Behind the Great Firewall of China: Freedom, Control, and Democracy on the Internet

The Great Firewall of China is widely known, but what does it look like, how does it operate? Policy Innovations advisor Rebecca MacKinnon gave a fascinating presentation on Freedom and Control on the Internet at the Open Society Institute in New York earlier this week, detailing some of the trends and practices in Chinese censorship.

Search engine censorship is one of the primary forms. Rebecca showed examples of the different sets of image results one gets from Google.com and from Google.cn when searching for Tiananmen massacre. Google.com, the global site, returns photos depicting violence and victims. Google.cn, the Chinese domestic version, shows nothing of the sort. Instead the results include at least one photo of the Nanjing massacre.

Rebecca also showed what happens when you try to visit banned sites or post sensitive words to a blog. Banned sites are made to look like you're experiencing a temporary technical error, and blog posts with sensitive words can elicit a pop-up that says the "community editors" will get back to you shortly, so don't repost your text. Of course, you never hear from them and your draft never gets published.

The Chinese government is also proactive about shaping opinions online, throwing their support behind organizations like anti-CNN, a website that combats "the lies and distortions of facts from the Western media." They also pay members of what has come to be known as the 50-Cent Party to post opinions favoring the government and its policies in online forums. 50 Cent refers not to the American rapper but the per-post rate these loyalists receive.

Spoof and humor seems to be the predominant form of online criticism that is somewhat tolerated. In the wake of the recent Mandarin Oriental hotel fire next to the Chinese Central TV headquarters building—which has been dubbed the "underpants" building by Beijingers due to its unique two-legged architecture—various visual puns and mashups appeared online mocking CCTV. It turns out CCTV caused the blaze with illegal fireworks while celebrating Chinese New Year. Sadly one firefighter died and several were injured in the incident, but humor nonetheless belongs in politics, as the Tina Fey phenomenon made clear during the U.S. election.

A parallel trend of resistance is what Harvard's Ethan Zuckerman describes as the cute cat theory of digital activism: where free speech, organizing, and other forms of anti-authoritarian protest piggyback on social media that are primarily intended for benign and mundane activities like sharing photos of adorable pets. Authorities can't take down the whole site to delete the protest group pages without killing the cat appreciation society pages, too.

So is the Chinese government worried about online activism and dissent moving into the streets? Very much so. This is where the rubber meets the road, said MacKinnon, although no opposition party has yet to emerge from the Internet. The true test may come later this year as economic downturn meets a slew of dramatic anniversaries: March 31, 1959, Dalai Lama flees Tibet; June 4, 1989, Tiananmen Square; October 1, 1949, People's Republic of China founded.

MacKinnon emphasized that Internet norms in the West will influence what happens in China. We're at a stage where large communications companies exist in a mediating layer between people and their governments. If this layer remains opaque, then the system will tend to reinforce incumbent power, she said. To help keep things transparent, Rebecca has worked to develop the Global Network Initiative, a voluntary code of conduct for the ICT industry. Through a multi-stakeholder process, GNI has crafted a "collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector." She says we may see companies conducting "human rights feasibility assessments" in the near future.

Operating in an environment of censorship presents ICT companies with significant ethical choices. Should they fudge on their philosophy to gain early market access? Will fostering some openness be better than none at all? How sensitive should they be to the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation?

Chinese private enterprises don't have the luxury of ruminating on these matters. In fact, they are legally responsible for the content their users post, and the government can rescind their business licenses if they don't manage to keep controversial material off the web. For the individual user who wants to maintain freedom and anonymity, there are options such as the Tor project.

Olympics Already a Failure?

It's 96 days 'till the Beijing Olympics, and people are already assessing the event's success or failure. This week, I met a scholar from a Chinese university who was in town for a conference. He said the Beijing Olympics were "already a failure" because: the Chinese have been embarrassed by the pro-Tibet protests around the world; European governments may not attend the opening ceremony; athletes are bringing their own food to the Games (as if China has no suitable food); and, interestingly, the Chinese people have been misled by their government in that they supported a hard line position toward Tibet but now China is going to talk with the Dalai Lama. He also said the Olympics will have an oppressive atmosphere due to the high level of security measures needed to thwart any terrorist plot--most likely Uygur, he and other senior Chinese sources have told me. Finally, he noted that young Chinese people are creating a new social memory in which China is a victim of Western oppression but the "nationalist" element is thin or shallow. I agree that the phrase "rise of nationalism" isn't helpful or even accurate.

But I don't necessarily agree that it is time to call the Olympics a failure, although I have pointed to the risks associated with it, including at a Tokyo conference six months ago where I said:

Pollution is one risk: Perhaps the performance of athletes will suffer as a result of poor air quality. Or a discomfiting story related to environmental degradation could embarrass the Chinese. The government may not be prepared to respond to critical questions from foreign journalists, nor to their own citizens disseminating controversial information over the Internet. Activists are already planning protests with respect to human rights, the environment, and civil liberties to correspond with the international attention the Olympics will draw to Beijing. Protests might be violently quelled, begging more questions about China’s human rights record.

As political scientist Ian Bremmer recently put it: “Even if police are able to maintain order in Beijing, can they extend that control across the country? Can they manage the flow of information and ideas through the blogosphere as online activists open yet another front in their battle for free information?”

What to make of the Olympics now? We are going to explore the ethical issues in depth at the Carnegie Council in New York City on May 16:

This Workshop for Ethics in Business luncheon panel will focus on the ethics of engagement with China in the context of the Olympics. What have companies learned in the process of assessing their engagement with China? How do companies respond to civil society demands while tapping the Chinese market? What is a company's moral responsibility when operating in China?

Bard College scholar Ian Buruma will speak about the international relations case for engagement with countries such as China. General Electric VP of Corporate Citizenship Bob Corcoran will explore the role of multinational corporations in promoting human rights, using the Olympics as a case study. What has GE learned from balancing business and civil society demands? Counsellor Qi Qianjin of the Chinese Mission to the UN will relate the Chinese government's experience with the Olympics so far. Minky Worden of Human Rights Watch will discuss her new book, China's Great Leap: The Beijing Games and Olympian Human Rights Challenges. Former International Herald Tribune journalist Thomas Crampton will join the panel via video from Hong Kong.

This event is part of the Carnegie Council's Workshop for Ethics in Business, sponsored by Booz Allen Hamilton's strategy+business magazine. Support also comes from Eli Lilly and New York University's Center for Global Affairs.

Join us for what promises to be a fascinating and important dialog. Or check it out on the Carnegie Council YouTube channel later.

The luncheon cost is $50 (fee can be waived for students, academics, and nonprofit professionals), $30 for Carnegie Council members. Please send your RSVP and payment info to:

gpievents@cceia.org

Photo by california cowgirl1.