Claim
Explanation of the Claim
The most recent source of conflict between the US and the Chinese government has been caused by the Chinese government insistence on censoring internet content. The latest incident involved the case of Google inc. a large US internet company, which claimed that there had been attempts of hacking in to its mail servers emanating from China. That led to tensions between the two governments, which is nothing new as the two have always had tensions on issues such as status of Tibet, Taiwan and nuclear proliferation amongst other issues
Reasons for the Claim
The government reserves the rights to protect its citizens from information that it feels unfit for them. This may be in the interest of protecting morals and values it considers national. Therefore, if the government feels that by allowing too much information to flow amongst its citizens it is going to compromise national values, then it has a right to restrict the flow as it deems appropriate.
The Chinese and the US have different priorities. While the US has grown its economy to the extent that it can now afford to focus on things such as information access, the Chinese government still has to deal with issues such as job creation and lifting its millions out of poverty. The US is better informed that it has to treat each country as per the circumstances prevailing in the particular country at the time. What the people in China need are food, jobs, roads and other basics with information being among the least.
The US is wrong in behaving like a big brother to every country. The country may have the best economic and social order in the world to the extent of being referred to as the greatest nation on earth, but that does not give them a carte blanche to dictate to others what should be done. By resisting US dictatorship, the Chinese have captured the aspirations of many nations, which have long resented the US approach to some of the issues but have lacked the courage to confront the super power.
Motivations for demanding that Chinese open up their internet market are suspect. The US cites defending human rights as the primary motivator for asking that the Chinese internet, and by extension information sector be opened up. This is plausible until one looks at the human rights records of the US and that of its closest allies. Some of the allies include Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Israel. It does not end there the US has had its fair share of human rights abuses for example, in Iraq and Afghanistan. With such kind of record and friends it is not right for the country to put itself on a pedestal and claim to be the foremost defender of human rights. Is it possible that the US government is so afraid of Chinese rise that it is trying to destabilize it Even if that were not the case, they cannot get away with using human rights as their motivation.
Reasons against the Claim
Access to information is a basic human right, and the leadership in China must realize that by denying its citizens access to information, they are alienating from them their fundamental rights. Withdrawal of this right cannot be done by blanket decrees there has to be a good reason as to why it is being done and this is mostly applied to individuals on a case by case basis.
Refusing to embrace free information flow raises eyebrows. Human beings are not known to hide good deeds, and for China to insist on keeping tight controls over information, it can only mean that there is something they do not want the world to know. It can only mean that the impressive growth figures they have been claiming are meaningless or exaggerated. Lack of information usually provides fertile ground for the growth of rumors, meaning that the Chinese are laying ground for their own character persecution. Matters are not helped by claims such human rights abuses, low quality manufacturing and high rate of counterfeits in its manufactured products. All these have led to Chinese goods being treated with contempt and this is bound to continue unless the world is convinced otherwise.
By restricting information flow, the Chinese authorities are restricting flow of ideas among its citizens. Absolute order is tyranny, and this situation does not allow or the free exchange of ideas. The government would for example benefit from constructive criticism it would get from citizens, which would in turn enable it to provide the best governance possible to the people.
The government is also limiting its citizens potential. While it is true that information access is dangerous in terms of content, it is also true that there are a lot of opportunities that can be tapped by allowing its free flow. The government must realize that the greatest opportunities are sometimes tempered with some of the biggest risks. If the leadership wants to benefit from increased opportunities available on the internet, it must be prepared to risk.
There is more to life that economic growth. The leadership in China seems fixated on issues of economic growth only. For them it seems like the only duty of government is to stimulate economic growth and everything else will fall in to place. The truth is that of late, economists have started questioning the validity of using economic growth as the only measure of prosperity. Other measure such as Gross National happiness (GNP), have been introduced. This is a qualitative measure that queries the citizens overall feeling about their country and Chinas index may be adversely affected by their refusal to allow for free information flow.
Decision
Having considered both sides of the debate, it is my opinion that the Chinese government was right in limiting freedom to access of information. One thing that has to be appreciated is that if anything destabilizes the Chinese society, the consequences of such a destabilization will not be felt in Washington or London they will be felt in Beijing and other Chinese cities. For that reason, the Chinese are best placed to determine what is best for them and though they may make mistakes in choosing what is best for them, it better for them because they can own the mistakes that they make. New measures such as GNP are only applicable for countries such as the US and Canada, whose economies are at a stage of growth that allows them to look beyond the basics. It is therefore unfair to subject China to such measures, yet its per capita gross Domestic Product (GDP) makes it a developing country.
Rebuttals
The government has a responsibility of ensuring that information accessible to its citizens are not in conflict with the nations morals, but this does not mean that the government strips its citizens of their civil liberties. I agree that the government must be able to monitor information that its citizens can access. There are however many other ways in which this can be done because the government has many other means and instruments it can use to achieve these objectives. Even governments of very liberal countries such as Canada and the US are still able to regulate their citizens access to information without interfering with their civil liberties.
As much as the countrys priorities may lie in manufacturing and agriculture, there is no rule saying that the priorities have to be tackled in isolation. Hence, while the country works on vital sectors, it may at the same time be integrating new areas in to the economy. Philippines and India are examples of counties that have done both simultaneously.
The leadership may be right in refusing to take instructions from Washington. However, the fact that the US is wrong in its approach does not make the wrongs done by the Chinese right. In other words, two wrongs do not make a right.
Human rights abuse is a grave concern and cannot be justified by its presence elsewhere. It is total callousness for the Chinese to cite human rights abuses elsewhere to justify those occurring within its own borders they are not justifiable under any circumstance. My advice to them on this is that it really does not matter what goes on elsewhere, on human rights it is not about them, it is about you.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment