GOFA: Reactions from China

Before the hearings, Angry Chinese Blogger wrote a sharp post titled “Truth, Justice - or a near sighted attack on the Chinese way” with a frank analysis of how many people in China view the hearings: as part of general “Anti-China” sentiment rising in Washington, treating China like an enemy in need of regime change:

...[such] 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 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'.

AsiaPundit hones in on how the Global Online Freedom Act would affect not only U.S.-headquartered  companies but also Chinese companies with U.S. stock market listings, such as Baidu and Sina:

AsiaPundit suggests readers take a moment to appreciate the irony. In China, conventional wisdom is that internet is a major regulatory grey area where foreign companies must tread cautiously. The internet is governed by over a dozen ministries and authorities and an investment could be easily put at risk by a number of them.
In the US, the market is developed, has relatively clear regulations and is predictable. Yet, Chinese internet companies are now facing risk due to what could be called a 'political whim.'
It seems that the legislation that Chris Smith is proposing, though targeted at US companies, could have the most adverse impact on their Chinese rivals.

On the Danwei Blog, Beijing expatriate Dror Poleg writes:

The web, with or without Tibetan rebels or the BBC, is the main driver of change in China. Concerns should focus on the fact that currently only 110 million people in China have Internet access. This comprises the world’s second largest online market, but counts only for 10% of China’s population.

US lawmakers should keep that in mind when approaching China. It is necessary to set ground rules for U.S. companies operating abroad, but as far as China is concerned, the imperative should be to allow access to as many people as possible. After that, when 400 million Chinese citizens are online, leave it to the market to bring down the walls.

Roland Soong at ESWN has extensive reaction to testimonies by Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft and Cisco at the Wednesday congressional hearings. Read the whole thing, as he has some useful points about the Yahoo! situation in particular. In reaction to the Microsoft testimony he remarks:

You can condemn these companies for all you want, but in the end there has to be a practical and workable solution for them.  Rejecting every single Chinese government warrant is NOT the answer, because you are in fact aiding and abetting real criminals most of the time.  I personally do not see how this can be done.  The change will eventually have to come from inside China about the law.

Keso thinks [cn] members of the U.S. congress, with their “high-flying language” are every bit as disingenuous and politically self-serving as the Chinese officials claiming nobody has ever been arrested for online speech. “In the end all they care about is their political survival.” He says it’s pretty “unbelievable,” though, that 4 powerful U.S. companies have to go in front of the U.S. congress and discuss whether or not they owe an apology to the Chinese people. Says another blogger[cn]: “How strange for to have our adversary speaking up for our people.”

And last but absolutely not least, Roland Soong, who continues to do a major service to humanity with his extensive translations, has translated an open letter by blogger Michael Anti [cn] in response to the congressional hearings. It is so worth reading I’m reproducing the whole thing in full below:

The Freedom of Chinese Netizens Is Not Up To The Americans

(Anti's @ blog-city)  February 17, 2006.

(in translation)

On the eve of the US Congressional Hearings directed against the four big Internet companies (Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and Cisco) about their collaboration with the Chinese government, I am writing to state that I believe that this has nothing to with us whatsoever.  This is a purely internal American affair.  When we Chinese who love freedom attempt to promote freedom of expression, we never thought that the right for freedom of expression ought to be protected by the US Congress.  Every single blog post of mine was written in Chinese, and every sentence was written for my compatriots.  I have no interest to cater to the interests of foreign readers.

I have always had a strong sentiment: the reason why a country is great is because at its darkest and toughest moments, there were always young people who love this earth and will not forsake their dreams to pursue the freedom, democracy, security and wealth for their people.  These dreams are not provided by the United States.  These dreams can only be realized by ourselves.  Only the Chinese can continue to maintain the hope to continue to fight for the political future in the face of despair.  Only the Chinese can maintain the faith in reversing the course of a river that has been contaminated.

This is our country.  This is our earth.  We must let this generation bring freedom, democracy, security and wealth to China.  This is where we and our children will belong forever.  The defeat of China will be our defeat for our whole lives.  There can be no lucky ones in a time of chaos.  A failed country will cause us to be the object of contempt no matter where we are.  When foreigners repeatedly use "totalitarian" to describe China, this is a deep shame for me as a Chinese person.  This shame cannot ever be forgotten.

These kind of sentiments cannot be understood by foreigners.  When the US Congress holds a hearing about Internet freedom in China, this is an American affair.  When the US Congress proposes Internet freedom of information legislation, this is truly treating the freedom of the Chinese netizens as maids that they can dress up as they see fit.

The proposed legislation even included this: when American companies interfere with information from the American government communications  (such as the Congressional Human Rights Report, Voice of America, Radio Free Asia), they will be severely fined and the responsible persons will be jailed.  Anyone with commonsense should know that American companies such as Google and MSN Spaces will be forced to quit the Chinese market.  Then we will be left with the damned Baidu, our national blog service providers and the monitored email boxes.

I cannot help but ask: Mr. Congressmen, is your proposed legislation intended to protect the freedom of information for the netizens in China, or is it intended to protect the freedom of information from the United States government?  If it is the first, then how is it that after we are "protected," our freedom is in fact reduced?  If it is the latter, then why are you saying that this is about the freedom of information for the Chinese netizens?

Companies such as Microsoft and Google have provided Chinese netizens with much freedom of information over these years.  They have begun to compromise recently.  This is the shame of American companies as well as the shame of the Chinese people.  The solution from the American side is that these companies must adhere to their bottom lines and be more responsible.  Not only do you need the Chinese market, but China also needs these American companies.  Your negotiation conditions are not getting fewer, but there are more.  The Chinese netizens need freedom to grow more and more.

For the US Congressional representatives who think that everything is black-and-white, the absurd proposal is that "compromise=retreat."   They even treat the freedom of the Chinese netizens as a maid that they can dress us as they wish.  This proves once again: the freedom and rights of the Chinese people can only be won by the Chinese people themselves.

The only true way of solving the Internet blockage in China is this: every Chinese youth with conscience must practice and expand their freedom and oppose any blockage and suppression every day.  This is the country that we love.  Nobody wants her to be free more than we do.  I am proud to be your compatriot.

At the end of my statement, I must state once again that I have mentioned only Microsoft and Google as the American companies, but it is definitely not Yahoo!  A company such as Yahoo! which gives up information is unforgivable.  It would be for the good of the Chinese netizens if such a company could be shut down or get out of China forever.

Comments

[Tom - Daai Tou Laam]

I would disagree with your comments about ESWN's comments.

you are in fact aiding and abetting real criminals most of the time.

I've never seen ESWN reference an actual statistic to prove this sort of assertion on who is targeted by internet warrants. I've also never seen ESWN reference an actual statistic on the number of warrants received by any ISP or Internet Content Provider, while he's made claims about there being large numbers that make scrutinising individual warrants difficult.

This is especially bewildering given the puff piece he translated on the day in the life of a Chinese internet policeman, where they seemingly do nothing and never generate any search warrants.

As a former ISP sysadmin, I'm skeptical, but open to follow-ups or emails providing details from admins actually handling such requests.

As for reaching a practical and workable solution, I'm one of those that think Congressional hearings/legislative comments could be one of the steps in reaching that practical and workable solution.

And that includes identifying sections of Chinese law that are so ambiguous and vague that they make US corporations doing business in China subject to capricious interpretations by cadres, such as laws pertaining to search warrants and what constitutes censorable material.

It may be up to the Chinese government to alter these laws, but in the meantime Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc can allow their money and prestige to speak to the Chinese to urge them to clarify and delineate these laws to help shelter the business sector from "shifting winds" and foster a true sense of "the rule of law".

[Jeremy Goldkorn]

Rebecca,

Thanks for the link, but the piece on Danwei you refer to was written by Dror Poleg.

[Curt]

This has little to do with 'saving the Chinese from themselves' and much more to do with saving ourselves from our own (American) companies. We don't wish for our companies to do things that are in direct opposition to our values as a people. So, we are going to attempt to govern our companies whether the citizens of other countries like it or not.

[niubi]

so at what point do people start to point fingers at the US VCs who are funding many of the companies doing business in China, and at the institutional investors who invest in those funds, like Harvard and Stanford University? Yhy don't harvard students, for example, start a diverstiture campaign to force the Harvard corporation to pull its money from any funds that invest in firms that in any way cooperate with the Chinese government in its controls on free speech and human rights?

[Rebecca MacKinnon]

Jeremy,
Oops. Corrected. Apologies to Dror!

[Rebecca MacKinnon]

Tom,
"And that includes identifying sections of Chinese law that are so ambiguous and vague that they make US corporations doing business in China subject to capricious interpretations by cadres, such as laws pertaining to search warrants and what constitutes censorable material.

It may be up to the Chinese government to alter these laws, but in the meantime Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc can allow their money and prestige to speak to the Chinese to urge them to clarify and delineate these laws to help shelter the business sector from "shifting winds" and foster a true sense of "the rule of law"."

I agree with you there 100%.

[Monkey]

I am a Chinese who lives in Hong Kong. I can't avoid making a comment on the so-called Chinese's comment on the U.S.'s defense of the freedom of speech on the internet.

The internet is built originally as a bunch of separated individual networks linked together by some fiber optics. China (the Mainland Chinese Communist government), by linking its computers to the internet, has to face the fact that it has to abandone its identity as Chinese. As an internet citizen, one should abide to the code of conduct widely accepted by the majority of the internet community.

Claiming that any action of the Mainland government on the networks and the machines located in Mainland China is a strict internal affair belonging only to the Chinese people has seriously overlooked the true meaning of the term "internet."

The recent censoring of the internet connections located in China is not only an affair that concerns Chinese, but also the people around the world. Freedom of expression consists of the freedom of conveying and receiving information. On the internet, anyone from any country should freely transmit and receive any information from anywhere. Unless China declares its networks as a module that is total separated from the internet community of the globe, it has to follow the internet code of conduct.

Therefore, I suggest whoever says that the freedom of expression of the people in China is an affair strictly internal to China should unplug his/her computer and stop sending out messages to try to convince other people around the world through the internet. To that person, his/her affair is of no interest to the "cyber-citizens" on the internet; therefore, he/she should keep his/her own opinion strict to himself/herself!

[Filip Björner]

Hi Rebecca!

I have started a campaign against the censorship by Google in China. Please join this boycott campaign!

Read about it at my site, download a banner from me, publish it on your site and link back to me. Then mail me about it, and I will make a link from there back to the site where you use the banner.

Anyone can contact me about this:
[email protected]
http://hem.passagen.se/boycott-google/

Cheers
Filip Björner

[Rebecca MacKinnon]

Thanks Filip. Actually I think you ought to start by boycotting Yahoo! What they have done in China is much more evil.