Live chat transcript

If you're not already completely sick of reading about U.S. corporate responsibility and censorship in China, click here for the transcript of my Tuesday live chat on the Washington Post website. We had some pretty interesting questions.  Here are a couple excerpts that touched on things I haven't yet blogged:

Washington, D.C.: Phil Pan mentioned earlier in his discussion that only a minority of blogs are political. Are there many blogs that are anti-American? Does the Chinese government censor such blogs, especially in cases where the blogs may be critical of issues sensitive to the improvement of U.S.-China relations? If yes, for what reasons do you think they might do so?

Rebecca Mackinnon: Greetings!! Great to see so many questions already lined up!!

Yes I think Phil is absolutely right, only a small minority of Chinese blogs are political. Yes, some blogs are anti-American, or more accurately, some bloggers often post opinions on their blogs that are extremely critical of the United States and its motives. I haven't heard of any cases of anti-American blog posts being censored or bloggers encountering consequences for anti-American speech on the web in China.

Right after September 11, 2001, there weren't really any blogs in China but there were a lot of Chinese chatrooms- and there were a lot of conversations in which Chinese netizens were saying things like "served them right." That was definitely not the official Chinese government policy - which condemned the terrorists. Also, after the Spyplane incident in May 2001, people in Chinese chatrooms were very critical of their government for having handed back the U.S. crew and plane, and saw their government as having been too compromising with the U.S.

So there are definitely parts of Chinese cyberspace that take a much harder line towards the U.S. than the Chinese government does, and it does not appear that these conversations are censored - at least I haven't heard of them being censored.

Further down, I got a question from blogger James Na:

Washington, D.C.: Of the three groups (both internal and external) participating in the discussion about China's future -- the sellouts, the reformers and the revolutionaries ( The Korea Liberator ) -- it seems the greatest dispute is among the reformers and the revolutionaries.

When should the reformers finally cast off the sellouts and join the revolutionaries? Or will the reformers continue to ally with the sellouts, hoping that China would gradually evolve into a democratic-capitalist society?

Rebecca Mackinnon: Hello there! I think you may be implying that I'm a "reformer" and that I should join the "revolutionaries"...

Here's the thing. If there's going to be a revolution, as you hope, it has to come from the Chinese people themselves. It cannot come from some externally-driven "regime change" campaign. The Chinese people are extremely nationalistic and proud. They still have a huge chip on their shoulder about their history of being dominated, occupied, pushed around, and told what to do by foreigners. Successful democracy in China must be a home-grown Chinese democracy, not something imposed on them by Americans or anybody else.

Unfortunately, many Americans who care about human rights issues in China such as myself are seen by people in China as being neo-con regime changers whose hidden agenda is to do an Iraq number on China, or who view China as the inevitable enemy against whom we must ultimately go to war. This is really unfortunate, because it couldn't be further from the case.

James blogged his response to my response. He felt that I misunderstood his question, agreed that change in China must come from within, but thinks that there remains a role for people outside China to help encourage change. As for why Chinese reformers haven't become "revolutionaries," James my short answer is: because they have way too much to lose. Most of the urban intellectuals and pro-reform bureaucrats who favor change have on the whole gained too much materially from 25 years of economic reforms to want to stick their necks out too far. Quite a number of people I know in Beijing who are now very rich businessmen - including some who now run internet companies that comply with censorship requirements - were actually out in the streets protesting in 1989...

Comments

Armtwisting India to force it vote against Iran on nuclear issue. Is this democracy. Americans dont believe in democracy themselves.

This is hypocrisy.

I understand that the author of the great blog beijing or bust was picked up by chinese authorities a week ago or so, likely due to his documentary work on underground churches and as part of the annual pre-NPC sweep. there is a rumor that you are aware of this and have been asking journalists not to report this information, as you are working with rep chris smith to stir up the us religious right to launch a frontal assault on the chinese government. can you please comment on this rumor, and if true, can you explain how you, as a former professional journalist, believe it is now ok to manipulate both the news as well as stir up a us response? could you also explain why you think this is the best way to get this guy released?

[Rebecca MacKinnon]

Greetings. Five points:

1. I am not working with Smith or anybody else in Congress on anything right now.
2. I am acting as his family has requested, as any efforts that would go against their wishes will be counterproductive at this very delicate stage.
3. Some things are being done, I can't go into details.
4. The priority is to do what is best for the physical situation of the person concerned.
5. I hate the whole nasty situation.

Other than that I really can't comment further without violating the family's wishes. I hope that we will have news soon.

[jie]

a honest chinese guy