For months now, the news about the news in China has been awful. Carrying out its vow to tighten controls over what it calls "propaganda," the government of President Hu Jintao (
More noticeably, the government has clamped down on the Internet, closing blogger sites, filtering e-mail messages and Web sites for banned words and tightening controls on text messages.
Last year, Yahoo was criticized for revealing the identity of an Internet journalist, Shi Tao (師濤), who was subsequently jailed. On Wednesday, the Committee to Protect Journalists said court documents posted on a Chinese Web site showed that Yahoo had done the same in 2003, resulting in the jailing of another writer, Li Zhi (李志)
Against this grim backdrop, the news that Google had agreed to apply censors' blacklists to its new Chinese search engine might have seemed like the ultimate nail in the coffin for freedom of information in this country. Chinese Internet mavens were outraged at Google for collaborating in the government's censorship effort.
"For most people, access to more diversified resources has been broken," said Isaac Mao (毛向輝), a popular Chinese blogger, in a typical sentiment.
"The majority of users, the new users, will only see a compressed version of Google, and can't know what they don't know. This is like taking a 30-year-old's brain and setting him back to the mind of a 15-year-old," he said.
Some threatened that Internet companies that toed the government line would regret it someday.
"Doing the bidding of the Chinese government like this is like doing the bidding of Stalin or Hitler," said Yu Jie (
"The actions of companies that did the bidding of Stalin and Hitler have been remembered by history, and the Chinese people won't forget these kinds of actions, either," Yu said.
Whether the Chinese will hold a long-term grudge is arguable. But Web specialists are far more confident that the government will fail in its efforts to reverse a trend toward increasingly free expression that has been reshaping this society with ever more powerful effects for more than two decades.
Last year, China ranked 159th out of 167 countries in a survey of press freedom, Reporters Without Borders, the Paris-based international rights group, said. But rankings like this do not reflect the rapid change afoot here, more and more of which is escaping the government's control.
A case in point is the Chinese government's recent effort to rein in bloggers who tread too often into delicate territory, criticizing state policy or detailing official corruption. In December, the government ordered Microsoft and its MSN service to close the site of Michael Anti, one of China's most popular bloggers.
Although Anti -- who is also an employee of the Beijing bureau of the New York Times -- had his site closed, any Chinese Web surfer can choose from scores of other online commentators who are equally provocative, and more are coming online all the time.
Microsoft alone carries an estimated 3.3 million blogs in China. Add to that the estimated 10 million other blogs on other Internet service providers, and it becomes clear what a censor's nightmare China has become.
What is more, not a single blog existed in China a little more than three years ago, and thousands upon thousands are being born every day -- some run by people whose previous blogs had been banned and merely change their name or switch providers. New technologies, like pod casts, are making things even harder to control.
"The Internet is open technology, based on packet switching and open systems, and it is totally different from traditional media, like radio or TV or newspapers," said Guo Liang
"At first, people might have thought it would be as easy to control as traditional media, but now they realize that's not the case," he said.
If the Internet is at the center of today's struggle over press freedom, it is only the latest in a series of fights that the government has so far always lost.
Under the veneer of resolute state control, one sector after another, including book publishing, newspapers and magazines, has undergone a similar process of de facto liberalization, often in the face of official hostility.
The first wave came in book publishing, where beginning in the 1980s censors found themselves unable to suppress titles that were critical of state policy or expressed divergent views on ideological matters.
A big part of the reason for the weakening of the censors was the introduction of a market economy, where publishers had to seek profits to support their activities. Turgid, politically correct books that delighted the censors sold poorly, so profit-seeking publishers sought to get bolder, often provocative writing into print.
Changes in the news media have also been driven by profit motives. With the state ending its subsidies for most publishing companies, publications have sought ways to build readership. Saucy entertainment and sports journalism have been big hits for many magazines and newspapers.
Others though have hit on the idea of public affairs, uncovering corruption and writing about environmental problems and social inequality. As the readers' appetite for this kind of news has grown, the government has been hard pressed to force the genie back into the bottle.
Newspapers have been closed, reporters and editors jailed -- even killed, like Wu Xianghu (
Editors, like Li Datong (
"Symbolically, the government may have scored a victory with Google, but Web users are becoming a lot more savvy and sophisticated, and the censors' life is not getting easier," said Xiao Qiang (
"The flow of information is getting steadily freer, in fact. If I was in the State Council's information office, I certainly wouldn't think we had any reason to celebrate," Xiao said.
In November last year, a man struck a woman with a steel bar and killed her outside a hospital in China’s Fujian Province. Later, he justified his actions to the police by saying that he attacked her because she was small and alone, and he was venting his anger after a dispute with a colleague. To the casual observer, it could be seen as another case of an angry man gone mad for a moment, but on closer inspection, it reflects the sad side of a society long brutalized by violent political struggles triggered by crude Leninism and Maoism. Starting
The year 2020 will go down in history. Certainly, if for nothing else, it will be remembered as the year of the COVID-19 pandemic and the continuing impact it has had on the world. All nations have had to deal with it; none escaped. As a virus, COVID-19 has known no bounds. It has no agenda or ideology; it champions no cause. There is no way to bully it, gaslight it or bargain with it. Impervious to any hype, posturing, propaganda or commands, it ignores such and simply attacks. All nations, big or small, are on a level playing field
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s announcement on Saturday that the US was to drop self-imposed restrictions on meetings between senior Taiwanese and US officials had immediate real-world effects. On Monday, US Ambassador to the Netherlands Pete Hoekstra met Representative to the Netherlands Chen Hsing-hsing (陳欣新) at the US embassy in The Hague, with both noting on social media the historic nature of this seemingly modest event. Modest perhaps, but their meeting would have been impossible before Pompeo’s announcement. Some have welcomed this move, thinking that it is long-overdue and a step in the right direction to normalizing relations between
The US last week took action to remove most of the diplomatic red tape around US-Taiwan relations. While there have been adjustments in State Department “Guidelines on Relations with Taiwan” and other guidance before, no administration has ever so thoroughly dispensed with them. It is a step in the right direction. Of course, when there is a policy of formally recognizing one government (the People’s Republic of China or PRC) and not another (the Republic of China or ROC), officials from the top of government down need a systematic way of operationalizing the distinction. They cannot just make it up as