The following is a guest post by my friend Bill Stimson, whom I finally had the plesure of meeting this past weekend. The views of this post do not necessarily reflect those of the site owner.
————————————————————————————————————————————
Are China’s Rulers Illegal?
by William R. Stimson
Once again China’s government lurches wildly and unpredictably in the diametrically opposite direction to the one everybody agrees it should rationally be headed in during these times. Not unlike a ward of psychopaths intent on blocking out reality, the country’s leadership has abruptly announced that, effective immediately, it is further restricting foreign news within its borders.
What makes this current measure of particular interest is its exact wording. Among the categories of news to be made illegal is anything that may “endanger China’s national security, reputation and interests.” It’s common knowledge that what most endangers China’s national security, reputation and interests around the world today is the banning of information and the censorship of news within China. So are we to infer from this that China’s Communist Party and its state-run New China News Agency have now effectively been made illegal?
Or, in the same way China considers all discussion of Taiwan’s status to be an internal affair, i.e., a matter not subject to discussion – is it perhaps also the case that it considers the endangerment of its own national security, reputation and interests to be an internal affair, i.e. something that can be allowed to go on unimpeded as long as it is perpetuated by Party leaders themselves?
Although this may seem irrational to those unfamiliar with China’s form of government, the fact is that China’s rulers define their own security, reputation and interests to be what is good for China. Since, other than them, no one else in China has a voice, they are free to get away with this. Insofar as they are making it increasingly difficult for outside news to penetrate the country, it’s not hard for them to win over the Chinese people to their way of seeing things.
So, even if now, according to these new measures that have been put into effect, China’s rulers are, in fact, illegal – nobody in China except the rulers themselves will have any way to find this out. It’s understandable why it’s so important to them to keep it this way. We can expect further crackdowns in the future on all kinds of news media, the arresting and harassing of even more journalists, a further tightening of the regulations governing Web sites and online forums, the mobilization of many tens of thousands more government workers to screen and block Web content, and the continued firing of editors in publications that resist official control.
In this one area, China is back to something like a Cultural Revolution. This looks bad, which is yet another reason why its leaders are scrambling to cover it all up, no matter how much harm this does to China and the 1.3 billion Chinese.
—————————————————————————————————————-
William R. Stimson is a writer who lives in Taiwan. More of his writing can be found at www.billstimson.com
1
By chris
not to mention cracking down on teachers, because we are so dangerous
September 13, 2006 @ 8:56 am | Comment
2
By Frank
A diatribe that makes little sense and little difference. I do not expect that it can change anybodys mind.
Who should decide if a government is legitimate or not? China haters like this guy or 1.3 B Chinese citizens?
September 13, 2006 @ 10:10 am | Comment
3
By J. from the Granite Studio
Granted, the law passed earlier this year restricting coverage of “sudden events” was not a good sign. Still, I wonder if there might be more to these new regulations than ‘simple’ media censorship.
The blog Silicon Hutong has an interesting take on the “new” rules that were just announced. Apologies for the long excerpt.
——————————————————
“The Tea-Leaf readers will look at this, nod their heads sagely, and in hushed tones suggest that this is a part of Hu Jintao’s ongoing effort to deepen his hold over the media as he continues his soft purge of Jiang Zemin supporters left in government. That might be true in part, but as with most things in China, that is at best only part of the real reason (and possibly only a political fig-leaf for the action.)
In reality, I suspect this is as much about money as politics.
The Xinhua News Agency has for a long time been the owner of a dying business model. The agency’s power was its monopoly over wire service distribution in China, but its ability to retain this monopoly has been slowly weakening as China’s media organizations build political power of their own, and as the sheer number of media outlets grows. There are nearly 10,000 publications in China, and some of the parent organizations – The People’s Daily Group in Beijing, The Wenhui-Xinmin Group in Shanghai, China Central Television, and a host of others – no longer feel the need to work through middlemen, and have (they believe) the political air cover to build their own relationships.
Add this to the growing number of Chinese who get their news from online media (many of whom reprint foreign wire service stories from other Chinese publications), and Xinhua is watching it’s biggest cash cow waste away in a dry pasture. Despite Xinhua’s efforts to diversify its business (with the purchase of AFX last year, the rechristened Xinhua Financial News became China’s global newswire), the core business is still its role as a domestic news service, and the most valuable content it (re)sells is what comes in from overseas.
The current policy announcement is thus clearly a Xinhua gambit to regain its revenue stream. The political justification for the measure is mostly a red herring – any news organization in China legitimate enough to deal directly with Xinhua would run a politically sensitive story at its own risk anyway, and the informal sources for outside information available to the media are manifold. Xinhua’s role as a critical filter for sensitive information may have been viable in the past, but it is no longer.
The fact that this was directed at the newswires, and the bold stretch into Hong Kong (the Taiwan thing was also a diversion) together suggest that the primary driver behind this is Xinhua’s revenue stream.”
——————————————————
For those interested, the full posting can be found at:
http://homepage.mac.com/dwbmbeijing/iblog/SiHu/C5302445/E20060910214356/index.html
September 13, 2006 @ 10:28 am | Comment
4
By Peter
Frank, I think most people here would agree with me that it should be China’s citizens who decide whether or not their government is legitimate. Unfortunately they are not able to do this at present because if they were to decide that the government was illegitimate, and they wanted a different one, the government would reply with bullets and tanks.
September 13, 2006 @ 4:33 pm | Comment
5
By Jessica Copeland
Peter, can American citizens decide whether or not their government is legitimat?
September 13, 2006 @ 5:43 pm | Comment
6
By Peter
Yes Jessica, this happens on a regular basis in America and most other developed nations. Every few years an election is held, during which people decide whether they want to continue to confer legitimacy on the government of the day or withdraw its legitimacy and form a new one.
This is a stark contrast with the situation in China, where if for any reason people are unhappy with their leaders their only choice is to start a revolution. Of course the present Chinese government is fully prepared for this, having taken power in exactly this way, which is where the bullets and tanks I mentioned earlier come in.
September 13, 2006 @ 6:51 pm | Comment
7
By Jessica Copeland
Peter, I find it is laughable.
I understand your passion for pushing democracy to China.
However, don’t you realize that you do not have any power in election at all?
No, I am not talking about mathematical statiscs at this time.
Look, you pick or not pick a politician from a list – which is handed down to you by the authority.
What power do you have?
Besides, why should anyone believe in the lies of any campainging politician?
What a childish fool you are?
Democracy is a fools joke for brainwashed children.
September 13, 2006 @ 7:13 pm | Comment
8
By Jes
Quote Peter “If you were (a spy), you’d be too busy tracking down old men, …poets, cheeky reporters, …”
I have no clue what Chinese spies are doing, have you? If you have, tell me how you learn about these? Your statement reflects the gross misinformation fed to you by the biased western media. Are you really brainless to such a degree?
For your argument on translation, you are not making any valid point. Remember, you are trying to dismiss my argument of “translation does not work”. You set up one example of Lin Yutan and then attacked Mao. You forgot what you were talking about. You know, Colin Powel dated a few white women, does that mean there is no racism against the blacks in the US?
You also misread my comment on “Mao is a master of Chinese history.” I say that because Mao read the complete 24 books of Chinese history and the first book of history by Simaqian. He learned the art to approach politics with soft power. Unlike, Stalin, he never directly ordered any mass murder. What you are accusing Mao is a result of poor economic policies – like these happening today in democratic thirdworld nations in Eastern Europe, Africa, Central and South Americas.
Peter, if you are a Chinese expert, you should know Mao’s last wife Jiang Qing is the real designer of culture revolution. Mao was an old dummy completely controlled by the beautiful and fiery young woman. I say you have poor understanding of China. Do you see it in this case? Besides, culture revolution was way way overblown in the west. Compared to the lengthy war era those generations grew up in, culture revolution was nothing. It is more like the McCarthy purge in the US, except for that it is led by youth.
It is just as laughable for you to claim Young Pioneers are indoctrinated with communism. What can I say? You never experienced this yourself. You speculate these organizations by their name. You do not understand that Chinese culture profoundly rejects childhood indoctrination. You do not understand it.
Quote Peter “if Chinese society is so fundamentally open, why does the CCP need to run an army of web censors and a Great Firewall to keep the Chinese people from reading”
You are talking in cycles. The Great Firewall is your imagination. Then you use it to support your argument. I have explained the reason of Chinese censorship to you in the first 2 posts above. Being open does not mean we have to take malicious abuses. Remember the Asian Financial Turmoil in the 80s. One American congressman caused the whole thing by exploiting the freedom of Asian financial institutions. How can we deal with such malign westerners? You think about it.
Peter if you want to show me how important openness is to American and Western culture, then you should honestly talk with me about Waco Holocaust, Cincinnati Race Riot, LA Race Riots, and the latest book of Mumia – my struggle. Are you really open?
September 13, 2006 @ 7:16 pm | Comment
9
By Peter
I understand your passion for pushing democracy to China.
Don’t worry, I don’t have the power to “push” democracy on China. All I can do is talk about it. I do think it would be great for China to have a modern political system to go with its modernising economy however, and representative democracy is the best political system available right now. It may not solve every problem, but it’s far better than all the alternatives which have been tried so far.
Look, you pick or not pick a politician from a list ? which is handed down to you by the authority.
Which authority would that be, Jess? An important part of any true democracy is the ability for people who want to, to set up their own political parties. Parties themselves choose who will stand for election, there is no “higher authority”. Also, people can and do stand as independants, with no affiliation to a party.
What power do you have?
Individually, one person’s vote doesn’t have a lot of power admittedly. But collectively, the votes of the population determine which people get to rule the country. It also means that the right to rule can be withdrawn.
Besides, why should anyone believe in the lies of any campainging politician?
If you don’t trust yourself to judge politicians, based on their performance and your knowledge of their character, who do you trust to do it for you? Are you happy to hand that responsibility to other people who claim to be better than you?
Democracy is a fools joke for brainwashed children.
Communism is a fake religion for wreckers and haters. But the biggest joke is on those who continue to believe in it while the government of China no longer does.
September 13, 2006 @ 9:28 pm | Comment
10
By richard
Once again, “Jess” is a troll and one of the most infamous. You will never get anywhere. If I could have, I’d have deleted its posts before anyone replied. Since the dialogue is already started, I’ll leave it be, but please, don’t think you can seriously engage with this creature. If you don’t believe me, check out its web site.
September 13, 2006 @ 9:41 pm | Comment
11
By Peter
I have no clue what Chinese spies are doing, have you? If you have, tell me how you learn about these?
Of course I don’t know exactly what China’s spies are doing, but I do know that, among other things, the activities of religious groups are of interest to the Chinese government so it’s a good bet that they are monitored. People have been arrested for posting critical essays and poetry on the Internet. Do the people who detected that and acted on it count as spies? I guess it’s as good a name as any.
You also misread my comment on ?Mao is a master of Chinese history.? I say that because Mao read the complete 24 books of Chinese history and the first book of history by Simaqian. He learned the art to approach politics with soft power.
“soft power”, haha. That’s a good one.
Unlike, Stalin, he never directly ordered any mass murder. What you are accusing Mao is a result of poor economic policies ? like these happening today in democratic thirdworld nations in Eastern Europe, Africa, Central and South Americas.
One of my Chinese teachers was one of his victims. He never missed an opportunity to criticise him, or use him as a negative example. I don’t know what happened to him, but the fate of university professors who were accused of being “rightists” included beatings and imprisonment. I believe there were also executions during the CR. Are you going to tell me that that was due to bad economic policy?
Peter, if you are a Chinese expert, you should know Mao?s last wife Jiang Qing is the real designer of culture revolution. Mao was an old dummy completely controlled by the beautiful and fiery young woman.
LOL, during the CR you might have had your head kicked in for saying that. But I don’t believe it for a minute. Are you telling me that the military genius who outwitted the Japanese and Jiang Jieshi had his brains turned to jelly by an actress?
…. You are talking in cycles. The Great Firewall is your imagination.
Are you claiming that in fact, the Chinese government does not attempt to prevent sites run by F*L*G, pro-tibet organisations, the DPP, and news organisations from being seen by Chinese internet users?
Then you use it to support your argument. I have explained the reason of Chinese censorship to you in the first 2 posts above. Being open does not mean we have to take malicious abuses. Remember the Asian Financial Turmoil in the 80s. One American congressman caused the whole thing by exploiting the freedom of Asian financial institutions. How can we deal with such malign westerners? You think about it.
I think that if China imagines its financial system to be vulnerable to abuse by 1 American congressman in the way you describe, it must be even more shaky than is claimed.
Peter if you want to show me how important openness is to American and Western culture, then you should honestly talk with me about Waco Holocaust, Cincinnati Race Riot, LA Race Riots, and the latest book of Mumia ? my struggle. Are you really open?
I’m not really interested in those subjects, and they might not be all that relevant here given that this website is mostly about China. But if you want somebody to debate them with you I’m sure you’ll have no trouble finding someone. I just did a web search for Mumia and found hundreds of sites. There are plenty of people in America who seem to think his conviction was politically motivated and want him freed. For all I know, they may be right. At least the American political system is open enough to provide a space for these people.
September 13, 2006 @ 10:07 pm | Comment
12
By Frank
Peter,
I do think Chinese citizens have some decision power on the government’s legitimacy, at least by your standard. People can express their thought through different ways. Public opinion can be felt and are frequently followed by the Chinese government because they do feel the heat. They ARE subject to Chinese citizens’ judgement, though much less effective than elections in democratic countries.
September 13, 2006 @ 10:15 pm | Comment
13
By Peter
Frank,
You are right that Chinese citizens do have some influence on their government’s behaviour. However they can’t truly confer legitimacy on the government if there is no choice involved. Choosing a government also implies being able to dismiss a government.
September 13, 2006 @ 10:26 pm | Comment
14
By Frank
Well, Peter,
Can US citizens do that? I don’t think so. What they can do is elect somebody else, but keep the government intact. What would you expect if a significant group of US citizens consider their GOVERNMENT(not administration) illegitimate? Though it’s highly unlikely as they are as well brainwashed as Chinese, if not more. I guess only a revolution can solve it, same as in China.
September 13, 2006 @ 10:37 pm | Comment
15
By Peter
Richard,
I’ve already spent more time replying to Jessica than I really should have, so I’ll leave him alone now.
September 13, 2006 @ 10:41 pm | Comment
16
By richard
Not true, Frank. With enough support, the American people if they so chose could enact changes to the Constitution and have the government changed. It would be hard to do and could only happen if the people elected enough legislators who wanted to do it. But it could definitely be done. Getting the constitution altered is rough going, as Bush found out with his repellent anti-gay marriage amendment. But if there is enough public support and the people elect representatives who are on their side, it can happen. The beauty and the peril of democracy.
September 13, 2006 @ 10:50 pm | Comment
17
By Peter
Frank,
Do you mean changing the political system, eg directly electing the president instead of using the electoral college? I expect it would be very difficult, even with overwhelming support.
Or do you mean choosing to not recognise the US government, eg succession? I’m not sure America would ever allow that to happen, although Canada gave the citizens of Ontario that choice in 1980.
September 13, 2006 @ 10:58 pm | Comment
18
By Peter
Sorry, that should have been Quebec, not Ontario.
September 13, 2006 @ 11:10 pm | Comment
19
By dingle
Frank,
No system is ever perfect for ANY person. Is the US a true Democracy? Not really. If we could get a couple of more parties to vie for power then it would be pretty damn close. Until then???
What it comes down to is what works between a government and a society. This is important: to ask what is effective and what is not.
To compare the US and China I give the environment as an example. In 1962 there were some serious problems with the environment in the US, similar to, but less sever than, China today. It had reached a breaking point and something had to be done. In that year a woman, Rachel Carson, published a book called “Silent Spring” that scientifically and poetically explained and exposed just how our earth was being poisoned. She was vilified and slandered by big businesses in the chemical industry and those within the government and they wanted to stop her, but they had no way to silence her. Her book was a huge sucess, and was the start of the modern environmental movement. Citizen outcry led to real and lasting changes. It should be noted that she herself worked for the government.
Today, China’s environment is more than aweful. It is killing people all over the country every day. To say that China’s environment is not so bad because every country has environmnental problems is to be ignorant beyond belief. The state of China’s environment has far surpassed the breaking point, and yet where is China’s Rachel Carson? Where is the voice that will save farmers crops, protect unborn children from severe deformity, and prevent the millions of cases of cancer that is China’s near future. There are hundreds of Rachel Carsons in China, if not thousands, but one after another they are silenced by a very scared CCP.
The relationship between the CCP and Chinese society is disfuntional in many ways, but in the case of the environment, which affects all people, it is disfunctional beyond belief. It is a complete failure on every level.
No system is perfect. There are systems that work when it is necessary that they work and those that don’t. Which one would you choose.
September 14, 2006 @ 4:07 am | Comment
20
By Chip
For the crybabies who don’t believe America is a democracy, can you show me a better example? hmm?? didn’t think so.
September 14, 2006 @ 8:31 am | Comment
21
By nausicaa
Wait, America [i]is[/i] a democracy (and only idiots would argue otherwise), but whether it’s the best is highly arguable. Personally I like the Scandinavian democratic model.
September 14, 2006 @ 9:07 am | Comment
22
By Jessica Copeland
Peter,
Are you also telling us “party represents people”? You know that sounds awfully similar to the CPC preaching. If Americans are really free to stand as independents, then WHY do the Democrats and Republians vehemently suppress the establishment of a third part – either be it green or far right? What is the economic/class makeup of the US two parties? Do they reflect the US people (or do they reflect the dominating Protestant church, money and the giant corporations)? Why does every US politician receive more than 80% of their campaign money from the top 5% wealthy Americans? If you take money from the rich, are you still free and equal to all? I don’t trust NO politicians. The whole system of democracy is based on lies and money. It is completely wrong. Only brainwashed fools and button-pushed churchgoers go to vote. If the voting power is collectively achieved, do you realize you have no power mathematically as an individual? Do you know why minorities are so devastatively suppressed in democratic societies? Do you know why race tension is so high in Europe, America, Australia and New Zeland? Do you know why Christian White radicals are in power starting from the days of Adolf Hitler? Democracy is a majority dictatorship. Who guarantees you that the majority view is the best, the safe or the correct? Democracy may work for small and uni-ethnical nations like the Christian Scandinavians. However if you open your eyes and just look, from Eastern Europe, Africa, Central and South Americas to Polynesian islands; from Congo, Columbia to Haiti, East Timor, ordinary citizens are suffering in poverty, horror and chaos directly caused by democracy.
September 14, 2006 @ 10:28 am | Comment
23
By Chip
Nausicaa, I don’t know much about the Scandinavian countries’ politics (though I know the standard of living there is quite nice). Isn’t it like America’s, but more parties? I thought both systems are essentially the same, only American citizens are currently satisfied with only two major parties. Am I wrong?
September 14, 2006 @ 12:38 pm | Comment
24
By Dingle
Jes,
Your example of Global warming highlights my point exactly. As I said before it is the relationship between a government and a society that matters, not the finer points of the government structure itself.
In China you have “top engineers” and people at the highest level in government advocating a reduction in CO2 and other atmospheric pollutants. The reality however is that pollution all over the country is SKYROCKETING. They talk and talk but are utterly incapapable of creating change. They are failing. At the same time they are silencing all people within their society who may be able to come up with an effective solution, because such a solution would undermine the CCPs authority. This brings us back to the original point of this thread of the ills of censorship.
In the US you have people at the highest levels confidently asserting that global warming is a hoax. At the same time you have state governors, city mayors and business leaders coming up with their own solutions and making their own commitments to slowing global warming and making a real measurable difference. You have movies and books and magazine articles that expose the president’s view on global warming as uninformed drivvle. You have people creating their own change when their government is unable or unwilling to do so.
The difference here stems from freedom. Freedom to say what you want and let your voice be heard. I don’t care what form of political system you advocate, without free and open debate you are going to continue to see the problems within China deepen unitl something truly awful happens. The tightening of censorship in China is very very troubling.
September 14, 2006 @ 2:26 pm | Comment