Full Transcription

Content warning: This episode discusses sensitive topics including organ trafficking and forced organ harvesting. Descriptions of these human rights violations may be distressing to some listeners. Please take care while listening.

Would it be possible, in today’s day and time, that a government would incarcerate a million people? Blood test them, get their tissue samples, put that in a database and then sell their organs around the world? Would it be possible that professional doctors would commit such atrocity to extract organs from a live body? Because it’s such a huge and unbelievable crime, it’s impossible to accept it at the first sight.

Hamid Sabi

For decades, China has been accused of killing prisoners of conscience to sell their organs for transplantation. The voice you just heard was Hamid Sabi, a London-based human rights lawyer who served the China Tribunal, an independent tribunal investigating these allegations. We’ll get its findings later in the episode, but first, I sat down with Susie Hughes, the cofounder and Executive Director of the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China. Susie shared insights into this egregious human rights violation.

You’re listening to the Human Rights Chat podcast by New Tactics in Human Rights. New Tactics is a program of the Center for Victims of Torture. I’m Melissa McNeilly, and I’ll be your host for this episode. Together with our special guests, we’ll explore successful tactics and strategies that are driving real human rights change.

The mission of the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse is to end human rights violations associated with forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China, and to seek justice for victims. Susie Huges has grown the Coalition into a well-respected and high-profile international organization, coordinating more than 75 volunteers and engaging over 70 supportive organizations in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Korea and Japan. She has been involved in strategy development, organizing advocacy and community education events, and notably, Susie was the Director of Logistics for the 2019 China Tribunal.

Susie explained how the coalition uses innovative tactics to prevent complicity and hold perpetrators accountable…

Welcome to the Human Rights Chat Podcast. I’m always hesitant to say that I’m excited to talk about the kind of troubling topics that we touch on here, but I’m grateful to you, Susie, for the work that you do because this issue – forced organ harvesting – is one that maybe doesn’t make the headlines, but it’s incredibly important. So, thanks for joining me on the podcast.

Thanks so much. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak about the issues, so it’s lovely to speak with you.

So before we get into specifics, I would love to start by learning more about your organization.

Can you tell us about End Transplant Abuse and what motivated its founding?

Sure. Well, our organization was founded in 2016, so we are a relatively young organization. We’ve been doing a lot of work in those last, I’d say, eight years. The organization was founded primarily because there were a number of experts around the world who were helping with this issue and had investigated, but there wasn’t really an organization, aside from ‘Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting,’ who were really focusing on the medical professionals. There wasn’t really another organization that was connecting everyone and sort of working out strategies of how to move forward together and to make the most of the expertise that was out there and the sort of independent reports that were out there. 

And to begin with, it came about because there was a film called ‘Hard to Believe,’ and I do recommend that people look that up. It’s a fabulous film. It’s a documentary, and it looks at the issue of not only is it hard to believe that this is happening, but also it’s hard to believe that not a lot is being done about it, and that people haven’t heard of it. It’s hard to believe that. And this documentary was incredible, and I volunteered at the time because I’d watched it, and I was very motivated to sort of help myself.

I volunteered for the Australian premiere screenings. At those screenings, particularly in Australia, we had a number of lawyers, medical ethicists, medical professionals, and also people from other professions as well come along. After that screening, we held a meeting, and we were very, I guess, shocked but also happy that so many people came along afterwards and wanted to do something, and that same group of people, a number of them, are on our Australian committee even now. They’re still involved.

And the other part to it was that a report had come out in 2016 called ‘The Update,’ and this was a really important report by three independent investigators: a journalist, as well as David Matas and David Kilgour. So David Matas has done a lot of research on this. He’s a Canadian human rights lawyer, and David Kilgour was – he’s not with us anymore, sadly – an incredible person, was a former Secretary of State (Asia Pacific) in Canada. He had a lot of experience looking at international issues and legal issues, and they had put out a report that looked at a statistical analysis of China’s transplant system and just how many organ transplants were happening. So all of this sort of coincided at the same time. So, that was the initial impulse for us to found the organization and move forward.

How did you first come across this issue yourself?

It’s such a powerful mission, and it’s clear that raising awareness is vital. But I’m personally curious, how did you first come across this issue yourself? Was it with that documentary, or how did forced organ harvesting first appear on your radar?

For me, personally, it was a number of years prior to that, and I’m just thinking now when it was, and I’d say it must have been early 2000s. I came across an information table that was in a beautiful beach suburb when I was on holidays, and there were a number of Falun Gong practitioners there – which is the Buddhist Qigong practice. They have been the main victim group, so there were a number of Falun Gong practitioners there. They were presenting a petition, and I read the petition, and I really remember so clearly being so shocked at what I was reading that I had to reread it. That I couldn’t even really grasp the information that was in front of me – that, you know, people who were incarcerated in China are actually killed for their organs, for this horrendous industry.

I was so, I guess, moved and shocked by it that afterwards, I went and did my own research. And I looked into what investigations there were, and that’s when I came across the David Matas and David Kilgour report, the very first one, which was in 2006, and looked at what they’d written and many others. From my own sort of reading of that, I realized that it was true, that it was happening, and that not many people were really doing much, and no one knew much about it. So that was the sort of connection that later on, when that film came about, I heard about it, watched it, and then sort of offered my services, voluntarily, to help with that, and it all went from there.

Wow, that’s a really profound story, and it just goes to show that anyone can become an activist at any time – just by finding the cause that you care deeply about.

And it’s really important, I think, because there are so many causes that people can contribute to. There’s so much we can do.

How does the organ transplant system in China differ from other countries?

Yeah, so it’s clear that there are a lot of ethical concerns when we look at organ transplant systems around the world. So I was wondering if you could describe ‘how does the organ transplant system in China differ from other countries?’

There are a number of differences. I’ll have to give you a little bit of background to be able to explain. Now, in China, back in the ’90s and earlier, they didn’t have an organ donation system at all. They just used organs from death row prisoners. So these were people who were sentenced to death for whatever reasons. And we also have to take into account that this is a country that doesn’t have a legal system like we do in our countries, and there really is no rule of law. So taking organs from death row prisoners is internationally condemned because of the situation the person’s in. It’s very hard to be able to prevent coercion or, you know, so a lot of the — well, all of the international ethical statements on organ transplantation include not using organs from death row prisoners. 

So this was the main organ source in China. So that was the first difference that wasn’t happening in other countries at all. So China did not initiate an organ donation system until around 2014. Now, we believe that there’s a sort of, like, a hybrid system—that yes, they are creating a donation system, a donated organ sort of distribution system and all of that—but that these other crimes haven’t stopped. They’re still going on in the background. It’s bulking up the numbers. It’s bringing in the money.

So when we look at the source of organs and the process today in China compared to other countries—well, in other countries, as most people would know, there’s a recipient list. You know, there’s people that are at the top of the list that really need an organ more urgently than others, and when someone dies and their organs are intact, and that person has wished for their organs to be donated, and there’s all the documentation that goes around that. Of course, there’s the identity of the person who’s passed away. There’s contact with the family. The family also needs to give consent, so all of that is documented very carefully in the countries that we live in. And then the recipient that’s at the top of the list, who is the best match for that organ that’s become available, is then contacted for an emergency procedure. That’s basically, sort of, you know, the process in a nutshell of what’s happening.

Whereas in China, what is happening is that there’s an incredible number of people who are incarcerated for their belief, ethnicity, religion. These people are in prisons, labor camps, black jails—a range of different places where they’re detained. They are organ-scanned and blood-tested in detention, which creates this almost living donor pool of people who have no freedom; their freedoms are completely taken away from them. And there’s a reverse matching system happening, where the recipients, who may be, you know, people who are on a waiting list, but they may also be transplant tourists from other countries, are coming, wanting an organ, getting it in a very short period of time, because they’re allocating the person who is alive still, taking their life away through the organ extraction—so basically murdering people for their organs—and then providing the recipient with the organ. So it’s a reverse matching system. This isn’t happening anywhere else in the world. It’s happening on a massive scale. It’s happening through the main hospitals and the military hospitals.

So it’s a reverse matching system. This isn’t happening anywhere else in the world. It’s happening on a massive scale.

Susie Hughes

Whereas, you know, in other countries where we talk about organ trafficking—and there is organ trafficking happening around the world, definitely—it’s usually more of a case of somebody who’s living in poverty being coerced for a kidney so they will stay alive. It’s a terrible situation because they’re never really given aftercare, and that person can become very, very sick. They have no idea of the implications of giving a kidney or, you know, selling a kidney, I should say. The money they receive is very small compared to what the broker receives. But it’s all happening. It’s also a terrible crime that really needs to be dealt with as well, but it’s happening on a different scale, and it’s happening more in sort of backyard facilities, and it’s also a different system. So China is really the extreme.

Yeah, it’s really eye-opening to hear, especially the history of it and how that’s led to kind of the systemic abuses that are continuing today.

News clip: It’s being called “transplant tourism.” That’s where people are now flocking to China to get needed organs.

Would you say that the majorities of these operations do result in the deaths of people? 

They all result in death of people. For example, we all know about someone going and buying a kidney in a back street somewhere in a poor country. The fact is in China, they take both kidneys and other organs as well, so nobody survives these organ transplants because they’re dead after their organs, all of their organs are removed.

During this interview, I found myself confronting a chilling reality, one that I was ashamed I didn’t know much about. The Center for Victims of Torture advocates on a lot of issues: asylum and refugee protection, accountability for the use of torture in Guantanamo and other prisons, and meeting the mental health needs of people who have experienced conflict-related trauma. What do all of these issues have in common? Victims are survivors. But with forced organ   harvesting, there are none.

The Center for Victims of Torture advocates on a lot of issues: asylum and refugee protection, accountability for the use of torture in Guantanamo and other prisons, and meeting the mental health needs of people who have experienced conflict-related trauma. What do all of these issues have in common? Victims are survivors. But with forced organ   harvesting, there are none.

Melissa McNeilly

In the next section of the interview, I ask Susie about the China Tribunal, the independent investigation in 2019 that I mentioned she helped coordinate. More than 50 witnesses, experts and investigators testified. Since there is no international court to look into the evidence and identify those responsible, the tribunal filled this gap, confirming that beyond reasonable doubt, transplant abuse was happening and that it was considered a crime against humanity.  

What was the China Tribunal, and what were its findings?

I’ve heard about the China Tribunal. Could you explain what that was and what some of the key findings were?

Yeah, sure. We came to a point in our advocacy where it was quite obvious that there was a significant gap in the fact that the evidence was so complex. There’s so many different lines of evidence. This is a complex criminal case which is involving the Chinese government. So for most people to dive into something like that is extremely difficult. And even NGOs who work with human trafficking or freedom of religion and belief or any of these issues—they have so many issues on their plate that, you know, having someone that can look at all of this evidence and determine whether or not it’s credible was a major gap.

So we realized that we needed another sort of independent assessment of all of the different evidence from all the different researchers and investigators and the different testimonies from the different victim groups. So we approached a man named Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, who we knew had done some sort of pro bono work before. He’s an extremely well-respected barrister from the United Kingdom, and initially we asked him for a legal opinion. We just were, you know, we wanted him to have a look at it all and sort of give us an opinion. Were there any gaps in the evidence? What was his opinion on it all?

And he said that, you know, because it was such a significant issue, and because the allegations were so grave, that we really should look at initiating a People’s Tribunal, which would be him and a number of others working pro bono, free of charge, at assessing all of that evidence. And he explained to us what that was, how that could work. He had been involved on some other People’s Tribunals before, and we discussed it and realized that it really was what we needed to do. 

This was going to be an 18-month project. It involved five days of public hearings, which happened in London, which was a situation where some of the people from the victim communities testified, but also a number of others, such as the different investigators. And he was very clear with the sort of structure of it, and separated us as an NGO who was asking for this to be done from them, a body of experts who were assessing everything. 

So over the course of the 18 months that this took place, we looked after some of the logistics. So we booked some rooms. We, you know, distributed the invitation for submissions that the China Tribunal had—similar to, sort of, you know, an inquiry that happens on a government website. So we distributed that to the different investigators and groups and encouraged everyone to sort of send the information they had to the China Tribunal, and the China Tribunal’s deliberations of the evidence and all of that was completely confidential. So we distributed that to the different investigators and groups and encouraged everyone to sort of send the information they had to the China tribunal and the China tribunals deliberations of the evidence, and all of that was completely confidential.

Susie mentioned Sir Geoffrey Nice KC. He’s a British barrister and distinguished human rights lawyer who has represented victims of several international armed conflicts at the International Criminal Court and elsewhere. He’s a world leading expert on genocide and crimes against humanity. Here he is delivering the final judgement of the China Tribunal in 2019.

Sir Geoffrey Nice KC: This is the judgment of the tribunal. For over a decade, the People’s Republic of China has stood publicly accused of acts of cruelty and wickedness that match the cruelty and wickedness of medieval torturers and executioners… It should be made clear that it gives the tribunal no pleasure to reach this conclusion, to which it is driven by evidence and the application of reason and logic, together with its appraisal of witnesses who gave evidence. 

The conclusion shows that very many people have died indescribably hideous deaths for no reason. That more may suffer in similar ways. And that all of us live on a planet where extreme wickedness may be found in the power of those, for the time being, running a country with one of the oldest civilizations known to modern man, which ideally we should be able to respect, and from which we should be able to learn…

Victim for victim and death for death, the gassing of the Jews by the Nazis, the massacre of the Khmer Rouge or the butchery to death of the Rwandan Tutsis may not be worse than cutting out the hearts, other organs and the very souls of living, blameless, harmless, peaceable people.

Victim for victim and death for death, the gassing of the Jews by the Nazis, the massacre of the Khmer Rouge or the butchery to death of the Rwandan Tutsis may not be worse than cutting out the hearts, other organs and the very souls of living, blameless, harmless, peaceable people.

Sir Geoffrey Nice KC

Susie: So it was an incredible undertaking. And in the end, after the 12 months or 18 months of reviewing incredible amounts of information—which are on the China Tribunal website, so that’s ‘chinatribunal.com’—all of the information’s there, all of the videos of the testimonies are all there as well. They came out at the end with the finding that forced organ harvesting was happening in China. It had been happening for a significant number of years to a significant number of people, that it was state-run. They also came out with the statement that it was a crime against humanity. So they were looking at the international law. Was it a crime against humanity? Was it genocide? Was it none? Was it happening? Wasn’t it happening? They’re really looking at the whole picture. They did say that there is a possibility that it is genocide as well. However, through their investigations, they could only, I guess, assess things to a certain degree, and one of the areas was the intent. And with genocide, it’s really about that intent of the perpetrator. And they encouraged governments and other bodies to take that step further and see if it is genocide.

They found that the Falun Gong practitioners—the Buddhist Qigong practice of Falun Gong—they were the main victims, that now there is significant evidence coming forward that the Uyghur population are being caught into this. So some of the Uyghurs also testified that they’d had blood tests and forced organ scans in detention, but they said that that evidence at the time was not conclusive. So this was in 2019; more evidence has come about since then, but it was obvious that the Uyghurs could, too, be an organ bank. So we’d never, you know, been involved in anything like this, and the value of that People’s Tribunal has just been incredible. You know, it was really worthwhile.

Yeah, it sounds like an incredibly impactful tactic and also a very sobering process to witness. You mentioned the tribunal highlights the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners and Uyghurs as primary targets. Has that specific focus influenced your advocacy work at all?

The China Tribunal has influenced our advocacy in so many different ways. So when it comes to the actual victim communities and also, you know, other areas of our advocacy, what we now have is all of that complex evidence compiled into one judgment. It’s so much easier for the victim communities and for governments and NGOs and anyone—medical professionals and transplant professionals, this just goes on and on—to be able to understand this issue and to be able to understand the credibility of the evidence, because the process that, you know, being led by Sir Geoffrey Nice, the process that the tribunal went through, the methodology, was so incredibly robust that it’s changed everything. It’s a real game-changer.

And the China Tribunal has been cited in many, many different government reports, and, you know, the list just goes on. It’s shaped our advocacy efforts in regards to partnering with other NGOs as well. So being an organization with such a narrow focus—you know, we just focus specifically on forced organ harvesting in China—we broaden that a little bit to organ trafficking, in regards to some of the legislation, because you can capture both.

So in regards to our advocacy and building a coalition and building partner organizations, the China Tribunal has been fundamental, because we can point to that. NGOs now can have a look at that judgment, they can look at that website, they can see what it’s about, and they feel very comfortable including this in their broader remit. So, you know, this is modern slavery, human trafficking, freedom of religion and belief. You’ve got organizations that focus on mass atrocity. So there’s a wide range of organizations that have a much broader remit than we do, and they’re now willing to sort of include this and sign on to joint letters and offer their advice as well.

Human rights, torture.  Exactly, human rights, yeah, that’s the key, the key. 

News clip: Now this tribunal has concluded that it’s certain that Falun Gong is a source, probably the principal source of organs for forced organ harvesting.

The report adds that whilst it doesn’t have sufficient evidence to reach the same conclusion for the Muslim Uyghur community, it says the vulnerability of the Uyghurs to being used as a bank of organs is also obvious.

What’s Next?

You’ve painted a clear picture of the horrors behind this practice. So my question is, what’s next? Like, what needs to be done to stop this on a global scale?

Yeah, it’s a really good question. It’s very difficult, and it’s the same as some other issues that are, you know, happening on this scale, where you have a brutal regime—basically a government that is the perpetrator. With surveillance these days, it’s a lot more difficult for people to get out of the country. A number of years back, there was the possibility of people with their paper passports actually slipping through and being able to get out of the country and, you know, get refugee status and protection in another country. But now, with the facial recognition, it’s virtually impossible. It’s really, really difficult. So we’re not getting as many Falun Gong practitioners and Uyghurs coming out.

So in regards to what needs to be done, we’ll always aim to stop the crimes within China, but the way we do that needs to be from without. So we need to be doing it from the outside. The main thing that we need to do is to disengage. So at the moment, China is in a—the Chinese government are in a situation where they’re boasting about their new organ donation system. They’re speaking at different conferences internationally. They’re involved in key groups with the WHO. They’re involved in key positions with main organizations that are looking at ethics of organ donation globally and being on advisory panels. So this—all of this is happening, and China is sort of rising in the area of organ transplantation and saying, “Well, look at us. Look how well we’re doing. We used to use death row prisoners, we’ve cleaned it all up, and now we have this incredible donation system, and we’re now going to teach you how to improve yours.”

So it’s ridiculous, and, you know, just hearing that, I’m sure many people can feel how ridiculous that is—that these main perpetrators who have built their organ transplantation industry on the killing of people are now sort of touting that they’re leading everybody else in organ donation and ethical transplant. So what we need to do is we need to disengage from that.

So one area is business and human rights, where we have collaborations going on with Chinese transplant institutions; we need to disengage and not have those collaborations. Governments need to be enacting legislation to make sure that transplant tourism is tracked and also criminalized. There’s a number of different areas with legislation of what could be done. Sanctions need to be issued on certain perpetrators. Now, there are sanctions in regards to perpetrators of the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners and also the Uyghurs, but there aren’t sanctions in place yet in regards to this specific issue. So sanctions need to be issued on some transplant surgeons from China, where there’s clear evidence that they’ve been involved in this. You know, the UN needs to take further action. There’s just so much that needs to be done.

Sounds like it’s a long road ahead, but still some very clear paths for action.

Yeah, it’s a long road. It’s a marathon

Yea, it’s a marathon, not a sprint. 

How is international pressure driving change?

So you talked about some of the diplomatic engagement with governments internationally. How important is international pressure, and how is that driving change on this issue?

Yeah, I’d say it’s very important. It’s a very important role. The Chinese government’s not going to act on this until the pressure for them to do so is so great that they have no other choice. It’s very difficult to change the human rights abuses going on in China, including the forced organ harvesting, but we still need to tackle it head-on. You know, nations around the world should condemn the Chinese government for these crimes and stop all transplant medicine research and training, as I just mentioned, until there’s complete transparency.

And one of the main issues with forced organ harvesting is that millions of people are imprisoned for their faith or ethnicity. If those people were not imprisoned, then there wouldn’t be this live organ donor pool. So the issue can be addressed more broadly from that angle as well.

International support seems like a key component to your work. How does End Transplant Abuse work to raise public awareness? Have you found any new approaches or new tactics to be particularly effective in reaching people?

Yes, well, we have. I touched upon it a moment ago. Perhaps I’ll elaborate on that, and that’s the business and human rights angle. So one area that I think most people are aware of is with business and human rights—it generally applies to the manufacturing sector, and it’s a way that, you know, corporations need to be responsible in regards to where they’re getting their supplies from. So whether there’s any forced labor in their supply chain, and then there’s something called the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and corporations and businesses need to do their due diligence and check out what’s going on and not engage with any suppliers who do have child labor or forced labor, etc.

So this is something that’s—the awareness of business and human rights is growing. It’s fantastic, and it’s really helping, I believe, in a number of different areas. Now, we looked at that, and we wanted to know whether these same UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights would also apply to the transplant sector, to the medical sector, because there are so many interactions. And whilst it’s not necessarily purchasing goods, it may be providing training, it may be collaborations where there’s research going on between another country and China. So it’s the universities, it’s the medical institutions, it’s the medical journals, and it’s even their pharmaceutical companies and the medical devices companies.

So we wanted to know, do these stakeholders have responsibilities in regards to their interactions with a country where there’s robust evidence that these crimes are taking place, and do they have responsibilities even if it’s another country that is known to have some sort of, you know, organ transplant tourism happening? Is it okay for universities outside of China to have a collaboration where the scientists are working in China using a supposedly donated organ, and there’s no due diligence in regards to whether that organ has come from a prisoner of conscience or whether it was donated ethically? Is it okay for universities and hospitals outside of China to train Chinese transplant surgeons and then those surgeons go back and use those skills in these horrendous crimes?

So we approached an organization named Global Rights Compliance, who have expertise in the area of business and human rights. It’s an organization led by Wayne Jordash KC, and we asked two questions. One was, do the Guiding Principles apply to the transplant sector in regards to those sort of areas that I’ve explained? And also, is there a risk of complicity if people are involved? Because, you know, the term complicity had been thrown around a little bit, but we didn’t have any solid legal opinion on whether people would be complicit if they trained a Chinese transplant surgeon and they went back and used those skills, for example, or a medical devices company that’s, you know, supplying China with—there’s a couple of different technologies known as organ perfusion, which keeps the organ intact outside of the body for it then to be able to be transplanted into somebody else. So I think people know it as ‘heart in a box,’ and these sorts of technologies—you know, is there potential complicity if that is being used in China and it’s being used with people who have been killed for their organs?

So Global Rights Compliance came back after significant investigations and a number of interviews with different stakeholders, and with the advice that, yes, there was the risk of complicity, that it was under aiding and abetting crimes against humanity, and that, yes, the Guiding Principles did apply and do apply, and that all of these different stakeholders really need to have policy—business and human rights policy—they need to have due diligence procedures in place, and they need to carry out those procedures. So when they come to a situation where an interaction, a partnership, any sort of interaction with China’s transplant sector happens, they pause. They go through the due diligence steps. They determine whether or not they can go ahead or whether or not they need to stop the partnership or put some sort of remediation in place, if they can.

So this has just been fantastic because it’s educational, and when you’re coming from an angle of educating professionals, it’s far easier to gain traction than coming from an angle of just asking them to stop interacting because there’s crimes going on. When you can educate them about the whole business and human rights area, the field of expertise, what due diligence is, what policies they need to put in place. And, you know, GRC—Global Rights Compliance—provided two documents, and one is actually a policy guidance document, and it’s almost a cut-and-paste situation. The stakeholders can really clearly see what policies they need in place, and the due diligence checklists are there. It’s all there.

So I guess it is a new strategy. You know, it’s a new tactic. It’s a way of using business and human rights more broadly, to be able to apply business and human rights to a situation that is addressing crimes against humanity and genocide. Because ultimately, we all have to be responsible ourselves. We, you know, we have to step back and we have to say, well, we’re not going to interact. And that in itself puts pressure on China.

Any who interact in any substantial way with the PRC, including doctors and medical institutions, industry and businesses, most specifically airlines, travel companies, financial services businesses, law firms, pharmaceutical/insurance companies, together with individual tourists, educational establishments and art establishments should now recognize that they are, to the extent revealed in this judgment, interacting with a criminal state.

Sir Geoffrey Nice KC

And what you’re talking about—ensuring that companies and individuals aren’t complicit in these human rights abuses—that is the resource for that is the GRC legal advisory report, which is on your website, right?

That’s right, yes. On the homepage of our website, which is endtransplantabuse.org, at the top there, there’s a section on the GRC advisory, and further down, there’s even an explainer video. It’s about three minutes. It’s fantastic because it takes two very long documents and sort of puts them into something short enough that the general public and NGOs and governments can see what it’s all about and decide whether they then can use the documents more specifically.

How can people get involved in this issue?

So we talked about due diligence and individuals and avoiding complicity. So for people listening today, how can individuals and communities get involved in this fight and support your mission?

There’s a number of different ways. So if anyone’s involved in an NGO or a civil society group, then they can contact us and connect, and generally we’ll jump on a call and discuss how our work may fit in with theirs. People can sign on to joint letters. We have a number of people from different professions who offer their skills. So it’s contacting the website and saying who you are and that you’d like to contribute, and we jump on a call and have a chat.

Sometimes people just simply sign on to a petition. Other times, people might be—you know, if you have a legal background, you may be someone who offers your services pro bono for looking over our UN submission or one of the different drafts for a bill. So there’s just many different ways that people can help without it being too onerous, and it can be just small, you know, offerings of help here and there.

And generally speaking, we’ve got a new petition with another organization, ‘Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting.’ And this is a petition called the G7 plus Seven Petition—Forced Organ Harvesting Petition. And this petition is reaching out to the G7 nations, plus another seven nations, calling them to action. The petition website is fohpetition.org, and if you’re an individual, you can just go on there and have a read and sign it. But if you’re someone who’s involved in any sort of group or association, and you can share it with others—we’re also asking NGOs to come on board, and you’ll see a section there on the website where we’ve got a number of logos from organizations that are supporting.

And the main calls to action with the petition is to inform citizens and protect them from being complicit in forced organ harvesting. So for these nations to take those sort of business and human rights principles into action in their own countries. So another one is to halt exchanges in transplant-related practice, research, or training until there’s proof that these crimes have stopped, initiate annual parliamentary hearings regarding forced organ harvesting, and to actually do annual reports themselves, which include witness and expert testimonies, and also to begin investigations to determine accountability for these acts that are happening. And to look into this issue that the China Tribunal raised of whether or not the issue is a crime against humanity as well as genocide. So these countries could be looking very closely at that and all of the other crimes that are happening to the Falun Gong practitioners and the Uyghurs and others in the PRC.

So yeah, signing on to that petition is just a very easy thing to do. And then, you know, other things, if people want to be involved more extensively, then they can contact us.

We always say at New Tactics: “We don’t have to do it all, but we can all do something.”

Absolutely, yeah. It’s really important, and it is easy to do something. You don’t have to lock into any sort of regular work. You can just do a little bit here and there, and it makes a difference.

What challenges have you faced?

So I imagine your organization faces significant challenges in this fight. Can you share some of those challenges and how your team works to overcome them?

Thanks for asking. There are challenges. There’s always challenges, and particularly with these sorts of issues that are involving another government. So diplomatic relations with China and trade relationships—it’s a huge challenge, because whilst we know that a number of governments do believe this is happening and have accepted the evidence, how they act in response to that really varies.

So in the EU, there’s been a resolution on forced organ harvesting in China, and that was passed unanimously. Other countries haven’t done that. Some other countries have put in some legislation, but it hasn’t mentioned China. It’s very diplomatically worded. Countries do bring this issue into the human rights dialogue sometimes, but once again, it’s done very sensitively. So the relationship between the governments and what issues they’re willing to bring to the table is a challenge. It’s a huge challenge.

So whilst a government might be willing to bring to the table forced labor or the incarceration of people when there have been satellite images of them, they may not be willing to bring in the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people, because it’s a completely different level of what they’re confronting that government with. So it’s challenging, but there are inroads, and there are a lot of good people who work in government who are wanting to address this issue.

So we just try and strengthen the positives. That’s how we work with it. We don’t give in. We know that it’s sensitive and that they do need to be diplomatic with their relationships, so we try and be tactical in regards to what we ask of them. And sometimes it’s okay if we can get something through that doesn’t mention China, if we know it will actually have a positive impact. And other times we want them to really, sort of, you know, speak out and mention who the perpetrators are and what’s going on.

And I guess the other challenge is, there is a very strong connection happening between the Chinese transplant surgeons and transplant surgeons outside of China, because there are a lot of international conferences happening, and there are particular people in the transplant world who want to help China improve their donation system. So that in itself is tricky too, because we have two pioneering transplant surgeons who are a part of our organization, and they are very strong in their opinion of not training Chinese surgeons and really speaking out about this. But there are other transplant surgeons who appear to be turning a blind eye because of the collaboration opportunities that are happening with China. So we also have to try and sensitively navigate that.

What does the future hold?

It sounds like a lot of different complexities to navigate, but that there’s always hope for forward momentum towards the future. So looking forward, what’s next for End Transplant Abuse? Are there any key goals or strategies your organization is focusing on in the coming years?

Yes, we’re going to continue to focus on the business and human rights aspect. At the moment, we have quite an extensive outreach happening to universities and hospitals globally. As well, you know, like, for example, we had a fantastic seminar with the forensic nurses from the U.S. and Canada, and that was on the Global Rights Compliance advisory. So we’re teaming up with different groups and providing training seminars on the GRC advisory so that we can try and educate as many people as possible. And there’s been, you know, really significant interest in that, which is fantastic. So we’re going to continue that work.

We also want to achieve law reform. There are two bills currently in the U.S., for example, which have passed the House with unanimous support and have now moved into the Senate. One is called the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Bill, and the other is the Falun Gong Protection Act, and they both focus on forced organ harvesting in China. The Falun Gong Protection Act is more specifically China. It also encompasses other victims as well. So whilst it’s called the Falun Gong Protection Act, it does include other prisoners of conscience and Uyghurs who may be victims of these crimes.

So we’ll continue our work in different countries in regards to legislation and also, you know, looking at sanctions for perpetrators and some of those other more impactful things that we can do with the government. And then just grassroots campaigns, keeping the education happening, and submitting to different inquiries and really helping educate people that this is going on and what they can do to help.

I appreciate the education myself. Thank you so much, Susie, for joining and shedding light on this critical issue. Truly, the work that you’re doing is so important. 

I know our listeners will be eager to support and spread the word. And can you remind everyone where they can find information about your organization?

Yes, certainly. And thank you for the opportunity. It’s been really fantastic to speak with you. Really appreciate it. So our website is endtransplantabuse.org, and the China Tribunal website is chinatribunal.com.

Thank you for joining  us for this episode of Human Rights Chat. I extend my deepest gratitude to the voices featured on this episode, including Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, Hamid Sabi and all involved in the China Tribunal. But most of all to Susie Hughes. I can’t imagine a world where she didn’t come across that information table and petition 20 years ago. Listeners: please go to endtransplantabuse.org and read about the many ways you can take action on this issue. 

For more ideas and inspiration on meeting your human rights goals, visit New Tactics’ library of more than 250 innovative human rights tactics for change at newtactics.org. Thank you for listening to the Human Rights chat podcast by New Tactics in Human Rights, where we inspire and equip activists to change the world.