« Beijing Olympics and Governance: Eyes partially open? | Main | Who actually won the Beijing Olympic Medal Race? »
Eyes Wide Open? Olympics, Netizens and Web Governance
By Kaufmann | August 15, 2008
A week has elapsed since the opening of the Olympics. China (along a few other countries), is showing that they are also a world athletic power to reckon with. But I was also making the point in my previous blog entries that the Olympics (or the August lull…) should not give license to governance going on leave for a while… So I brought up Russia vs. Georgia, Pakistan vs. Taleban at the Afghan border, Zimbabwe leader vs. his people, and likewise in Darfur. And in the last blog entry here I only very briefly mentioned China’s internet censorship issues during the Games.
The complex internet censorship by the authorities in China, dubbed by many as the “Great Firewall”, seems to be more aptly be characterized as “Net Nanny”, according to blogging and cites by Rebecca MacKinnon, a founder of Global Voices and expert on internet and blogging censorship issues (also here).
The ‘Great Firewall’ refers to authorities censoring online content (especially blogs), either through sophisticated technology, or by “unofficial” directives to internet providers, or through control of media content “orientation” by posting pro-government news, comments or blog entries. ‘Net Nanny’ goes beyond this and also relies on Chinese “netizens” (a frequent user or citizen of the internet) who may be like-minded and believes that internet content should be controlled, and that the authorities (being informed on such inappropriate content) should censor it. For a set of survey results on the views of Chinese internet users on this, see this World Bank blog entry here.
So the Net Nanny is at work when a Chinese blogger is censored by the authorities after a fellow netizen denounces her/him, but also indirectly when bloggers exercise self-censorship: such bloggers often know how to get around the ‘Great Firewall’, yet desist from doing so, fearing consequences such as jail time. This piece in the UK’s Guardian addresses this issue, and also mentions that 70 journalists and 50 “cyber-dissidents” were imprisoned according to Reporters Sans Frontières.
But perhaps things may improve (and we need to also keep in mind that other countries do have their own challenges in “managing media content”, including among the G-8). There may be growing awareness among some of the powerful within China that to solidify itself as a world power and to secure longer term internal stability, robust and shared growth in the coming decade will be paramount. Increased openness and empowerment of citizens everywhere in terms of freedom of ideas and expression (and also in order to have redress where there is local mismanagement and corruption), as well as and increased political contestability, may be an important complement to the already attained freedom in trade of goods. Some are already speculating (see article in the Guardian) about possible reforms in China after the Games.
And the starting point for reforms regarding the web also offers a possible window, because even though there is censorship, it is far from absolute, and ongoing IT advances may help. Chinese and foreign netizens in fact already do get around the Great Firewall, either through technological means, or by hosting their blogs in server outside China, or as an example by simply talking about “push-ups” when they really meant to talk about the riots in the Weng’an region after a girl died without knowing is she was raped or committed suicide (see here).
Moreover, intelligent blogging by Chinese experts themselves presenting careful and constructive critiques and reform options may now be having a hearing, paving one way towards more openness in the next phase. Perhaps China’s President Hu Jintao may be hinting about an increasing authorizing environment when he recently stated: “We pay great attention to suggestions and advice from our netizens. We stress the idea of ‘putting people first’ and ‘governing for the people’….With this in 
mind, we need to listen to people’s voices extensively and pool the people’s wisdom when we take actions and make decisions. The web is an important channel for us to understand the concerns of the public and assemble the wisdom of the public.”
It is crucial to identify who is arguing internally for change, because China will continue to change and grow thanks to the Chinese people, and not because somebody from the outside says something… And there is sensitivity to outside criticism, yet acknowledgement that there may be difference of views. In response to criticism on human rights, President Hu also said: “It is only inevitable that people from different countries may not see eye to eye… we should enter into consultations on an equal footing to narrow our differences and expand our common ground on the basis of mutual respect.”
Of course, a ‘domestic’ extension of this ‘cross-national’ argument would be to explicitly say that different people within the same country may not always see eye to eye either, and that openness and respect for such diversity of opinions within a nation makes it stronger.
President Hu in fact has also stated: “While constantly deepening economic reform and achieving sound and fast economic and social development, we will continue to pursue comprehensive reforms, including reforms of the political system.” Will the Olympics be regarded as a turning point?
Topics: Transparency, Voice and Human Rights | |
August 15th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
The Olympics will continue to evolve as a public
relations tool, political smoke-screen, and commercial opportunity. Coca Cola is the only thing
that athletes drink, and McDonalds is the Offical
Restaurant of the Olympics.
Did you see the students and Journalist beaten
at the Free Tibet deonstration? Did you know
that poor peoples homes were demolished to
build stadiums? Where are those people now?
August 18th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Internet censorship helps the Chinese authorities to hide the true extent of human rights abuses - like the full extent of their use of the death penalty, and torture and detention without trial and their persecution of peaceful human rights defenders.
The Internet should be a medium for the freedom of expression, not a tool for the government’s repression of its people.
http://uncensor.com.au/uncensor/
August 18th, 2008 at 10:46 am
The links below show good examples of how censorship in China is exercised by the authorities and how sometimes citizens comply with this action.
(i) a Chinese blogger/journalist who was censored, and whose hard drive was temporarily “confiscated.” http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/11/29/china-ngo-bloggers-house-raided-hard-drive-confiscated/
(ii) a Chinese blogger complaining that he was censored after another citizen denoun
ced him to the authorities. http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20071130_1.htm
The second example shows that civil society in China still needs to play a more important role, although we should recognize that it’s gaining momentum if we think about how things were several years ago.
However, let’s not put all the blame of censorship and control of information in China. This is something that also happens in other places of the world, where freedom of speech and free media are preached. In these countries, information might not be censored, but it is sometimes “oriented.” An example related to the Olympics is the opening ceremony broadcast in the US. Besides the fact that the broadcast was delayed in name of profits, it had a particular color tint filtering, with several comments that either despised the capacity and relevance of some delegations or made judgments about the quality their political leaders, governments and situation.
Although, the examples mentioned are just a few, my point is that the issue of censorship is not only about what is banned but also about how the published information is being used and oriented. Definitely, active citizens have fewer options in China than in other countries. But common citizens (more passive on average) may sometimes receive similar filtered or oriented information as people in China.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
As you say, it is it is crucial to identify who is arguing internally for change, and the importance of looking at the cultural aspects of governance, and to that end the survey you posted was really helpful. The most interesting part of the survey was that while in 2005 only 8% of respondents felt political content should be controlled, after just two years almost half (41%) felt it should be controlled and a majority felt that the government should be responsible for Internet management and control. Clearly then, internet governance is not an area that is not the optimal entry point for dialogue. What I would be interested in finding out is why that number changed so dramatically? Is it related to culture? Does accommodating culture in the governance equation dilute the core issues in governance to a point beyond recognition?
A good interdisciplinary study on China and myriad emerging issues, including governance is at http://www.nytimes.com/ref/college/coll-china-about.html
August 20th, 2008 at 11:24 am
While of course there are many examples of this sort of thing that could be cited, I thought I’d add one more, specifically relevant to the Olympics, which I think illustrates the power of ICTs to help keep things transparent.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/1259253
Apparently the original documents submitted by the Chinese General Administration of Sport authenticating the age of a number of the gymnasts, who went on to win gold medals last week, show different (younger) ages than what today’s versions of these documents show. These documents were wiped from official web sites, but original copies were left behind in the caches of search engines. (Search engine caches often aren’t censored as immediately as other things on the Internet in China).
Here is an explanation:
http://strydehax.blogspot.com/
Now, if this is true (I note that the blog describing all of this was created yesterday, and has only one post — this one), it is potentially empowering to think what one person with an Internet connection anywhere in the world can unearth about attempts to alter official documents. And if it isn’t true — it is interesting to note how much havoc and disinformation one person with an Internet connection anywhere in the world can wreak by questioning the accuracy of official government documents.
Please note that this comment isn’t meant to be about China per se; this specific example cited here just happens to come from there and is relevant to the title of your post, which is why I used it.
No matter who and how mighty you are, when you place your foot in the digital sand, it is becoming increasingly tough for the tide to fully erase it, no matter how strong or powerful the wave.
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
this video from cnn elaborates more on the blogger’s finding about the gymnastics age:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?JSONLINK=/video/tech/2008/08/21/vause.china.olympics.underage.cnn
this is an AP’s article that cites the reaction from the parents, coach and others… and says that age problems have been an issue since the 1980s:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi4rzBxgMTM92A9p57rUG_iBvQXAD92NEFQ80
September 30th, 2008 at 10:12 am
China is for sure not the only concern of the democratic global community. Many smaller (glocal) “firewalls” seem to have shaped ( or in extensive progress) in the new democracies in South Eastern Europe. This is an emerging cyber market beynd most of the monitoring NGOs activities. “Net Nannies” of uncertain and less popular governments and their most perplexed institutions abuse citizens rights in many ways. The tradition of “total tapping” inherited by the near communist past, has been pervertly proppelled. This occurs through generous aid and implementatio of high tech facilities, often misused through “unofficial” directives to internet providers, posting pro-government news, filtring comments or blog entries. Meanwhile Internet hackers at this side nourished a specific culture of untouchability feeding on the weekness of law, or unefficient control over cyber fraud. It may take ages before the actors of the shadow economy who build on this strategy, untill public opinion becomes aware of many hidden, less transparent tricks to misuse the Internet for quasi-political aims. Some Chinization as Kaufmann suggest is to be witnessed as a global trend. This should be of greater concerns not only of the World Bank blogs entries. Daniel Kaufmann is for sure the flagman of this new issue at stake. The scrutiny on censorship through Internet, moreover the anticorruption fight in a changed new cyber compexity should be less ideologically ( propaganda) influeced. It has to face face simple citizens rights and pragmaic issues of more transparancy on global politics. The Georgia case might well be a good example of blaiming The Bair for being attacked by the wasps. There are many more events like this, which have to be analyzed by bloggers before they read daily newspapers or blogs earlier than others.