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 |
|
Entries By Country
   |
Truth, Justice - or a near sighted attack on the Chinese way
posted Monday, 13 February 2006
Depending on which side of the fence you are sitting on, this coming Wednesday will either represent another step in the right direction for a government seeking to ensure that American corporations maintain core American values while operating overseas, or yet another step in the wrong direction for a government that is fast moving to hamstring domestic companies with regulations that will damage their ability to compete effectively against foreign rivals in expanding markets.
Alternatively, if you see the world that way, it could also represent a thinly veiled attempt to rally support for a new “Cold War” against an old enemy, and a component of a wider campaign to slow down efforts by rising foreign economy to reach parity with America.
A Meeting of Minds
In response to growing fears over the complicity of American companies in Chinese internet censorship, Congress has, under the stewardship of Republican representative Christopher Smith, begun drafting measures to prevent, or discourage, US firms from interfering in Chinese information freedoms by providing the state with the tools that it needs to apply censorship, or by censoring their own services and breaching the human rights of users.
As such, this week (Wednesday 15 February) will see the holding of a Congressional hearing, charged with evaluating the extent to which American firms have assisted, or complied with, efforts by Beijing to block Mainland Chinese from accessing websites that contradict official government lines of history, politics and social issues, and to decide should be done about it.
| “despite recognizing that the ability to communicate openly is essential to breaking down the walls of communism and repression, several of the top US internet companies have aided and complied with the Chinese Government's demand for censorship in order to enter the PRC market, in essence becoming a megaphone for communist propaganda and a tool for controlling public opinion.” Christopher Smith (Republican), Co-Chair, The Internet in China: A tool for freedom or suppression?” |
The holding of the comittee hearing, titled "The Internet in China: A tool for freedom or suppression", comes after a number of embarrassing scandals involving some of America's best know technology firms, including Yahoo; which recently handed over the internet records used to convict the journalist Shi Tao, and Cisco; which supplies Beijing with much of the hardware that it uses to block so called 'unhealthy' websites from view.
| "Our message to the Chinese is, 'When you build a wall to oppress your people, can we sell you some bricks?'" Lindsey Graham, Senator (Republican), US. |
According to initial releases, the hearing is scheduled to consider testimonies from three expert panels. One of state and governmental officials, one of industry representatives, and another of academics and NGO, and will issue draft recommendations based on its finding.
Press releases indicate that the Panels will be composed as follows
Panel 1
- State Department - James Keith, Senior Advisor for China and Mongolia
- US Economic and Business Affairs Bureau - David Gross, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Communications and Information Policy
Panel 2
- Cisco Systems - Mark Chandler, Divisional Vice President
- Microsoft - Jack Krumholtz, Government Affairs and Associate General Counsel
- Yahoo - Michael Callahan, General Counsel
- Google - Unconfirmed
Panel 3
- Reporters Without Borders - Lucie Morillon, Head, Internet Freedom Desk
- China Information Center - Harry Wu
- Radio Free Asia - Libby Liu, President
- University of California (Berkeley) - Xiao Qiang, Director, China Internet Project
Reports have indicate that Cisco Systems, Microsoft,Yahoo and Google, all four of which have been implicated in recent censorship or information freedom scandals in China, have all confirmed that they will be sending representatives to plead their case on the industrial panel.
All four companies had previously refused to attend a hearing, held on 1 February, under the auspices of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. With three of the four companies snubbing the hearing outright, and Cisco Systems offering to speak to committee representatives but only if it was on a limited agenda, and was outside of the official.
Hard to Avoid
Unlike the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, which was an informal hearing with limited power and reach, this latest hearing is being held by the Subcommittee on Human Rights, which falls under the jurisdiction of the House International Relations Committee, and thus has the power to subpoena industry groups. Making it all but impossible for the big four to snub it.
Cautious Approach
While broadly welcomed by human rights and information freedom advocates, congress's moves, and calls for legislation on the isue, have not been without criticism.
As such, some observers have cautioned Congress not to rush into the matter, and to be wary of producing 'knee jerk' legislation that could be counter productive, or even dangerous. With observers voicing that any legislation must be loose enough to allow US companies to assist foreign state in the legitimate blocking of harmful web content and to participate in legitimate law enforcement activities, but tight enough to prevent them from being abused or evaded by groups with alternative agendas.
Others still have questioned whether such legislation is necessary, voicing that it could put US companies at a distinct disadvantage when competing with foreign companies for Chinese market, and in stead favoring a voluntary code of conduct.
One such proponent, of a 'code of conduct', is reporters Without Borders, which earlier presented a six point code to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus (Human Rights and the Internet – The People's Republic of China)
| "E-mail services: No US company would be allowed to host e-mail servers within a repressive country.* Therefore, if the authorities of a repressive country want personal information about any user of a US company’s e-mail service, they would have to request it under a US-supervised procedure. Search engines: Search engines would not be allowed to incorporate automatic filters that censor “protected” words. The list of “protected” keywords such as “democracy” or “human rights” would be appended to the law or code of conduct. Content hosts (websites, blogs, discussion forums etc): US companies would not be allowed to locate their host servers within repressive countries. If the authorities of a repressive country desire to close down a publication hosted by a US company, they would have to request it under a procedure supervised by US judicial authorities. Like search engines, content hosts would not be allowed to incorporate automatic filters that censor “protected” keywords. Internet censorship technologies: Option a: US companies would no longer be allowed to sell Internet censorship software to repressive states. Option b: They would still be able to market this type of software but it would have to incorporate a list of “protected” keywords rendered technically impossible to censor. Internet surveillance technology and equipment: US companies would have to obtain the express permission of the Department of Commerce in order to sell to a repressive country any technology or equipment that can be used to intercept electronic communications, or which is specifically designed to help the authorities monitor Internet users. Training: US companies would have to obtain the express permission of the Department of Commerce before providing any Internet surveillance and censorship techniques training program in a repressive country. A list of countries that repress freedom of expression would be drawn up on the basis of documents provided by the US State Department and would be appended to the code of conduct or law that is adopted. This list would be regularly updated." Lucie Morillon, Representative for Washington, Reporters Without Borders |
Ulterior Motives
Additionally, some observers have also voiced strong reservations about the motives behind the forthcomings hearing meeting. Accusing those involved of using human rights as a smokescreen to spread anti-Chinese sentiment, or as a vehicle to push through legislation aimed at forcing US companies to invest more in domestic markets by damaging their capacity to enter growing foreign markets, like China, where censorship is a prerequisite.
One such critic, Lew Rockwell, the president of the leftward leaning Ludwig Von Mises Institute, recently launched a stinging verbal attack against Christopher Smith, the committee's co-chair.
In his attack, Rockwell accused Smith of planning a “Cold War” against China, and of using recent Sino-American censorship scandals as a tool to whip up anti-Chinese sentiment in order to reach his own anti-China agenda.
| “People like Christopher Smith, the neo-conservatives, the Christian right that Christopher Smith is affiliated with, were planning a cold war against China before 9/11. They've just postponed it." Lew Rockwell, President, Ludwig Von Mises Institute (Think tank) |
Controversially though, during his statement on the forthcomings hearing, Rockwell also criticized Smith for his support of a bill aimed at banning pedophiles from digitally altering legal material to make child pornography, and for his support of proposed legislation that would prevent children from purchasing video games containing depictions of graphic violence; both of which he classified as being legitimate forms of free expression.
This second string to his statement has lead some observers to question whether Rockwell was really attacking Smith for trying to raise 'Anti-Chinese sentiment' in Congress, or whether he was using the forthcomings anti-censorship hearing as a pre-text to attack Smith for his support of domestic programs to limit freedom of speech in areas that are broadly considered to be damaging to civil society.
Both Rockwell and the Ludwig Von Mises Institute are known for their literal support of the First Amendment, and both vehemently oppose and restrictions on freedom of expression, even when it is deemed to be in the wider public interest.
None the less, many of Rockwell's feelings are shared by a firm number of China watchers, who have drawn links between Wednesday's committee hearing and on going efforts, within the US administration, to brand China as both an economic predatory, and as rising military threat, that is seeking to supplant US influence around the world, and have expressed strong concerns over proceedings.
Similarly, critics have noted that, while the US administration, the private sector, and the NGO sector, will be well represented at the committee hearing, there will be no panel for representatives of the Chinese government. Leading some observers to accuse the committee of 'judging a foreign state using domestic standards' and of 'acknowledging only to two sides of a three sided confrontation'.
View Comments/Add a Comment (7)
1. Sarah left...
Tuesday, 14 February 2006 3:45 am :: http://www.journalscape.com/rhubarb/
Sure, there are lots of areas of gray and interpretations abound. But
sometimes we have to say, "This is what we stand for," and draw a line in
the sand. We cannot, we must not, be party to repression and censorship.
It has been bad enough that we have stood by and let it happen; but to
participate actively is unacceptable. So we lose profits; so what?
2. mike left...
Wednesday, 15 February 2006 8:47 am :: http://www.flickr.com/jacobson/
Dear Angry Chinese Blogger,
3. ACB left...
Wednesday, 15 February 2006 7:46 pm :: http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com
Sadly no, being a foreign national without a US approved press pass, and
being in a country located several thousend miles away, I regret that I
will be unable to attend.
4. Kathy Staats left...
Thursday, 25 May 2006 5:29 pm :: http://acantholimon.blog-city.com
May I please ask you about the results of the hearing and what has been
done to improve the situation?
5. ACB left...
Thursday, 25 May 2006 5:36 pm :: http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com
They concluded that US companies were aiding ensorship and human rights
abuses, and that they should stop.
6. turtle left...
Wednesday, 28 November 2007 12:39 pm
Hi, I am writing something about this case, and I am interested about the
quote "'judging a foreign state using domestic standards' and of
'acknowledging only to two sides of a three sided confrontation'" you
mentioned. Could you please give me the source? Thank you.
7. ACB left...
Friday, 30 November 2007 3:53 am
It's not an attributable quote, only the sections that are highlighted in
color are attributable quotes.