain. While this is as much about China’s adverse influence in Africa as it is about its campaign of transnational repression against Taiwan, arguably this assault on inclusive, multistakeholder forums like RightsCon is also indicative of China’s broader authoritarian approach to digital governance, against which advocates for democracy and human rights must push back.”

Zambia isn’t the only African country that’s had to obey its Chinese masters recently. A trip by Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te to Eswatini had to be cancelled because China ordered (or “pressured”, as the media euphemistically puts it) African countries to stop him flying over their territories. In case you need a reminder, the PRC insists that countries that want to be friends with benefits with Beijing must accept a version of its One China policy, which basically means not recognising Taiwan as a separate state, and not having official diplomatic ties with it.

The BBC reports that the trip was suspended “after Taiwan said Seychelles, Mauritius and Madagascar had unilaterally revoked flight permits for Lai’s aircraft to cross airspace they manage, citing Chinese pressure”.

Mind you, given that the trip was originally intended to mark the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s accession, this is really a case of picking which tyranny you want to have a problem with. China has already punished Eswatini for showing independence. A subsequent BBC story reports that “China will scrap tariffs for all African countries from Friday [May 1] — except Eswatini, which maintains ties with Taiwan.”

Some of the Taiwanese delegates to RightsCon were from Doublethink Lab, which is a partner of Code for Africa, an organisation at which I am a senior strategist. We work with Doublethink on the China Index, which is a huge report that captures the PRC’s influence in 101 countries.

African countries rank among the most influenced globally. As of 2024, Nigeria (4/101), Zimbabwe (6/101), South Africa (10/101), Kenya (14/101) and Ghana (18/101) were our top five. The report doesn’t include Zambia, but it was already identified as a priority country for the next edition.

This is not to suggest that all this influence is negative, though China is most decidedly the villain of the piece in the RightsCon case. But it isn’t the only state trying to impose its narratives on us, and I’d hate to be co-opted into the ideologically driven vilification of the PRC.

Wired recently uncovered a campaign paying influencers to frame Chinese AI as a threat to the West. “Build American AI, a nonprofit linked to a super PAC bankrolled by executives at OpenAI and Andreessen Horowitz, is funding a campaign to spread pro-AI messaging and stoke fears about China.” And The Guardian revealed last week that “Nato is holding closed-door meetings with film and TV screenwriters, directors and producers across Europe and the US, prompting accusations the alliance is seeking to use the arts to generate ‘propaganda’ for the bloc.”

So, yes. We are going to have to choose our geopolitical bedfellows wisely. RightsCon wrote: “We see this unilateral decision, and the way it was taken, as evidence of the far reach of transnational repression targeting civil society, and effectively shrinking the spaces in which we operate.”

I think that’s the key takeaway from this. African countries don’t have the luxury of going it alone, but the global powers we do choose to work with should stand this test: are they going to actively help our governments close down the potential for open societies, as they’re doing in Zambia, in a reflection of their own domestic policies?

Or are we going to be able to retain our freedoms and resist the multiple levels of coercion that accompany any dealings with the powers of the minority world? Either way, and as always, it’s going to be up to an active citizenry to build the resistance.