When hearing accusations that the US is pushing its values onto China and thereby attempting to sneak a democratic Trojan Horse through the “Great Firewall of China,” or trying to contain or weakenen China, we need to first look at the facts.
The US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, although obviously not unbiased, is attempting to do just that. Although most politically sensitive foreign media are blocked in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) — note that the recent political upheaval in far away Egypt was heavily censored in China — the PRC’s state-run media have a free hand in the US and other open societies. This begs the question what values is the US able to force on Chinese that China is unable to force on Americans?
Let’s face it, the idea that there are universal values and rights that all individuals possess is a value itself. Likewise, the idea that there are no universal values and rights and that each nation’s situation, history, culture, and political and economic systems are particular and not subject to any universal understandings is also a value.
Similarly, the values of free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, freedom of the press, and so on, are also values, even though such values are usually attached to some form or other of universal rights. To deny or curtail these values for whatever reason is also a value judgment even though such a judgment can be explained away as merely a pragmatic policy issue — for example exercising these freedoms could be deemed to threaten economic development and modernization.
The real issue for the US as it attempts to scale back the Chinese information attack is not the information itself but the way in which Beijing seeks to control the information allowed into China. That both value systems have their merit is undeniable; however, when only one set of values is allowed in one nation, but both can be freely discussed in other countries — and the former nation is one of the major sources of information (read propaganda) for one value system — can this not also be viewed as one nation pushing its values onto another?
The whole issue is skewed in China’s favor — and what is more, Beijing knows it. By playing off fears of US hegemony, containment and peaceful democratic evolution, the Chinese have been able to use the information war as a weapon of the weak to contain and threaten the strong. By flooding a nation with information, one hinders the free flow of other information; by blocking information oneself, one is essentially unaffected.
I applaud the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for attempting to deal with this issue. In a report due to be released today, a copy of which was obtained by Agence France Presse prior to its official release, the committee stated its goals as fighting censorship in China, sending more US students to study in China, reallocating funding for information and public diplomacy programs away from the US State Department, and opening up more cultural institutes in China.
According to Media Daily News, the report deals with issues regarding Beijing’s “routin[e] jamm[ing]” of the two US-funded networks, Radio Free Asia and Voice of America, and that while this was occurring, “Chinese state media were rapidly expanding in the United States, with Xinhua news agency opening a prominent office in New York’s Times Square.”
The report also makes reference to the prospect of increasing competition between the US and China which could, over the next 50 years, resemble the competition between the US and the former Soviet Union during the Cold War.
A letter accompanying the report written by the top Republican on the committee, Senator Richard Lugar, states: “We [the United States] are being overtaken in this area [public diplomacy] by China, which is able to take advantage of America’s open system to spread its message in many different ways, while using its fundamentally closed system to stymie US efforts.”
Even the more than 70 Confucius Institutes in the US came under scrutiny, not only because they are supervised by the PRC’s Ministry of Education, but also because the US has only five similar establishments in all of China, all of which are open libraries.
The report is a step forward for US public diplomacy policy. However, the way in which the US has pushed public diplomacy in the direction of the PRC needs to be changed. No longer should words like “war,” “winning” and “competition” be used.
Instead, the message to China when explaining why the US is suddenly putting more emphasis on public diplomacy should be wrapped in language the Chinese cannot resist — that is, their own.
Given that China doe not allow the US to freely disseminate information in China, the US should complain that Beijing is attempting to contain it and force Chinese values on US citizens. This can come with a declaration that this situation makes the flow of information situation unfair, and the US government can then investigate the viability of Confucius Institutes on its territory — not to mention Xinhua news agency’s office in New York.
In case one thinks that this would in some way be unconstitutional, note that we will all still be able to access uncensored Chinese media via the Internet, whereas Western media companies and social networking sites lack even this.
In short, the tactics the US has been using to fend off the information and public diplomacy “threat” from China are not working, and this should be a lesson to all other open democratic societies. Instead of confronting the Chinese openly, which would be met with resistance, a new tactic should be adopted: fighting fire with fire.
Nathan Novak studies China and the Asia-Pacific region with a particular focus on cross-strait relations at National Sun Yat-sen University.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
RSS