Dissonance grows in US-China
network By Benjamin A Shobert
For Americans, few technologies so embody
the freedoms we enjoy more than that of the
Internet. A Wild West where anyone with an opinion
and the most basic know-how can find a podium from
which to pronounce their beliefs, the Internet in
many ways not only symbolizes the proud American
value of dissent, but equally captures some of the
most profound differences between the United
States and China.
Where in America, the
Internet facilitates an existing political belief
- the need for the individual to have an opinion,
to vocalize it, and to have to right to do so - in
China, the Internet draws a sharp focus on the
limitations to how Chinese may express themselves
and disagree with their government.
For
Chinese, the technologies which make the modern
Internet possible are equal parts blessing and
curse; holding the promise
of freedom of
expression but equally the curse of a central
government empowered by technology to look into
the most personal expressions of what Chinese
think, feel and believe.
Laid on top of
these matters is the additional problem that the
Internet remains, both the hardware which makes
its existence possible in the first place, as well
as the software which makes its use engrossing and
empowering, one of the most compelling business
opportunities in China.
For American
Internet companies, the need to get their products
into the growing domestic Chinese market is of
utmost importance.
However, the price of
entry for many of these companies is to agree to
terms with the Chinese government that
fundamentally restrict the full empowering
potential of their technology while also giving
Beijing the ability to snoop into the online
habits and thoughts of the Chinese people.
Can these companies simply turn their
backs on the Chinese market because the agreeing
to these terms would be a violation of their
founding values? Or, should they agree to
Beijing's terms with the belief that no government
can forever walk the fine line between agreeing to
the Internet's ability to connect disparate voices
on commercial matters without at some point
empowering these same people to ask for more from
their government?
To many Internet
companies who believe their technologies empower
the individual, this trade would be worthwhile;
however, others see China's ability to thus far
use technology as a means of perpetuating its
heavy-handed rule and believe they have no place
helping Beijing's authoritarians continue its
censorship policies.
On Thursday, the
Congressional Executive Commission on China (CECC)
turned its attention to what it called the ''human
toll and trade impact'' of China's Internet and
media censorship policies. The CECC's hearing
represents an attempt by congress to point out
that China's censorship practices not only
represent an unacceptable value American policy
makers cannot support, but that these same
practices represent a challenge to the free trade
policies the United States and China have agreed
to.
It is an interesting commentary on the
state of US-China relations that the US Congress
feels its best chance to highlight the practices
of China's authoritarian government is to link
these habits with a loss of economic opportunities
for American business.
In this vein,
Senator Sherrod Brown (Democrat, Ohio), opened the
hearings up by acknowledging how China's
oppressive government policies were connected to
the loss of economic opportunities for American
Internet companies. As Brown said:
The purpose of today's hearing is to
shed light on the darkness of China's repressive
Internet and social media censorship. It is a
policy that takes a very human toll, undermining
human rights reforms and freedoms of expression
and speech. And it is a policy that is unfair to
US trade interests, especially for US tech
companies.
Signaling a growing
sensibility in the congress that relations between
the two countries have been overly conciliatory
towards China, Brown went on to say:
China plays by its own rules because
we regrettably, in this institution and in our
government, let them. We cannot simply wait out
the inevitable power of the Internet to move the
hearts and minds of the Chinese people. We must
do all we can to shine the light where free
expression, thought, and commerce are too often
kept in the dark.
Brown's comments
need to be understood as a challenge to the
traditional policy of engagement between the
United States and China.
For three
decades, the prevailing view in Washington has
been that as we further engaged China, they would
become more like us. Commerce would become the
lubricant by which the Chinese government would
relinquish its control and empower the individuals
and their opportunity to shape Beijing's policies.
Even more so than commerce, the advent of the
Internet and the dissent-shaping technologies it
brought with it suggested the inevitability of
China's authoritarian government finally breaking.
But, this has not happened.
Republican
congressman and CECC chairman Christopher Brown
(Republican, New Jersey) noted that, if anything,
the Chinese government has been "tightening their
grip on Chinese society ... particularly over the
Internet".
Instead of the Internet
fostering a spirit of dissent, it appears to have
provided Beijing with another tool by which they
can identify dissenting voices. According to
Brown, "By some accounts, China has imprisoned
more Internet activists than any other country ...
Chinese citizens are unable to voice criticisms
that Americans take for granted every day."
Xiao Qiang, the founder and chief editor
of the China news website China Digital Times and
an adjunct professor of journalism at UC Berkeley,
testified recently that while Beijing continues to
attempt and control the Internet's ability to
facilitate dissent, the unmistakable reality is
that they are struggling to do so successfully.
According to Qiang: "The numbers of
netizens engaged in political criticism are
steadily growing and are now estimated to be
between 10 and 50 million. What is it that Beijing
so fears?" Qiang believes the Chinese government
is afraid that the Internet sets in motion what he
calls "the power of truth-telling among the
Chinese population". For the Communist Party, this
"directly challenges their privilege, ideological
control, and the legitimacy of the regime".
Controlling content is one way Beijing
attempts to maintain its legitimacy, but what
Qiang pointed out in last week's hearing is that
the Chinese government has become increasingly
sophisticated in its strategy of limiting on-line
dissent.
Now, Beijing understands that it
must focus on the infrastructure - the hardware
and software of the Internet - if it is going to
be able to continue its practices. As Qiang said:
That's where American Internet
companies enter the story. Because American
Internet companies are not under the control of
the government and therefore cannot be trusted
to abide by the government's rules, they are
most often prevented from entering the market on
a level playing field, or simply blocked by the
Great Firewall.
Testifying in front of
the last week's CECC hearing, pastor John Zhang, a
Chinese dissident long active in China's
evangelical Christian community, noted that
American business needed to be aware of, and act
upon, the reality that their technologies are not
only empowering commerce, they are also providing
Beijing with the tools to suppress dissent.
Signaling out Cisco, one of the American
technology companies whose systems have allowed
the on-line monitoring "Golden Shield" system to
be rolled out in China, Zhang stated, "Without a
doubt, Cisco is responsible for the deterioration
of Internet freedom in China."
American
Internet systems are, in many ways, true dual-use
technologies. They both empower dissent while also
enabling mechanisms of control. As a consequence
of this, many American firms like Cisco believe
they should not be singled out given they do not
control how Beijing chooses to use the
technologies they purchase from them.
In
addition, these same companies point out that
unless American policy finds a way to address
these problems, the lucrative Chinese market may
be forever walled off from their businesses.
Already, policies that discriminate against
American Internet companies have become more
common in China, which has led many policy makers
to believe that the tension between political
values and commercial opportunities can no longer
be avoided.
This may be most notable in
China's bifurcated treatment of the two social
networking sites Facebook and RenRen. Gilbert
Kaplan, a lawyer and partner at King &
Spalding and president of the Committee to Support
US Trade Laws stated in last Thursday's hearing:
China's Internet service providers
have capitalized on this discriminatory
treatment of US companies and have consequently
experienced great success. Earlier this year,
for example, RenRen (known as "China's
Facebook") filed for a US public offering,
symbolizing its success to date and its plans
for expansion. Meanwhile, Facebook is blocked in
China.
Kaplan noted that while China's
practice are not necessarily new, they impact is
now feared to have been so extreme that even if
China were to reverse its policies, "Market share
[for American businesses] can never be recovered."
In this way, China's Internet policies may
constitute a World Trade Organization (WTO)
violation, a line of thinking the CECC began to
explore last week. According to Kaplan:
The Chinese Government's actions
appear to constitute various violations of WTO
agreements ... particularly the GATS [General
Agreement on Trade in Services] agreement. The
Chinese actions in question, although often
based on unwritten policies and practices, would
still constitute "measures" that can be
challenged under the World Trade Organization
Dispute Settlement procedures.
Ed
Black, president and chief executive officer of
the Computer & Communications Industry
Association, testified along these lines when he
said:
Since China gets full markets in sectors where competitive advantage such low-cost
manufacturing it disconcerting States government
not done ensure Americas companies get same
liberalized access Chinese market a market which
now has more Internet users than entire population
of United States.
American businessmen
policymakers alike understand that as Black said
This is big business for America these
businesses also happen be the tools that empower
people to communicate assemble and organize.
The Internet brings together American
commercial interests and its most cherished
political values, a linkage that if China
attempts to forever deny may well grow into one
of the most problematic issues that drives a
wedge between the two countries. In this way,
while the Internet may not enable a sea change
in Chinese politics, it may play an equally
momentous role in changing American attitudes
and politics about China.
Benjamin
A Shobert is the managing director of Teleos
Inc (www.teleos-inc.com), a consulting firm
dedicated to helping Asian businesses bring
innovative technologies into the North American
market.
(Copyright 2011 Asia Times
Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please contact us about sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
