Google should be commended for its courage in standing up against Big Brother in China after announcing its plan to stop censoring search results on its google.cn platform — a condition imposed on the US Internet giant when it entered the Chinese market in 2006.
Two weeks have passed, however, and Google has yet to end censorship on its platform. This tells us that it is remains caught between its business interests in China and the universal principle of Internet freedom it should stand for.
This is not an easy decision, since the management of Google has to look after the interests of its shareholders, who are obviously keen on securing its share of the booming Internet market in China.
Ironically, if Google were to make good on its threat and pull out of the Chinese market for good, it could be doing the authorities a favor. In Beijing’s eyes, the Internet giant is a threat to its control of information on the Internet.
Nevertheless, Google should be reminded that if it were to rescind its threat and continue to play a role in China’s Internet censorship, its businesses outside China could be jeopardized, as Internet surfers may not brook its tainted integrity.
Google, therefore, should stop prevaricating and put an end to the censorship of search results in China — unless it has a backup plan that guarantees it can “go around” China’s efforts to censor the Internet, as Microsoft founder Bill Gates proposed on Tuesday.
The ultimate outcome, though, could be ugly: Should it refuse to go along with Beijing’s conditions, the search engine could be forced out of the market. If this happened, China would only have itself to blame, and it is hard to believe that the breakup would last very long.
Alongside its economic progress, China has every ambition to become a world leader. To achieve this goal, it will face external pressure to make its domestic market more fair and transparent and to democratize.
In the Google case, we have seen mounting support from the US government and European countries, which should stick to their guns until changes in China follow.
In the end, however, the biggest force behind China’s liberalization will come from within.
Unfortunately, there are very few signs at the moment to indicate that the Chinese public or businesses are taking advantage of the opportunity created by the Google spat to demand more Internet freedom. What we’ve witnessed, instead, is comments such as those by Alibaba Group Holding CEO Jack Ma (馬雲), who called Google a failure in China, arguing in Taipei last week that the conflict was nothing more that Google’s poor attempt at making excuses for its shortcomings.
In the world of global business, Alibaba is no match for Google. The largest online business-to-business marketplace in China makes less than US$150 million in quarterly revenues, hardly on par with Google’s US$5.9 billion in the third quarter last year.
Unless Alibaba wishes to limit its growth to China alone, it is bound to stumble if, as it seeks to expand, it continues to operate in a way that serves not its clients but an authoritarian regime. Now that is a recipe for failure.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
On Monday last week, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Raymond Greene met with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers to discuss Taiwan-US defense cooperation, on the heels of a separate meeting the previous week with Minister of National Defense Minister Wellington Koo (顧立雄). Departing from the usual convention of not advertising interactions with senior national security officials, the AIT posted photos of both meetings on Facebook, seemingly putting the ruling and opposition parties on public notice to obtain bipartisan support for Taiwan’s defense budget and other initiatives. Over the past year, increasing Taiwan’s defense budget has been a sore spot
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim