Internet Freedoms in China - Part 1 of 3

Possible Reality or Distant Illusion?

The battle between search engine and multimedia giant Google and the People's Republic of China over the restriction of internet access is of enormous proportions. In terms of technology, the consequences are obvious, as Google would lose a potential client base of over 1 billion people while Chinese search engines would soar in popularity and profitability. The ramifications of the Google vs China battle on international relations are less obvious and unpredictable, given the recently building tension between the US and China. The tension can be attributed to many conflicts of interest, but no doubt has been aggravated by issues such as the hacking of Google servers traced to China and more recently,the meeting between President Obama and The Dalai Lama.

PART 1

The battle between search engine and multimedia giant Google and the People's Republic of China over the restriction of internet access is of enormous proportions. In terms of technology, the consequences are obvious, as Google would lose a potential client base of over 1 billion people while Chinese search engines would soar in popularity and profitability. The ramifications of the Google vs China battle on international relations are less obvious and unpredictable, given the recently building tension between the US and China. The tension can be attributed to many conflicts of interest, but no doubt has been aggravated by issues such as the hacking of Google servers traced to China and more recently,the meeting between President Obama and The Dalai Lama. 

The People's Republic of China and the Republic of Singapore are both authoritarian governments, although to widely varying degrees. China bases its core principles in Communism and sometimes socialism, while Singapore is a parliamentary democracy whose constitution is based on English common law and British Indian law. The authoritarian aspects of both governments are evident in their control over their citizens' freedom of expression. Specifically, both Singapore and China, despite the variance in the size of their populations, share similar positions in their policies toward internet use and access. One crucial determinant of the similar approaches used by both is the fact that they are relatively young nations, based on their independence from recent colonists. China only began political and economic reform in the 1980s after the death of Mao Zedong, and Singapore attained independence from Britain in 1963 and separation from Malaysia in 1965. 

China and Singapore needed to determine the fastest and most effective methods of industrializing and advancing to the economic heights of countries such as the US and Europe. These decisions would've been more simple and straightforward for a democracy; build telecommunications infrastructure, and open up access freely to all citizens and enterprises alike, in accordance with the democratic right to freedom of speech. For authoritative governments however, balancing the introduction of far-reaching technology such as the internet, with the desired level of control over the people has proved to be less simple. This paper will examine the approaches taken by both China and Singapore, in their attempt to strike a balance between technological industrialization and limitation of civil liberty in regard to internet access and use. The purpose of this paper is to understand why these countries have chosen their respective policies, and to make note of the consequences. 

China is a strictly authoritarian state, with a Communist Party backed by the Constitution, whose priorities include social order, public security and national security. Public opposition to the Communist People's Party (CPC) is disallowed, as well the expression of any other information that may be deemed subversive to the CPC (Hassid). The range of topics considered to be subversive is not exclusively defined, nonetheless scholar Jongpil Chung suggests as a guide, the Four Cardinal Principles. Introduced by Deng Xiaoping in 1978 as a response to the 'Democracy Wall" erected in Beijing, these principles represent key stances of the Communist Party Doctrine. The Four Cardinal Principles are socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the leadership of the Communist Party, and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought (Chung 732). It is noteworthy that while the CPC sets social order as one of its goals, its method of achieving this is by repressing political expression, and using the Four Cardinal Principles as a shield. The internet poses a challenge to the repression of political discourse, due to its unsurpassed collective and disseminating capabilities in regards to information. The potential benefits of advancing industrial and commercial development through the internet outweighed the threats perceived by the Chinese government nevertheless, and construction of an information infrastructure was begun in the 1990s.

  

Singapore has a unicameral parliamentary system of government, whereby there is only one level of government- federal. The simplicity of the Singaporean government system is considerably distinct from the Chinese government, which has 3 levels of government, and a notoriously large bureaucracy. Further on, we will see how the structure of a government system has an effect on the level of control wielded by it. The Media Development Authority (MDA) of Singapore is charged with regulation of the media industry and its development of global communications (mda.gov.sg). The priorities of MDA internet policies appear to be ethnic and religious harmony, as well as socio-political stability and national security. Singapore's Internet Code of Practice mostly focuses on harmful material like pornography, and defines relatively succinct boundaries on socio-political expression. Section 4(2) g of the 

Singapore Internet Code of Conduct "prohibits material that ‘glorifies, incites or endorses ethnic, racial or religious hatred, strife or intolerance'" (Gomez 135). With its uniquely diverse population, it is evident that Singapore aims for egalitarian treatment of all races, but the most liberal of scholars might argue that those who do not share in this value, are being silenced. Optimistically however, Singapore's focus on ethnic and religious harmony eases the pressure on political censorship, at least in comparison to China. In the 1990’s, Singapore was on its way to becoming an Asian Tiger, and began to build its own information infrastructure.

 

China's approach to entering the information age was to embark on a series of projects known as the Golden Projects. They included the Golden Bridge Project, Golden Card Project and the Golden Gate Project. The main goals of the latter two were e-banking and e-trade, while the Golden Bridge Project was intended to create a public network that would link the state ministries with state-owned enterprises (SOEs) across China ( Chung 732). As early as 1991, Singapore launched a project known as IT2000 with the goal of converting the state it into "the vision of an 'Intelligent Island' where information technology is further and better applied to enhance the quality of life of the population" (Hung 9). Both countries are bringing their projects into fruition, with Singapore receiving a No. 4 ranking in global IT from the World Economic Forum ,and China leading the world with 298 million internet users. While the plans for commercial development are becoming realities for these governments, the freedom of expression has been held back from progression.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wang, Stephanie. "China | OpenNet Initiative." ONI Home Page | OpenNet Initiative. 15 June 2009. Web. 20 Oct. 2009. <http://opennet.net/research/profiles/china#footnote38_1j5nfzr>.

Chung, Jongpil. "Comparing Online Activities in China and South Kore." Asian Survey 8.5 (2008): 727-51. Ww.ucpressjournals.com. University of California. Web. 20 Oct. 2009. <http://ucpressjournals.com/journal.asp?j=as>.

Gomez, James. "Dumbing Down Democracy: Trends in Internet Regulation, Surveillance and Control in Asia." Pacific Journalism Review 10.2 (2004): 130-50. Auckland University of Technology. Web. 20 Oct. 2009. <http://www.pjreview.info/>.

Hassid, Jonathan. "Controlling the Chinese Media: An Uncertain Business." Asian Survey 48.3 (2008): 414-30. Web. 19 Oct. 2009. <http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/pqdlink?index=3&did=1507544931&SrchMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1256691609&clientId=4305&aid=1>.

Kalathil, Shanthi. "Dot.com for Dictators." Foreign Policy 135 (2003): 42-49. Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. Web. 19 Oct. 2009. <www.jstor.org>.

"The Media and Asia." Speech. World Affairs Council. Los Angeles. 19 Oct. 1998. Los Angeles World Affairs Council. Web. 19 Oct. 2009. <http://www.lawac.org/speech/pre%20sept%2004%20speeches/yew.html>.

"Media Development Authority - About Us." Media Development Authority - Home. Media Development Authority, 29 July 2009. Web. 19 Oct. 2009. <http://www.mda.gov.sg/wms.www/aboutus.aspx>.

"Press Freedom Index 2009." Reporters Sans Frontières. Reporters Sans Frontières. Web. 19 Oct. 2009. <http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html>.

"World Economic Forum - Global Information Technology Report." World Economic Forum - Home. Ed. World Economic Forum. 26 Mar. 2009. Web. 20 Oct. 2009. <http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Information%20Technology%20Report/index.htm>.

Yang, Gubon. "The Coevolution of the Internet and Civil Society in China." Asian Survey 43.3 (2003): 405-22. 2 Dec. 2003. Web. 19 Oct. 2009. <http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdf/10.1525/as.2003.43.3.405>.

Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet - Part 2 of 3

RESOURCE NATIONALISM;
A NEW DIRECTION.. OR ANOTHER FORM OF PRIVATIZATION?

So it goes that..
Natural resources have historically propelled nations into hysteria over acquisition of rich lands and turned men into greedy gold-diggers. Given a state government's control over military forces, can a government, {whether democratically or otherwise elected} be trusted by its people to resist the temptation to use military force in pursuit of foreign energy? Resource nationalism entrusts many responsibilities to a nation’s governors, especially in an age when the growth and success of a nation is symbiotic with its production and consumption of energy. The decisions made by those entrusted to, could lead to either the protection of a nation’s resources as exemplified by Vladimir Putin, or the advancement of personal agenda, as is evident with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. To apply military power to forcefully obtain foreign energy and to endanger civilians is to misapply a nation’s resources and interests. There is worldwide stipulation that President Bush's main motive for seizing control of Baghdad was to either directly obtain energy resources or to break the political and economical systems down, only to play a controlling/highly influential part in the rebuilding of Iraq's national oil legislation. This stipulation is backed by documents in The National Energy Policy passed by the Bush administration in 2001, specifically calling for "a more assertive government role in helping American energy companies overcome barriers to investment in foreign oil and gas ventures"(24).

It would seem that the efforts of the government in national energy management would be directed towards finding alternatives to foreign energy sources in-state, rather than finding methods to ‘bargain’ for more foreign energy. Later, in his 2006 State of the Union address, as Klare notes, Bush acknowledged America's addiction to oil and called for accelerated efforts in finding energy alternatives, although government spending tells a different story. While former President Bush may have spoken these words, the country’s military presence in Baghdad spoke louder about the interests of the administration. Even worse, the administration rallied public support under the guise of protecting Americans and the rest of the world from a tyrant hoarding weapons of mass destruction. The invasion required a substantial deployment of troops from the U.S. and its allies, some of whom remain in the oil rich lands of the Middle East. The average American or British citizen may understand the need for oil and even be aware of its diminishing supply, but they may not have supported the invasion of Iraq had they known that their country was invading another and imposing its political system on its people, with the intent to unfairly rob it of its natural resources.

Perhaps they would have, we may never know, for a vote is not democratic if it is based on misinformation. The lesson in this case is that resource nationalism could simply be a misleading term to describe state robbery and misapplication of national power to obtain natural resources, and that those who govern must be held up to the revealing light in whenever the governance is questionable.

Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet brings to mind the natural resource curse described by Joseph Stiglitz in Making Globalization Work, as having afflicted nations such as Nigeria, Venezuela and Sudan. These nations, although rich in natural resources, are populated by a majority of poverty-stricken people. The profits from the country’s boundless resources are distributed among corrupt government officials or the brutally selfish insurgents who overthrow them, or are carted back out in personal foreign investments and to Swiss bank accounts. To the low and middle class citizen of any country that is wealthy in natural resources, the biggest cause of concern is whether those who manage the wealth of a shared land will also share the harvest.

Ironically, the same laws created to give a person the right to own property, maybe the same laws that allows a tycoon or supersized institution to acquire all the land on which natural resources sit. Nonetheless, one can be hopeful, that if the resource nationalism were in place, the state would be inclined to distribute the profits somewhat equitably, rather than relying on the unlikely philanthropy of the private hands that seize the resources for their sole interests.


More on Michael Klare

TBC...

Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet- Part 1 of 3

RESOURCE NATIONALISM;

A NEW DIRECTION.. OR ANOTHER FORM OF PRIVATIZATION?

 "Four centuries ago, as the conquistadors roamed through South America, it was the search for gold that drove the clash of empires. A hundred years later, as the great powers fought over the West Indies, it was the quest for land that could gro sugarcane. Today, the key commodity is oil"- Adam Hochschild, author of King Leopold's Ghost

 I will review :

Introduction:
On January 2 , 2008, the price of oil hit $100 a barrel after flirting with that milestone high for months in the previous year. Today, October 12 2009 at 11:30am EST, the price of oil is $73.30 a barrel. It has been a painfully slow decline for American commuters and travelers alike, a period that brought about new vocabulary such as the 'staycation". While the price has indeed fallen, oil consumers worldwide should not be lulled into a sense of comfort- the decline is temporary and price hikes will be the norm. Current geopolitical affairs are characterized by battles between the major powers over this ever dissipating non-renewable resource. Klare's admonition is stark, and appropriate - the world must cooperatively reduce its consumption of non-renewable resources and redirect the balance of world power to a more productive political goal, or battles will escalate into wars, in which all eventually be losers.

Part 1
America is addicted to oil, and the rest of the world is to varying degrees, just as physically dependent on oil and other natural resources. These resources are necessary to sustain what Michael Klare calls “the international sinews of the global economy; planes, trains, trucks & ships that carry goods and people from one region to another". Developed world powers continue to rely on the same energy sources they discovered decades ago, while rising powers demand vast amounts of energy from old and new sources across the world. Add to these factors the proven diminishing supply of resources in most of the world’s reserves, and an exponential equation is formed. The solution is the fastidious and equitable management of the current and future supplies of energy and a truly collective effort towards developing alternative and renewable sources of energy. It may take several pages worth of calculations to arrive at this solution, depending on who is doing the math.

This begs the question, who should manage the energy? Klare brings up the trend of resource nationalism, describing it as “the management of energy flows in accordance with vital state interests” (23). State management of energy could indeed prove to be the better choice for energy administration as compared to the private industry; however, the government may not be a perfect fit, as some questions beg to be asked. Supported by Michael Klare, we can attempt to determine the challenges that resource nationalism would face and hopefully identify potential candidates for this form of energy management.
Despite the proliferation of democracy across borders through globalization, there remain some countries which have yet to adopt more egalitarian principles. So what are the implications of state-governed energy if the government came to power in less than democratic methods?

A government that does not prescribe to democratic or at least egalitarian practices likely does not value the rights of its citizens, and can be expected to follow up on previously used unjust methods to secure a nation’s profits for select elite. Such is the unfortunate demise of many third-world countries whose governments are riddled with corruption and whose officials are unchallenged by the masses due to the threat of incarceration, and even death. The severity of the crisis in America’s financial sector that has led to a nation-wide recession can partly be ascribed to the extent to which international finance powerhouses roamed Wall Street untamed. To the same effect, governments in control of a nation’s energy resources could bloat with power and rule unchecked, especially if power-hogging is the norm.
 
American investors, with all the unlimited knowledge and democratic freedoms, still found themselves helpless at the discovery of cooked books and deceivingly profitable instruments. The lesson to be gleaned from this is that an entity of power, whether private or public, must be checked and balanced in some way by its people- those who are the basis for the entity’s operation. Resource naturalism would not be a good fit for a non-democratic society, even if that society appears to be functioning sufficiently. The true test of a sufficient society is its ability to resolve issues when they arise, and the extent of resolution is reduced when the majority of the people are powerless.

More on Michael Klare

TBC..