Angry Chinese Blogger

Angry Chinese Blogger: The news and views about China that the big media can't, or won't, tell you

The is no single truth

Menu: Home

Silent Witness

« H E News and Politics :: Sino-American :: Sino-British :: Human rights and personal freedoms :: News and Perspectives :: email
posted Monday, 14 August 2006

(Open Article to View User Poll)

After a brief lull, it would appear that the ongoing problem of Western companies aiding in Chinese internet censorship is, one again, back in the news. This time, care of a newly released report denouncing a number of companies who have ditched democratic ideals in favor of the dollar.

However, while reports of this nature are nothing new, what makes this latest instance unusual, is that it neither originate from anti-China elements in Washington, nor from a Western Human Rights organisations.

Instead, it comes directly from the highest levels of the British Government.
  “We conclude that the collaboration of Western internet companies in the censorship and policing of the internet for political purposes is morally unacceptable.”

Foreign Affairs Select Committee (HC-860-I), 13 August 2006 		 

HC-860-I?

Although it was not aimed exclusively at China, or at censorship, the report, released this Sunday by Britain's Foreign Affairs Select Committee, blasted China for its suppression of freedom of speech on the web, and drew attention to a number of high profile cases in which Western technology companies had collaborated with Beijing, by censoring their services in ways that either prevent users from speaking out against the Chinese Government, or prevented them from discovering that others had done so.
  “several Western internet companies have recently adapted their products in order to gain access to the Chinese market,by developing technology which censors their web-browsers in accordance with government diktat.”

Foreign Affairs Select Committee (HC-860-I), 13 August 2006 		 

Additionally the report highlighted instances in which Western companies, such as Yahoo, had handed over the personal details dissidents to Beijing. Thus allowing the Chinese government to prosecute them.
  “[Yahoo provided Beijing with details on the] journalist Shi Tao at the request of the Chinese authorities, leading to his arrest and sentencing for posting on the internet an internal Communist Party minute”

Foreign Affairs Select Committee (HC-860-I), 13 August 2006 		 

A full version of the report can be downloaded HERE

Exclusions?

While the report was notable for the including such criticism, it was, however, also notable for what it excluded.

Not only did the report failed to address the growing problem of 'homegrown' China's efforts censor the internet, it also failed, almost completely, to even acknowledge that they existence.

Creating the impression, to the uninitiated at least, that domestic Chinese censorship efforts either did not exist, or were not considered important enough to warrant British concerns.

Efforts that were not in the report included
  • Legislation mandating that all Chinese must register their full name and address, along with relevant URLs, if they maintain a blog or other website
  • The creation of a mandatory ID card based system that automatically ties the content viewed in web cafes to their real world identity
  • The state mandated deletion of message board content that conflict with the state line on history, society or politics
  • The employment of specialist operative to seed message boards with comments that support the government and denounce those who do not
  • Legislation making intent cafe owners and message board administrators responsible for the online actions of their customers if they go against the state.
Notably, the report also concentrated exclusively on software and service providers. Ignoring the fact that much of China's censorship, particularly censorship involving the blocking of website, is actually hardware based.

As such, it failed to name companies such as Cisco Systems, which have provided both the advanced router technology used by Beijing to block website, and the training necessary to use it effectively.

Coincidentally, all of the companies specifically as being offenders, were American owned. No European companies were named as being guilty or complicit.

Words?

Although the HC-860-I recommended that the Blair administration put pressure on China to reduce the number of restrictions placed on its web users, it did not recommend a more thought follow-up investigation. It also stopped short of suggesting that legislation be tabled to penalize British companies if they were found to be complicit in Chinese internet censorship.
  “We recommend that the Government put pressure on the Chinese government to relax its censorship of the internet and its requirement for foreign companies to restrict the political content of their pages. We further recommend that the Government represent to the Chinese authorities the damage which is done to economic growth by continued restriction of the free flow of information.”

Foreign Affairs Select Committee (HC-860-I), 13 August 2006 		 

Historically, Britain has always taken a 'moderate approach' to China. Preferring political engagement and inclusionism ove legislation and confrontation. Making the prospect of Britain passing any substantive measures against China, or against companies who are complicit in Chinese censorship, remote at best.

As things stand, Britain has little diplomatic or economic influence over China. Giving it few tools with which to “put pressure on the Chinese government“, and observers have voiced the opinion that 'Pointing out the errors of its ways' has never been an effective tool where China is concerned.

Traditionally, China responds to such measures by means of a statement, calling on foreign governments to 'cease meddling in China's internal affairds'.

Deeds?

While the British Foreign Affairs Select Committee offered strong criticism of collaborating companies, but little more, moves are already underway in the US to introduce more concrete measures to combat Western complicity in Chinese online censorship.

These moves include the tabling of HR 4780 - The Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 - which was successfully launched to committee level in February 2006

The bill was tabled by Republican representative for New Jersey Christopher Smith and, if successful, will allow Washington to levy heavy fiscal sanctions against any US company involved in overseas censorship.
 
“To promote freedom of expression on the Internet, to protect United States businesses from coercion to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign governments, and for other purposes.“

Objective, Global Online Freedom Act of 2006, (HR 4780) 		 

Though welcomed by some, HR 4780 has been critisized by human rights interests for being a 'compromise deal', and by industry for industry groups as being 'yet more legislation that serves to make US businesses less effective in the face of foreign competition'
  "If Yahoo isn't doing business in China, someone else will ...[further regulations are] putting American businesses at a disadvantage in the world marketplace."

Sonia Arrison, Director of Technology Studies, Free-Market Pacific Research Institute 		 

For a detailed breakdown of HR 4780, please click HERE:

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee?

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee is a 14 person committee operating under the auspices of the House of Commons; The lower house of the British Parliament.

It is responsible for reporting back to the government on external issues, including Britain's foreign policy and on international human rights.

All of its members are appointed by the Government. However, a person must have first been elected as a Member of Parliament, through direct elections, before they can join the committee.

Current members of the committee are
  • Mike Gapes - Chairman (Labour)
  • Fabian Hamilton (Labour)
  • Andrew Mackinlay (Labour)
  • Sandra Osborne (Labour)
  • Greg Pope (Labour)
  • Eric Illsley (Labour)
  • Ken Purchase (Labour)
  • Gisela Stuart (Labour)
  • John Horam (Conservative)
  • John Maples (Conservative)
  • Sir John Stanley (Conservative)
  • Andrew MacKay (Conservative)
  • Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat)
  • Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat)
Should Britain put its money where its mouth is, and enact its own version of the “Global Online Freedom Act“?
Yes, for the sake of freedom and democracy
Yes, to harm China's economic rise by discouraging British companies from investing in China
Yes, both of the above
No, Britain has no right to interfere in China's internal affair
No, it is better to have a censored service than no service/
No, this form of censorship is protecting China's future stability
No, it is unnecessary. Companies will eventually bow to public pressure and stop doing it
No, it is unnecessary. Companies will eventually bow to public pressure and stop doing it
No, but only because it won't work

tags:                

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit


View Comments/Add a Comment (5)


1. dave zimmerman left...
Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:14 am

The one sure way for such a measure not to work is if it isn't enacted.

I do have hope in the intelligence of peopl;e who want to find and share information to find ways to do so. Where there are better mouse traps, there are smarter mice.

For a list of websites that are blocked in PRC, see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/


2. Sarah left...
Friday, 18 August 2006 8:09 am :: http://www.journalscape.com/rhubarb/

If there are moves to enact concrete measures to combat Western complicity in Chinese online censorship, in my opinion there first needs to be a clear definition of who is gaining what benefit from the situation. Is there promise of quid pro quo? Does money exchange hands? I hardly think the negative opinion of the world community is worth a penny.

After determining the perceived benefit, then the appropriate countermeasures or counterbalances can be put in place.


3. apu left...
Friday, 18 August 2006 2:29 pm :: http://apusworld.blogspot.com

That is so true - Just negative opinion doesnt count for much, with either the Chinese government or with bottomline oriented cos. There has to be more to it than that.


4. The Angry Chinese Blogger left...
Sunday, 20 August 2006 7:02 pm

In my experience, the more that you hound a dictator the more authoritarian he will become, and the more you accuse him of violating human rights the more he will violate them, in an effort to keep your influence out of his country.

If I came into your neighorhood and started filling your children's heads with notions about staying out later or watching R rated movies, I'm sure that you would respond by keeping a closer eye on them and trying to limit my influence on them. It's the same with dictators.


5. dave zimmerman left...
Tuesday, 22 August 2006 2:34 am

Your point about dictators and your point about parents are both well taken, but they have nothing in common, unless you think that the government is your mother. Parents expect to be able to shield their children from certain aspects of life, but they cannot expect their authority to last forever.

A dictatorship needs to control the flow of information. It cannot allow its citizens to know what is happening in the rest of the world, and it cannot allow them to know the true state of their own country. It also cannot allow the outside world to know what is happening inside the country. But most important, it cannot allow anyone who doubts the legitimacy of the state to find out that there may be other people who think the same. If a curious citizen can see no further than the sea of cheering faces on May Day, he will feel isolated and keep his thoughs to himself.

This is much more important than "Korea gets to watch child pornography" or "Taiwan gets to have firecrackers". It is more like keeping the children out of school for fear that they will be subjected to "bad influences" from the other children.

There are two aspects to Yahoo's hypocracy in this matter. In congessional testimony last year, when asked if they might have broken a law that is already on the books which prohibits selling goods which aid dictatorships in their repression, the Yahoo boys said,"We thought that the law was only concerned with handcuffs and tear gas". On the other hand, if HR 4780 shows any chance of passing, you can bet that Yahoo, which will submit to any amount of PRC control, will characterize the new law as "excessive government interference".