One world; one China; no Google

The much anticipated announcement of Google's plans for its Chinese market has finally come down the pipeline. The company has pulled out of the Chinese market, with Mainland customers being redirected to Google.hk.com - Google's Hong Kong server - as of early this morning. From Google's official corporate blog:

Users visiting Google.cn are now being redirected to Google.com.hk, where we are offering uncensored search in simplified Chinese, specifically designed for users in mainland China and delivered via our servers in Hong Kong. Users in Hong Kong will continue to receive their existing uncensored, traditional Chinese service, also from Google.com.hk. Due to the increased load on our Hong Kong servers and the complicated nature of these changes, users may see some slowdown in service or find some products temporarily inaccessible as we switch everything over.

Chinese officials have issued angry remarks over the decision (the full text of which may be found here), accusing Google of violating corporate promises made when the company initially entered the Chinese market.

What Google's move actually means for the Chinese government, citizen access to information and foreign firms with operations in the country, however, stands to be determined. A few immediate scenarios come to mind. With respect to the former two matters, China could block the Hong Kong site altogether or indeed on a case-by-case basis, perhaps further using the incident to regulate Hong Kong's freedoms - a dangerous path upon which to embark, to be sure. If pursued, such a move could potentially result in an increasing percentage of China's citizenry learning how to use circumvention techniques to get around such censorship - or, perhaps, not. It is, as Rebecca MacKinnon observes, a question of how aware the Chinese are of their government-imposed and managed tunnel vision, and how determined they are to shake themselves from its shackles.

Beyond this, it wouldn't be surprising to find the government imposing increasingly stringent regulations on foreign companies breaking into the market in the future. Again, however, such an approach could potentially hamper FDI inflows into the country if orchestrated on a large enough scale, subsequently obstructing the CCP's objectives of increased investment and growth. Equally, then, growing in realization of the unaccommodating nature of its policies on FDI inflows into the country, we might observe a gradual liberalizing of CCP policies. 'Might' being the operative word in this context.

Indeed, Google's move this morning has seemingly opened a Pandora's box of question and possible policy options. It will be most interesting to track this story as it unfolds. It is most interesting, too, to a observe a corporation affecting a country's domestic - and potentially international - politics in such a profound way. For a great collection of papers on corporations and global governance, do please take a look at the St. Antony's International Review April 2009 issue, which focuses precisely on this very issue.

Reading between the lines

It's interesting to observe the varying ways in which the Iranian crisis is depicted in the global news. What aspects are being highlighted? Excluded? Altogether mischaracterized? James Fallows has a worthwhile post outlining several guidelines to bear in mind when reading Chinese (official) responses to the crisis. An obvious though important example:

It is worth remembering that the elements of the Iranian story that give it such drama and importance in much of the world are less automatically resonant in China.

One part of the narrative -- a massed populace standing up against state power -- is obviously anathema to Chinese authorities. And many of the other themes are also less immediate and compelling to ordinary people in China than they would be in North America, Europe, or parts of the Islamic world.

To most Westerners, everything about this story matters. It involves a people's struggle to make their voices heard; it follows other "color revolutions" in former Soviet territories and indeed popular movements for democracy and rule of law in Asia and Latin America from the 1980s onwards; it potentially marks a crucial moment in the evolution of modern Islamic society; it can have war-and-peace implications for US foreign policy and Israeli actions; and so on. Ordinary members of the Western viewing audience feel a connection to these themes. I assert that they seem more distant to ordinary people in China -- even if the themes were featured on the news. People's own problems, and their business problems, and the country's problems, are enough to worry about.

Several curious examples of the way in which the story is being played out in China can be found here (a classic example of the 'blame it on the West' theme), here (short and sweet, calling for 'solidarity'), and here (from China Daily). The China Daily story required a bit of digging: it was buried deep within the 'World News' section, after stories covering Berlusconi's 'party girls,' Japan's whaling tradition, the DC metro train crash, and at least a dozen others. Go figure.

(Semi-) lighthearted on a Friday

With the sobering (though altogether unsurprising) news in this morning that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameni, is backing Iran's election results (as is Chavez, apparently) while protests swell, I feel compelled to counteract this bad news with something a bit more cheery. It is Friday, after all!

Before I do that, though, I'd like to bring a few more interesting Iran-related links to your attention:

• Twitter's watchdog site, Twitspam, has compiled a list of possibly fake (i.e. connected to the Iranian security apparatus) Iran election Tweeters
• Interesting Chinese commentary on the situation in Iran, from Shanghaiist
• Ethan Zuckerman on Iran, citizen media, and media attention (the good, the bad, and the ugly)

Right, well enough of that for now. Let's chat photography, travel and music (three of my most favorite things!), shall we? Canadian blogger and world traveler Brendan (aka Cashewman) has compiled a wonderful list of tips for photography in developing countries. At the end of the day it truly comes down to blending in with one's surroundings, though Brendan articulates this infinitely better than I have here.

In keeping with the theme of lists, White African has a running list of practical - and at times amusing - travel tips for Africa. If I have the time, I will begin a similar list for China. Until then, do please leave your tips in the comments section of this post!

And finally, I'm quite excited to see Senegalese-born singer and song writer Youssou N'Dour's new documentary film, "I Bring What I Love," this weekend. In the film N'Dour speaks about his life, his faith, his music, and his vision for human rights and tolerance:

Happy Friday, everyone! Enjoy the weekend.

Update: I happened upon a great piece by the FT's Anna Fifield on the mood among the under-30s in Iran. Definitely worth the read!

The "Great firewall of China" rages on

Every so often I check this blog's statistics: it's a fun exercise to discover where in the world the readers are, how they got here, and what posts are of most interest to them. In recent days I've noticed a startling shift in readership demographics: where there previously was a rather sizable readership from China, there is now none. My guess is that this has something (or indeed everything) to do with China's 'internet blackout' ahead of the Tiananmen anniversary tomorrow.

Western sites like Twitter, Flickr, Hotmail, Wordpress, YouTube, Blogger and (just one day after its launch) Microsoft Bing have all been censored. Moreover, government agencies are banning delivery of foreign newspapers, and disrupting satellite news broadcasts. Access to Taiwanese news outlets, which have become quite open in recent years, has also been restricted. The Chinese media blog Danwei posted a link to this spreadsheet of currently unaccessible or otherwise blocked Chinese sites, to which one can no doubt add countless others. Even Tiananmen Square itself is closed to the public today and blocked by armed police (a chillingly ironic image, if you ask me). The 'blackout' is aimed at eliminating every possible reference to the 1989 pro-democracy student movement, which the PLA suppressed on June 4 of that year.

Unfortunately, such memory control has been quite successful in China, with the result being that only few young Chinese know anything about the so-called "June 4 Incident" other than the fact that it happened (and some don't even know that much). Hiding a nation's history from its own people is utterly repulsive and, indeed, cowardly. A stark juxtaposition to what is arguably one of the most powerful images of raw human courage in history:

A man is known by the company he keeps. So is a country.

Earlier this week, China's human rights record came under scrutiny before the U.N. Human Rights Council. As expected, China denied that it censors the news media, maintain hidden prisons, persecutes minorities or gives an excessive number of prisoners the death penalty. This surprised no one.

What's perhaps most interesting, though, is the litany of nations that came forth to congratulate China, and laud its social policies - censorship, death penalty and beyond. From Tim Johnston: 

The Egyptian envoy said "we understand the need of China to keep the death penalty and recognize that in China it is strictly controlled and applied with extreme caution.” He praised the fact that pregnant women and minors are not executed.

Iran congratulated China's "efforts to promote and protect human rights for all" but in referring to the internet added that "its negative impact can never be underestimated.” It encouraged China to tighten censorship to prohibit "defamation of religion" and “pornographic websites.”

Cuba praised China for being an "exceptional country," and urged it to enforce "strict compliance with law. . . to prevent people disguised as human rights activists from trying to destroy the state."  

Singapore said China’s sustained economic growth is little short of a miracle.

Pakistan suggested foreign countries butt out of China’s affairs: “China does not require external advice on securing the rights of its people.”

Sri Lanka said his country “rejects the malign criticisms of China made by the same quarters … who tore China into little pieces during the period of colonialism and … actually forced the habit of opium upon the Chinese people.”

If you're keen to watch the entire three-hour session, you can do so here. 

Yes We [Censored]

China's CCTV News broadcast Obama's inaugural address live until he spoke about how "earlier generations faced down fascism and communism," at which point the anchor scrambled to engage an analyst in a discussion over America's economic woes. I guess China won't be unclenching that fist anytime soon:

[HT: the invaluable Danwei].

Chinese internet censorship as a trade barrier?

In last week's Huffington Post (si, si, I'm a bit behind in my reading), Michael Santoro and Wendy Goldberg make the case to the incoming Obama administration that Chinese internet censorship should be treated as a trade barrier:

Almost all discussion of the harm done by China's strict censorship of the Internet focuses around its human rights implications. However, by restraining the ability of U.S. companies to fairly compete in the world's largest market, serious damage is also being done to America's free trade interests by its largest trading partner. The list of companies caught in this dilemma will continue to grow.

There is certainly a case to be made here, though, like Simon Lester, I worry that their argument borders somewhat on the extreme, detracting from its actual merit. 

Can't censor them? Then change the way they think.

(aka. China does Stepford).

The Chinese Communist Party has raised a "50 Cent Army" of internet commentators who are paid RMB0.50 for every pro-Chinese and CCP-endorsed comment they post on blog and media sites. Estimates suggest there are tens of thousands of such spin doctors, armed and ready to shape Chinese public opinion: 

Comments, rumours and opinions can be quickly spread between internet groups in a way that makes it hard for the government to censor.

So instead of just trying to prevent people from having their say, the government is also attempting to change they way they think.

To do this, they use specially trained - and ideologically sound - internet commentators.

They have been dubbed the "50-cent party" because of how much they are reputed to be paid for each positive posting (50 Chinese cents; $0.07; £0.05).

Full story from the BBC, [HT: Boing Boing]

Censorship: in vogue for 2009

Government censorship seems to be the 'in' thing in China and Kenya this year. Governments in both states have rung in the New Year by cracking down on local media and internet sites (shock), much to the surprise and outrage of many (barring those in China, I suppose).

On January 2nd, President Kibaki signed the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Bill into law. The new legislation provides for heavy fines and prison sentences for press offenses, and also gives the government - above all information and interior ministries - the authority to issue broadcast licenses and monitor the production and content of news programs. The law has given rise to much protest across Kenya, as memories of a 2006 government raid on the offices of the Standard Newspapers, the country's second largest newspaper, and a 2007 media crackdown remain fresh.

To be perfectly honest, I remain somewhat puzzled by the passage of this law, especially given that the country is still trying to rebound after the 2007 presidential election and such media restrictions may well curtail much-needed foreign investments. Kenyan media has in past days carried several somewhat biting (biting if you're a member of Parliament, that is) stories about MPs refusal to pay taxes, disclosing the fiscal excesses of  Parliament, but I hesitate to accept the publication of such stories as the sole reason for the government clamping down so harshly. Then again, I could be wrong. Thoughts?

In China, too, 2009 has begun with, well, interesting developments: Chinese authorities have blocked a number of websites criticized for 'low and vulgar practices on the Internet,' among them Google's 'web page search' and 'image search' functions (kind of takes away from the point, doesn't it?). In addition, internet addicts are being sent to boot-camps (yes, seriously) where they undergo a three-month regimen of counseling, confidence building activities, sex ed (sex ed?!?) and in about 60% of cases, medication. Fabulous. Just imagine what they would do to us Western bloggers!

In all seriousness, though, it's often the case that when citizens are barred from accessing information, whatever that information may be, they more actively seek ways to evade censorship to access it. While government crackdowns a la Kenya and China may succeed (or give the impression of success) in the short-term, in the long term the result will be a populace exceptionally well-versed at evading filters and disseminating information. Media crackdowns aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Development technology - the good, the bad, the...useful?

A big 'thank you' to Ethan Zuckerman for stirring my thinking on the advantages and disadvantages of  development technology this morning. Writing on Apple's introduction of the iPhone in Egypt (and the Egyptian government's subsequent suppression of the Maps application on the grounds that GPS is a military prerogative), Zuckerman asks:

whether technologies inherently help confront and change authoritarian regimes, or whether these regimes are more successful at adapting to and repressing speech via new technologies.

This is an interesting question with seemingly no clear answer. In China, for instance, the government has mastered the art of  permitting certain technologies while suppressing others. The result is a populace somewhat falsely empowered with a sense of information, making marginal progress in the way of reform, and a government that isn't going anywhere anytime soon. A similar analysis may be offered in the case of Russia, and Venezuela, to a degree.

Switching gears a bit, I began exploring the various information technologies (broadly speaking) emerging across Africa. Here,  the issue is perhaps not so much changing authoritarian regimes (though that certainly wouldn't hurt), but engendering sustainable development. A few interesting projects caught my eye:

• A small NGO in Nairobi called ALIN (Arid Lands Information Network) is working to connect rural communities via community knowledge centers by running solar powered VSAT dishes
• A web-based reporting tool  - Ushahidi (which means "testimony" in Swahili) - is allowing Africans caught up in political unrest to report incidents of killing, violence and displacement.  Its goal is to create a simple way of aggregating information from the public for use in crisis situations. It has been recently used in the Democratic Republic of Congo
• Wikiforets is a living dictionary and encyclopedia, bringing together French speaking Africans who can share their knowledge of the indigenous forests in West and Central Africa with the aim of conserving the forests in which people live or on which they are dependent

What's especially wonderful about these projects is that they are all local initiatives. A testament to the value of skills training, indeed. 

China puts on face for the world as Olympics begin

The Olympics are underway in Beijing, with what no doubt was a spectacular opening ceremony. For the next 16 days the world (or at the very least this blogger) will sit glued to the television as the world's top athletes battle for guts and glory. The Athenians definitely knew what they were doing. 

But does the world know what China is doing? Really? Sure everyone knows China is a Communist country and most people have some idea of what that means. China's list of human rights violations - both with respect to its own people and others [insert African country of choice here] - is quite appalling, as is its foreign relations record quite generally, with few exceptions. But from my conversations with those not directly involved in researching China's domestic and/or foreign relations, few fully grasp what's at stake. 

An opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal goes some way in shedding some light on the issues, concluding with a rather optimistic tone that the Olympics may in the long term herald in a freer China. In a somewhat less optimistic fashion, Human Rights Watch argues that "the Chinese government and IOC wasted a historic opportunity for reform." The New York-based Human Rights in China similarly issued a press release on the worsening human rights situation in China.  And in the recent edition of Foreign Affairs, Elizabeth Economy and Adam Segal write of China's embarrassing coming-out party, set against a background of poor environmental standards, increased pressure over Sudan and its poor record of accountability and transparency - just to name a few. The list goes on and on. 

Sadly, the China the world will see for the next sixteen days is not China, per se, but China as the CCP would like for it to appear. Open. Free. Strong. Dare I say it - Liberal. Ironically, this vision may be among the few things China and its critics agree on. A crucial difference, though, is the means by which to attain it. 

Nevertheless, human rights violations aside, the Olympics promise to bring much phenomenal competition and countless spectacular performances - both on and off the fields. I, for one, am very much looking forward to it. Human rights violations aside.

Chinese censor Olympics. Surprise? Anyone?

A front-page story of today's International Herald Tribune reports that:

"Since the Olympic Village press center opened Friday, reporters have been unable to access scores of Web pages — among them those that discuss Tibetan issues, Taiwanese independence, the violent crackdown on the protests in Tiananmen Square and the Web sites of Amnesty International, the BBC's Chinese-language news, Radio Free Asia and several Hong Kong newspapers known for their freewheeling political discourse"

As it turns out, earlier excitement over the 'free reporting' that was to allegedly occur during the Olympic Games was unwarranted: international journalists and spectators will be subject to the same blocks that China places on the Internet for its citizens. Fabulous.

Admittedly, I was among those who hoped the Olympics would open up the black-box that is China. Would, even in some small way, liberalize the country. From my time there and my correspondences with colleagues in Beijing and elsewhere, I've developed a distinct love of and fascination with the "awakened giant" and would like nothing more than for its citizens to enjoy the personal freedoms they rightly deserve. But, as more and more indiscretions surface, I can't help but wonder if Anuradha Amrutesh from Bangalore, India was right: "The Olympics should have never gone to China."