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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS