Google vs China: The Soft A-bomb
Written by Julen Madariaga on March 24th, 2010
How many times have we seen the discussion on China forums about what exactly is Soft Power? That mysterious force of the white side that the Jedi use in international politics, turning all arguments to their advantage? China has coveted this weapon for years and spent many a valuable resource in its quest, but all to no avail, to the point that some have started to doubt the very existence of the Force.
Well, for those who doubted, here you have the proof. Get the solid worldwide reputation of Google Inc. for non-evilness, add an American president that enjoys public support in almost every corner of the World, and you can assemble a Megaton soft bomb with the power to break through all the conventions of international politics. That is exactly what Google’s actions represent today, and for the time being they are obtaining the expected support outside of China.
While at first some observers interpreted the Hong Kong move as a face saving one, I think after Brin’s appeal to Obama today there is little doubt that this was not the case. What is probably even worse from the CCP’s perspective is the direct link set up today on Google HK to Drummond’s blog post in Chinese. Up to now only a few Chinese activists had bothered to read the message, now every single Google.cn user is sent there. Google is attempting to speak directly to the people of China, bypassing the channels of the government, how is that for a detonator?
This is the kind of action that only a company like Google could risk, and only a government like Obama’s could support without lifting suspicions all around the World. It is a completely new approach to international politics where a company now is not only pushing for political goals, but even addressing peoples and governments directly as an equal. Any company in the World acting like this would get a severe rebuke from its own government, but I doubt that this will be the case for Google.
It does not work like this
I have been quite negative about Google’s actions ever since this “New Approach” started in January. Unlike other critics, I don’t doubt the sincerity of Google’s leaders or the goodness of their objective. On the contrary, I am convinced that this is a deliberate personal move by Google’s leaders to do their real significant bit while they are still in time, before they lose full control of the corporation. With the growth of Google this is bound to happen soon, and both Page and Brin have announced the sale of a good chunk of their shares this year.
But my reasons to be against Google’s plan are much more simple than that. It is just that I think it will not work.
I readily admit that I might be wrong, indeed I hope so, this is a completely new approach and nobody has all the certainty. But from my observation of China in the last few years, I can’t see how the plan might work. The government will try to avoid a scene, and it is possible that for a while Google will remain unblocked. But sooner or later the CCP is going to have them pay for this, the door has been left wide open for another call to patriotism, and the consequences will be bad for the Chinese and for the internet.
A problem of principles
In fact, even if the outcome turns out to be good, I am not comfortable with the principle of Google’s actions. It is a principle of moral superiority, the old story of Western people going to different continents and killing as many as they could to save them from the wrong faith. It is based on the boundless Western hypocrisy that allows us even today to commit some of the worst crimes in the World while proudly walking under the banner of human rights.
Granted, Google’s bomb is a soft one and it does not kill people, my parallel only goes so far. But if we look at the recent history of China, we will see that the Chinese today are far better off than they were at any other time of the last century, including when the West had power over them. And surprisingly enough, whatever freedom and progress the Chinese have today was not achieved through ultimatums or moralizing stances. On the contrary, it was achieved by the patient work of millions of Chinese who sincerely care about their country.
And those people didn’t manage it alone, together with them there are also thousands of foreigners like me who have been working here for years, helping China develop its technologies, teaching English to the Chinese, dealing with the authorities and getting our hands “dirty” with things like the Olympics or the Expo. Events that the righteous minds in the West thought they should have never been given to the Chinese, because they don’t share our true faith.
I am convinced that this is the right way to develop China and the rest of the World, helping them out on the daily hard work, and avoiding righteous heroes that take us nowhere. And in spite of all the times I have had to swallow my pride and take what came from the Chinese authorities, when I speak with most of the Chinese around me I don’t see suffering and oppression, but hope in the future. That is the best sign that we are doing it right. Let’s be patient.
Jeff said:
Anelly said:
pug_ster said:
jergin said:
Shiyo said:
Sarajuddin Isar said:
dz said:
Lucia said:
25
AM
Julen (so glad I can write that),
The whole Brin and Page legacy angle is definitely one I haven’t really seen in all this chaos. Great post!
[Reply to this comment]
25
AM
Julen, my thoughts on this post and on the last one:
Everyone has been weighing in on this recent move by Google, and I consider myself to be among the supporters and admirers of what Google has done. As everyone deems Google’s actions right or wrong the most important thing to shift our focus to is the standards whereby we evaluate the usefulness and effectiveness of their bombshell.
All of us seem to agree that censorship is bad and ultimately are in the business of evaluating what is “best” for a future China where censorship is lessened. When you get right down with it, this is the point where the disagreement begins.
The common tune among your writing and others who disagree with Google (and correct me if I’m characterizing your approach wrong) is this gentler, more gradualist, and more cooperative approach. You sum this up basically in your second to last paragraph on this post. This approach has results. This approach “works,” you say.
My first contention is that there is no one “right” approach. Depending on the field of play you use a different approach. I feel the gradualist approach you characterize is appropriate in the realms of the political conversation between the officials of our countries, or in the world of scholastic dialog, mutual economic ventures, or work in international organizations like the UN or the WTO (which indeed was the approach to permitting China’s entrance to the WTO).
In the realm of freedom of expression and access to information, however, I personally think this approach is dead wrong. The “prize” of an “open Internet” is something that is fundamentally different from, say, friendlier political relations or smoother economic relationships. I can hardly think of any even in history where “greater expression” was won by a gradualist, conciliatory approach: whereas instances like the Civil Rights movement or Glasnost ultimately did require the participation of the national leaders, it also required the vehement and no-so-gentle social unrest, so to speak, of the muzzled people in question.
That being said, in my analysis, a “more open Internet,” in fact, will not come from the “West,” personified in Google, but rather, from the people of China itself - and this is another point where I disagree with your opinion. You speak of “China” in both these posts when you’re obviously referring to the Chinese government as an entity that must be worked with. The Chinese people aren’t per se being insulted by Google’s move, the immediate “insultee” is the Chinese government first, and the Chinese people indirectly (and only some of them, at that). When the goal is smoother international relations or some sort of economic agreement, the Chinese government is the target in question, however, when the issue is an open Internet, the people are who are more important.
That being said, a more open Internet can only be demanded by the internet users of the PRC only provided that there is an awareness that the Internet is indeed closed. This is the most vital point, I think. The genius of the PRC government’s closing of the Internet is not only to decrease awareness of how stunted China’s Internet is, but also to inculcate a naive acceptance of censorship when it *is* perceived as “the right thing for the government” to do.
Google’s job is not to provide China’s internet users with a more “open” internet directly. When Google was censored, it was, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as Baidu, which is precisely why it really couldn’t challenge Baidu’s market share. If someone wanted to buy a jacket, or look up a list of jokes, or scan the latest celeb gossip, both Google and Baidu offered the same results and so it came down a matter of habit and preference (where Baidu wins). If someone wanted to ask, “What really happened on 6/4?” both of them said that according to the laws of the country some results could not be displayed.
Google’s move to Hong Kong is a the coup de grace, in my opinion. People are blithely pointing out that results are being filtered on on the mainland by the GFW anyway, so the Internet “isn’t more open.” This is a disingenuous argument. There is a vast, vast difference between getting a polite notice that some results are censored due to government regulations and getting a “disconnected error” after seeing a thumbnail of the tankman on Google Image’s results. The actual machinery behind the censorship process is much more transparent and obvious in the second. It’s jarring. Rather than getting a gentle nudge from a friendly security guard, internet users are now literally walking straight into the brick-and-mortar of the Great Firewall. That makes it much harder to ignore.
Secondly, the fact that it redirects to Google Hong Kong is even more powerful in that people all over China are experiencing (rather than simple knowing) the fact that they are second-class citizens when it comes to information access in their own country. It’s one thing to learn “one country, two systems” in your political education class in grade school, it’s another thing entirely to be told to your face that Hong Kongers are allowed to see this, but *you* aren’t. Furthermore, *everyone* is made aware of this. Before, you’d have to be deliberately seeking liusi shijian to probe the forbidden edges of the Chinese Internet. Now, even if someone in Sichuan wants to buy shoes will be redirected to Google Hong Kong and be sharply aware that the game is different.
This is the most important thing. As a result of Google’s action, *that* much more people are painfully aware that they are forbidden from experiencing an open Internet, and they’re further aware that for “some strange reason” their fellow “countrymen” in Hong Kong are more entitled to it then they are. It’s not about the “West” and the “East” anymore. Now it’s a “domestic” issue, “one country two systems” be damned.
Ultimately, trying to measure with an electron microscope the number of access Google is or not providing to users, or two measure with said microscope the “face lost by the government” factor is misguided. It’s an issue of awareness, and combating the governments well-refined policies and machinery that makes Internet users content with their bridled Internet. This was a step in the right direction.
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
March 25th, 2010 at 10:50 am
In the realm of freedom of expression and access to information, however, I personally think this approach is dead wrong. The “prize” of an “open Internet” is something that is fundamentally different from, say, friendlier political relations or smoother economic relationships…
And I would agree with you if Google had taken more care of the form, and taken care not to show up hand in hand with the US government. But as it is presented now to the Chinese, it is an “America vs the CCP”, not the free “Internet vs CCP”. All those examples you give were done from the inside of the country. But if you do it from the outside, international politics inevitably pollute everything. Now all it will take is a couple of headlines in Xinhua to convince millions of Chinese that G is a just a tool of the USA.
That being said, in my analysis, a “more open Internet,” in fact, will not come from the “West,” personified in Google, but rather, from the people of China itself – and this is another point where I disagree with your opinion. You speak of “China” in both these posts when you’re obviously referring to the Chinese government as an entity that must be worked with. The Chinese people aren’t per se being insulted by Google’s move, the immediate “insultee” is the Chinese government first, and the Chinese people indirectly (and only some of them, at that)
Same comment. Google’s intentions are good, and they certainly don’t want to insult the Chinese people. But whether we like it or not, most of the Chinese people are quite proud of their government (at least in international politics). Brin appealing to Obama might work in the rest of the World, but it will just not work here. The Chinese people will NEVER believe in Obama above their own government. And they have good reasons for it: Obama works above all for American interests, only then for human rights.
In conclusion, like I said yesterday it is all in the form. Google’s move could have been a great one, completely unseen from a corporation and with good chances to succeed. But from the start they have done a terrible mistake of form: they have associated their plan with the US government, and by doing this, they are caught in the dirty field of international politics.
This should have been presented as the internet vs CCP, not as USA vs CCP. What does Google gain with all this Obama appealing? What do they think Obama is going to do, sue China? It is stupid, it undermines the whole plan and it serves no purpose at all.
[Reply to this comment]
Porfiriy Reply:
March 25th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
The unsavory (thought really tenuous and spurious) connection between “Google” and “President Obama” as a political faux pas is something you and I can agree on. However, that’s only one facet of the situation among many, and I think you’re recharacterizing your own argument. You refer to your previous post on “It’s all about the form” but you didn’t even mention the word Obama in that post. The points you did made are the points I expressed disagreement with in my first comment.
For example, you imply that Google should have “given face” to the Chinese government. I claimed in my first comment and I contend again here that Google should preoccupy itself with appealing directly to the Internet users of China rather than an insecure, self-interested, and intransigent government. With this Hong Kong move it has.
You also said there’s “nothing new” about the Hong Kong site. I think there is. It reshapes the way that censorship is perceived, and, most importantly, sharpens mainlanders’ awareness of their own status as second-class citizens vis-a-vis their fellow citizens - not some distant, moralizing West. Particularly in our era, the Information Age, one can argue the case for “information poverty” (and the seriousness of such poverty) in which case mainlanders should be compelled to question this informational class difference between the Guangdong ren in Shenzhen and the Hong Konger just a few miles away - however, to question it, you need to know it and feel it, and that’s what this Google move has done. Yeah, the US government connection is probably damaging the cause but a mainlander can still ask himself “Why is Hong Konger entitled to more Internet than I am?” since it’s an important question that’s completely irrelevant to how much Google is in bed with Obama. I don’t think mainlander Chinese are idiots. There’s nothing stopping a Chinese person from being skeptical about the Google - USA Gov. link AND also questioning a glaring and unjust distribution of “information access” within the People’s Republic of China. As far as I’m concerned, if more mainlanders are at least *thinking* about the censorship issue, whether they’re for it or against it, mission accomplished Google - because the Party and censorship wins as long as no thought is being applied to the issue. The mere existence of a dialogue, even if one side is composed of angry fenqing, is a victory for open internet. The seeds have been planted in Zhang so-and-so of Yunnan who two weeks ago didn’t give a damn about Internet restrictions but started wondering about it when he noticed Google.cn’s new Hong Kong home.
Finally, regarding your characterization of whether or not it’s internet vs. CCP or USA vs. CCP whatever, again, my approach is admittedly soaked with a huge disdain for the CCP. Screw the CCP, I say. And again this is why I approve of Google. In my opinion, the CCP is an illegitimate and self-interested government that’s only interested in the welfare of PRC citizens inasmuch as that interest preserves its political power base. As such, in spite of the CCP’s ability to manipulate public opinion, within reason I not only spurn this idea that we should be “afraid” of making the CCP lose face but further think that in certain cases - particularly this one - it’s the right thing to do. While you’re quick to criticize this idea of Western exceptionalism and hypocrisy, I tend to bristle rapidly at any hint of Chinese exceptionalism - which you indeed espouse when you think that “not making the government lose face” is an end in-and-of itself. The government needs to lose face sometime. It’s healthy, in fact, for governments to lose face internationally should it cause the people they govern to question questionable policies. Yes, this move by Google will energize a bunch of patriotic fenqing into rabid defense of the party. True. But it’s just as likely to move a bunch of otherwise indifferent people to say, “You know what, this time our government deserved it.” The Chinaman is not some vulnerable, sensitive wimp that needs to be coddled by Westerners who tread on eggshells to preserve his “face,” and as potent as Google’s “soft power” atomic bomb has been this is no Bay of Pigs incident. If the United States needs to be shamed and chastised on the world stage for follies like the Iraq War, then the same standard applies to the PRC, and in my opinion, the chokehold the government has on the Internet is a tragedy and an egregious human rights violation all the same.
So I can agree with you totally on the brewing goof-up of Google and the American government appearing to close in cahoots. But that is by no measure the sole (or even a major) determinant on how effective Google’s move will be. And the Obama connection is only one fraction of the assertions you’ve made in these posts.
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
March 25th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
@Porfiriy, The connection between Google and Obama (not necessarily him in person, but his administration) is something I noted long before in this long series about Google, and it was one of the main reasons why I started to see the Google move negatively.
The other aspect that peeved me from the beginning is the arrogant stance and the lack of good form in Google’s actions. I think I wouldn’t have minded this if Google was really the independent guardian angel of the internet that many take it to be. It is because of the obvious political connections that I concluded that 1- It won’t work and 2- it too arrogant.
I think those 2 points summarize the main opinions that I have given in this blog, although I must have written some 10 thousand words on this so probably you can find other points to pick if you look for them. 病从口入,祸从口出, as they say.
But seriously though, I think it is difficult to discuss with you because all you say is soaked with disdain for one of the parties.
I don’t want to go too far off the main point, but I would just note that while the American government has been busy destroying a few countries in the last decades, the Chinese government after Mao has been busy lifting people out of misery and never felt the need to bomb anyone.
It is precisely the soft power of the USA that makes you think that 200 innocents in Guantanamo is less criminal than 200 falungong prisoners in China, or that killing hundreds of thousands Iraqis for no reason is less criminal than censoring the internet.
I am not even saying the American system is worse than the CCP. All I am saying is that just as we were so patient with Americans in Bush times and we said, “oh well, let’s wait till they have elections and they’ll stop this shit”, in the same way we should also be patient with the CCP and give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially considering the extraordinary results of the CCP in the last 30 years.
So in conclusion, you are admitting yourself that you are biased against the CCP. Good, that is your choice and I don’t discuss it. But in this case please don’t try to dress it up with rational arguments, and just go on and cheer for Google. They’ve scored a good one there, to hell with the consequences.
[Reply to this comment]
Porfiriy Reply:
March 25th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Well, I’ll start with this:
Isn’t this a little ridiculous coming from you? You’re soaked with disdain for one of the parties. For many of the parties. I have two responses for this: why is it that in places like here and “china/divide” dislike of a particular party is seen as a disqualifying factor for an argument? Just because I don’t *like* one party involved doesn’t mean I can’t *justify* my dislike of them or illustrate why what they’re doing is wrong - and if you look at my trademark long posts you’ll see that’s exactly what I’m doing. And you’re not exempt either. I mean, look at Kai claiming to “bridge the divide” then right out of the gate calling people who disagree with him “idiots” on his Google post. You too, are filled with disdain with Google’s moralizing, or Western “hypocrisy,” but that’s irrelevant since you’re writing exactly to explain that disdain. As am I. This is low hanging fruit. So I’m entitled to some low-hanging-fruit: this was why I was so skeptical back when when you made Guantanamo Bay and Laogai: the implication is that you occupy some enlightened middle space, when you don’t - you say I disdain a side, implying that you’re above disdain, which is a little ridiculous especially considering later in this comment you go into your requisite-for-a-European USA bashing. If I belong in Guantanamo Bay, then you just as much need to put yourself in Laogai.
Well, you yourself say this is the summary of your stance, and like I’ve been saying, Julen, the summary of my counterstance is that there is an assumption here that the government is the only intermediary to effect change in censorship. It won’t work for whom? It’s arrogant from whom? The answer is the government, and as I’ve I said, I believe for free speech and an open Internet the people are the more important party, not the government. And even if you can point out that there are also plenty of “people” who will be offended and put off by what Google has done, my answer is that 1. there are plenty of people who admire what Google has done and 2. the simple fact that there is now a debate is a victory for open Internet, because public discourse over the issue is step one.
Ah ah ah, finger wag here. I nailed you on being ultra specific about Obama because in your post you specifically *referred* to your last post, using the phrase “it’s all in the form.” I wasn’t being selective, you set the boundaries with your own comment.
This is so eye-rollingly cliche as to disappoint me, Julen. Falling back on a tried-and-true “blame America” cliche? Well, I guess if you’re going to use a canned attack I’ll have to just sigh and use a canned response, but honestly, I thought you were really beyond this. Okay:
1. America’s evils in no way shape or form can be use to justify China’s
2. I am not a representative of the American government nor have I argued anywhere in any of my comments for the superiority of American international policy
3. Any evil policy of America’s is the result of public participation and public discourse that, of course, can never be *magically undone* and the dead of Iraq cannot be magically resurrected but at the very least the evil can be *addressed*, and the Republicans have been swept out of power and a withdrawal from Iraq is on the horizon. There is no public discourse driving censorship in China, only the whim of a self-interested, illegitimate government.
4. Chinese government lifting people out of misery? No. Wrong. Absolutely incorrect. The Chinese people are lifting THEMSELVES out of misery, and all the credit I’ll give the CCP is simply undoing the crap that Mao gifted China. In fact, I think much of the prosperity of China is all about undoing various insanities of the Party; i.e. Deng basically *undoing* the socialist idiocies of Mao. That’s exactly my stance on the Internet. Undo the censorship. I think China will strive even more then.
Oh ho, resorting to fabricating false opinions for me, Julen? Come now, I write a Xinjiang blog for Christ’s sake. Guantanamo Uyghurs, anyone? I think 200 innocents in Guantanmo are just as worthy as freedom AND people fightin for their freedom as 200 falun gong prisoners in China. Equally. However, quite demonstrably, while we can never repay the 9 years we robbed from the Guantanamo prisoners, people in the US DID fight for their freedom (the Uyghurs had American lawyers, you know, they just didn’t twiddle their thumbs and wait for the benevolent US government to fix things) whereas people who do the fighting in the PRC get jailed themselves (Gao Zhisheng, Liu Xiaobo, Chen Guangcheng, etc.). And, pardon my rudeness, but when in the hell did I tell you my opinion on the Iraq War? For all you know I’ve been writing my senator every day, campaigning on the streets and in my neighborhood for an anti-war candidate, and voted in every way possible as a citizen to prevent the war before it started and stop the war afterward. Are Chinese people doing this for the right to free Internet? Well, yes, sort of, but people who do that tend to get jailed. I haven’t been jailed by the US for being anti-war quite yet. But seriously, Julen, strawmen? I really consider you better than that.
The CCP hasn’t justified patience. They don’t represent the needs of the people and they do not benefit from an open Internet. There’s no way I can justify the Iraq war, and I was opposed to it from the start and did all I could as a civic participator in my country’s system to stop it. Sadly, I can’t undo it. But we actually *did* vote out Bush and since time floats one way that’s the best we could do. However, be patient with the CCP? When have we ever seen the CCP eventually bow to the will of its own people, except in cases where its own interests are served? And like I said before, the CCP has done nothing “extraordinary” the past 30 years. I, personally, give that credit to the Chinese people themselves, and Deng did no more than unless the chains that Mao placed on Chinese innovation and industriousness. In my humble opinion, Internet censorship is *yet another* chain holding the Chinese people back and since the CCP holds the lock to that chain and benefits from that chain being there cannot be trusted to bring about an open Internet regardless of how patient you are.
Your right, its good that I admit my biases. Too bad you don’t. And I’m not “dressing it up” with rational arguments, I’m “making my case” with rational arguments, just like you’re doing with this entire blog, though sadly you’ve left many of my arguments unanswered.
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
March 25th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
But mate! I was just quoting you there, you used that phrase in the first place to describe yourself!
Really, I have to apologize because I don’t have the time to follow all your points one by one. It is difficult to read in this narrow format, and I really don’t have the time.
I sincerely thank you for commenting and I hope you don’t take this bad but I simply can’t catch up! If you want to discuss something more concrete look at what I answered to your other comment thread about the sign.
Porfiriy Reply:
March 25th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
No, sure, I understand. As skeptical as people may be, I’m really not doing this to get attention, I just love the debate and am passionate about the issues, so I offer you the same offer I gave Kai (which he totally ignored), that is, at your leisure, if you want to continue this conversation over email, I’m game. There’s no rush.
As for “just quoting me,” I know you where just quoting me, but you quoted me and then you used that quote to say that I’m “difficult to discuss with!” That’s what I was ruffling my feathers over. I think we all disdain a side and have a degree of “difficultness to talk to.” For me, that just shouldn’t hamper the debate.
Well! You can count on me to stick my ugly head around in the future! I’m honestly not being sarcastic though when I say I appreciate that didn’t end with you banning me.
25
AM
The Chinese explode in a celebration of self-indulgence when they point to the “No Dogs and Chinese Allowed” sign of the evil imperialist Westerners in Shanghai during the century of humiliation. Now Hong Kong and its Internet is the forbidden garden and the PRC’s government is holding the sign.
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
March 25th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Yes. And you are dreaming if you think the Chinese people are going to see it this way.
[Reply to this comment]
Porfiriy Reply:
March 25th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
@Julen Madariaga, I’m not dreaming, but I think it’s fair that if you’re going to point out the “hypocrisy” of the West then the “hypocrisy” of the East deserves just as much pointing out.
And if Google needs to be convinced of the error or hypocrisy of its ways, I think Chinese internet users should also be convinced of the situations parallels to “No Chinese or Dogs Allowed.”
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
March 25th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
I don’t think it is worth going further with this comparison. I am the first one who hates it when any Chinese brings that sign into the conversation (which happens quite rarely offline, to be fair).
But since you insist, let me tell you why your comparison is wrong: Invading a country and imposing discriminating rules to its own citizens is completely different from having laws in your own state that are more restrictive than the neighbouring states.
This China/HK problem is the second case, comparable to the gay people in some American States that need to go to California to get married, or to get an abortion, or to whatever is forbidden in Utah that can be done in Las Vegas.
I am not suggesting that censorship is comparable to gay rights, but just that your parallel is flawed. Just please let’s not bring that damn sing into the picture, it doesn’t make sense.
[Reply to this comment]
Porfiriy Reply:
March 25th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
I think it is worthwhile to bring the sign into the picture, precisely because it’s so riling. This situation needs to be put into perspective; being deprived of one rights is angering. The supposed sign in Shanghai is angering and so should restricted Internet, but the political situation in China is such that many people have been trained not to find it enraging. The process is quite similar. The Chinese people rising up and throwing out colonial Western powers was a process of discovering one’s own rights; before the Shanghai sign was so angering the Chinese people accepted it as the natural order of things. Just like many accept censorship.
And your criticism of my comparison is wrong. I’m not comparing invading a country vs having discriminatory domestic laws. The fenqing do that enough and I find it surprising that an intelligent commentator like yourself is falling into the old (and completely invalid) “Well the West was worse in the 19th century then we’re being today trope so…” … so what? The point is not proving who is worse, 19th century Britain or 21st century PRC, the point is highlighting the hypocrisy of evoking unequal rights from the 19th century as something unfair, and as a way to criticize modern Western actions, but then completely ignoring the way the domestic government is enforcing a system of unequal rights. I’m not talking about the past, I’m talking about an unbalanced Chinese *perception* of the past.
Now let me tell you why your comparison is wrong. Gay rights is completely incomparable precisely because, as you yourself have so handily pointed out, it’s a state-by-state issue. Right now, the states are determining the legality of gay marriage. The people of each state are “choosing what they want” which is, to use your exact wording, “completely different” from having a central government impose arbitrary, unequal rights from the top. Internet censorship would be a completely different beast of the people of Gansu, Sichuan, and Qinghai voted for open Internet but the people of Hunan, Hebei, and Heilongjiang opted for a closed one.
And before we get on our high horse and think that for some reason the above situation in my eyes somehow justifies the state of gay marriage in the US: hold your horses. Because the second reason why your comparison is wrong is a comparative question of process. Good that you bring up gay marriage and abortion: These things happen to be divisive, roiling political topics that grace the newspapers, court rooms, debate halls, and living rooms of American people across the country almost every day. They are questions of rights that are being hammered out, slowly, but quite evidently. People are fighting for their version or their idea of rights and it’s quite visible everywhere you go. This is absolutely vital, and this is the point of my criticism of your stance and my support of Google. People *aren’t* really discussing censorship as a controversial issue that involves ones fundamental rights within the PRC. Oh, sure, you’ll find some yuppies in Shanghai who are well aware of it or some fenqing who will justify it, but there is no process in the government machinery or in the will of the people that even raises the hope of change, and there never will be if censorship is approached with your gentle, gradualist approach. So good thing that you bring up gay marriage and abortion, I commend Google precisely because they were one of the parties that was capable of spurring a lively discussion and reimagining of censorship and rights directly among Chinese citizens, the kind of discussion that is the sole mechanism for progress in the gay rights in the United States.
[Reply to this comment]
Julen Madariaga Reply:
March 25th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
@Porfiriy, I don’t think the West is worse in the 19th century. I think the West is worse than China today in terms of respect of human rights.
Or at least it is equally bad. You get it?
Porfiriy Reply:
March 25th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Sure, I get it. And that’s fine by me, but the only reason we got on the topic of the West is because you decided to bring it up in relation to China. I have my own criticisms of my own country and the ideologies it represent, I just tend to not bring it up here because of this blog’s focus. I don’t think the West’s human rights record or United States policies detracts from either my criticism of the CCP or support of Google’s recent move though, nor do I think the “West” has a poor human rights record when you actually mean specific countries like the United States… and… well, maybe Britain. But frankly, I think Finland is just as representative of the free speech ideology I espouse; is Finland’s human rights record worse than China’s?
25
AM
Porfiri, that’s pretty nicely summarised. I completely agree, awareness is the biggest force for good here.
Some years down the line I don’t think think this issue will exist in China as it does today and I think people then will point at recent events as to what really set the ball in motion.
Julen often seems to take a weirdly Chinese nationalist line in these matters. Good example in this post where apparently appealing to the US government is ‘hostile’. This has given me perhaps the greatest insight into Julen’s thinking but maybe I have it wrong. Maybe it’s as simple as “Stupid Western Companies Don’t Know China Like I Do”?
I do quite enjoy the torch being shined on opportunistic western companies with zero moral backbone. If only this too was getting as much press.
[Reply to this comment]
25
AM
“Hostile” was in the sense of “not face saving”. I just wanted to make clear that Google’s move to HK was not face saving for the CCP, as some observers initially said, but rather a “slam the door on your face” move. My choice of word is probably not the most appropriate, I will try to find a better one to avoid misunderstandings.
“I do quite enjoy the torch being shined on opportunistic western companies with zero moral backbone.”
And so do I, I am not sure what you mean to say there, but it sounds like you are deliberately twisting my words.
If working in China giving the government some credit and patiently accepting the local situation means “lacking moral backbone”, then working in America is just the same. All the companies working there from 2000 to 2008, including Google, should have showed their stance clearly, and stopped collaborating with a country that was committing crimes and injustice at a much larger scale than whatever China is doing now. Please open your eyes.
And Chinese nationalist? Very funny.
[Reply to this comment]
25
PM
Excellent post Julen. I share your sentiment, concerns and patience. You have shown throughout this saga the devil is in the detail, here again it is so. It is not simply the act itself that is important but how it has been played out. To the nationalist comment, it seems to me that when a person has a sensibility toward the Chinese mentality, psyche or experience, whatever one can call it, they are labelled as having consumed the Nationalist narrative. I disagree, it shows, for Julen in his case and I in my mine, an understanding and respect for the people we live amongst. Unless of course we just want to swallow a simplified human condition narrative, that we are just all socially, culturally, whatever, exactly the same. If not, then …
[Reply to this comment]
25
PM
Great post Julen, and it might also give me the necessary preparation when I come out of the wardrobe on my own blog as having a “sensibility for the Chinese mentality,” like Richard wrote above. I don’t agree with some of the more silly comparisons (like the perennial 八国联军), but this isn’t going to help Google (or Internet freedom) in the long run.
On the other hand, it’s an interesting affair to watch, and we’re sitting at front stage. I’m really curious to see how it continues to unfold, and what will happen in another decade. Google has been big for most of the decade, but I’m not sure it will stay that way indefinitely.
[Reply to this comment]
25
PM
@Wukailong - I agree it is an interesting affair. Especially now let’s watch out for the CCP’s reaction. It might take some time while they get to some consensus, but when the Xinhua headlines start to pour out it is not going to be pretty.
In spite of my negative posts I am rooting for Google now. I really hope this works out well and the Chinese government realizes the stupidity of censoring and jut lets this one pass. I am afraid the chances are slim.
[Reply to this comment]
26
AM
Hmmm moral backbone? Where is it when NSA was found out to eavesdrop all telephone calls across the U.S border? Does it not affect Google at all? I like Google, but I have had enough of this God-creation movement which tried to establish Google as the new omni-benevolent World saver, so much for the soft-power.
[Reply to this comment]
28
AM
“It is a principle of moral superiority, the old story of Western people going to different continents and killing as many as they could to save them from the wrong faith. It is based on the boundless Western hypocrisy that allows us even today to commit some of the worst crimes in the World while proudly walking under the banner of human rights.”
It is obvious that Chinese society is facing social problems, as well as many other societies such as the Western one, the Arabic one, etc, etc. But if the West was REALLY get involved in helping China overcome these problems, certainly the best way to do so wouldn´t be through the mere imposition of Western dogmas especially due to owning the past it has as displayed in the excerpt I highlighted in your writing.
[Reply to this comment]