“Rooted in our hearts”

Today China, tomorrow the world-

[T]he deletion of content, the closure of sites and the jailing of individuals have a chilling effect that goes far beyond those immediately affected.”Because people don’t know what they are not allowed to say, they kind of guess and take down or stop saying whatever might possibly not be permissible,” said Wen Yunchao. The system’s effectiveness can be judged not by the number of censors, the sophistication of its technology or the information suppressed – but by what it has not done and does not need to do. Li Yonggang, a professor of internet politics at Nanjing university, wrote recently: “In fact, the Great Firewall is rooted in our hearts.”

Acceptance

The BBC–

Whether you regard Google’s market share as impressive or disappointing, compared to its dominance elsewhere, there is little doubt it is not a household name in China in the same way that it is abroad.

But Hu Li, a student in Beijing, told the BBC he admired what he called the company’s “heroic” decision to offer an unfiltered service, and hailed the announcement to pull out if it could not reach its objective.

Some people even laid flowers outside the company’s Beijing headquarters, in the hi-tech Haidian district, as a mark of respect.

The WSJ–

For years, Western companies have accepted that business is done a certain way in China—agreeing to government interference that wouldn’t be tolerated elsewhere, from stifling free speech to setting up Communist Party cells. And over the past generation, outside political leaders have drawn a similar conclusion, choosing to play down human rights in the hopes of effecting change.

[…]

The Google syndrome caps growing complaints by foreign businesses over a deteriorating business environment. Both the European Chamber and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in China have issued reports sharply critical of China’s business environment. During the 1980s and ’90s, foreign businesses were assiduously courted by China’s leaders and responded by bringing to China technology, training and international best practices.

In recent years, however, foreign businesses have complained that the official line has shifted. Younger bureaucrats are more nationalistic and skeptical of the value of letting in foreign companies, Mr. Wuttke says. Last year, for example, foreign executives said bidding practices for wind energy were rigged to exclude foreign companies.

and-

A senior Microsoft Corp. executive said that “Google would do disservice to Chinese people” by leaving China because Google censors its Chinese search results less aggressively than Chinese local competitor Baidu and other Chinese portal companies. A pullout by Google would strip Chinese Internet users of a good alternative, the executive said.

and–

“It’s a tragedy if Google pulls out of China,” said Xu Hao, a junior studying Japanese at Tongji University in Shanghai. Wu Zhiwei, a sophomore studying philosophy at Fudan University in Shanghai, said “a lot of people are very angry at government censorship,” and also said he understands that it contradicts Google’s philosophies on free-Internet use.

[…]

Internet users continued to comment on the news, however. Some worried their Google e-mail accounts would be deleted, and others expressed concern that Chinese authorities would further tighten its Internet controls. “Our postings on the Internet are deleted by [other] Web sites, or when we upload pictures showing bad things on the street, they are deleted … I don’t know what to do without Google,” Ms. Xu said.

—

While Google’s threat is interesting, one can’t help but think about the double standards being used to assess China-

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said Google’s allegations “raise very serious concerns and questions.” “We look to the Chinese government for an explanation,” Mrs. Clinton said on a visit to Hawaii. “The ability to operate with confidence in cyberspace is critical in a modern society and economy.”

US telecom companies and banks allow the US government to snoop over its citizens (“legal” hacking), foreign banks sold out their clients on account of “tax evasion,” and how can one forget the fit the Indian government threw over BlackBerry (and, from the past, the shenanigans of George Fernandes).

China is uncomfortable when it comes to Tibet, “human rights” and ten other subjects, and other countries have their own list. Hypocrisy.

Google’s statement.

“Non-censorship”

Dasgupta

The 21st century is said to be a great leveller, a time yesterday’s great powers repudiate the great games of yore. Yet, there was a disturbing imagery from another age behind the choreography of President Barack Obama’s visit to China last week. For many, the reference in the joint statement to supporting “the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan” was a “casual remark”, about as significant as proforma commitments to foster cultural exchanges.

However, since joint statements are not usually a casual collation of stray thoughts – unless the joint India-Pakistan statement in Sharm-el-Sheikh becomes a template – and certainly not regarded as such by China, it may safely be assumed the reference was calculated.

India may not quite be yesterday’s Tanganyika but the assumptions behind including it in a US-China joint statement weren’t dissimilar to those imperial leaders who rolled out maps and coloured their spheres of influence in red. For the US it was one step backward: it repudiated the Bush doctrine of nurturing India to offset China’s dominance in Asia. For China it was a giant step forward: it secured US endorsement for taking an active interest in South Asia, including India. Together, Obama and President Hu Jintao agreed that India, for all its potential as a rising economic power, doesn’t yet qualify for a place on a high table; it remains bound in a hyphenated relationship with an imploding Pakistan.

and Akbar

On the first anniversary of 26/11, it is not Pakistan alone that is laughing at our weakness. Washington too has measured the tensile strength of a nation that finds unique ways to postpone its threats to the next calamity. Last year, we gloried in the belief that the US had promoted us to the ascending plateau of a regional power, en route to the status of world player. This week, President Barack Obama used a communiqué in Beijing, of all capitals, to tell us where we stand in his estimation, as one of the nations of South Asia whose border problems the worldwide partnership of equals, US and China, would help sort out.

The lean and lissome Obama has learnt to slap with a long hand.

Obama did not have a word to say, incidentally, about Dr A Q Khan’s latest revelations on Chinese help in fuel and technology for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme, a clear instance of illegal proliferation. Do not be surprised, however, if India gets a lecture or two on nuclear proliferation.

have written about how Obama and Jintao managed to screw India. Last November, the whole of India was gushing over Obama’s victory, fully aware of the record of previous presidents from the Democratic Party. Its time the country came to its senses.

—

Such diplomatic jousting is par for the course. What’s more revealing is Obamaspeak on subjects that really matter. Here’s the wonderful part–

“I’m a big supporter of non-censorship,” Obama said. “I recognize that different countries have different traditions. I can tell you that in the United States, the fact that we have free Internet — or unrestricted Internet access — is a source of strength, and I think should be encouraged.”

about which a Chinese writer has said, “Learn English from Obama: Instead of saying ‘I want to eat,’ say ‘I am a big supporter of non-hunger.'”

Ed Cline goes a lot deeper into the mentality that gives rise to such phrasing-

Obama is a “big supporter of non-censorship”? What is “non-censorship”? Is it an awkward grasp of the concept of freedom of speech, or an inverted synonym? No. It cannot even have an antonym. If, to paraphrase the Oxford English Dictionary definition of censor, censorship is the “inspection of all books, journals, dramatic pieces, etc., before publication, to secure that they shall contain nothing immoral, heretical, or offensive to the government,” then non-censorship is an anti-concept. It is the “not censoring” of speech in any venue or form. That is, it is the staying of the government’s hand to censor it. It is the implicit acknowledgement that a government has the power and the will to censor, but chooses not to, for the moment. It is an Orwellian anti-concept possible only to a power-seeker at home with censoring and non-censoring.

Obama did not say that he is a “big supporter of freedom of speech” for two reasons: It would have been offensive to the Chinese totalitarian government — and because he does not believe in it.

[…]

He avoided the term “freedom of speech” again, and likened it to “tradition,” or custom. Message to China’s communist/fascist rulers: You have a long tradition of censorship and suppression of speech. On the other hand, we in the United States have a long “tradition” of freedom of speech. So, it’s just a difference of tradition. I won’t make a distinction between our traditions and yours, nor judge your regime.

[…]

The satire is that in Shanghai, Obama was subjected to the same censorship that he wishes to impose on America. It was the professional totalitarians showing the ropes to an amateur.

Beating around the bush, indulging in linguistic gymnastics never works, unless that, not working, is the goal of one’s enterprise. Such a speech is an insult to everyone, especially dissidents in China, who’s had to go through hell for believing in the idea.

Yang Zili, a Chinese dissident recently freed after eight years in prison for forming a political study group, had been expecting something stronger from Obama.

“Although Obama mentioned some words such as ‘rights’ and ‘freedom’ in the speech in Shanghai, we expect he can do more to promote the improvement of China’s human rights condition,” he said.

It would have been much better if he had simply said that he doesn’t give a damn about free speech. That would have been more truthful, and people could then start looking up to real heroes. Someone like Voltaire, and his “Crush the infamy!”

Two Ts and an M

Parochialism is not a new phenomenon in politics. Neither is hypocrisy. Therefore, when Raj Thackeray is criticized for his “sons of the soil” position on employment, and nothing is said when such discrimination is practiced at the national level, one shouldn’t be surprised. I am referring to this statement by Tharoor-

“As far as our basic policy is concerned, we would certainly be hesitant to offer employment to a foreigner for a job which could be done by an Indian in India.”

He sounds as if its he who’s doing the hiring, and even paying the wages out of his own pocket. If he has a problem with the Chinese (and Chidambaram with migrants from Bangladesh), a diplomatic problem, a “national security” problem, he should be open about it and not talk in terms of who has the first right to a job. Unfortunately though, such small-mindedness is hardly limited to India. Even the bastion of free market capitalism (I am joking), the United States of America, suffers from this mentality—the protectionist one.

Don Boudreaux made a nice point in an open letter regarding the same, to someone who asked what he would do if someone “stole” his job-

My answer to it is this: I’ll find a way to feed my family. I’ll get another job (or jobs). I’ll cut back on less-essential expenses. If I must, I’ll rely on my family and close friends as I hope they would rely on me if they were in dire straits.

But I will not, under any circumstances, use my economic misfortune as an excuse to violate the freedoms of others.

A protectionist is a person who believes that being born in a particular family/ community/ nation gives him an automatic first claim on the property and services of his fellows, and that if they bypass him, he has the right to beat them up, physically and financially, through the use of goons, or the government. He is, in fact, no better than a thug.

—

Wired has an article on the man behind Minerva (via K). The US mission of spreading democracy worldwide has been a great success when it comes to South Korea-

Today anonymous dissenters are unlikely to be punished in democratic countries. But the law in South Korea makes it easy for the government to unmask troublesome writers. Every account on Daum and other major sites is associated with a national ID number. In Minerva’s case, Daum promptly handed over his IP address, which led the police directly to Park’s door.

[…]

For 103 days, the South Korean government held Park in a 50-square-foot cell at a Seoul detention center. Interrogators asked about his family, whether he had a girlfriend, whether he was a spy. He tried to keep calm, meeting with his volunteer legal team and studying the writings of the early-20th-century Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. “I felt so isolated,” he says. “They accused me of selling out my country. No! I’m not a spy. I wanted to help through my criticism. I had thought that South Korea was a democratic country. I felt as though my nation betrayed me.”

[…]

It is very difficult to find anyone in the South Korean government willing to talk about Minerva. The prosecutors say they can’t discuss the case until the appeal is over. Two spokespeople for the Korea Communication Standards Commission explain that they weren’t directly involved with the case, though they do have as many as 50 employees watching Daum and other sites at any given time. “We have to protect our children and our public,” one of them explains. “That’s the government’s job, to maintain a nice, clean Internet.” A spokesperson for the Ministry of Strategy and Finance says Park was beneath their notice. “If his theories were made by a publicly recognized institute, we might have some comment. And it is not appropriate for the government to comment on forecasts published by citizens on the Internet.” Months before, the head of the same ministry had argued that Minerva’s influence over exchange rates had cost billions. Now, however, the government had nothing to fear. Once again, as it had been during his whole previous life, Park could be treated like any other nobody.

Stay on the right side of people who are in a position to cause grave harm, especially those in government, and you will be okay. Otherwise you will be persecuted. That’s the lesson one learns from all this. If this is the situation in one democracy, this is what happens (via Reason) in, again, the freest country on the planet-

In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day.

The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site “not to disclose the existence of this request” unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.

[…]

Morrison replied in a one-sentence letter saying the subpoena had been withdrawn. Around the same time, according to the EFF, the group had a series of discussions with assistant U.S. attorneys in Morrison’s office who threatened Clair with possible prosecution for obstruction of justice if she disclosed the existence of the already-withdrawn subpoena — claiming it “may endanger someone’s health” and would have a “human cost.”

[…]

Bankston has written a longer description of the exchange of letters with the Justice Department, which he hopes will raise awareness of how others should respond to similar legal demands for Web logs, customer records, and compulsory silence. “Our fear is that this kind of bogus gag order is much more common than one would hope, considering they’re legally baseless,” Bankston says. “We’re telling this story in hopes that more providers will press back and go public when the government demands their silence.”

Some links on war and anarchy

Ram Jethmalani is living in Wonderland–

First, let me repeat, I do not suggest a war with China. Our membership of United Nations and adherence to its Charter puts it out of the list of available alternatives. Secondly, we are bound by a constitutional commitment under the 51st Article of our basic law to eschew war as an instrument of foreign policy. Thirdly, the same Article mandates that all international disputes should be resolved by the pacific method of arbitration.

We must, therefore, loudly proclaim our peaceful intentions and desire for an honourable and urgent settlement. Arbitration is the best method of resolution. International tribunals are available for this purpose. In 1947 we determined the boundaries of Bengal, Punjab and Assam by appointing a commission of three judges who did a remarkable job. We graciously accepted its awards and no difficulty of any kind has arisen since then.

Let us be clear that our weaker economic and military position in any event should put armed conflict out of our thoughts. The Charter however permits defensive arrangements between nations. We must endeavour to have such defense treaties with friendly democracies of the world. The US, the European Union, the Commonwealth countries, Russia and Japan are candidates for forging with them bilateral or multilateral alliances. This is nothing but practice of the old doctrine of the Balance of Power, a dominant principle of successful diplomacy for more than 200 years. When a powerful state poses threat of aggression and war, the only solution is a coalition of other powers who individually are not strong enough to stand up to the aggressor. We had a treaty of the same kind with the Soviet Union once. Let us then offer arbitration to the Chinese. If they reject it, India will have strengthened its moral case and created reliable friends to fight on our side….

—

The cold war between India and China got me thinking about a libertarian “philosophy of war.” Rothbard has some articles (look it up on mises.org) [edit: like this one], but his argument against nuclear weapons isn’t convincing. MAD is a concept that cannot be disposed of that easily. Apparently there’s one book on the subject by someone who’s been influenced by Mises and Hayek…

While looking up counterarguments to Timothy Sandefur’s critique of the Randian position on IP (if you can refute her, then you have refuted all valid arguments for ip—her’s is the only moral argument that I am aware of; utilitarians can take a hike), I came across this “discussion” (slugfest?) on anarchy at Diana Hsieh’s blog. One of the participants is Stephan Kinsella. I can both take and give “nasty.” But this really is something.

Two more interesting posts (plus comments) from the same blog, on anarchy” and war.

To any pacifists (“no war. ever.”) out there, the position is both immoral and impractical.