Who lost China's Internet?

[Alinestra Covelia]

I apologize for the somewhat devolutionary nature of this post, but I've got a few comments to make about the article in the first post of this thread.

The overwhelming impression I got through reading it was that the author has a very strong anti-Chinese-government bias. This is not criticism of him, just an observation - and a note that a reader should exercise the same restraint in belief as you might when reading a very strong pro-Chinese-government publication, such as Qing Nian Ribao or China Daily.

Secondly, the author takes great exception to the Chinese government's usage of the internet. Leaving aside his scathing adjectives and other such rhetoric for the moment, his underlying message seems to be that such policing of the internet within the country is unacceptable to any democratic reform, and therefore American firms should not support the Chinese e-conomy.

If you actually choose to take into account his scathing adjectives and rhetoric, then you might end up with an apocalyptic view of the country as some Dantean purgatory run by Satanic control fiends who want to quash all forms of individual thought. From my experience and prolonged residency, this is not the case. You will have to exercise your own judgement here.

But let us return to his more objective points. He seems to be accusing the American firms who actually help the Chinese government with subcontracted work, of cowardice and a betrayal of democratic morality. I can't argue with this, partially because of my limited knowledge of business and also because I don't know much about international law.

However, I think this bears some similarity to the question of the stranger abroad and his relation to their laws. If a woman from a Western country goes to visit a religious society such as the Islamic nations, then what is her status with regards to self-concealment? Does she have to wear the body and facial covers of other native women? Do her personal rights override the practices of the host country, or the other way around?

(I don't have an answer, by the way. I just raise this in order to stimulate some thought.)

My second and more applicable point is that, although the Internet is a western invention, and has indeed helped to speed exchange of information and expression, it is a tool and not a moral code.

The western nations also occasionally police the internet - Jack Straw (I think) attempted to pass a bill in Parliament allowing the UK gov't powers of eavesdropping in emails. This is admittedly not as noticeable as, say, firewalling the BBC news pages (which are not visible from Chinese sites) but the idea of governmental controls and security measures remains the same.

Regardless, the Internet has arrived in China and the Chinese government has decided to apply their own strictures and checks on its use, as many other countries have had to consider before it. Now the reader should check their premises. If their opposition to this act rests in some vague belief that the Chinese people are a simmering rebellion ready to throw off their Communist shackles, then I can offer no other consolation except for a suggestion that their energies are misplaced.

If their opposition to this act rests in the belief that there is a "right" or "wrong" way to use the internet, then again I would urge the reader to check their premises. The internet is a tool, not a moral code. As explicitly stated in the article, a controlled internet is infinitely better than no internet.

If their opposition to this act rests in the belief that the American firms should not aid a government in enforcing unacceptable policies, then I argue that these given policies are only "unacceptable" from the viewpoint of the American culture, which has enjoyed a very privileged level of development in politics, economics, and social standard of living. For a nation such as China that is pulling itself out of the 19th century straight into the 21st, the views of what is acceptable and what is not, is somewhat different.

It is my hope that they may develop to a level where both views may have much in common. Personally speaking, I share the viewpoint of many Chinese people - that the government reforms are welcome, that future economic troubles might occur and should be avoided, that social disturbances should be avoided at all costs, and that democracy "with Chinese characteristics" is a long term but ultimate goal.

Note that the Communist Party is not by definition opposed to democracy - even Premier Zhu Rongji proposed a plan of political reform whereby high level elections would become increasingly democratized instead of their present intra-party status. This proposal was shelved by the present rulership (due to step down in 2002-3) but may well be resumed by the next generation of leaders.

Certainly, a sceptical onlooker in a developed nation could well say "too slow" or "too little" or "too late". But the country we're discussing is vast - larger than America by land and four to five times as large by population. If you continue to measure the success or failures of such an entity by an inadequate yardstick, you are bound to be perpetually unsatisfied, and also to do the other nation an injustice in judgement.

Anyhow, my two cents. Bear in mind that I have my own inevitable bias too and you would be ill advised to take anything I say on blind faith!

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Sikander


Wow, I never thought I had so much power. Note how my choice to boycott Chinese goods (started after Tienamen) has not affected China's trade with Europe, Japan or for that matter the rest of the citizens of my country the U.S. I am perfectly willing to lift my personal embargo when China seems to be moving in the right direction again (ie stops exporting nuclear technology, ballistic missles and other weapon systems to states which are likely to destabalize a region or are currently in a state of undeclared war with the U.S., and when China also starts to treat it's own people with the sort of respect that all people deserve).

I feel that too often people try to get things done by trying to force a policy on everyone in the country using the government. There are a lot of things people can do for themselves which don't require using persuasion + coercion on the rest of the citizenry. I don't do business with China. You can do whatever you please. If China finds that they are losing enough business from people like me to worry them, then they can try to address our grievances. If there are enough people for engagement, mindless consumers and apologists to keep their economy humming along, then there is little incentive provided by outsiders to do much of anything. Whether outside pressure has any tangible effect or not, it is the people of China who will have the final say, regardless of who thinks they 'really' run the country.

If every American thinks like you, we may well have have an all-out nuclear war in the next 5 years. Don't you understand that even the Chinese economy collapses, like in the late 50s and middle 60s, they can still build enough nukes to wipe out all major American cities? After all, they would have nothing to lose and Americans plenty. They would enjoy to drag you into the abyss along with them. Or they can sell the nukes to the crazies like Al-Qaeda. In any case, do you think both China and the US would be any better off?

There is also a second point you don't understand. A prosperous, open, and informed population will eventually topple the tyranny, while a poor, closed, and ignorant population will be easily controlled by the government. By boycotting China, you are denying Chinese population the access to properity and information, while giving the tyrants a common enemy to focus on. Very counter-productive.

Finally, my impression is that you just hate the Chinese and want to keep them as weak as possible.

[DaShi]

China has never been very effective control the population through information. The people generally, know better than to fully trust the government. China's most commonly used and effective measure to control the population has always been the threat of death and/or imprisonment to individuals and their family members.

My Chinese history teach put it bluntly in this scenario:

Emporer: You will obey me.

Citizen: I will not.

Emporer: Then I will kill you.

Citizen: Kill me, I will not obey you.

Emporer: Then I will kill your wife.

Citizen: Fine, I will not obey.

Emporer: Then I will kill your children as well.

Citizen: Do what you want, I will not obey

Emporer: Then I will kill everyone in your family

Citizen: Hrmph

Emporer: Then I will kill your friends as well.


You get the point.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Transcend

If every American thinks like you, we may well have have an all-out nuclear war in the next 5 years. Don't you understand that even the Chinese economy collapses, like in the late 50s and middle 60s, they can still build enough nukes to wipe out all major American cities? After all, they would have nothing to lose and Americans plenty. They would enjoy to drag you into the abyss along with them. Or they can sell the nukes to the crazies like Al-Qaeda. In any case, do you think both China and the US would be any better off?

You are spewing hyperbole. There is no chance that every American would ever think like me (and thus no chance to prove or disprove your assertion) Why would you think that either country would be so hot to destroy themselves / each other? We had far worse relations for most of the last 50 years, and we managed to keep from nuking each other even when we were locked in a bloody conventional war, and the U.S. had a nuclear monopoly.

You seem to think that you hold the Chinese in higher regard than I do, but the assumptions you make here seem to indicate the opposite. You also seem to think that China's economy would collapse without U.S. involvement, which is simplistic at best.

If for some reason I could convince a majority of the U.S. populace to pay attention to something other than the mindless consumerism which seems to be the dominate factor in our culture and boycott Chinese goods for the same reasons that I do I think it would be helpful to at least our situation (in the U.S.)

For one thing the cozy leadership style of the Communists would be ill suited to addressing the problem because they would not be able to bargain behind closed doors with our leaders, which spares them an immense amount of embarrassment both in the sphere of having to address their human rights record and in the sphere of exposing types of blackmail they use to get what they want from the U.S. If the average American was aware of what goes on when Bush or whoever sits down with Jiang or whoever they would balk at making the deals that are routinely made. Why should they make those deals? They don't get money from big companies to ignore human rights violations and keep the trade flowing. They also won't like being threatened. They currently get cheap products for their assignation, which as I stated earlier they would have to be willing to give up for moral and strategic reasons. The Chinese government would either have to try and engage a motivated American public, or write off the trade.

Originally posted by Transcend
There is also a second point you don't understand. A prosperous, open, and informed population will eventually topple the tyranny, while a poor, closed, and ignorant population will be easily controlled by the government. By boycotting China, you are denying Chinese population the access to properity and information, while giving the tyrants a common enemy to focus on. Very counter-productive.

Finally, my impression is that you just hate the Chinese and want to keep them as weak as possible.

Well I hope that a prosperous populace will overthrow the tyranny. That seemed to be what was happening in slow motion for many years. Two things have changed. Firstly, the communists have retrenched due to the rising threats to their power from within. They have decided to try for the money without allowing the freedoms. Perhaps this is impossible, but I am not completely convinced of this.

The other thing that has happened is that the Soviet-U.S. conflict has ended, and the power has shifted to the extent that the Chinese view the U.S. as their most worrisome competitor. This view has had very little to do with U.S. actions, as it has been formulated over a long period of time, during the vast majority of which the U.S. had no coherent China policy, and had not taken any aggressive actions in the region. Thus our cold war level of cooperation has diminished greatly, while the Chinese have embarked on a long term campaign to upgrade their military capabilities to fight the U.S. Make no mistake about it, they view the U.S. as the key to all of their strategic problems. If they can beat us locally, then they can have their way with Taiwan and a host of other neighbors.

While we are not seeking to expand our influence in the region at the expense of the Chinese, we are not seeking to decrease it for their benefit either. East Asia is a huge factor in our economy, and we have a number of close allies who would be hard-pressed to stand up to China in the long run without the U.S., and would not feel comfortable dealing with a dictatorial government whose moral precepts are so divergent from their own.

You are correct that I do not want the Chinese to be strong while they are aiming that strength at my country. I had no problem with their strength while we both were more worried about the Soviets. I hate the Chinese government it's true, they are Communist thugs who are responsible for many deaths and huge amounts of grief and wasted potential. As for the Chinese people, it's hard to have an opinion about 1/5 of the world's population when you have only met a few dozen of them, but I assume that they are as worthy as any other group of people on the planet. I hope that they can change their government into something that better represents their aspirations than the police state that currently represents them on the international stage.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Sikander

You seem to think that you hold the Chinese in higher regard than I do, but the assumptions you make here seem to indicate the opposite. You also seem to think that China's economy would collapse without U.S. involvement, which is simplistic at best.

I have no illusion about people who lost their wealth and felt being unjustly treated. Just look at Germans after WWI. China's economy, as it stands, would implode without the trade with America. The foreign investment and trade is actually what keeps China's economy growing and preventing millions from losing their jobs. If China is rejected by the world as you suggested, then only extreme communists and fanatic nationalists are going to benefit. You know what can happen if these people get to power.

If for some reason I could convince a majority of the U.S. populace to pay attention to something other than the mindless consumerism which seems to be the dominate factor in our culture and boycott Chinese goods for the same reasons that I do I think it would be helpful to at least our situation (in the U.S.)

Then you can also start preparing for a war that will eventually consume everything you hold dear and valuable. I mean China doesn't even have to attack America directly since there are enough people out there who want us dead.

Well I hope that a prosperous populace will overthrow the tyranny. That seemed to be what was happening in slow motion for many years. Two things have changed. Firstly, the communists have retrenched due to the rising threats to their power from within. They have decided to try for the money without allowing the freedoms. Perhaps this is impossible, but I am not completely convinced of this.

China is moving currently into the direction of Singapore. Singapore is not a democratic state, but I haven't heard anyone boycotting its products.

The other thing that has happened is that the Soviet-U.S. conflict has ended, and the power has shifted to the extent that the Chinese view the U.S. as their most worrisome competitor. This view has had very little to do with U.S. actions, as it has been formulated over a long period of time, during the vast majority of which the U.S. had no coherent China policy, and had not taken any aggressive actions in the region.

Or does the US view China with suspision? Provocations and hostile views go both ways. It's almost like all those finger-pointings on the Balkans and the Middle East, but on a far more dangerous scale if things get out of hand.

Thus our cold war level of cooperation has diminished greatly, while the Chinese have embarked on a long term campaign to upgrade their military capabilities to fight the U.S. Make no mistake about it, they view the U.S. as the key to all of their strategic problems. If they can beat us locally, then they can have their way with Taiwan and a host of other neighbors.
While we are not seeking to expand our influence in the region at the expense of the Chinese, we are not seeking to decrease it for their benefit either. East Asia is a huge factor in our economy, and we have a number of close allies who would be hard-pressed to stand up to China in the long run without the U.S., and would not feel comfortable dealing with a dictatorial government whose moral precepts are so divergent from their own.

I think the US government is already pursuing this strategy, maintaining the status quo.

You are correct that I do not want the Chinese to be strong while they are aiming that strength at my country. I had no problem with their strength while we both were more worried about the Soviets. I hate the Chinese government it's true, they are Communist thugs who are responsible for many deaths and huge amounts of grief and wasted potential. As for the Chinese people, it's hard to have an opinion about 1/5 of the world's population when you have only met a few dozen of them, but I assume that they are as worthy as any other group of people on the planet. I hope that they can change their government into something that better represents their aspirations than the police state that currently represents them on the international stage.

A country can be of these 4 types:
1. Strong military and poor population;
2. Strong military and rich population;
3. Weak military and rich population;
4. Weak military and poor population.
It should be obvious to you which type of country is biggest threat to peace. China currently is a type 1 country and trying to become a type 2. Of course the US wants everyone to be a type 3 state, but your way of boycotting Chinese consumer products is going to keep China as a type 1 state.

[mindseye]

How do you figure China has a strong military?

Sure, the Peoples Liberation Army is huge, but it can be deployed only against nations sharing a border with China, as air- and sea-lift capabilities are miniscule.

Also, the army may be massive in size, but if you could see some of these peasant boys in their ill-fitting uniforms you might guess that a large portion of that enormous army is not well equipped or trained.

Outside of a small number of highly capable late-model Soviet fighters (Su-22s?), the airforce is not very modern, and its ability to conduct well-coordinated missions with the army/navy is questionable (inter-bureaucracy cooperation of any sort is a challenging task in China).

The navy has two nice, new Soviet Sovremeny destroyers, but outside of that most of the fleet is Korean-war vintage. The Navy is largely a defensive force, with little capability of projecting force beyond China's coastal waters. Their is a single SSBN, but because it has not been seen to leave port in quite a while, its seaworthiness is questionable.

Of late China has been building and deploying quite a few ground-to-ground missiles within strike range of Taiwan. This arsenal could cause a great deal of damage to Taiwan's cities, but there is not sufficient amphibious or paratrooper capability to follow-up with any sort of invasion. Because of their limited range, these missiles could only be deployed against nations quite near China.

China's intercontinental nuclear force consists of about twenty aging missiles. Whether these things would actually leave their silos when the red button is pressed is anyone's guess. Because of its small size, the nuclear arsenal is highly vulnerable.

Okay, given the composition and strength of China's military, can anyone explain how it poses a credible threat to the US - or anyone else not neighboring China itself?

[Sikander]

The biggest threats to the U.S. come in two flavors:

1) The increase in size and modernity of China's nuclear arsenal.

2) The increase in size and modernity of China's submarine fleet.

The nuclear arsenal even as it stands is certainly capable of taking out at least one, and probably several major metropolitan areas. With some work the Chinese could upgrade their force into one capable of assured destruction of the majority of the U.S.'s metropolitan areas. We know that this force is being both upgraded and expanded. The degree of the expansion is not decided as yet according to the Chinese, but they claim it will be larger if the U.S. deploys a missle defense system. Even if the U.S. and China decided to become the best of friends, the Chinese would want to continue to build up their nuclear capability in order to maintain their qualitative and quantitative lead on the Indians. We have to rely on MAD in the end, because I don't see how we will be able to keep the Chinese from building enough weapons to defeat any countermeasures currently contemplated.

The other main threat to the U.S. is the Chinese submarine fleet. A very significant portion of U.S. trade passes near enough China to be threatened by a submarine fleet. A conventional war with China, or even between China and a state with which we do not have a defense treaty with could severely impact our ability to trade with Asia. The world's economy could be seriously threatened if China decided to prey upon vessels headed for Korea, Japan, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, etc.

I agree that at the moment China doesn't rate superpower status in regards to force projection on land or in the air.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by Sikander
The biggest threats to the U.S. come in two flavors:

1) The increase in size and modernity of China's nuclear arsenal.

2) The increase in size and modernity of China's submarine fleet.

The nuclear arsenal even as it stands is certainly capable of taking out at least one, and probably several major metropolitan areas. With some work the Chinese could upgrade their force into one capable of assured destruction of the majority of the U.S.'s metropolitan areas. We know that this force is being both upgraded and expanded. The degree of the expansion is not decided as yet according to the Chinese, but they claim it will be larger if the U.S. deploys a missle defense system. Even if the U.S. and China decided to become the best of friends, the Chinese would want to continue to build up their nuclear capability in order to maintain their qualitative and quantitative lead on the Indians. We have to rely on MAD in the end, because I don't see how we will be able to keep the Chinese from building enough weapons to defeat any countermeasures currently contemplated.

The other main threat to the U.S. is the Chinese submarine fleet. A very significant portion of U.S. trade passes near enough China to be threatened by a submarine fleet. A conventional war with China, or even between China and a state with which we do not have a defense treaty with could severely impact our ability to trade with Asia. The world's economy could be seriously threatened if China decided to prey upon vessels headed for Korea, Japan, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, etc.

I agree that at the moment China doesn't rate superpower status in regards to force projection on land or in the air.

You seem unable to explain how you can reduce China's military threat by boycotting Chinese consumer products.

[ranskaldan]

Sikander, you've been telling us about the PROBLEM, which we know about already. We are not questioning the existence of the PROBLEM, namely, the presence of a large communist government in China. We are questioning your SOLUTION. Your solution has been to boycott Chinese consumer goods. We question the effectiveness of this SOLUTION, and we think this will only make the PROBLEM, which you have described, worse.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DaShi
Sorry, UR but I've got a German documentary that says Tiannanmen was far worse than what the US media reported.

Okay, what about this? I send you a copy of my VCD, you send me a copy of yours, and we both send a copy of our doco to Adam Smith who will act as an arbitrator.

I double dog dare you.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by mindseye
You are relying on the words of one person? And he saw everything going on all over town that terrible morning?

It wasn't a morning. The PLA finally entered the square at 22:00 IIRC. He was right near Tiannamen at the whole time, or most of the time anyway.

Originally posted by mindseye
UR, you should read what John King Fairbank has to say about it.

I did. I have his China: A New History. He didn't have much to say about it.

Originally posted by mindseye
You might also ask around next time you are in Beijing, quite a few saw the PLA in action that day.

I am sure many did.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DaShi
Please, show us all how to properly make an argument. Yes, I calling you out.

Or maybe you'll just disappear for awhile again.

I am still waiting for you to post some evidence backing you up.

BTW was it you who said something about "one-line" replies? Talking about not practising what one preaches.

[Urban Ranger]

Given that the US has the biggest store of "weapons of mass destuction," (nuclear, chemical, and biological) and the willingness to use force against countries it doesn't like, it seems ironic that the US would assert this or that country to be a "threat."

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
it seems ironic that the US would assert this or that country to be a "threat."

How is that ironic? Does a country not have the right to decide who constitutes a threat to its interests?

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Sikander, you've been telling us about the PROBLEM, which we know about already. We are not questioning the existence of the PROBLEM, namely, the presence of a large communist government in China.

Actually, I draw an issue here. I don't agree that the "large Communist government in China" is all that much of a problem. I do agree that the western media seems to think it is, and I also agree that anybody whose sole source of information about China is the western media will probably believe that China is in a sad state.

Just like anybody whose sole source of information about China is the Chinese media will think that China is in a great state.

The real facts lie somewhere between the two extremes. Most Chinese people (in the cities, at least - I haven't had the chance to go to the rural areas) have told me that they have great trust in the government, and that they do not appreciate western countries (especially America - that name crops up a fair bit) opposing the government so much. In fact, several citizens also voiced the belief that America's government is specifically trying to undermine China's own government, and they strenuously object to this.

As for my own opinion, the government is doing pretty well in that it has the support of its people. It has also succeeded in raising the urban living standard by a very large margin since the days of Mao Zedong. I can see from both sides' media that both sides are prone to distorting (or just plain not reporting) facts about the other and about their own situation. What really scares me is how successfully the western media (which, unlike the state controlled Chinese media, purports to be fair and free) has maligned the Chinese situation. The very proof of this lies in this thread.

It's clear from this thread that many well-educated, intelligent, and articulate people strongly believe that China's government is malignant and that Chinese people are oppressed. As somebody who has lived there recently, I can only offer my confused bewilderment and a plaintive "No, guys, really - it's not like that at all!"

Seriously - the personal freedom conditions here, at grass-roots, man-in-the-shops, citizen-in-the-streets levels is very similar to America or Singapore or Taiwan. The best way to prove this is to come and see it for yourselves. You might find yourselves very surprised.